“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”   Albert Einstein

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein

Our Nation faces serious challenges. 

On June 16, 2011, Psychology Today carried an article titled “Don’t Blame the Politicians: Why voters lie to themselves.”  In the article Dr. Loretta Graziano Breuning states:

It’s natural to like people who smile on your dreams.  Politicians win our affection [and their elections] by encouraging our dreams.  Politicians want to please us, and we want them to please us.  Democracy means being told what you want to hear.* 

However, she goes on to point out, “If voters expect politicians to fulfill all their wishes, they are asking to be lied to.”

Dr. Breuning explains that politicians “are as flawed as the rest of us.”  Consequently, we shouldn’t blame them for our Nation’s problems because “they’re just representing their constituencies.”  We want them to tell us they can solve the problems so they oblige.

When was the last time a politician was honest and told us, “Trade-offs are part of life.  A choice that brings more of X leaves less of Y.”  Why don’t they tell us?  Because we really don’t want to hear it ourselves.  Telling us such things would create political risk, which is unacceptable when your greatest imperative is winning that next election.

That is not to say politicians are totally without blame: “Of course we need to watch politicians to make sure we don’t get swindled.  Power does corrupt.”

Then Dr. Breuning offers this caution:

… if you’re just sifting for details that fit your malicious preconceptions [confirmation bias], you’re not open to the truth.  Hostile watchdogs are not good guides to public policy.  They’re against everything except their pet panacea….      

If we cannot solve our problems using the same thinking we used when we created them, what will lead us to solutions?  As Dr. Bruening points out, “The onus is on us to have reasonable expectations.”

*Breuning, Loretta Graziano.  “Don’t Blame the Politicians: Why voters lie to themselves.”  June 16, 2011.  PsychologyToday.com  Retrieved from:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201106/read-my-lips-politispeak/don-t-blame-the-politicians     

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”  Albert Einstein

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein

Our Nation faces serious challenges. 

On May 9, 2013, Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, wrote a memorandum titled, “America…Still Looking For Change That It Can Believe In.”  Sosnik states, “…as our difficulties have grown, our leaders and public institutions have proven ill-equipped to face the challenges in front of us.”*

“The Mood Of The Country: More Anxiety Than Hope” is one of the section headings of the memo.  In it Sosnik quotes President Obama: “…all too often the institutions that give structure to our society have, at times, betrayed your trust….”  Here is the President of the United States acknowledging that our trust has been violated…the President of the United States!  Is not the office of the Presidency one of the institutions that has betrayed our trust?  Couldn’t the same be said of Congress?  Sosnik goes on to emphasize: “The betrayal of the public’s trust has contaminated the country’s mood and is the dominant influence behind the current attitudes toward elected officials and institutions in our country.” 

Where might we go from here?  As Sosnik points out, “If the current group of politicians fails to act, we are likely headed for our fourth change election in the past eight years.”  In America We Have A Problem I wrote:

"Ahhhh, don’t we just love our two-party system!  The Democratic Party and the Republican Party provide such a lovely balance in our country and work so hard for “the American people.”  I am so glad that when the ruling party is failing us we can vote and bring the other party to power to rule over us.  Then if we become dissatisfied we can return the other party to power.  Then if we become dissatisfied we can return the other party to power…and so forth and so on".

So, we “are likely headed for another change election?”   How has that been working out for us?  Why should we think a fourth change election will result in credible change when the previous three have failed? 

However, there is hope!  Sosnik explains: “This absence of leadership has created a huge opportunity for someone who is currently outside the political process, as well as a third party to fill this vacuum in 2016, particularly if Hillary Clinton does not run.”  Here Sosnik, who POLITICO characterized as “one of the Democrats’ most veteran strategists,” is saying there is an opening for an independent or third party candidate to win the Presidency in 2016. 

Where should we go from here?  Will we finally break the cycle of insanity, vote differently, and achieve a different result?  We must, but will we?

* Sosnik, Doug.  “America…Still Looking For Change That It Can Believe In”  May 9, 2013.  Retrived from:

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/09/sosnik_memo_59_final.html

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”   Albert Einstein

Our Nation faces serious challenges. 

Yesterday I explained why we cannot expect those we elect to change their thinking, and their subsequent behaviors, to find long-term solutions to our Nation’s problems.  After all, their greatest concern is the imperative need to win their next election.

I also quoted Charley Reese, “When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people [536 of whom we elect] exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.” 

Things are as they are because of our elected representatives.  You might contend that the nine unelected Supreme Court Justices have a say, and you would be right.  However, they have that say only after laws are passed and the Constitutionality of a given law is challenged.  

Einstein also stated, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  That comment is also applicable to politics and is directly related to his quote about thinking and problem solving.  But, who does the quote apply to and how does its application affect finding solutions to our Nation’s problems? 

Every two years all 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senators must win their respective elections to remain in office.  Every four years we elect a President who is either an incumbent seeking re-election, or someone new seeking the office.

The “insanity” quote relates to voters.  We expect our representatives to do the hard work to find solutions to our Nation’s problems.  However, our voting behaviors help to maintain the political status quo.  Consequently, we overwhelmingly re-elect the same people who use the thinking, and subsequently display behaviors, discussed previously. 

Will the Nation’s problems be solved?  NO!

If we truly “expect different results” as voters, we cannot continue to use the same thinking we have used when we have voted in the past.   If we do so, we will continue to elect the very people that have created our Nation’s problems and who, as has been explained, are really incapable of finding solutions for those problems.

Since the Nation’s problems are ultimately our problems, the quote, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them,” also applies to us.     

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”  Albert Einstein

Einstein was a scientist, but his comment is applicable to politics. 

Our Nation faces serious problems. 

Who created those problems?  In 1984, Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel wrote:

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of 238 million [300+ million today] – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.  When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.”

We elect 536 of those individuals: 100 Senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives and the President.  What are those individuals most concerned about?  Their greatest imperative is winning their next election.  How does that affect their thinking and subsequent behaviors?  To win they must perform the political calculus to determine which course of action will pacify the greatest number of voters in their respective constituencies.  The result is the governing process is sacrificed on the altar of politics and political expedience.  That is the thinking they used when they created the problems.      

We must rely on the same 536 individuals to find solutions to the very problems they created in the first place.  Has the imperative need to win their next elections changed?  No.  Will those individuals change their thinking, and their subsequent behaviors, to find solutions to our Nation’s problems?  No.

Will the Nation’s problems be solved?  NO!

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

 

 

America We Have A Problem

I am happy to report that my book, America We Have A Problem: What's Really Wrong With Our Government And What You And I Must Do About It, has been published and is available at Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle versions.  The book is the result of a 10+ year self-study of our Nation's political process. 

A friend of mine, Raymond Farrar, said, "When you change the way you look at a thing, the thing you look at changes."  My intent in writing the book is to help people change the way they see the political process.  My hope is that when they change the way they see it, they will recognize it for what it really is: the means by which career politicians pursue their own self-serving interests at the expense of finding long-term solutions to our Nation's problems.  Most importantly, I offer suggestions on how we can achieve credible change.  Here's a hint: Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." 

You can preview the book on Amazon.com using the "Look Inside" feature.  On the Amazon.com homepage complete a search by clicking on the drop down menu and select "Books."  Type in America We Have A Problem, and hit enter.

If you decide to purchase my book, I thank you very much.

On Thursday, 16 August 2012, CNN.com carried an opinion piece titled, "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?"  It was written by a former Congressman, Mickey Edwards.  He served in Congress for 16 years then lost his bid for re-election because of redistricting: "In most states, candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives run in districts shaped by partisan leaders for party advantage, regardless of the effect on the rights of the people to be represented by somebody familiar with their concerns and interests."  He goes on to explain, "That's how I, a city dweller with no rural experience, found myself representing farmers, ranchers and small town merchants...."  How did it happen?  "...a legislature dominated by a different party redrew my district...to strengthen their party...."

Here is a former Congressman who was effectively forced out merely for the partisan advantage of one party.  Just a side note, I find it interesting that he, and those retiring from Congress, somehow find the ethical fortitude to help us really understand the self-serving nature of our political process, especially since they have nothing at stake and will no longer personally benefit from a system they operated in and supported.

Edwards provides insights on how the cultural aspects of the partisan divide are reinforced in Congress: "Just as Republicans must drink their coffee, read their newspapers and slurp their soup in a room off the House floor, and Democrats do their reading, drinking and eating in a different room, members of the two parties must speak from different places using different microphones positioned as an extension of their own side of the partisan divide."  Earlier in his comments he described that there are separate podiums on the House floor facing the Democratic or Republican sides of the chamber from which D and R members speak respectively.

Edwards laments: "It surprises me still to hear people express amazement at the hyper-partisan nature of Congress and its resulting inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems.  In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem." 

He goes on to emphasize how our political culture contributes to Congress' "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems:"  "But it's not an accident.  It's a direct result of the systems we've created to choose those representatives and the way Congress itself has been allowed to develop not as a single body of Americans but as a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle."  Notice he says "the systems we've created," and what has "been allowed to develop."  Whose at fault?  Basically all the stakeholders in the political process because we all help to maintain the political status quo.  Consequently, Congress has become "a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle."

What do they do battle over?  They battle to be the majority party in Congress.  And, why do they engage in battles to be the majority party?  As Edwards points out, power.  The majority party in Congress is the party in power.  The leadership of the majority party holds the reins of that power.  Consequently, the partisan interests of the parties and the self-serving interests of the parties' leadership supersede the need to "deal collectively with the nation's problems."  And what is the result?  As Edwards pointed out, "In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."

To achieve credible change you and I must shake up the political status quo.  You and I must change our patterns of thinking and behaving and stop being unwitting accomplices in the battles Edwards describes.  If Congress suffers from an "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems," then you and I must change Congress.  The Constitution provides the solution, frequent elections.  You and I must force rotation in office through the elective process.  It is counter to the interests of the parties or their leadership to affective change themselves, so you and I must.   

For the complete article please refer to:
Edwards, Mickey (2012).  "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?"  CNN.com Thursday, 16, 2012.  Retrieved from:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/opinion/edwards-congress-partisans/index.html?hpt=op_r1

"This time, Waxman's giving campaign his all" is the title of a Politico.com article about a threat to the incumbency of Henry Waxman (D-CA).  The back story is that Waxman is the Ranking Member (Senior Democrat) on the "powerful" Energy and Commerce Committee.  He was elected to Congress in 1974 (that's 38 years ago) and has "never received less than 61 percent of the vote" in his subsequent elections.  Clearly Waxman is a firmly entrenched incumbent that has been untouchable for the past 38 years - that is 19 election cycles.  However, this year is different.

As a result of the 2010 Census, Waxman's district has been redrawn (CA lost seats from its 50+ seat House delegation.)  The take away from this article is not the fact that Waxman actually has to run a campaign this election cycle, but rather how entrenched incumbents act as if their seats belong to them so they can fulfill their own self-serving interests. 

Waxman is quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, I haven't had to run a serious campaign in quite a long time."  He goes on to say, "In past elections, I spent next to nothing,"  What did he do with the campaign cash he raised?  "Through the years, Waxman has used his deep well of campaign cash almost exclusively to aid fellow Democrats."  Why does he help fellow Democrats?  He wants to resume his role as Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.  The chairman is the most powerful person on the committee: the Ranking Member plays second fiddle.  Waxman knows that his ability to be Chairman is tied directly to his party's winning the majority of seats in the House.  Consequently, he wants to support his fellow Democrats.

What were the results of the re-districting?  It:

 "created a quandary for Waxman who must run for a seat in a district that is nearly 50 percent new to him.  His Westside Los Angeles seat was reshaped to include a swath of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a moderate-to-conservative area where Waxman's brand of bare-knuckled liberal politics isn't in fashion."  The botton line: he didn't have to pay any real attention to his constituents until now.  He was free to pursue his self-serving interests without any real accountability or consequences.    

Perhaps most telling was Waxman's comment about the re-districting, "There was no regard for incumbents."  Clearly he feels a sense of entitlement because of his incumbency and that he should have been put in a "safe" district where he could continue his long career in "public service" with no opposition.

Why do entrenched incumbents act the way they do?  Look in the mirror.  Remember, Waxman "never received less than 61 percent of the vote." 

Isenstadt, Alex.  "This time, Waxman's giving campaigning his all."  July 18,2012.  Political.com
The article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78697.html