The day after the voters of New Hampshire had their
say, this was what I posted on Facebook:
“The chattering class
has a message: ‘Give the insurgents their day in the sun, but once they get to
S.C., politics-as-usual will take over; it always does.’ Maybe. But there does
seem to be one thing that the three winners from last night -- Sanders, Trump
and Kasich -- have in common, and that is that the political establishment
hasn't supported any of them. Maybe, just maybe, the people in this so-called
democracy known as the USA are sick of super-delegates, non-term-limited
legislators, professional political operatives and others who think that
politicians need to put their fingers in the wind before telling the public
what they really think. I've realized over the years how important authenticity
is to me as a voter. Apparently, New Hampshire voters feel the same way.”
That message
reflected a bit of venting. But it was
also the result of an epiphany of sorts.
Please allow me to explain how this epiphany came about.
Increasingly during
this election cycle, I have become upset with my strong, negative reactions
against the “establishment” candidates.
In part, this reaction stemmed from attending Washington, D.C. parties
and otherwise engaging white-collar Washingtonians. In that crowd, it is simply assumed that if
you’re a Democrat who doesn’t support Clinton, or a Republican who doesn’t
support Rubio or one of the Governors, it’s either because you’re young, uneducated,
or “angry” (i.e., irrational). But I am
neither young nor uneducated. So does
this mean I may no longer refer to this blog as “the Empathic Rationalist?”
To be sure, part of
Empathic Rationalism is admitting that we’re all prone to episodes of
irrationality. We’re human beings, not
computers. But the more I reflected on
my frustrations and irritations, the more I realized that I wasn’t the only source
of the problem. Surely, the candidates
who run for office share some of the blame.
This election cycle, I began to reflect on the establishment candidates
who were the presumptive favorites when the campaign began and wondered what it
was about Hillary and Jeb that was leaving me cold. Why was I so energized by the insurgent
campaign of a Bernie Sanders, who is neither philosophical, poetic, nor
especially agile in his debate performances?
And what was it about Trump’s campaign that actually resonated with me,
even though he was saying so many things that I found offensive?
The Facebook post above
suggests part of the answer – I have been pining for some semblance of
political authenticity. But why? Conventional Washington D.C. wisdom says that
“authenticity” is overrated – campaigners have a right to convey their messages
in a manner that is comfortable to them, and what really matters is not the
cosmetics of their message but rather the sanity of their message and the
extent to which they have been proven effective in working for beneficial
reforms. That, at least, is what the
self-proclaimed adults have been telling us – the ones who become super-delegates
and talking heads. Somehow, I found
myself alienated by that perspective.
The question is, why?
I found the answer when
reflecting on my own past – and in a place far, far away from Washington,
D.C. Back when I was an undergrad in the
Golden State, several of my more politically conservative friends playfully
teased me about being a child of two Washington DC economists who worked for
the federal government. My friends
naturally assumed that I would follow in my parents’ footsteps – and, as things
have turned out, I will soon complete my 31st year in the federal
civil service, which is less time than either of my parents devoted to that
career track. According to my friends’
narratives, people like my parents would sit in some stupid little office in
Washington, collecting the mediocre GS-whatever salary, and pontificate about
what is best for the people and/or the corporations of America. Recognizing that the economic marketplace can’t
always be trusted to serve the public interest, my parents decided to consult
their own personal preferences and then turn these arbitrary preferences into
proscriptions for the society at large, rather than trusting the results of
marketplace competition – at least this was the critique that I heard in
college from some of my friends.
I would think about
that perspective a lot while completing my degree in philosophy and economics. I understood that there were profound
benefits from economic competition, but I also understood that laissez fair
economics had its limitations, especially when it comes to the effects of the
marketplace on the environment and the poor (including the so-called “externalities”
that give rise to legitimate regulations). Moreover, I understood that my parents raised
me with a strong set of values, which reflected their own brand of Prophetic
Judaism. In my family, it wasn’t religiously
acceptable to devote one’s life to the pursuit of economic self-interest; you
needed to serve as a public steward in one capacity or another. I knew
that I would end up in the civil service, and that there was plenty of good work
that could be done in such a realm. But
I also knew that Washingtonians needed to respect the people that they
proclaimed to serve. This means it is
not appropriate to infantilize American citizens. Nor can we feds view ourselves as a cadre of
nannies who know better than the American public what is in their interest or who
understand how to outperform the marketplace when it is doing what it does best.
The key word there is
“marketplace.” You see, just as a
successful contemporary society requires a robust economic marketplace, it also
requires a functioning marketplace of political ideas. Many politicians enter the fray because they
were raised the same way I was – with an impulse to serve.
Once they are in power, they are left largely
to their own devices as to what it means to serve appropriately. Go back to the Federalist Papers and you’ll
see that the founders of this country intended the leaders of government, once
elected, to do what they feel is best for the citizens, even if that means
implementing policies that are not popular.
We live in a “representative” democracy, not a democracy-by-plebiscite. We elect people who will choose laws and
command armies for us, and we expect them to consult their own conscience in
the way they discharge their obligations.
Maybe our Commanders-in-Chief know something we don’t about national
security policy, maybe our lawmakers know something we don’t about health care or
energy policy, and maybe government economists like my parents know something
we don’t about economic policy. That’s
fine. Let them do what they think is
best, as long as they respect the Constitution and the people they are
empowered to serve, and if we don’t like the job they are doing, we can vote
them out.
However, when it
comes to GETTING ELECTED, the equation is different. To reiterate, the would-be public servants who
seek election enter a marketplace of public policy ideas. We the people need this marketplace to be
free, open, and honest – no less than we need the marketplace for goods and
services to be free, open and honest.
When politicians are competing in this marketplace for the opportunity
to lead our society, they owe us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth. Otherwise, we won’t be able to
make educated decisions as voters.
We ought to recognize
that political candidates have made mistakes in the past and will surely say
stupid things in the present. We should
accept those mistakes as the price of being human. But what we shouldn’t accept in a democratic society
are candidates who fundamentally hide from the public what they really think
about public policy or intentionally distort the records or the statements of
their competitors in order to win a competition. When they do that, they prevent the
marketplace from functioning properly.
It has become accepted
wisdom in Washington that the Cruz campaign crossed the line by deceptively
suggesting that Ben Carson had quit the race in advance of the Iowa caucuses. Fortunately, the media still frowns upon such
conduct as an example of “dirty tricks.” However, what is both more common and more
pernicious, and yet sadly tolerated by the mainstream, are political campaigns
that do not level with the American public about what the candidates truly
think. Sometimes, they make subtle yet
intentionally deceptive jabs at their opponents. Other times, they wait to hear what the public
thinks before expressing their own views (also known as placing their
proverbial finger in the wind). They may
even publicly espouse a position that they neither agree with nor have any
attention of supporting while in office – but the point is that when this type
of campaigning is tolerated, the public can never really know what a candidates
stands for or how they would govern if elected.
What’s more, these
campaigns may create a public persona for the candidate that bears no
resemblance to the way the candidate speaks in private. It’s all an act, in other words – the manner
of speaking, the views that are spoken, you name it. And this is considered acceptable, because we
as a society have grown to expect politicians to be as phony as our thespians. The only differences are that the thespians
admit that they are “actors” and “actresses,” and that the thespians, unlike
many of our politicians, are generally good at it.
This election cycle,
America appears to be saying that we’ve had enough. We have seen an entire generation of
politicians who campaign one way and govern another. We now want to see these politicians stand up
to the mike, take off their clothes (metaphorically that is), and nakedly tell
us who they really are and what they really stand for. We want to be able to see these people paint
a positive portrait of their American vision and do so passionately, not
robotically. We want to be able to see
these people show indignation about what they’re truly indignant about – and we
want to know if the target of that indignation matches our own. We want to know which of these individuals
respects the political marketplace enough to speak candidly, even if it means
expressing unpopular views, because they believe that we the people deserve an
understanding of who we are electing. And
if someone speaks crudely sometimes, perhaps we don’t care – as long as we
think they are doing so from the heart, and not simply in order to manipulate
us.
The best that I can
tell, Washington insiders could care less about what I’m talking about in this
particular blogpost. In this city, most
policy wonks don’t have enough respect for “the people” and their wisdom. We just want to find politicians who are
sane, experienced, pragmatic, and can be counted on to keep their offensive
comments to a minimum. Well my friends,
that arguably describes the Congressional leadership of both of our political
parties, and look what they’ve done to our Government. They have collectively driven it into a
ditch. But I have news for you -- the
American public isn’t stupid. It’s smart
enough to want out of that ditch. And it
will begin this process by electing the person who can best be trusted to level
with us about how to get out and who can best show the strength to push our way
out. I don’t know who that person will
be. But if the upshot of this process is
that Americans will demand a more authentic and candid discourse from their
politicians, I will give this election cycle a standing ovation regardless of
who emerges victorious.
