Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Zen and Governing in a Time of Politics as Performance Art

Opinion

People waving US flags

Modern politics rewards viral outrage over thoughtful debate. Explore how introducing mindfulness, gratitude, and cross-party reflection can lower the temperature in Washington and rebuild governance.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

News reports and social media constantly remind us that today’s political system rewards conflict, viral moments, and ideological performance over thoughtful and courteous debate.

Tune into the melee, and it is as if every high-ranking official is now a TV political pundit rather than a serious statesman or stateswoman.


What’s missing in this denigrating political interaction is mindfulness, reflection, compassion, and gratitude. A Zen approach, if you will, is sorely lacking in the nation’s capital.

Instead, we’ve learned that treating political opponents with cruel insults and aggressive attacks is a successful way to win elections and gain more time on cable channels and podcasts.

A good example of this approach’s success is the Louisiana Republican primary, where incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy came under fire from President Donald Trump, who called Cassidy a “sleazebag,” a “terrible guy,” and a “disloyal disaster.” Cassidy’s offense? He voted to convict Trump in the 2021 impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Cassidy went down in defeat, a loss for anyone who cares about health policy because Cassidy is a doctor who has a deep understanding of that policy.

Similarly, in a congressional primary in Maryland, two Democrats — former Rep. David Trone and incumbent Rep. April McClain Delaney — are painting each other as secret MAGA sympathizers, hoping that animosity toward Trump in the Democrat-leaning area will rub off on the opponent. The strategy is clear. Stain the other person’s reputation by claiming they are in league with what primary voters see as villains on the other side.

Perhaps this sort of politics as performance art is one reason a Pew Research Center survey showed the majority of Americans think the nation’s best years are behind us.

While I understand the sentiment, I’m not as pessimistic as those survey respondents. Many years as a healthcare lobbyist in Washington have taught me that, although what’s been happening lately is troubling, the system is not beyond repair.

Despite the malevolent ill will that we see masquerading as political discourse, Washington is still a place where respectful conversations about policy happen, even if those conversations are behind closed doors.

These lawmakers are colleagues, after all, and many of them have been working with each other for a long time. They are committed to doing good work; we just don’t hear about that enough.

Flee the Chaos, Practice Gratitude

But let’s not let them off the hook completely.

As constituents, our message to lawmakers should be this: Each of you has it within your power to lower the temperature in Washington. You need to create platforms for dialogue and space for contemplation and reflection.

Instead of jumping into the chaos, which probably is the easier thing to do, you must learn to walk away from it and find compassion for each other. You also should feel grateful to be in these roles. Gratitude renews the soul and the spirit, and should make you better representatives who can govern effectively.

And never forget that your job in Congress is to do good by your constituents, and not just look out for yourself or your party. When discussing legislation, find ways to communicate that create thoughtful deliberation and conclusions that are good for everyone.

Don’t Disregard Everything the Other Party Says

We as citizens have our own role to play in creating a less vituperative and more mindful approach to governance.

Sometimes our biases make us stubborn. We refuse to acknowledge any hint of good when ideas come from those we disagree with. But if we can avoid that trap, we can make policy strides — even if just small ones — in these otherwise hostile times.

Healthcare issues are a good example. It’s easy to find reasons to excoriate the current administration on health issues, and to scoff at the idea of Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, when something as basic as vaccinations has come under fire, putting the health of many Americans at risk.

But take a moment to sift through the debris and see if there is common ground. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made efforts to eliminate red dye 40 from food, which is a legitimate concern because it can make hyperactivity worse for some children.

Kennedy also announced earlier this year new dietary guidelines that encouraged Americans to avoid highly processed foods and to eat more fruits, vegetables, and other healthy food choices.

When the other side gets something right, there is no need to reject it out of hand, allowing politics to trump policy.

As citizens, we, too, need to walk away from the chaos, embrace mindfulness, and take our civic responsibility to petition our representatives seriously, advocate for issues we care about, and make sure those in power understand the ramifications of their decisions.

Taking a short pause for meditation and mindfulness won’t hurt either.


Gary Jacobs, author of “The Zen Lobbyist: A Mindful Approach to Transforming Healthcare,” is managing director at Healthsperien, a Washington, D.C.-based healthcare policy consulting firm. He is also an adjunct professor at American University and host of the podcast “Policy Prescriptions.” With over 40 years of experience in healthcare entrepreneurship, consulting, and policy advocacy, Jacobs drives bipartisan solutions to expand primary care access and reform public health programs. A certified meditation instructor, Jacobs combines mindfulness practices with executive strategy to help heal both patients and the people who care for them.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less