Before Iowa
An Open Letter.
Dear Smart People,
I listened to Glenn Thrush’s interview with President Obama over the weekend, and just for good measure, downloaded the previous episode of Off Message — featuring an interview with Hugh Hewitt (conservative talk radio host) from September 21st. I didn’t realize when listening at first that this conversation occurred four months and four Republican debates ago, until I heard remarks like, “don’t write off Scott Walker just yet.”
Because most of the statements posited then remain true today.
- Trump is leading in the polls and his lead is growing. But it can’t be true, don’t worry.
- Jeb has $100 million dollars, but it’s not doing much for him. If he doesn’t win New Hampshire and/or Iowa, he should drop out. But he probably won’t listen!
- Christie has been basically living in New Hampshire, and he should be loved by New Hampshire. But it’s not quite working.
I listened to the podcast with the backdrop of speculation of Bloomberg entering the race as a third-party candidate, and the Iowa caucus ahead in the horizon. So much was supposed to change between September and the caucuses, but really, evidently, very little has. If the same realities have been true for most of the primary cycle, why do we keep denying them? We’ve been told to enjoy the show, but rest assured, this too shall pass.
Well, this too hasn’t passed.
Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are steadily ascending in the polls at a greater pace than anyone could have imagined. They are, by and large, the candidates generating the biggest and most enthusiastic audiences. The politicos are finally starting to accept that we may have two non-establishment nominees. Something they are doing is working.
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
I certainly have had confirmation bias this election cycle. I have refused to believe that a racist, misogynistic, reality TV cartoon character seemingly lost in a game of Monopoly could be President of my country. And frankly, albeit it less so, I have struggled to believe that self-proclaimed socialist with a Brooklyn accent who entered the race mainly to remind the country what a progressive agenda actually looks like could be President of my country. But a lot of people clearly see something that I — and members of the media — don’t. Instead of judging or denying it, I am ready to open my eyes and try to learn something.
Disclaimer: I personally support Hillary Clinton for President, and was a staffer on President Obama’s 2012 campaign in Florida. I don’t care to comment on the horse race, and will not speculate about who will win in the early states and beyond. Rather, I want to understand everything that has happened before Iowa, and apply the lessons learned from the buoyancy of these unexpected presidential candidates to my search for a healthy American democracy.
So here it goes.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have activated something very real in the American people. And that activation, in and of itself, is extremely powerful. Because it suggests that our political situation may be more malleable than we’ve recognized. It suggests that the primary system may not just exacerbate polarization, but actually showcase it. It suggests that perhaps the country is starting to reject the two party system — or reject its darlings. Perhaps, Sanders and Trump are symbols of a revolution fueled by widespread contempt for the system and deep frustration with inequality. At the very least, it confirms that this is a tender moment for American politics.
This tender moment leaves us with an opportunity to envision something new — something that works better.
A confluence of factors has brought us here:
Rise of Partisan Media. Fox News was something of a cheerleader for George Bush in the 90s. But since 2007, it has been throwing meat to the hungry and feeding polarization. MSNBC has emerged as a counter-force. Centrist news is hard to come by, and it’s a hell of a lot less entertaining.
Paralysis of Congress. Since 2010, congress has been less and less effective. We’ve had multiple shutdowns, few votes, and little legislative progress. We’ve all watched bill after bill fail to be called to a vote, or hijacked by partisan poison pills.
Income inequality. The gap between the rich and the poor has been widening. CEOs make 300 times more than the average employee. And looking ahead, technological innovation is replacing more and more routine-based jobs with automation, invading workplaces that used to belong to humans alone and radically shrinking the pool of middle class jobs available.
The death of the American Dream. It is hard for me to even fathom the hope of the American dream or the promise of the middle class in the 1950s. My generation is the first to achieve less than the generation before us. Many people know the “American dream” is falling apart because it is happening to them. Auto workers, steel workers, machinists, debt-burdened families, and other struggling to hang on.
National Security. We live in a scary time. A time of global migration. An age of terror that is accessible to more people than ever. When a nightclub in Paris or a finish line in Boston can become the scene of a terrorist attack, fear resonates.
Growing Polarization. According to Pew, the share of Republicans who have very unfavorable opinions of the Democratic Party has jumped from 17% to 43% in the last 20 years. Similarly, the share of Democrats with very negative opinions of the Republican Party also has more than doubled, from 16% to 38%. Among Republicans and Democrats who have a very unfavorable impression of the other party, the vast majority say the opposing party’s policies represent a threat to the nation’s well-being.
To put it simply, people are scared and pissed off — and they are rallying behind extreme voices that speak to them. But this kind of response may set us up for 4–8 years of stalemate suppressing meaningful change.
We can envision a better alternative.
I’m not talking 2016 — I’m talking the long-view. Perhaps we can get organized and start to vote out the people who hijack the process. Perhaps we can build some middle ground political support — like Professor Charles Wheelman argues in The Centrist Manifesto. Maybe Thomas Friedman was right when he predicted we might see another third-party contender rise to the occasion (he incorrectly predicted 2012, but maybe this year, or the next). Perhaps we can use data to make media more accountable, as is the mission of MIT Media Lab’s The Electome (a project I work on). We may need some technocrats to come in and replace some career politicians and begin to redefine the parties as we know them. We can expand the role of technology in democratizing the political process and helping millennials (forgive the buzz word) organize from the ground up to really change the incentive structure. We may continue to see a shift toward the city as the primary agent of governmental change, i.e. the Responsive City model. What else?
I believe that the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to date signals that the political status quo is vulnerable to upheaval. And we should start to think about what we want this upheaval to look like.
Let me know what you come up with.
Yours,
In Search of a Healthy American Democracy
