Should Politics Be A Zero-Sum Game? (Guest Voice)
Should Politics Be A Zero-Sum Game?
by Robert A. Levine
Otto Von Bismarck, the German chancellor in the late 19th century, responsible for unifying the independent states that now encompass modern Germany, once called politics the art of the possible. However, the political process in the United States is currently stagnant. The expected bargaining and compromise between the two parties has not succeeded in solving the most important issues of the day- unemployment, economic growth, and curbing the budget deficits and national debt. Politics has become the art of rationalizing legislative stalemate for the nation’s voters and explaining why progress on the pressing problems of the day is impossible. The opposing party is always blamed for the impasse by elected officials from the other party, hoping to gain some political advantage from disgruntled citizens.
Aside from the ideological rigidity that has straight-jacketed the Republicans and Democrats, the major problem for America is that the parties see politics as a zero-sum game. If one party is successful in passing legislation, their winning is seen as a loss for the other party. The parties don’t want to cooperate because they’re afraid the opposition might have some of its ideas enacted and its image enhanced with the voters. Each positive step taken by one party is seen as a step backwards for the other. Because the Democrats and Republicans have this mind-set, America is the big loser.
How can the voters make the parties understand that politics should not be a zero-sum game? If they worked together for the good of the country, America would benefit and it would become a win-win situation. America would win and the political parties would win, perhaps reversing the low esteem in which politicians are currently held by the public. Their insistence on keeping the paradigm of zero-sum politics benefits no one and will only lead to further American decline.
Perhaps a new entity, a centrist third party could change the political equation in Washington and end the zero-sum stalemate, making American politics again the art of the possible.
A VietNam vet and a Columbia history major who became a medical doctor, Bob Levine has watched the evolution of American politics over the past 40 years with increasing alarm. He knows he’s not alone. Partisan grid-lock, massive cash contributions and even more massive expenditures on lobbyists have undermined real democracy, and there is more than just a whiff of corruption emanating from Washington. If the nation is to overcome lockstep partisanship, restore growth to the economy and bring its debt under control, Levine argues that it will require a strong centrist third party to bring about the necessary reforms. Levine’s previous book, Shock Therapy For the American Health Care System took a realist approach to health care from a physician’s informed point of view; Resurrecting Democracy takes a similar pragmatic approach, putting aside ideology and taking a hard look at facts on the ground. In his latest book, Levine shines a light that cuts through the miasma of party propaganda and reactionary thinking, and reveals a new path for American politics. This post is cross posted from his blog.
6 Responses to “Should Politics Be A Zero-Sum Game? (Guest Voice)”
I truly cannot see where the Democrats are obstructing or not cooperating. This is a totally Republican mindset today. Intransigence and obstructionism is exactly the Republican tactical mission which they employ without apology or rational explanation. Indeed, the Republican party rap themselves in goofy rhetoric blindly turning their backs upon the very mess they have created during the eight years under George W. Bush. They are cowards to admit they were wrong in their voodoo economic philosophy just as they are cowards to hide behind God in our children’s classrooms.
You sir, are a Republican. Lets not be afraid to admit it publicly.
It’s true that politicians seem to be less concerned with running the country sensibly than throwing the other side out of power. Presumably because they can’t find a way to reason with the other side, so first they must throw them out of power, and *then* they’ll run the country sensibly.
By acknowledging the other side’s good intentions, for starters.
For all the talk of obstruction, Obama has probably passed more of his legislation than most other presidents in history.
But don’t let that ruin a good meme.
More is not always good.
That assumes that the other side has good intentions.
Other than destroying the welfare state and stealing everything that isn’t nailed down what are the other intentions of the right?
Creating a police state so that they can keep what they stole?
In a two party system, any thing that drives the voters away from your opponents can be seen to help you (since there is no other choice available). Similarly, anything the other side does to improve their standing hurts your side.
For that reason, a two party system fundamentally moves toward a zero-sum game. Since the current system (winner with the most votes takes the election) promotes a two party system (see Durverger’s law), the only solution, as I see, is to change the system. We can work for a third party, but until we reform the system, it will only be a temporary fix.