The Truth About People:All people at all times have needs, problems, and vulnerabilities beyond their individual capacity to cope. That applies to me and applies to you. Fortunately, many if not most people are more or less self-sufficient. They have the means and resources to assure that their needs are met. They can normally resolve their problems. They can manage their vulnerabilities. Even so, they still require services and resources controlled by others.

Of course, the ability of people to manage, to cope with their reality, varies a lot depending where in the world they are and on local circumstances. Some of us are far better off than others of us. And therein lies the question. What level of responsibility do any of us have to provide for those of us who are unable to manage, unable to individually cope with our reality?

This same truism operates at levels beyond individual people. It’s a fact of life for families, organizations, and communities. It’s true for business from one-person enterprises to international corporations. It is a daily reality for governments from home owner associations to nations. At the most fundamental level, the inability to go it alone is the reason why these social, economic, and political constructs exist. The value of collective support, effort, and participation generally exceeds the value of the associated loss of autonomy and personal independence.

The Issue:For many reasons and myriad circumstances, Some people and groups of people acquire and control significantly more resources and opportunities than other people. Concurrently, for equally numerous reasons and circumstances, some people neither acquire nor control adequate resources to successfully manage and cope with their reality. Just as this inequity applies to individuals, it also applies to families, communities, businesses, regions, and nations. This fundamental disparity prompts several questions that need answers from each of us, from each community, from each business, from each government, from each nation.

• What limits if any should there be on the level or amount of resources and control any one individual, family, community, business, organization, or government may possess?

• What if any rules or restrictions should be imposed on any one individual, family, community, business, organization, or government?

• What responsibility do individuals, families, communities, businesses, groups, networks, or other entities have to share their resources and control with entities outside their immediate domains?

• What authority or power should any government have to restrict, regulate, seize, or enhance the resources or control of people or entities within its jurisdictions?

• What responsibility if any does government have to protect people and other entities within its jurisdiction from risks and jeopardies within that jurisdiction – from outside that jurisdiction?

• What responsibility if any does government have to compensate for the inability of people and other entities within its jurisdiction to successfully cope with or manage their needs, problems, and vulnerabilities?

• What rights and entitlements do people and other entities have that cannot be limited, restricted, or interfered with through government action or inaction?

Policy and Politics:The answers to these questions are policy and the process of answering these questions is politics.

Regardless of how rational and orderly governance and politics are in principle, they are not exempt from the forces and proclivities present within other entities including families, communities, businesses, other organizations, and among people more generally. Resources and control do not distribute evenly. Some politicians gain more resources and control than others. Some are more successful accruing power and influence than others. Some more successfully sustain their political careers than others. Whether focusing on local boards or councils or on state or federal legislatures, the result is the same. A few politicians have outsized authority, others have minimal influence, and others merely pick a side on questions and issues and go along to get along.

Turn attention back to the seven earlier questions. At one extreme, the first six questions could get an emphatic “NONE.” In that case, the last question would likely get an equally emphatic “COMPLETE AND UNLIMITED.” No one has responsibility for anyone else and government has no right to interfere with what people want and do. What is usually called the “conservative” position is much more nuanced than that but does lean in that direction.

At the opposite extreme, the first six questions could get an emphatic “A LOT,” while the seventh question would likely get an emphatic “SOME BUT LIMITED.” There should be regulation and restriction on some personal and business activity, limits on the resources and control of most entities, and support and compensation for people and other entities unable to manage and cope with their needs, problems, and vulnerabilities. What is usually called the “liberal” position is much more nuanced than that but does lean in that direction.

The hope is that the two extremes will meet through negotiation and compromise somewhere near the middle and government will serve its intended purpose: protecting the safety and success of its citizens. Contrary to most of the popular media and most political pundits, Governments at all levels within the United States and likely in most other national jurisdictions are mostly successful with some remarkable exceptions. In those exceptions, there is generally no government present in the sense discussed here.

If one disagrees that most governments are at least moderately successful, the points of disagreement likely cluster around the seven earlier questions. They believe that current policy is turning the relevant response to one or more of the questions in the wrong direction. Much over-simplified, they believe that things are turning too conservative or too liberal. Nonetheless, government is working for most but by no means for all. From either perspective, the community, the state, the country is headed down the road to disaster. Of course, disaster is possible but has been possible for well over two hundred years. It is not something new. Alternatively, it is no more likely than it has been in the past and less likely than at several times in the past. Government and governance is still working.

Just Something to Consider:Returning to an earlier point, political power and control are not evenly distributed either within a single political entity or between entities. A few individuals with outsized influence and control have a disproportionate ability to direct the outcome of political processes. Their conservative or liberal preferences can shift political outcomes more to an extreme than would be the case if outcomes were simply an average of the preferences of the likeminded members of the specific political entity. If all members had equal influence and power, political outcomes would be less extreme.

Focus back on the seven questions. It seems unlikely that most people would not be equally conservative or liberal on all seven questions. Rather, they would lean toward one or the other on some of the questions and less so or perhaps in the opposite direction for others. The net outcome would tend toward the middle. Is this middle perspective reflected in the people who represent them in the political entity? Probably. Are the political outcomes reflective of this middle preference? Almost never. Legislative and other political outcomes are usually significantly more conservative or more liberal than most people would prefer. Of course some people will see them as not conservative or liberal enough, but most people will see them as too far from the middle.

An Unexpected Conclusion:There is no objective truth for any of the earlier seven questions. Answering any of the questions is and only can be based on the values, beliefs, and opinions of the individual proposing an answer. This would not be an issue if civil discourse could lead to consensus action. This is the outcome that should be common if political governance operated as most people have been taught. As seen above though, it does not.

“A few individuals with outsized influence and control have a disproportionate ability to direct the outcome of political processes.” Setting aside the question of who controls the few “individuals with outsized influence and control,” these few leaders have a high vested interest in containing and maintaining their privileged positions. Part of perpetuating their leadership is being as visible as they can, presenting themselves as the personification of conservative or liberal, and – here is the hidden strategy – defending their positions by preventing anyone from usurping their status and positions.

Also setting aside gerrymandering (See Ohio), Three defensive strategies are typical. First, boxing out anyone in the legislative body who disagrees with them. Second, endorsing people who seek to join the political entity. The endorsement is less because of the person’s support of likeminded issues and actions and more because of expected support of the endorsers’ continuing leadership. Third, attacking anyone who seeks political membership. The most typical attack is to characterize the would be member as a dishonest or corrupt person or “Not one of us.” Endorsement means the person is one of us and not endorsing means the person is not and cannot be on our team with the endorser the uncontested leader.

Now focus on the people choosing who gets to join the political entity, on the voter. Why vote for one person and not for another? One might think that it may hinge on how the voter thinks the politician answers the seven questions raised earlier, on the issues. Would that this were generally true but it is not. At lower or less visible levels of government, people are not familiar with most of the people seeking those positions. For example, a minority of voters know the names of more than one or two judges if any in their state and have no idea about how they would answer any of the seven questions. For the few politicians with whom they are familiar, they know little specifics about their positions on issues or the seven questions. What they do know is which team politicians are on and who is its leader.

Here Is the Point:Politics and political leadership – at least in the United States and likely most everywhere else – is not much more than a high stakes team sport with winners and losers, fans and players, head coaches and critics; and definitely not a game for gentlemen or gentlewomen.

I, as is likely the case for you, am but a mere fan, hoping that my team wins. I hear what they say as they seek my vote, but do not know what they really think about the seven questions or how they will act when decision time comes. I think my team leader is brilliant and your team’s leader is probably stupid. Even so, I am just hoping that if your team wins, we are not taken down the road to disaster.

Be well, do well, and while you are cheering on your team, take the time to do something nice for someone. They will appreciate it and you both will have a better day.