News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
Check out our Election Dissection blog:
Our panel of experts will be analyzing voting controversies until the 2020 winners are clear.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Civic Ed
True
alancrosthwaite/Getty Images
The media needs to do better explaining differing political values
Oct 05 2020
Anderson was editor of "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and sought the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Maryland in 2016.
<p>If given one moral word to use in a campaign speech, a Democrat would probably pick "justice" whereas a Republican would probably pick "freedom." </p><p>Republicans love to talk about freedom because they believe the purpose of government is to ensure our freedom — freedom from foreign invasion; freedom from assault, theft, bribery and other forms of interference in our lives; freedom to have a business and operate within a broadly free market; and freedom to pursue our own good, which includes the good of our families.</p><p>Democrats love to talk about justice because they believe the purpose of government is to promote a just society — with justice in our election system so all have an equal right to vote; justice for women against those men who have harassed or assaulted them; justice ensuring those who have lost out in terms of natural talents and socio-economic class, especially children, are provided the means to have the same opportunities as those who have been more lucky.</p><p>Freedom and justice can both draw forth deep emotions from their advocates. </p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>Those denied freedom feel as though they have been wronged. </p><p>Someone whose father fought and died in Vietnam or World War II may have deep emotions connected to the value of freedom because the dad fought and died for it.</p><p>Likewise, someone whose mother was raped as a teenager may have deep emotions connected to the value of justice because they always find themselves standing up for fellow citizens who have been violated in some deeply personal way. It is one thing to have a car stolen and quite another to have a man throw you on the back seat of his car and force himself on you.</p><p>Many different theories of freedom and justice have been advanced by Western democratic thinkers — whether they fall into the liberal, libertarian, conservative, social democrat or socialist traditions. College students in political philosophy classes learn that rival theories don't accept the same definitions of such moral concepts as freedom, justice, equality and autonomy. Instead, rival theories typically define and develop moral concepts in different ways. They may not use all the same concepts, and they may draw differing sets of connections among the concepts.</p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>This is why political philosophers often talk past each other in their debates — because, in the end, the values they embrace and the perspectives they advance are different. It would be nice if Don Lemon on CNN, Tucker Carlson on Fox, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and all our other prominent media commentators pointed this out when discussing the debates between politicians. </p><p>It is simply not true that Democrats and Republicans, or even some factions within each party, share the same "American" values and only disagree about the means for upholding them. Our politicians — who admittedly rarely get to the point of systematic explanations of the concepts and values that drive their arguments — do not share the same values as their opponents. </p><p>Within American society there is room for basic disagreement over basic values like freedom and justice, and it is precisely that room that helps explain why voters who are indecisive or uninterested have difficulty understanding the fights between the parties. Add to these conceptual fights all of the theatrics and the posturing, and it becomes very hard to understand what values really drive particular points of view.</p><p>Achieving a decent level of national respect for the differing opinions of Democrats and Republicans will require the media doing more to help voters understand how terms like freedom and justice are being used by politicians — and explaining whether their candidates' overall positioning is consistent with how they are defining their terms.</p><p>It is then up to voters to decide which points of view they prefer, whether the candidates in question have done what they claim they have done, whether they like the visions proposed and whether they like and respect the people who are presenting them.</p><div></div><p>But we should not assume all that divides candidates is their records, the means they took to promote them and their personal character — because they usually have very different values and very different priorities in the first place. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Voting at the interaction of power and democratic values - The Fulcrum ›
- The poverty of partisan identity - The Fulcrum ›
- A profound distrust is corroding American politics - The Fulcrum ›
- Polarization is more of a cultural problem than a political one ›
- New survey finds opportunity to unite Americans on values - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
- 2. Political values and Democratic candidate support Political values ... ›
- Basic Personal Values, Core Political Values, and Voting: A ... ›
- what is a political value? political philosophy and fidelity to reality ›
- political values Flashcards | Quizlet ›
- The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider | Pew ... ›
Keep reading...
Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Michael Lee/Getty Images
A country in crisis needs to call a truce with its government
Jun 22 2020
Anderson was editor of "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and sought the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Maryland in 2016.
<p>Approval ratings for Congress boomed in April, reaching 30 percent after the $2.2 trillion stimulus bill was passed. For years, though, congressional approval has been very low — even dipping to a "record" of 9 percent <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/308675/trump-job-rating-slides-satisfaction-tumbles.aspx" target="_blank">after a government shutdown</a> seven years ago. Essentially, American citizens over the last generation, starting with Vietnam and Watergate, have lost confidence and trust in government.</p><p>For decades <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx" target="_blank">polls have shown</a> a majority trust their state and especially local governments to solve problems. It is the federal government they judge harshly. Moreover, those who judge the federal government harshly are not the same group who want a smaller, more efficient federal government. Democrats may support a more expansive and more progressive federal government, but the vast majority join Republicans in judging the performance of the federal government as poor.</p><p>Even during the national crisis growing out of the brutal police killing of George Floyd, a natural question arises about what Americans think about government overall. Indeed, how much credence should we give to polls telling us a vast majority do not approve of their federal government or trust politicians? Yes, this is what they say. But do they really mean it? Are the questions good enough for citizens to give honest answers?</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>Most Americans benefit enormously from government — local and state as well as federal. But they rarely get a chance to indicate what they like: </p><p>At the national level, their Social Security checks, Medicare benefits and food stamps from the SNAP program; a Food and Drug Administration and Agriculture Department assuring the safety of what they eat; a Defense Department protecting them from foreign invasions and an EPA working to keep the air breathable and water drinkable, for starters. At the state level, transportation departments that make our roads safer than otherwise and parks where we are free to roam. At the local level, such basic services as snow removal, firefighting and trash collection.</p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>The media has brought considerable attention to the failings of the federal government, whether it was an inability to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, sloppy and delayed responses to hurricanes, regulations that might have staved off the 2008 financial crisis or the tepid response this spring to the spreading coronavirus. </p><p>There definitely is considerable dysfunction in Washington, but it does not follow from this reality that the federal government performs as poorly as many polls would make you think. State and local governments are not usually the target of citizen animus, although the national wave of protests during the past month have brought into focus the fierce critique the Black community has against police forces — especially at the local and state levels. </p><p>As we witness the continuing cases of excessive force by the police, we should recognize areas of our government that have failed to achieve two forms of justice: criminal justice, at the federal as well as state and local levels, and distributive justice, especially federal programs aimed at creating greater equality in housing, education and employment.</p><p>As insistent calls grow for fast systemic change to improve racial inequality in our country, and while we are seeing some critically important changes made at the local and state level in our criminal justice system — police departments banning choke-holds, for example, and redirecting funds to other agencies to ensure public safety — we should not give up on the power of the federal government to serve the people. </p><p>We must disabuse ourselves of the myth that the public, especially what the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "white moderates," does not benefit enormously from our federal government. </p><p>For if we do not get rid of that misperception, we will not be able to harness the energy and organizational power needed to address systemic racism against Black citizens as well as serious problems afflicting all citizens, ranging from an inadequate health care system to an insufficient approach to the global warming catastrophe to our crisis in higher education.</p><p>Major changes in federal law that could combat racism, certainly concerning our system of distributive justice, will not get through Congress in the weeks ahead. A national dialogue is needed to address issues such as housing, education and employment — because, without such a sustained effort by citizens and advocacy organizations, no significant legislation that might pass the Democratic House will also get through the Republican Senate.</p><p>The parties, of course, are now fully involved in the battle to control the White House and the Capitol next year. During the campaign, it is past time for the GOP to stop making the federal government a major punching bag. It was certainly less of a target from the 1930s through the 1970s. It is time, instead, to debate the hard issues without hyperbole and simplicity, especially when there is a manifest need for strong federal support for an economy stricken by the novel coronavirus. </p><p>Something like a truce is needed with the federal government. If you don't like the concept and word "truce," then call it a transformed understanding. For if you stand for major changes — whether you are a Black citizen focused on our criminal justice system's failings or a white middle-income citizen seeking a fundamental overhaul of our distributive justice system — these will not come from alienating the very people in Washington who would write and implement the better rules. </p><p>The federal government is also a massive three-part system; it's not only the agencies of the executive branch, which take much of the abuse, but also the legislative branch at the Capitol and the judicial branch centered at the Supreme Court. Those wanting fundamental changes in our society have the opportunity to vote in November for politicians they believe could make, implement and enforce new laws and regulations.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- American democracy movement on the rise - The Fulcrum ›
- More ballot initiatives won't make Americans feel better about politics ›
- Americans have no faith in government's interest in its citizens - The ... ›
- Our weakened democracy may be made even weaker by coronavirus ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
VisionsofAmerica/Joe Sohm/Getty Images
If a bipartisan stimulus felt good, Washington, just try for more of that
Apr 21 2020
Anderson is editor of "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014) and sought the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Maryland in 2016.
<div>There seem to be as many criticisms of our dysfunctional federal government as there are stars in the sky.<br></div><p>Yes, that's hyperbole, since there are not actually billions of critiques. But the metaphor gets to the point, because the number of justifiable knocks on the system are too many to count.</p><p>Most of the critiques include recommendations for ending the dysfunction or at least lessening the problem. The most common remedy for the partisanship paralyzing Washington — driven by so many House members forced to run to the far left or far right to win primaries, leaving too few to represent voters in the middle — is to transform the electoral system. This involves many things, including ending <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/gerrymandering" target="_self">gerrymandering</a> through legislation or litigation at the state level, public financing for elections and protecting minorities from being denied their voting rights. </p><p>The novel coronavirus crisis offers an opening to address the dysfunction problem. Indeed, that may have started last month when the Senate voted 96-0 to pass a $2 trillion economic rescue bill negotiated with the Trump administration and then House leaders of both parties worked to get it passed there on a voice vote. </p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>The sense of satisfaction and relief that White House officials, senators and representatives must all feel, even if many of them were not fully satisfied with the bill, should not go unnoticed — especially as negotiators close in on another stimulus package.</p><p>Indeed, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/308675/trump-job-rating-slides-satisfaction-tumbles.aspx" target="_blank">last week's Gallup Poll</a> sends a strong signal the public feels good about what they've seen most recently at the Capitol: The monthly approval rating for Congress jumped 8 points, to 30 percent in April — the highest number in longer than a decade and twice what it was at the end of 2017. </p><p>What can the members of Congress do with the good vibes they must have about their recent work, and the improved view the public has about them? </p><p>Perhaps the essence of the solution for reviving a functional government is to be found here — in the feelings our policy-makers have after producing historic legislation with equivalent amounts of Democratic and Republican buy-in. The importance of this feeling of collective cooperation and common purpose cannot be overestimated.</p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>All the arguments about ending dysfunction begin with a diagnosis of the problem, after which remedies are proposed. The commentators and politicians basically try to "prove" a serious problem exists, then "argue" for a solution. They may be assisted by public sentiment. And in most cases that sentiment, or at least the voices of some interested groups, motivates the politicians to offer proposals.</p><p>This is the logical way to approach the problem, but perhaps that's its central flaw. Why continue to rely on empirical analysis of problems, and logical solutions to them, when this approach is not working?</p><p>What if we focus instead on what working together feels like, then inspire our politicians to leverage those feelings for the good of the country? </p><p>What if we ask our politicians to value those positive sentiments not only when we are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis, but also when they are addressing our day-to-day, month-to-month policy challenges? </p><p>In short, our politicians need to keep these positive feelings front and center in their minds and hearts, even as they represent their own constituents and their own parties. This may just be another way of calling for more patriotism from our politicians. And if that's what we want to call it, fine.</p><p>But one way or another, we need our politicians to be motivated by the kind of positive reinforcement they get if they succeed in a bipartisan endeavor — not be chiefly motivated by trying to defeat the other party.</p><p>This approach does not preclude politicians from gathering data and hearing from lobbyists before tackling the nation's problems, including the dysfunction problem itself. It does, however, shift the emphasis to how we want our politicians to feel instead of what we want them to do.</p><p>It is a cliche that we pull together in times of war. We are pulling together now to fight the war against the coronavirus. Can we put the feelings of unity and shared purpose — indeed patriotism itself — out front and make secondary the analysis of problems and strategies for solving them? If we do, we will surely have a less dysfunctional government than we have now. </p><p> "We can know a good in common that we cannot know alone," was the graceful way the Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel closed his 1982 book, "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice." Feminist social thinkers including Carol Gilligan, Virginia Held and Anne-Marie Slaughter have asked us to put feelings first (especially empathy and care) and reject rational, impartial, moral reasoning abstracted from real human relationships. The leader of the Communitarian Movement, sociologist Amitai Etzioni, has warned against the dangers of putting rights before responsibilities rather than putting them on an equal footing. </p><div></div><p>The time is right to reverse the emphasis of our national politics and foster an environment where politicians who come to Washington put feelings of unity and bipartisan success ahead of partisan victories and beating the other party. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Hey, America: The Reforming Twenties Have Arrived - The Fulcrum ›
- Americans tell Gallup that government is the biggest problem - The ... ›
- A profound distrust is corroding American politics - The Fulcrum ›
- We've called for national unity. What comes next? - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less