The U.S. Government Would Work Better If There Were No Politicians

Listen to the blog narration

No time to read? Click on the headset to listen to our CEO narrate this blog.

Growing up Conservative Baptist I remember taking a moral stance in arguments where I would argue for an absolute truth about a subject matter that often I knew very little about and did not take the time to learn any other points of view about that matter. My arguments stemmed from what I believed to be true based on what I was told. So that often instead of arguing with research to back up my stance it was ideologies preached from the pulpit.

There are no absolute truths, there are only perspectives

Now that I am older and have gained a lot more perspective lenses from which I can view the world from, it has made it harder to take an absolute stance on anything. I recognize that I can argue for a case and be on either side of the argument (for or against) depending on the perspective from which I approach the argument. If I look at the matter from a law enforcement or punishment/deterrent point of view, I can present a convincing argument in support to that subject matter that will fit within the confines of that particular point of view and what it has determined to be true. If I then take that subject matter and present from a financial position, then I can suddenly find myself in opposition of the subject that fits within the confines of that particular point of view and what it believes to be true. So in that sense, I would have two arguments that are for and against the same subject matter and both are determined to be true by the points of view from the perspectives they came from. How can there be an absolute truth established when both are true to itself? 

The problem with political party ideologies

An absolute truth stance is the problem that I have with politicians who are more likely to approach the issue at hand from a position of their party’s ideologies rather than the region, district, state, etc from which they are supposed to represent. With so many different points of views and people with their own truths that are true within the structure of that person’s life and environment, how can any politician stand on absolute truth of a political party and still uphold the responsibility of their job to be representative of the area that trusted him/her with their vote of confidence?

Popularity contests of politicans

I get incredibly annoyed when issues are treated like a high school election often showcased in teen movies where slogans of “free ice cream every day for the entire school body’ is used to win the popular vote, without even taking into consideration the expense that bribe will cost to the school and ultimately to the students’ in loss services or benefits that make up the cost. 

If legislators could get away from this politician mindset of the need to win elections and appease their party as a whole, they would be free to have conversations about issues where their feedback is presented and insight is gained through feedback from another point of view or perspective lens is added to the issue at hand. With this atmosphere of cooperation, communication, and compromise we would see our laws advance to reflect the current social morals and traditions of today’s society instead of slight alterations to old ideas that no longer fit because technology has changed our entire view of the world where we live.

An example of the adverse consequence of seeking popularity to the legislating process

Our current employment laws are based on the European Master-Slave laws that favor the master with all authority over the slave. It sets up this idea that the employee is not an important component in the work being done except as a body with hands and feet to do the work. However, when you look at a workforce structure today, without the contributions and investments of the employee’s skills, knowledge, and time, the company would not be able to exist. One person, no matter how good they may be, cannot fulfill all roles of a company without dropping the ball on a lot of important things that need to happen for the company to be operating at full efficiency and progression forward. The Master-Slave law is an injustice to the employee because it does not see the employee as having worth. In 2018, this mindset has to change. However, when politicians are focused on winning and using their public appearance to look good to the public then learning how life is for people in their area, then laws that still have a European attitude of the 1700s will not change to reflect modern beliefs but are only slightly altered still giving the employer the god-like position of infallibility over the employee. 

Replacing politicans with legislators

For cooperation, communication, and compromise to happen it takes an understanding that humans are emotional creatures who make decisions based on what we feel. That we cannot ignore the emotions or try to put down emotions as a derogatory thing when it is an essential part of being a human. When legislators recognize that humans are emotional they realize that people will take stances about things that they believe to be absolutely true from a passionate platform. By acknowledging this passion is natural for a human, they will be more likely to use their public appearances to gain as much feedback from the population they are responsible to represent and would not discourage or dis anyone for speaking in hurt or anger. They would recognize this anger is the result of something that is not working in that area and they would seek to gain more feedback that explains why this anger and hurt is there. They would then bring this feedback to the rest of the group when they assemble and discuss ways to make policies that address these issues so that the needs of the population is better served. This cannot happen as long as the discussions are used to one-up the other politician in order to rile the masses to vote against that politician. 

For this reason, our U.S. government would work better if there were no politicians who represented the absolute truths of their party and we had legislators who represented their populations instead.