I think the Founding Fathers had a pretty good read on human nature, so they set a system up that tried to take our own foibles into account.
I am not so sure it works, in the long run. It's amazing how we can laud democracy in the abstract sense, talk about how wise the public is in choosing who they do...
and in the more specific sense, there are a lot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, or are poorly informed, and it seems amazing that we get anywhere at all.
But I didn't start writing this post to go into all of the curious blend of optimism and pessimism I have when watching our political process in action.
I brought it up because I wanted to talk more about self-interest, and biases, and what makes our system work.
We have this whole separation of powers thing, all these different competing groups, because the whole idea was that the competition between these groups would prevent any one faction or branch from dominating. Worried about the power of the presidency? Let's appoint a Supreme Court justice for life. And insist that Congress approve. Worried about a legislature that's out of control? Give the president veto power. Worried that public opinion will be easily swayed by emotions and poorly thought out yet popular programs? Add in an electoral college, and a Senate that (originally at least) was appointed by state governments rather than popular vote. Worried that your less populated states will dominate politics unfairly? Make half your legislature based off population.
Worried that the effect of that will crowd out less populated states? Give each state two senators in the other chamber of legislature.
This whole intricate system is supposed to keep government working, not because it's necessarily perfect (it can be messy, and slow), but because the self-interests of each different group should help balance out the growth in power in another group.
Students of American history apply this concept to all sorts of things. They may decry the rise of presidential power, because they think we are losing that balance. Or discuss the freedom of the press as yet another balancing force. One not created in the Constitution, but one that plays its role.
We have a system where individuals can have a say, which is pretty amazing. Yet more and more people feel like it's broken. (Though many feel it's broken in different ways...so it's not like there's unity on which way we should be going)
How can a democracy work when people don't participate, and don't vote? When political parties get a stranglehold on the system, making it harder for third parties to rise? When parties seem to be more and more polarized, and cater to the extremes of each side?
I'm not even talking about the role of money here, though any internet search will find plenty of articles on it.
And how do we come to a consensus on good policy, when self-interest dictates certain policies even at the expense of the whole?
That's a problem that's been with us throughout all of human history...
It's too easy to get cynical and depressed, to think everyone is always out for themselves and that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to think of the greater good. Especially when we can be so subtly biased.
Take any class on human cognition, or logic, and you'll discover how horribly illogical we all are. How easy it is to get biased, to jump to conclusions. To only listen to those who agree with and confirm our existing beliefs, and to shut out and deny the ones who challenge what we think.
And yet somehow, history shows that this isn't always what happens. That sometimes people do listen to evidence, and change their minds for clear and logical reasons. That sometimes leaders do act for the greater good.
How did we ever come to value logic, and the role of the devil's advocate, and all these other things if human nature is so determined to be self-centered, illogical, and biased?
I am not so sure it works, in the long run. It's amazing how we can laud democracy in the abstract sense, talk about how wise the public is in choosing who they do...
and in the more specific sense, there are a lot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, or are poorly informed, and it seems amazing that we get anywhere at all.
But I didn't start writing this post to go into all of the curious blend of optimism and pessimism I have when watching our political process in action.
I brought it up because I wanted to talk more about self-interest, and biases, and what makes our system work.
We have this whole separation of powers thing, all these different competing groups, because the whole idea was that the competition between these groups would prevent any one faction or branch from dominating. Worried about the power of the presidency? Let's appoint a Supreme Court justice for life. And insist that Congress approve. Worried about a legislature that's out of control? Give the president veto power. Worried that public opinion will be easily swayed by emotions and poorly thought out yet popular programs? Add in an electoral college, and a Senate that (originally at least) was appointed by state governments rather than popular vote. Worried that your less populated states will dominate politics unfairly? Make half your legislature based off population.
Worried that the effect of that will crowd out less populated states? Give each state two senators in the other chamber of legislature.
This whole intricate system is supposed to keep government working, not because it's necessarily perfect (it can be messy, and slow), but because the self-interests of each different group should help balance out the growth in power in another group.
Students of American history apply this concept to all sorts of things. They may decry the rise of presidential power, because they think we are losing that balance. Or discuss the freedom of the press as yet another balancing force. One not created in the Constitution, but one that plays its role.
We have a system where individuals can have a say, which is pretty amazing. Yet more and more people feel like it's broken. (Though many feel it's broken in different ways...so it's not like there's unity on which way we should be going)
How can a democracy work when people don't participate, and don't vote? When political parties get a stranglehold on the system, making it harder for third parties to rise? When parties seem to be more and more polarized, and cater to the extremes of each side?
I'm not even talking about the role of money here, though any internet search will find plenty of articles on it.
And how do we come to a consensus on good policy, when self-interest dictates certain policies even at the expense of the whole?
That's a problem that's been with us throughout all of human history...
It's too easy to get cynical and depressed, to think everyone is always out for themselves and that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to think of the greater good. Especially when we can be so subtly biased.
Take any class on human cognition, or logic, and you'll discover how horribly illogical we all are. How easy it is to get biased, to jump to conclusions. To only listen to those who agree with and confirm our existing beliefs, and to shut out and deny the ones who challenge what we think.
And yet somehow, history shows that this isn't always what happens. That sometimes people do listen to evidence, and change their minds for clear and logical reasons. That sometimes leaders do act for the greater good.
How did we ever come to value logic, and the role of the devil's advocate, and all these other things if human nature is so determined to be self-centered, illogical, and biased?
No comments:
Post a Comment