This piece was beautifully articulated. You voiced the very same concerns that i have had with the movement in our culture and institutions that calls the very foundations of our wonderful heritage and unprecedented freedoms into question by re-framing everything good as bad, inverting reality and ignoring how amazing our system truly is. Thank you.
We need a renewal from the center, built from the ground up; not motivated by a particular policy or a particular person, but simply the restoration of the foundational principles that have made the American experiment the best thing in the(political) history of the world. And we must start in the place where real citizens have a competitive advantage: Actual conversations, in person, face to face, with other human beings. Slow, yes. Annoying, yes. But also effective, also humane, and also totally beyond the reach of the powerful.
Your article is eloquent, and well intended. Makes lots of excellent points. I don't support Rs, Ds, or any political party, and I agree with your characterization of the extremes in each.
But this is where noble intent splits from practical reality--essentially all the drivers of change embrace force and coercion as the means to fix their version of the problems. And that (even they don't realize it) is THE problem.
There is no one advocating for a live and let live approach to approach to life. It's OK to have our differences about nearly anything, as long as we are free to pursue our own life, liberty, and happiness. I wish any policy maker embraced this as the solution.
But it seems that everyone driving the conversation wants to impose their version of "happiness" on everyone else. That middle ground or nuance where most people reside, is not where the narrative for any public policy resides.
There has never been a moment in human history where the majority rose up together for anything. It is the committed minority that wins every battle and shapes every part of history. That great silent middle is largely content to do nothing, much like it has for all of human history.
And with those extremes being the respective minorities shaping the future, who is left to advance a pluralistic view of the world? Classic liberalism, the driving force for the greatest expansion of peace and prosperity through time, is not embraced by anyone--not Rs, Ds, left, right, or whatever popular label you want to apply. Yes, the average human intuitively embraces those principles, but not those who seek change.
The founding of the US was a radical and insane departure from the status quo because that tireless minority that effectuated the change created a society rooted in the protection of individual rights. This was not the great middle at the time. They were extreme and unique in their views. They were a fringe. They were a minority. They did not represent the mainstream world.
We were all very lucky that was an extreme that was right in how they approached the construction of a society, so that their extreme became the norm over time and we benefitted in a wonderful way.
But none of the extremes and active minorities of today are advocating for a return to this classically liberal approach to society. They don't want a world free from despotism. They want to be despots that know what is best for everyone. To steal a line from Hayek, it's their "fatal conceit." They believe if their perfect dictator could be in charge with the right knowledge and power, they would get it right and fix everything.
Summary: yes, the great middle has far more in common, but they aren't the drivers of change. No one driving the change has a view of the world that advances the pluralistic and classically liberal vision that brought us the peace and prosperity we enjoy. They don't even realize they seek to tear it all down. They are the destroyers, and they don't even know it.
I think the dynamic of a motivated minority has and will continue to be true. But there are structural and cultural changes we could make to reduce the influence. The combination of highly polarized parties and gerrymandered districts exacerbates this problem. Working for rational districts, open primaries and ranked choice voting reduces this tendency. But the fundamental problem of motivating a majority that agrees but had become complacent is going to be hard.
I agree with your identified problem of districts, gerrymandering, and voting methods, but once again--the great middle doesn't care about such issues.
Who does? A highly motivated political class who has the incentive to protect their existing position and the means (ability to pass or not pass new laws) to protect that position.
In this case, the elected officials hold nearly all the cards, so changing the elected officials won't really be enough because the incentives for each elected official remain the same regardless of who is office--to preserve their own power and position. Where is the incentive for them to vote themselves less protection?
That's an inherent flaw built into a two-party dominant system.
There is only way I know (and have successfully used) to bypass the flawed incentive structure of elected officials--completely avoid them by taking issues directly to the ballot.
Ballot initiatives can be utilized in a number of states to create new laws or amend state constitutions. It simply takes a committed minority to gather enough signatures to put an issue on the ballot, then voters enact the law directly, skipping the legislature entirely.
This process is particularly powerful when choosing an issue that has wide appeal with the public, but no appeal to a legislative body.
When I lived in Ohio a few years back, we used the ballot initiative process to do a couple things, one was repeal the death and estate tax, another was a healthcare freedom amendment (prevented state based healthcare mandates). The ballot initiative has been used in different states to enact term limits, legalize cannabis, cap property tax increases, etc, etc.
The initiative can also be used in horrible ways. But if a group uses the process only to protect individual rights and enact freedom friendly policy, the ballot initiative process is a fantastic method for bypassing the gridlock/special interest driven/bad incentive politics of a legislature to create great public policy.
And this can be done by any (rather small) committed group at the state level. If I was thinking about the strategy of big picture changes, I would look at the top 3 most impactful (but already popular) policies in the most important states that have ballot access via the initiative process.
Through this method, a small and committed minority could create fantastic change nationwide.
Now...getting people together to generate critical mass around a strategic plan like this...no easy task. But I think you have a much better chance through this method than by hoping to elect enough officials to have a majority to create the changes needed. I just don't see a path forward there because of the misaligned incentive structure for politicians.
I think there is not one single problem, and therefore not one solution. But ballot initiatives can give a motivated minority a toehold in the process. And I think rank-choice voting can find some support from parties who end up losing because of an extremist siphoning votes. I agree that this is, sadly, not something that (currently) motivates enough people to overcome the special interests.
This piece was beautifully articulated. You voiced the very same concerns that i have had with the movement in our culture and institutions that calls the very foundations of our wonderful heritage and unprecedented freedoms into question by re-framing everything good as bad, inverting reality and ignoring how amazing our system truly is. Thank you.
We need a renewal from the center, built from the ground up; not motivated by a particular policy or a particular person, but simply the restoration of the foundational principles that have made the American experiment the best thing in the(political) history of the world. And we must start in the place where real citizens have a competitive advantage: Actual conversations, in person, face to face, with other human beings. Slow, yes. Annoying, yes. But also effective, also humane, and also totally beyond the reach of the powerful.
Nice piece.
Happy Independence Day to you as well, Denis
Your article is eloquent, and well intended. Makes lots of excellent points. I don't support Rs, Ds, or any political party, and I agree with your characterization of the extremes in each.
But this is where noble intent splits from practical reality--essentially all the drivers of change embrace force and coercion as the means to fix their version of the problems. And that (even they don't realize it) is THE problem.
There is no one advocating for a live and let live approach to approach to life. It's OK to have our differences about nearly anything, as long as we are free to pursue our own life, liberty, and happiness. I wish any policy maker embraced this as the solution.
But it seems that everyone driving the conversation wants to impose their version of "happiness" on everyone else. That middle ground or nuance where most people reside, is not where the narrative for any public policy resides.
There has never been a moment in human history where the majority rose up together for anything. It is the committed minority that wins every battle and shapes every part of history. That great silent middle is largely content to do nothing, much like it has for all of human history.
And with those extremes being the respective minorities shaping the future, who is left to advance a pluralistic view of the world? Classic liberalism, the driving force for the greatest expansion of peace and prosperity through time, is not embraced by anyone--not Rs, Ds, left, right, or whatever popular label you want to apply. Yes, the average human intuitively embraces those principles, but not those who seek change.
The founding of the US was a radical and insane departure from the status quo because that tireless minority that effectuated the change created a society rooted in the protection of individual rights. This was not the great middle at the time. They were extreme and unique in their views. They were a fringe. They were a minority. They did not represent the mainstream world.
We were all very lucky that was an extreme that was right in how they approached the construction of a society, so that their extreme became the norm over time and we benefitted in a wonderful way.
But none of the extremes and active minorities of today are advocating for a return to this classically liberal approach to society. They don't want a world free from despotism. They want to be despots that know what is best for everyone. To steal a line from Hayek, it's their "fatal conceit." They believe if their perfect dictator could be in charge with the right knowledge and power, they would get it right and fix everything.
Summary: yes, the great middle has far more in common, but they aren't the drivers of change. No one driving the change has a view of the world that advances the pluralistic and classically liberal vision that brought us the peace and prosperity we enjoy. They don't even realize they seek to tear it all down. They are the destroyers, and they don't even know it.
I think the dynamic of a motivated minority has and will continue to be true. But there are structural and cultural changes we could make to reduce the influence. The combination of highly polarized parties and gerrymandered districts exacerbates this problem. Working for rational districts, open primaries and ranked choice voting reduces this tendency. But the fundamental problem of motivating a majority that agrees but had become complacent is going to be hard.
I agree with your identified problem of districts, gerrymandering, and voting methods, but once again--the great middle doesn't care about such issues.
Who does? A highly motivated political class who has the incentive to protect their existing position and the means (ability to pass or not pass new laws) to protect that position.
In this case, the elected officials hold nearly all the cards, so changing the elected officials won't really be enough because the incentives for each elected official remain the same regardless of who is office--to preserve their own power and position. Where is the incentive for them to vote themselves less protection?
That's an inherent flaw built into a two-party dominant system.
There is only way I know (and have successfully used) to bypass the flawed incentive structure of elected officials--completely avoid them by taking issues directly to the ballot.
Ballot initiatives can be utilized in a number of states to create new laws or amend state constitutions. It simply takes a committed minority to gather enough signatures to put an issue on the ballot, then voters enact the law directly, skipping the legislature entirely.
This process is particularly powerful when choosing an issue that has wide appeal with the public, but no appeal to a legislative body.
When I lived in Ohio a few years back, we used the ballot initiative process to do a couple things, one was repeal the death and estate tax, another was a healthcare freedom amendment (prevented state based healthcare mandates). The ballot initiative has been used in different states to enact term limits, legalize cannabis, cap property tax increases, etc, etc.
The initiative can also be used in horrible ways. But if a group uses the process only to protect individual rights and enact freedom friendly policy, the ballot initiative process is a fantastic method for bypassing the gridlock/special interest driven/bad incentive politics of a legislature to create great public policy.
And this can be done by any (rather small) committed group at the state level. If I was thinking about the strategy of big picture changes, I would look at the top 3 most impactful (but already popular) policies in the most important states that have ballot access via the initiative process.
Through this method, a small and committed minority could create fantastic change nationwide.
Now...getting people together to generate critical mass around a strategic plan like this...no easy task. But I think you have a much better chance through this method than by hoping to elect enough officials to have a majority to create the changes needed. I just don't see a path forward there because of the misaligned incentive structure for politicians.
I think there is not one single problem, and therefore not one solution. But ballot initiatives can give a motivated minority a toehold in the process. And I think rank-choice voting can find some support from parties who end up losing because of an extremist siphoning votes. I agree that this is, sadly, not something that (currently) motivates enough people to overcome the special interests.
Hah, sounds like you're a piece of shit. Good to know. Unsubscribe.