A Healthy Exchange of Ideas 11.6.20

Earlier on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3rd, Lizzy and I were driving back to the lake house after a full day of working at Poor Creek Farm. Our oldest son, who lives in Boston, calls us on our cell phone to check in. After chatting for a few minutes, he asks, “Who did you vote for?” We laugh at the question because he already knew the answer. Elizabeth and I were among the Americans who had voted early. Davis, on the other hand, was going to vote later that day because he wanted to cast his vote on the actual Election Day because it felt more participatory.

I can proudly say that our entire family cast votes on this election, and I hope that everyone who reads this post cast their own ballots. We are so fortunate to live in a democratic society where every vote does matter. No matter who you vote for, every American should exercise his or her right to vote. 

Later that evening, as the presidential election unfolded, it was obvious that this election was going be very close. Even Virginia, our home state, which has voted democrat for the past four presidential elections, seemed to be a tight race. Our middle son Jack, who was spending the night with us, along with his wife Olivia, summed it up nicely when he said, “This is great! We get to participate in a wonderful and meaningful event every four years!”

Earlier in the evening over dinner, Lizzy and I had a very spirited discussion with our family on the election and politics in general.  One thing you can count on with the Franklins is a spirited discussion, sometimes for the sake of playing devil’s advocate. After that discussion, I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of Americans want the same thing. We all want fairness, justice, and equality. And when I say the vast majority of Americans, I know that, unfortunately, some people really do not want that. All you have to do is watch the recently released movie “The Chicago Seven” to know that some people crave wealth and power, or to maintain the status quo, and they will trample fairness and justice to obtain it and keep it.  So, for the vast majority of us, who do agree that justice and fairness, and ultimately, equality, are ideals to strive for, we will disagree on how to make those ideals a reality. This is nothing new. 

Even the heroes who put their lives at risk to start this great nation disagreed. And they disagreed on many things. In fact, prior to July of 1776, they could not even agree on whether they wanted independence from Great Britain. The first continental congress, which met in October of 1774, was spirited, to say the least. Because of the British government’s “coercive behavior,” delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies (Georgia declined to participate) met to create a common cause. You would have thought that would have been easy. It was not.  In fact, a plan was proposed to create a Union of Great Britain and the colonies but was rejected. The delegates eventually agreed on an economic boycott on British trade.

Early in 1775, shortly after the bloody battles of Lexington and Concord, the colonies formed a second continental congress, seven months after the first congress. This “congress” became the de facto acting government, but actually had no real authority to govern. To create the authority, Congress eventually passed the “articles of confederation” in November of 1777, but only after a year of heated debate. Even then, all thirteen colonies had to ratify the articles to make the document legitimate. This process, in some ways, was a disaster.  Due to geographic, religious, cultural and economic differences, the congressional delegates had a hard time agreeing. And even when they did reach a compromise, they had to go back to their respective colonies to convince their constituents, which was not always successful. For these reasons, the articles, which became our first constitution, did not achieve ratification from all thirteen colonies until February of 1881, when Maryland, the lone holdout, did so. And to get Maryland to ratify, Virginia had to agree to relinquish its claims on lands north of the Ohio River to Congress. So, it took over four years to get thirteen colonies to agree on a basic form of government – and many were not happy with it. And that is why we allow amendments to the constitution. Even James Madison, the brilliant mad scientist who wrote the constitution, envisioned it as a “living document”, realizing that our constitution would need to be revised to address unforeseen circumstances and issues in the future.

Having read recent biographies on Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Hamilton, I find the early years of our republic truly fascinating. Differences in the “world views” of many of these leaders would eventually lead to our two-party system, with Washington, Adams and Hamilton favoring a strong central or federal government, and Jefferson, Madison and Monroe favoring a weak federal government. And those basic differences in world views continue to influence our two parties to this day.

Even those who were on the same side of this argument had different reasons.  Adams wanted a strong central government because he feared that if the states had too much power, our young republic would fall apart because of regional differences. He also wanted a strong central government and constitution to protect us from ourselves.  Hamilton, on the other hand, wanted a strong central government so that capitalism could thrive.  He realized that without a central banking system, the United States, especially as a young country, would not be able to compete economically with other world powers.  And he believed that a strong central banking system would allow the United States to obtain the credit it needed to become a strong and healthy nation.

Since then, the two-party system has served our country fairly well. Yes, there have been serious threats to the two-party system, most notably during the 1912 presidential election when Teddy Roosevelt, after grooming Taft to succeed him in the 1908 election, grew frustrated with Taft’s brand of conservatism, and belatedly tried to win the 1912 Republican nomination for president. He failed and founded a third party, the “Bull Moose” party, which called for wide-ranging “progressive reforms.” He ran in the 1912 election and by splitting the Republican vote, allowed the democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson to win the election. However, Roosevelt and his new party did get everyone’s attention. Wilson did enact many of the reforms that Teddy Roosevelt wanted, including helping to pass legislation to regulate and break up large monopolies.  Wilson also implemented a federal income tax, which he eventually raised to 77 percent, and implemented a federal estate tax.

Since then, there has not been a serious threat to the two-party system. And although research consistently shows that the majority of Americans are moderates and centrists, our current two-party system does not seem to represent the majority of Americans, despite the recent rhetoric on both sides of the aisle.  The truth is that those Americans in the middle no longer have a party they can truly identify with.  So, if you happen to believe that our two political parties have been highjacked by progressive elitists at one end and dogmatic conservatives at the other end, you may think a third party is a good thing. In addition, if you happen to believe that both parties are overly influenced by special interest groups and corporations, you might think that a third party is a good thing.  So, is it time for a third party?  

We have Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to thank for our two-party system. Although both were flawed humans like the rest of us, they were brilliant thinkers and strategists. Although very collaborative early in their political careers, they became bitter rivals while Washington was president. One distrusted a strong central government and one distrusted strong state’s rights, but they loved their fellow countryman as much as their country and we muddled through. I am not so sure we can muddle through anymore. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, “The American experiment in self-government can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”

Are we at a point where our government is despotic? Well, we are getting close. Because the political parties themselves know they have been hijacked, they point to the most extreme views of the enemy party as evidence that the opposing party does not represent the “average American.” So, each party uses fear to divide us as a people. Both parties do this by dehumanizing the opposition and their supporters and voters. And, as a result, it is becoming much more difficult to have a “thoughtful exchange of ideas.” The internet and social media compounds the problem because the algorithms used by those companies only affirm people’s world views, making those people, yes, I said it, “those people,” who happen to be on both sides of the political divide, even more intransigent.

Here is an example. I heard from someone recently who told me the following story about a trust fund adult. This adult is 50 years old and has never had to work to earn a living and has a comfortable lifestyle. The following statements were made by this person. “The wealthy do all of the work and the poor do nothing. We pay all of the taxes so that the poor can just sit around and collect government checks. That’s one reason we have so many immigrants wanting to come into this country, so they can take advantage of the hardworking taxpayers.” And this comes from a supposedly well-educated person. 

Although I never thought it would happen, I moved back to the community where I grew up.  It is still a relatively poor county, but I do see hard-working people, both black and white, trying to make an honest living, and this includes recent immigrants. And when I was an investment banker, I saw people who held jobs that they were lucky to have, who did not have to work very hard, earn 10 times what the average person in my native county earned. And here is the kicker, they had the nerve to complain about it. So, I have seen both sides of the economic divide and I continue to see both sides. Therefore, when someone who is uninformed dehumanizes the other side, I sometimes become angry, and I become even more angry with our politicians who manipulate the press and social media, utilizing both as effective tools to dehumanize and manipulate their fellow Americans. 

As Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield points out, “You can count voters and votes. And political science does that a lot, and that’s very useful because votes are in fact countable. One counts for one. But if we get serious about what it means to vote, we immediately go to the notion of an informed voter. And if you get serious about that, you go all the way to voting as a wise choice. That would be a true voter. The others are all lesser voters, or even not voting at all. They’re just indicating a belief, or a whim, but not making a wise choice. That’s probably because they’re not wise.”  Because we are no longer creating a platform for a “thoughtful exchange of ideas”, we are no longer “wise voters.” This is what Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were afraid of.

One of our adult sons and his mom were discussing some of the problems his generation are inheriting from our generation. He thinks it may take a new generation that thinks about the world very differently to have the political willpower to vote differently. He is of the opinion that the baby boomers are ruining this country and that until we as a demographic cohort expire, we will continue to divide our country with our narcissistic behavior as individuals and divide our world with our continued belief in manifest destiny for the United States. I am deeply saddened that he thinks that way, but what makes me even sadder is that I am beginning to believe that he might be right.

The two-party system has worked for over 200 years, but it may be time for a change.  I do believe that one day future generations will look at our two-party system of government and will wonder how we made it work for so long. We are becoming too diverse for two parties to represent our interests and I will argue that we are becoming even more diverse, although the current optics might lead one to believe otherwise.

Our political forefathers disagreed on how to achieve liberty and equality for all.  And I am sure we disagree among ourselves on how to achieve it.  But creating false narratives do not help the discussion. So, how do we achieve an equal measure of liberty and equality for all? Does equality without liberty work? Does equality mean equal outcomes for all or equal opportunity for all? Maybe it starts with those questions. And we need to truly think about our answers. 

I do know this. Whoever wins this election does not have a mandate.  Twenty percent more people voted in 2020 than in 2016.  The American people were engaged in this election.  They wanted to be heard. And almost half of the American people will have voted for the loser, whoever that is. And those people should not be discounted.  Along those lines, I had the following thought during the election night – if the candidate I voted for loses, that would mean that a lot of smart people that I love, and trust voted for the other candidate.  So, it’s not the end of the world. But I do hope that the winning side listens to the almost $79 million Americans who voted for the loser. Since graduating from college, I have voted equal measure Republican and Democrat.  But we are now broken and unless someone can create a political environment where we can have a thoughtful exchange of ideas, we may need a third party to bring some sanity, accountability and reasonableness back into our political discourse. For anyone who has children, let’s do it for them and for future generations. And to those who do not have children, please do it for the rest of the world and for the sake of humanity.