The Room Where it Happens: Why Politicians are Disconnected from Voters

Most people familiar with the U.S. know how important politics is in its culture.  We pioneered 24-hour news, college campuses are synonymous with activism, and we essentially redefined several countries' governments to reflect our own.  The vote is considered sacred in parts of the U.S. and our Democratic system of government is something many politicians are constantly calling on the public to defend.  So why does it feel hollow in the modern day?

It feels increasingly that voting and political involvement are a waste of time.  If you take a look at how politicians vote vs. public opinion, you’ll find huge gaps on how voters feel vs. how politicians vote on issues such as balancing the budget, war, campaign finance reform, and much more.  As a result, many Americans, especially younger ones, have a negative view of the country’s government and a negative view of Democracy.  One must wonder where that view comes from or why people feel the way they do.

Well, the obvious scapegoat is massive corruption.  It’s easy to claim all politicians are liars or that they all take bribes once they get to Congress and sell out on their alleged principles.  While there’s some evidence of that, that’s at best an oversimplification.

The truth is that it’s actually because of a natural disconnect between elected officials and the average voter.  Many people who get elected don’t have as much connection to the needs of their constituents either because of background, history, social connection, or even geography.  As a result, their relationship to the public is weak, and that thus furthers division in the United States.

Aristotle noted that politics is the association of people within the polis, the community.  For me, simplifying his writings, that means the relationships of people in a given group.  It’s why concepts like church politics, office politics, marriage politics, and such other examples exist.  So we are in “politics” with the people we have connections to.

That’s the real problem with division in the U.S. that doesn’t get as much conversation as it deserves.  When people don’t have those relationships with each other, there is no social connection and, indirectly, there is no country.  Thus, different factions form within a nation’s borders and it becomes not a question of “what do the people want?” but “whose coalition is bigger?”

If we take a look, then, at the average politician vs the public, what they end up dealing with is significantly different.  For the voter, they get hit harder with higher prices, taxes, crime, job security, and plenty of other issues that are extremely relatable to the average person.  As a result, what they care about is what they experience immediately or has the biggest likelihood of hurting their way of life.

Politicians, of course, also experience these issues so it’s still of concern to them.  Sure, the average congressman is still wealthier than the average American so they feel it differently, but all people are human so “kitchen table issues” still impact those at the top.  However, what’s on their plate is different because of the people they spend time with on a given day.

The average politician also has to meet with a vast group of people.  They have to meet with lobbyists, foreign dignitaries, each other, activists, staff, and more to stay ahead in elections, get legislation passed, and fulfill basic human needs like social connection.  Also, quite a few actually sleep in their office or live in/around DC so their “community” of sorts isn’t their base but their fellow politicians.  As a result, that adds to the disconnect just by having them engaged more away in a city than at home.

It just goes back to the nature of government.  The average person doesn’t have to declare war, handle humanitarian crises, or reconsider existing tax rates to pay the federal budget.  The average politician, well, is supposed to if they’re doing their job.  As a result, the culture, purpose, and requirements of the job put a wedge between the public and the office holders.

Now, one might be tempted to ask if there’s a way to bridge that gap and reconnect the elected officials with their constituents.  I don’t want to say it’s impossible as that would be dismissive of the question and there are ways politicians can spend more time with their constituents.  However, the divide isn’t just a recent problem but an eternal one.

Every person on this planet only has so much time to spend and only so much time they can spend it with at any given moment.  Just like being friends with everyone isn’t possible, being connected to people all the time isn’t possible either.  So relationship prioritization and social connection will still dominate any field a person finds themselves in as well.

One suggestion would be to have more representatives of groups in communities to balance out that disconnect.  Either to get more people that have a tighter connection to the community into existing positions or create new positions that will reconnect the out of touch establishment.  This is short sighted, though, because it merely adds to the existing bureaucracy and adds to the disconnect.

Changing out the people won’t actually solve the disconnect because it doesn’t actually fix the relationship problem.  If we added more congressmen, that would increase the opportunity for community connected candidates, but over time they’d also get bogged down in the metaphorical swamp that is politics.  Switching out people is also irrelevant if they get the position and can’t actually do the job.  As a result, there may be some change to what policies get enacted in any institution, but adding or changing industries or fields without addressing the relationship issue means more of the same under a different coat of paint.  Perhaps, then, the real thought to consider is thus: do politicians “sell out” because they got corrupted or found out what they wanted was impossible?

In addition, there is another problem that needs to be addressed: the media.  People can act like following the news gives them insight into the workings of DC when in reality it’s its own politics entirely.  The news serves more of a role of entertainment, a manipulator, or a sink for you time than it does act like an actual informer.

It’s the key issue that many news stories that are important usually get limited attention from the mainstream media while they follow other issues that people allegedly care about.  So issues like America’s transition away from Europe in favor of Asia, asking regular factories to start making weapons, and the US surrounding Cuba get limited attention while the world is instead discussing rumors about schools having litterboxes in schools, backlash to the Superbowl halftime show, and Trump feeding koi fish.  Really, the discussions from the media, legacy or online, have many holes on covering important issues so trying to use it to understand current events can have incredibly mixed results and not truly be a gateway to politics.

Now the conspiratorial perspective is that the media is intentionally trying to distract the public from important issues or cover up major news.  However, the truth is much more complicated than that.  The media traditionally cares about what news stories will get the most views so what they talk about is inevitably going to be what gets the most viewers on TV, clicks on social media, or watches/listens on podcasts.  As a result, it goes to the crazier stories as opposed to what may be important but isn’t interesting.

All of this comes back to the key problem which is the disconnect between the different groups.  As our society stops engaging with people more and more, that level of social cohesion starts to evaporate and we break down into separate factions that aren’t connected to each other and thus their interests are completely disconnected.  For this reason, the interests of our politicians, citizens, and media are severely disconnected.

Which is why the general public can’t expect their views to be reflected in current legislation.  They’re not in the room where legislation is being made, so they’re disconnected from policy that affects them, and policies that admittedly aren’t in their area of interest.  So it’s unlikely to matter too much who gets elected in changing major issues when the biggest problem isn’t the specific positions, but the lack of social cohesion and shared interests.

Nevertheless, there is still something that can be done about that.  Specifically, the individual has to get involved at the local level.  Not run for local office, just engage in the community.

As mentioned, politics are the relationships in the community.  So a person who doesn’t have connections to or relationships with their local community, even if they are aware of current events, isn’t engaged.  So that means to make the world a better place, they have to start in their own backyard.

There’s a variety of ways one can get involved in their local community.  Plenty of churches and non-profits need volunteers, plenty of politicians need supporters at their events when they're in their districts, and plenty of clubs or organizations are always looking for new members.  There’s always a way to help and have an impact if you’re willing to make an effort.

Just remember two things before doing that though.  First, remember that you have to grow in virtue and connection yourself.  If you’re not making the effort to be a good person before engaging, the temptation for self-serving attitudes will still be there.  Second, you’re engaging in that group because you believe in it for its own sake.  It’s okay to leave when you’re no longer connected, but what group you engage with still has its own needs and goals so using it as a stepping stone is disrespectful to the group you’re in at the time.

Still, that’s the real way to make change and improve the world: social connection.  You may not be able to stop the next war, but you can still help keep the silverware at the next community picnic clean.  There’s no way to quantify the impact that could have or the doors that could open for people, so give a try.  It’s the only we’re ever going to fix that disconnect and heal the divides that separate us as a people.

The Debate in Art: What Is vs What Could Be

Following up on the previous post which tackled the definition of liberal vs conservative, there’s another topic that would be interesting to address: the meaning of art.  Plenty of artists and philosophers have debated the purpose of art and the impact it should have on society.  However, there are two questions that seem especially noteworthy in the modern day: should art be a reflection of the world as it is, or as it could be?

This is not as easy a question as it may appear as there’s no one way to look at the answer.  To go into more detail, the first opinion posits the idea that the art should be as realistic a portrayal of the world we live in and reflect that in storytelling and visual aesthetics.  In short, art should serve as something of an unedited photograph, capturing the world through the eyes of objective reality as opposed to the personal feelings of the artist.  The second suggests that art should be somewhat idealized in its approach to show the world as a reflection of human potential and virtue.  In a sense, it should show what we as people could become if we put in the time, effort, and patience into changing ourselves into something different.

Showing the world as it is gives the viewer an understanding of the present reality in which they exist.  Seeing evil in such a story makes it relatable in the sense that it lets the viewer understand the monsters they will have to overcome in their own lives while seeing good in the same type of story helps them understand how to deal with such problems in their daily life. In other words, it gives us a window into the world we live in so that we may understand it in ways we might not otherwise.

The weaker versions of this approach, though, can lead to egotistical art.  If an artist is only showing their own reality, that can make it unrelatable as it prioritizes not objective reality, but merely personal “gnosis” or experience masquerading as wisdom or understanding.  Similarly, it can then be an excuse to show ugliness as what the world is, showing a cynical worldview masquerading as truth.  In other words, bad art from this concept is usually personal biases pretending to be objective reality, which is why modern artists can make bad content that they claim reflects “the world we live in today” when it’s really just their own worldview.

On the other hand, there is the idea that art should show what we long to be or could become when striving for it.  Many fictional characters, stories, and art pieces can serve to be inspirational to viewers and serve as guides to instill passion in mankind for a better tomorrow.  So this art serves the role of pushing man to do better and make the world a better place in light of obstacles they may see.

The downside of this, though, is Utopianism.  When an artist is removed from reality, they can make something that is not feasible yet claim it is an image of tomorrow.  This can instill an unrealistic image in the impressionable viewer, especially the young, of a world that is never coming.  This is why many parents worry about what their kids consume and what impact it can have on them as they mature.

In many ways, this debate is a reflection of Plato’s philosophy.  Plato believed that there was a perfect world where the forms, the perfect version of every concept, idea, or object, existed and that our material world is merely a broken reflection of that world.  Idealized art, then, reflects these forms of what perfect, virtuous humanity looks like while realistic art shows us the world in its material form that we’re likely to experience.  Of note, Plato in many ways was not fond of art because he viewed it as a reflection of the imperfect, material world but his divide between the perfect vs imperfect here is a good reflection of the divide of artistry here: ideal vs experiential.

Side note: Plato had many thoughts on art from its ability to corrupt to what believed was the ignorance of the average artist.  Similarly, his student, Aristotle, completely disagreed on a lot of Plato’s philosophy and art in particular.  However, that topic could fill its own blogpost so we’ll only discuss the very basics of Plato’s philosophy here.

Now that the two theories on art have been discussed, one may be wondering which thought process makes better art.  The truth is, that question is completely subjective.  Both philosophies have strengths and weaknesses, so either could be useful depending on what story the writer wants to tell or how they want to tell it.  Really, as long as it fits the narrative and adds to the story, either can be a worthwhile approach.

For me personally, though, I tend to lean more towards the idealized.  When built on man’s struggles, art can show us what we can become, what we must overcome, and gives us the inspiration to persevere.  It’s why characters like Superman, Luke Skywalker, and Atticus Finch are so impactful in fiction.  They give us something to aspire towards, and if it’s feasible then that goal can be reached.

Regardless, it’s a debate the artist should have with themselves when they seek to make art.  What do you believe is the right approach?  Well, you’ll only know if you start making your own art.  Well, go right ahead and try.  Your art won’t exist if you don’t make it.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Though increasingly irrelevant as these phrases get replaced with the even harder to define phrases “right and left,” traditionally the phrase “conservatism” and “liberalism” has come to define the philosophical divide in American politics.  The oversimplification was that conservatives wanted smaller government in economic issues with increased involvement in so-called “social issues” and support for military action overseas while liberals want the opposite.  However, these aren’t beliefs so much as policy statements as they hardly explain why either group supposedly wants what they claim they want at any given moment.

Policy alone isn’t a particularly good justification for defining an ideology or philosophy.  After all, if you scour the internet, you can find all sorts of articles written in favor of the “conservative” or “liberal” case for any policy position even if they contradict existing the absolute norm that makes those policies make sense.  Then you have conservative and liberal candidates supporting the same positions in different contexts, such as both the “liberal” Obama and “conservative” Bush causing wars once elected, the “conservative” Reagan and the “liberal” Michael Bloomberg both supporting gun control, the “conservative” William F. Buckley and the “liberal” Gore Vidal both supporting marijuana legalization, and Hillary Clinton who can’t keep a policy consistent for more than a week.  Then, of course, there are political ideologies that violate policy norms like Trump-style populism or in-fighting in those ideologies like classical vs. progressive liberalism.  So that begs the question, then, as to what separates them or what defines either ideology?

Well, after a lot of conversations with people in the political sphere and studying different ideologies, I came up with my own definition.  It’s hardly scientific, but I wanted to give how I tend to analyze these divides as I have found it to be the most consistent way to analyze different candidates or groups in politics.  So I’m sharing it here in the hope that it might help people when analyzing the political divide as it seems to be consistent across different groups or politicians.

Loosely defined, a conservative is someone who looks to the past for inspiration while a liberal is someone who believes that the world should be a certain way and that legislation should be used to make it so.  Conservatives traditionally believe in maintaining institutions as they exist or existed while preserving them to govern in the modern day (as that is where the term “conserve”-ative comes from).  Meanwhile, the liberal becomes interested in concepts about what the world should be and tries to build institutions or organizations that will reflect that idea and thus accomplish their goals for mankind.

To explain conservatives, most people grow up with existing institutions, be that religion, nations, corporations, non-profits, etc.  Conservatives seek to maintain those existing institutions and believe that keeping them alive is important for the benefit of society.  They realize that there is much wisdom in the past and that what came before still applies to today so they seek to use it when governing or creating new institutions.

There is much wisdom in this as most of what human beings have already experienced gives us insight into what tomorrow could look like, why utopian ideas fail, and what we can expect from our interactions with others or technology.  After all, most of modern philosophy is built on the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Christ has already risen from the dead, and the American Revolution has already happened so it seems unnecessary to reinvent any of these for the modern day when we can just maintain their impact.  Also, the past serves as inspiration for future ideas as well, as Walt Disney in part built Disneyland based on experiences from his childhood, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien both wrote their own work based on their love of fairytales, and much of the American Capitol building’s architecture is done in a Greco-Roman style.  It’s fair to say that there is much that has been done or can be learned from history, so there is an obvious appeal to using what has come before to serve as a guiding light for tomorrow.

The two biggest drawbacks of that though both involve an inability to advance.  The first is reactionarism.  At times, what we know can be deemed incredibly safe so we refuse to make adjustments as the world changes around us.  This can be an inability to embrace new technology, refusal to acknowledge that people today aren’t as interested in what came before as they used to be, or inability to make peace with the fact that the institution we used to love is no longer run by the same people so it’s not going to behave like it used to today.

The world is always changing and people come and go.  There is much we can learn from the past that can help us understand humanity, but simply repeating what was popular in yesteryear isn’t the same as maintaining it or using it in the modern day.  It’s why a lot of people can grow out of touch and simply fail to adapt as opposed to facing the current reality.

Which brings us to the second problem: some conservatives merely don’t want to change when the world around them is changing.  It’s more just a matter of going with the flow or accepting what already exists as though any new or abnormal idea will fail just because it’s unfamiliar.  99 times out of 100, that’s usually correct, but that’s really more cynicism if not built on something objective or inherent.  In short, when the institutions rot, there’s not much left for them to “conserve” and they find themselves at odds with modernity.

On the other end of the spectrum is the liberal.  One may be tempted to call them “futurists” since they bill themselves as the opposite of conservatives who are the guardians of the past.  However, the future doesn’t exist whereas the past did so it’s impossible to “conserve” a future.

Instead liberals turn to the origin of what they want the future to be: an image in their heads.  Be it philosophical, such as the writings of an ideologue, moral, such as a belief in justice, or seeing a problem in the world and hope to address it, such as eradicating poverty.  Plenty of conservatives may want similar ends as well, but the methodology is entirely different.  Whereas the conservative seeks to maintain, the liberal seeks to create or change to reflect a vision of what they believe could be at some point.

So their biggest weakness is Utopianism.  Because what they want may only be based on how they feel the world should be, it can be based on imagination purely.  This is great for art, but terrible for policy and social reform.

Not being based on anything but an idea, what people want may not actually be good for them and may not be based in reality.  As the Catholic Church notes, man is born corrupted due to the nature of original sin and, even after baptism, our desires are still disordered.  For that reason, without humility and objective reality, ideas and ideologies lead to ruin.

This is why, more controversially, the far-right tends to reflect the far-left more than it does actual conservatism (hear me out).  Most of the alleged end results for certain groups in the far right are based on ideas they haven’t experienced enacted.  After all, America was never an ethnostate run by a single leader, it was never a workers’ paradise, it usually only has an unregulated market before the government steps in, and most of the people who idolize the past these days didn’t grow up during it.  So, it’s fair to say that their ideology is just as utopian or removed from reality and would need to be reenacted through force.  It isn’t too surprising, then, that the far-left and far-right usually have the same beliefs on issues like abortion, race, and economics.

Which is also why many liberals become conservatives over time as well.  It’s not that people drop their views on humanity and suddenly adopt a desire to change their economic platform (though that can happen).  It’s more that either they’ll eventually take over the existing order and seek to maintain what they created, or simply age out so that their ideas are no longer popular like any trend and thus be treated like they’re a product of a previous generation.  Either way, most things become conservative eventually because most things age.

Though hardly scientific, this tends to be my understanding of what separates the “conservatives” and the “liberals.”  Across different ideologies or institutions, that, more than policy, seems to separate the two philosophies.  So when analyzing what perspective someone is coming from, remember to ask if they’re trying to preserve something, or create something new.

For those wondering my views, if they couldn’t tell from previous blogposts, I’m happy to respond that I’m a