In our so-called “age of populism,” political commentators and many voters have come to treat politics as a contest driven more by emotions than reason. Human beings are tribal creatures, susceptible to anger, jealousy, fear, and self-interest. Yet rather than viewing these tendencies as obstacles to rational debate that should be overcome, we increasingly consider them as unavoidable features of politics and even as political strengths to be harnessed for power.
Partisan politics, in this view, merely reflects who we are as a people.
The manifestation of this theory of politics is that one partisan tribe thinks the other is full of corrupt, lying fascists who want to undermine the democratic foundations of America, while the second views its opponents as radical, secular socialists out to destroy capitalism, religion, and personal freedom.
The only thing uniting both teams is that neither tribe thinks the other has any valid reasons for supporting the policies and values it promotes. Their motivations are venal and self-serving. There’s no point to negotiating in good faith with opponents; they need to be conquered and shown the errors of their ways.
Once you’ve convinced yourself that politics is about emotional release, not rational deliberation on the best course forward for everyone, anything goes. “We deserve the power we have and should use it to do what we want and punish the other side at all times.”
If this sounds hyperbolic and stupid—it is.
But that’s where we are since the people who control the government and the media have turned politics into a game of emotional manipulation where people’s core fears and concerns—many grounded in rational worries about the economy or social disorder—are harnessed into partisan power and financial gain for themselves. Democracy has become a blood sport in the electoral and media arena, rather than a process of reasoned debate conducted with integrity and concern for the wider republic.
This is where independents can step in to help correct matters. Americans who do not identify with either partisan tribe have an opportunity to approach politics without the same pressure to conform to a party’s emotional expectations. Independence doesn’t make anyone more reasonable, but it does create more room to judge issues on their merits and not solely through the lens of partisan loyalty.
Independents aren’t free of emotions; they’re free to approach politics as something more than an emotional-fulfillment game.
When you stop thinking of politics as emotional catharsis, the door opens to creating a framework for public engagement and action based on reason—not anger, deception, and mutual hatred.
For example, many Americans today are clearly upset and worried about two big issues: (1) artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers, and (2) the absurd costs of health care.
On AI, the fears have come on rapidly given the fast-paced development of these technologies, while the government’s ability to respond is slow and cumbersome. But rather than turning these emotions into partisan blame for campaign ads or congressional investigations, maybe public officials and the technology companies could work together to better understand and address the nature of these public concerns—mainly fear of rogue AI attacks and potential job losses plus lots of potential noise, ugly buildings, and massive resource use in local communities.
On health care, past attempts to extend coverage to more people were well intended but insufficient. Health care costs remain exceedingly high, and the financial burdens of premiums and out-of-pocket costs are beyond the means of too many ordinary working Americans. Rather than perpetuating the outlandish claims that one side wants to let people die, while the other wants to send everyone to filthy government-run hospitals, elected leaders could work together to identify why health care costs keep rising, find ways to ease the immediate pressures on families, and develop longer-term solutions to the problems of a highly complicated health care system.
In both instances, AI and health care, Americans have eminently reasonable concerns about policies and the future. They deserve reasonable responses by public officials.
Since the commanding heights of both parties—leaders and activists—seem unable or unwilling to abandon emotional manipulation in favor of rational discussion about what to do to address these reasonable concerns, independents could step in and try to move things in a different direction.
In terms of AI, independents in politics and technology industries could create a basic three-part framework for action to meet public demands:
Establish credible safeguards against dangerous AI-enabled attacks;
Require data center developers and owners to compensate local communities for infrastructure and resource costs; and
Help workers displaced by AI transition into new employment.
On health care, independents in politics and the health care sector could work cooperatively on a few common objectives: more price transparency, reducing administrative waste and fraud, increasing competition, and developing affordable insurance options for people, perhaps including a new “public option.”
The trick for independents is to convince Republicans and Democrats that they don’t need to agree on specific policies at the outset of deliberations. They can begin by agreeing on common goals, such as making health care more affordable, reducing medical costs, and protecting Americans from concrete threats posed by AI. Both parties can also agree to tone it down on the emotional front and offer above-board rationales for the policy ideas they promote.
These may not be emotionally satisfying responses for partisans, but they could be the basis for more reasonable policymaking for everyone else.
From your pen to Washington’s ears.