Some Problems with American Politics

I spent a good bit of time before New Year’s
flipping between CNN, MSNBC and Fox News to find out about the progress being
made on the “fiscal cliff” talks. The more I thought about that fiasco the more
I decided to share my view of the problems in American politics.
The average American seems to understand much
more than our elected officials. Married people know if you want a marriage to
work you need to learn to compromise. For the most part the ability to
compromise is seen as a good thing in life – except with our politicians.
In order to get out of the primaries,
representatives have to pander to the extreme elements in their party. That
means politicians take a hard line on many issues. They soften only slightly in
the general election with a goal of winning over as many undecided voters as
possible because neither party has such a stronghold that they can rely solely
on their base to get them elected.
Once the elected officials get to Washington
they’re beholden to those who elected them and the extreme positions they
espoused. The principle of consistency, the psychological
trait that tells us people want to be consistent in word and deed, makes it
difficult for politicians to move from their original positions even if new
data dictates that doing so would be best for the majority of Americans.
Despite what we learned about democracies and
majority rule it’s never that simple because of procedural rules that allow
each party to bring things to a halt or a snail’s pace. While there are good
reasons for these rules, they seem to be abused by both sides and the result is
the gridlock we’ve seen in Washington for far too long.
Another issue is the mentality politicians
seem to have about re-election. It’s almost the same mentality American businesses
now have about quarterly earnings. Businesses can be so focused on the
short-term that they make bad long-term decisions. For example, too often
companies don’t make needed investments in things like technology in order to keep
expenses low and boost quarterly earnings which makes the stock price look good.
In the same way politicians seem to do what’s best for them in the short-term
(i.e., get re-elected) as opposed to the long-term good of the country.
Personally I think term limits would help alleviate
this to some degree.
Lastly, I’ll share what I call “the law of the
gym.” When I was just out of college I was competing in bodybuilding contests.
My weight was around 225 lbs. and I would diet down to about 195 lbs. for
competitions. I quickly learned I could not burn enough calories through
exercise alone to lose those 30 lbs. In fact, exercising too much would
eventually be counter-productive to my goal. To put this in perspective,
consider this – running two miles burns approximately 250 calories or the
equivalent of a Snickers bar. Which is easier to do, run two miles or skip the
candy bar? It was obvious I needed to restrict my diet in certain ways. The
good news was, between the exercise and dieting I was always able to reach my
goal weight.
Let’s apply “the law of the gym” to politics
and our current debt situation. Tax revenues are like exercise; we can’t raise
them enough to get out of debt and raising them too much could actually hurt us
if jobs are lost. Our nation needs to go on a diet – spending cuts – in addition
to our exercise – recent tax increases. To go on spending as we are will only
cause the debt to grow. Hopefully our politicians can reach some compromise and
start reducing government spending so the debt begins to come down.
And speaking of the debt, we’ve become desensitized
to how large it’s become. Hundreds of millions, billions and trillions are
figures that no longer cause us to bat an eye. Only when you compare and contrast the debt to something
can you begin to wrap your mind around it, so here’s a comparison point for
you.  If you spent $1 million a day since
the time of the Egyptian empire you would only pay off a trillion dollars of our
debt. More than 2,700 years at a million dollars a day hardly makes a dent!
Now consider our national debt at roughly $16
trillion. If we could pay it down by $1 million a day it would take us more than 48,000 years to pay it off!
When politicians talk about it being immoral to pass on our debt to the next
generation that’s not as big a problem as passing our debt on to  thousands of generations! How would you feel if we were still paying down the
debt of the ancient Egyptians or Romans?
I no longer consider myself an affiliate of
either party because neither represents my views any longer. There are elements
of each that I agree with but there’s so much with both that I disagree with
that I can’t consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. It’s my hope that
sometime during my lifetime we get a third or fourth alternative to choose from
because right now most of us find ourselves choosing between the lesser of two
Brian, CMCT®
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Do We Need Term Limits for a Better America?

In November many Americans went to the polls to vote on various issues. In less than a year we’ll go back to vote in the Presidential election so the rhetoric will heat up with each passing month until November 2012. Knowing this I thought it would be a good time to look at a political issue – term limits – through the lens of influence.

Precedence was set with American presidents when George
Washington declined to run for a third term and based on his actions no president ran for a third term in office until Franklin Roosevelt did so in 1944. The unusual circumstance of a world war in two major theatres was a big reason for FDR’s decision. However, not long afterwards the American people passed the 22 Amendment which limited a United States president to a maximum of two terms in office.
For some reason Americans have not done the same thing when it comes to term limits for congressman and senators. While some states enacted laws to limit the terms of their particular representatives in Washington in an effort to move away from “career politicians” the U.S. Supreme court overturned those laws saying states could not limit the term of national offices.
I’m not going to argue if term limits are good or bad. Like just about anything in life there are positives and negatives to each side of the argument. What is concerning is whether or not the best people get elected and whether or not we’re getting fresh political ideas simply because of how voters make decisions.
I remember my pastor saying, “People will remain the same until the pain of being the same is greater than the perceived pain of change.” That’s akin to, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Americans saw voter revolts in 1994 when republicans swept into power in the house and senate and again in 2010 because of our economic woes. Both times there was so much dissatisfaction with the status quo that people kicked out many incumbents. My question is, why do we have to wait for things to get so bad before we act? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” sounds good until you consider Steve Jobs and his iPhone. We didn’t need the iPhone because nothing was broken but we’re better off for it. Perhaps we could have the same fresh ideas and change in Washington if we routinely had new people in office.
Politicians are famous for saying things like, “We have term limits because voters can always vote someone out of office if they want to,” and, “Why do we need to restrict voter freedom?” Of course both arguments could be used against term limits for the president and yet as a country we thought it was good to limit the terms for the highest office in the land. I suspect career politicians are thinking first and foremost about self-preservation, not the good of the country.
But I digress and you’re wondering how influence ties into this. It will come as no surprise to readers when I state the obvious; nearly every sitting politician wins re-election the vast majority of the time. In fact, it’s staggering how often they win. Take a look at the charts below showing reelection rates for U.S. congressman and senators from the Center for Responsive Politics.


Are incumbents winning so often because they’re the best candidates? Hardly. It’s simply a function of familiarity. People go to the polls and tend to vote for the person they’re most familiar with and the farther you go down in terms of elected offices the worse it is because quite often people vote for the incumbent simply because they know nothing about the other person running. When you’ve seen or heard about your congressman for the past four years or your senator for the last six years that’s a lot of familiarity for a challenger to overcome.
On this subject, in his book Influence Science and Practice, Dr. Cialdini wrote, “Often we don’t realize that our attitude toward something has been influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past.” And it’s not just how often we hear a name it’s how much we see the face. Sitting politicians are routinely seen in the news and that helps unless their face is connected to a scandal. I can tell you from firsthand experience that I get much better response to my emails when I include my picture at the bottom of the email because familiarity helps.
While there many other things that come into play during an election we can’t underestimate the importance of simply being more familiar with one candidate vs. another. It’s the way we’re wired.
To be sure we – the typical American voter – are partly to blame because we’re notoriously disengaged when it comes to knowing the candidates, their positions, and understanding the issues. If anyone didn’t need term limits it would be presidents because I’d venture to guess we know presidential candidates better and understand the presidential issues more because of how much they’re in the media vs. lower offices and more localized issues.
In a sense terms limits save us from ourselves and how our decision making might be working against us. My boss likes to say, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” In other words, how can we expect anything different from Washington when we keep electing the same people for the most part? Yes, we can make a concerted effort to become more informed voters but with less than 60% of people of voting age voting in every presidential election since 1968 do we really think that will happen? I certainly don’t. Sometimes we need laws to protect ourselves from ourselves and I’d say term limits would be one such law.
Brian, CMCT
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.