America doesn’t need louder arguments; we need better ideas. But in an environment where public figures are pilloried for changing positions or deviating from approved party talking points, how exactly do we think we are going to find better ideas?

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” - George Bernard Shaw

If intense debate between two alternatives doesn’t result in a consensus the obvious conclusion should be that neither option adequately addresses the problem. So if we aren’t happy with the path we are on, we’d best start by examining the dysfunctional dynamics of our political debate that discourage examination of fresh alternatives.

ADVERTISEMENT

Political debate in America is conducted like a judicial litigation: complex issues are argued as binary choices in which advocates produce competing and contradictory sets of facts, intent on swaying opinions, not resolving differences or illuminating alternatives. We turn every issue into an either/or choice formulated upon political ideology. We then aggressively argue over the divergent perspectives; with participants emphasizing the moral superiority of whichever view they happen to espouse. We hardly ever treat our opponents’ views or concerns with respect. We hardly ever genuinely seek illumination or insight. But complex challenges are almost never binary in nature and truly intransigent problems cannot be solved by simply turning up the volume on existing arguments.

Consider the challenge presented by tax reform. Conservatives insist tax policies must give preferential treatment to investments in order to stimulate economic growth; convinced that unregulated Darwinian Market Triumphalism is the only path worth following. Progressives look in dismay at the increasing inequality of our society’s wealth and income and conclude it can only be ameliorated by redistributing the blessings through government intervention. The bulk of the American people live in an ideological middle ground. They believe in the Great American Dream, that hard work and a level playing field are the keys to Equal Opportunity, thus they are instinctively distrustful of redistributional arguments. But they too see the increasing evidence that our American Dream is more illusion than reality.

The key to better policies lies in reconciling the disparate facts and principles that lie on both sides of our current impasse; it requires a process more akin to the scientific method than judicial litigation – a willingness to challenge one’s own assumptions as well as one’s competitors’. If Progressives showed more respect for the American public’s affinity for equal treatment, they might begin to perceive why overtly redistributional arguments gain so little traction with the public. If Conservatives stopped ignoring inconvenient facts, they might begin to recognize that America’s current tax policies are in deep conflict with their own strongly held principles and have made tax avoidance and valuation manipulation far more profitable than productive enterprise, thereby obstructing job creation. In both cases a bit of such self-awareness should guide them to examine alternative policy options. Unfortunately, the leaders in this debate are so consumed by their partisan power struggle, aiming incendiary arguments at their respective fringes, that they have become blind to fresh insights or the concerns of the center.

Moderate voices aimed at Washington consistently call for compromise. But compromise is the wrong goal. Compromise is an exercise in political power: an adversarial negotiation between competing interests seeking to get as much as they can of what they want while giving away as little as possible to the “opposition.” What we need in Washington is open-minded cooperation. We need to stop thinking of government as a political competition and recognize that it is an important shared societal responsibility. We need to acknowledge and discard the distorted facts, wishful thinking and combative obstructionism which currently dominate the debate.

The strength of a functioning democracy lies in the cooperative effort of diverse representatives. It requires a willingness to listen and learn from the loyal opposition. It requires us to examine the principles and priorities of dissenting fellow citizens with respect and empathy. Only by doing so can we break the logjam of dysfunction that has brought public opinion of our lawmakers in Washington to its current historic and depressing lows.

So long as we remain fixated upon irreconcilable dogma, and dismissive of opposing perspectives, we remain blind to better ideas. Complex challenges are not binary in nature. We need to stop pretending they are. We need to invite, not suppress, debate that challenges the partisan divide.

Hopkins is the founder and president of Kestrel Consulting LLC, a crisis management and turnaround consulting firm. He is the author of A Citizen’s 2% Solution: How to Repeal Investment Income Taxes, Avoid a Value-Added Tax, and Still Balance the Budget.