North Star Writers Group - Syndicated Commentary: Opinion, Humor and Features

August 4, 2008

What Happened to the New Politics? You Can’t Beat the System

A popular mantra in the management world is that structure predicates behavior. That is, regardless of personal feelings or values, people will ultimately respond to their larger system. Years of research confirms the truth of this principal over a wide range of settings. Ask production people how they feel about their marketing counterparts, or vice versa.

Barack Obama and John McCain seemed the candidates most likely to resist the pressures of politics as usual and conduct a higher-level campaign – more integrity, less negativity, a focus on issues of importance to Americans. Unfortunately this has not occurred, especially with McCain, but really with both.

Obama’s main appeal has been the promise of a new kind of politics, but his integrity armor has developed some chinks. McCain, despite a few significant deviations, has over the years championed reform. Now attaining his long-desired presidential nomination, he has reverted to the worst old-school politics – even kidnapping Karl Rove from his subpoena hideout to advise the campaign.

Some possible explanations come to mind: Individuals’ limitations – being human after all, amplified by the taste of being president. Perhaps neither of them were ever what we thought, but good at creating this image and appeal.

I want to suggest that contextual factors, “the system”, may also be an important factor in pushing them back into the mold. Structure predicates behavior, and the structure of our political system makes it nearly impossible for any mortal being to resist becoming another cog in its wheel.

People can act contrary to pressures of structure, but only with great energy and commitment, and even then for only a limited time. As I tell my clients, structure doesn’t force people to do anything, but it makes it very hard to do something else. If the incentives and culture of an organization discourage risk, its members will not remain risky for long. If departments are in a competitive structure, they are not likely to consistently support each other’s efforts.

Our political context also creates incentives and pressures, hard to resist, even for someone dedicated to doing so. I want to name several that occur to me.

1) Our outmoded electoral-college system. Some votes count much more than others, such as mine from Democratic Massachusetts. The so-called “battleground states” demand the attention, money and positions of our would-be presidents, like it or not. If I’m from a non-warlike one-party presidential state, I‘m chopped liver. Obama is countering to some extent by “putting all 50 states into play”, but the pressure is still there.

2) Limited attention span and tolerance for subtlety of American voters. Especially in presidential elections, many issues are beyond most people’s hectic daily existence. So candidates are pressured to simplify issues beyond recognition. The media is partly to blame for its focus on sound bites and “gotcha”, but the argument they are giving their customers what they want may not be far off. If you don’t believe it, check C-Span’s ratings.

3) Polarization of the electorate. Presidential candidates typically move toward the center in the general election – ensuring the victor be someone in the mainstream of American political life – mushy to some, compared to European ideological parties, but good for the practical nature of our country and people. The expansion of both parties’ extremes makes the candidates desperate to hold on to their base, resulting in backtracking, ambiguity and a stifling of creative solutions to problems.

These prompt statements that contradict more subtle positions. Obama’s insistence that he will never negotiate with Hamas, or that he will have the troops out of Iraq in 16 months, no matter what. Or McCain’s insistence that oil drilling will make gas prices go down, or that Obama is a black, male, skinny version of Britney Spears.

4) Ubiquitous media and technology. Every device is a video recorder, making candidates aware that any phrase from any statement could find its way to YouTube before their next speech. This puts candidates constantly on the defensive, especially regarding complex explanations.

5) Exponentially growing influence of money. I’ve left this for last – the greatest distorter of our politics, making every politician a full-time fundraiser and part-time leader. What do you call a high-integrity candidate without money? A good loser.

McCain gets points for campaign reform, one of few legislative gains, during a McCain-of-2000 moment some years ago. Obama lost some with his rejection of federal financing. Broken systems are hard to fix from the inside, and limiting money is an especially tough nut to crack, especially with our sometimes-inconvenient First Amendment.

Obama has responded to this problem in a small but promising way – by embracing it: Any contribution of any amount makes the contributor eligible for a meeting by lottery – I guess proving that our corrupt system can be made to work for everyone. This is certainly insufficient, but the kind of creativity that may eventually help.

Obama, especially, is asking us to rise above pressures of race, party, class and interests that pit us against each other. He needs to remain vigilant regarding these pressures and his own vulnerability to them and trust that the American people can rise to the occasion. If we can’t, we deserve what we’ll get.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # AH091. Request permission to publish here.