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.
