How to Change Politics

Have you ever seen a politician you don't like roasting a politician you do like? Here's a hint: it isn't for you, it's for their supporters. This spectacle doesn't just entertain us; it's a sign of how entrenched and stagnant political ideas can become. Politicians often engage in this public sparring not to win over the opposition's voters but to energize and solidify their own base.

This brings us to an interesting theory about how political ideas and policies evolve, not through direct confrontation but through a cyclical, almost game-like interaction. Much like in rock, paper, scissors, where each element can defeat one but is vulnerable to another, political change follows a pattern where each segment of society influences the next in a continuous loop. I want to take a few minutes to explore this dynamic, suggesting that changing politics isn't about one group convincing another but about understanding and leveraging this cycle of influence.

Primary Directive

The primary and most crucial rule in this political game is that Republicans can't change Democrats, and Democrats can't change Republicans. This isn't just about disagreement; it's about the deep-seated loyalty to one's political party that creates an almost impenetrable barrier to accepting ideas from the other side. When people who self-identify as a certain political party hear their political adversaries speak, they don't listen with open minds but through a filter of skepticism and doubt. This isn't just stubbornness; it's a fundamental aspect of political identity where ideas from "the other side" are often dismissed out of hand.

However, there's a notable exception to this rule, and it's one that can shake the very foundations of a party's confidence. This occurs on election day when one party is not just defeated but soundly beaten across multiple contests. Such a significant loss can lead to what might be described as a moral drop within the party. When the defeat is visible and widespread, it can force party members to question their strategies, ideologies, or even leadership. This introspection can lead to a reevaluation of policies or a shift in focus, aiming to reconnect with voters or to understand where they went wrong.

For example, look back to the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election when Barack Obama secured a decisive victory over John McCain. This wasn't just any win; it was a sweeping one that included taking states typically considered Republican strongholds. This significant defeat for the Republicans led to a period of soul-searching within the party, questioning their approach to key issues like healthcare and immigration, eventually influencing the rise of the Tea Party movement as a response to this perceived liberal shift. It was a moment where the sheer scale of defeat forced the party to reconsider its direction, illustrating how devastating election losses can sometimes be the catalyst for change within a party that's otherwise resistant to external influence.

It's important to note that this dynamic largely applies to staunch party affiliates. Truly independent voters, those not bound by party loyalty, often navigate outside this cycle. For them, the defeat of one party doesn't automatically mean a change in their voting behavior or beliefs; they might see it as an opportunity to push for change or support candidates from either side based on issues rather than party lines. Even for partisans, while a significant defeat presents an opportunity for change, it doesn't guarantee it will happen. The key is that the door for potential transformation is opened, not that it must be walked through.

First Premise: Voters Influence Activists

Voters hold a surprising amount of sway over activists. When the public speaks through polls or at the ballot box, activists pay attention. If voter sentiment indicates that a particular issue isn't catching on, activists might rethink their approach. They could choose to ignore the public's disinterest, hoping to eventually sway opinion, or they might pivot their advocacy to better align with what voters seem to want. Sometimes, this even means activists might slightly misrepresent their positions to appear more in line with public sentiment.

This can also take form many different ways. From public polls, participation in activist activities, donations, even boycotts. But no matter what this stays within the confines of the party, and any activism across party lines usually doesn’t actually move anything.

Take, for example, the shift in advocacy around same-sex marriage in the U.S. As public polls began reflecting a growing acceptance of marriage equality, activists changed their tactics. They focused on personal narratives and legal challenges that resonated with the broader public, influencing both policy and public opinion significantly.

Second Premise: Activists Influence Politicians

Activists don't just influence public opinion; they directly impact political decisions. Through protests, funding, or organized campaigns, activists can make their presence felt in the halls of power. When activists gather enough support or funding, or when they make headlines with their protests, politicians take notice.

The impact here is clear: without the backing of activists, politicians might find their campaign funds drying up or their policy proposals lacking public support. On the flip side, when activism ramps up, politicians might move issues up their priority list, seeing the potential for votes or funding. A classic case is the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Activists, through relentless advocacy and direct action, influenced the passage of landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, showing how activism can lead to policy changes. Even just a few years before hand this had no real chance of happening.

Third Premise: Politicians Influence Voters

Politicians, in turn, shape the views of voters. When they implement policies successfully, they can reinforce their voter base, showing they're capable of making good on their promises and the ideal they support works. But if they fail, they risk losing support, as voters can be unforgiving of incompetence or broken ideas - especially in the short term.

Politicians educate voters through various platforms, from speeches to policy white papers, but this education can sometimes veer into manipulation. They might highlight certain facts while downplaying others, influencing how voters perceive their actions and policies. Even sometimes when a voter doesn’t have any particular thoughts on a policy specifically a negative or positive action from a politician can persuade this voter to take a stance.

In this cycle, each group - voters, activists, and politicians - plays a pivotal role in shaping and reshaping the political landscape, demonstrating that change in politics is not a one-way street but a complex interplay of influence and reaction.

Political change, much like the game of rock, paper, scissors, operates in a cycle where each group influences the next. Republicans and Democrats struggle to change each other directly, but a significant electoral defeat can lead to introspection within a party. Voters influence activists by expressing their preferences, forcing activists to adapt their strategies. Activists, in turn, can sway politicians through their power to mobilize support or disrupt public order. Finally, politicians shape voter opinions through their successes and failures, affecting how the public views their governance.

This model suggests that for political change to occur, it's not about one group convincing another of their viewpoint but understanding how to leverage this cycle. Politicians might exploit this by focusing on policies that energize their voter base or by adapting to activist pressures when it suits their political survival. However, this understanding can also be used for better governance if we aim to mitigate the cycle's more negative aspects. By recognizing these dynamics, we can push for policies that are genuinely reflective of public needs rather than just political survival or activism for activism's sake.

Yet, sometimes this feedback loop breaks down because people mistakenly assume that where they receive feedback is also where they should provide feedback to effect change. This misdirection can stagnate political evolution. Voters might direct their energy towards politicians when they should be influencing activists, or activists might pressure politicians without considering the public's pulse. This misalignment can lead to a disconnect between public desire and political action.

Ultimately if us as voters want to change the way politicians behave we have to make sure that the activist, which includes major doners, PAC’s, marches and protest, along with many other groups clearly see the distaste for the voters and show a need for a change in their direction. This ultimately will be what persuades almost all politicians to change their policy behaviors. So quit listening to the opposition for their opinions, it doesn’t work. Quit trying to plead to them, or talk about the opposition - it just creates opportunities for others. Instead focus on the feedback loop elements you can push for.