“How can you get politicians to enact policies that solve long-term issues when they can’t even pass an annual budget?”
“How can you get voters to care if they are focused on the latest tweet-storms out of Washington?”
Friends asked me questions like these when I started my blog–I would shrug my shoulders and say, “I don’t know yet, but I am going to try and find out.”
Beth Sawin of the Climate Interactive company may have provided a partial answer to these questions. She has been struggling with them in relation to climate change. After an unsuccessful climate conference in Copenhagen, she realized that all feasible political action is limited by the need of leaders to win the next election. They cannot win if they enact policies in which all costs are carried by current voters and the benefits will only be gained by future voters. Her solution is “multi-solving.”
Multi-solving involves breaking through the walls we build around our problems to find interconnections with other people’s problems. It means that we have to talk to people in different disciplines, departments or lines of work and ask, “How can solving my problem help solve yours?”
Her application of multi-solving was connecting solutions for climate change to other fields, primarily problems of public health and economics. She found tremendous, quantifiable health and economic benefits from measures that would also limit global warming.
Multi-solving sounds like a strategy that could have broad application for creating policies that would please voters and still make progress on our long-term issues. It is probably an approach that seasoned politicians use intuitively if they want to create a long-term legacy. I recommend spending 17 minutes to watch Beth Sawin’s presentation.
The next generation of Americans will turn its focus to politics in the 2020s and 2030s, and what will they find? A garbage can overflowing with social and governmental problems our generation could not resolve–
…and the garbage can will keep filling up with problems that none of us can foresee.
Every issue listed above is known today, so the voters of the future will have a right to ask why we didn’t do something about them? Like a hole in the roof, these things do not fix themselves–if unattended, they just get bigger over time. What holds us back?
On the big issues of the day, we live in a time of 51% government. Whichever party has the last 1% of votes in Congress works to create policy that conforms to its vision of good government and tries to get it passed. The Affordable Care Act passed with no Republican votes and the 2017 Republican tax cut passed with no Democratic votes. This style of governing wasn’t always the case—President Reagan’s 1986 tax cut bill passed with support of 70% of Democrats in the House of Representatives and 65% of the Republicans. The leaders of both parties were willing to take risks for a bipartisan deal, in spite of opposition from a good share of their own members.
The art of the 1986 tax bill is that both sides could support the same measure for different reasons. Republicans saw their vision of government realized in significant, across-the-board reductions in tax rates while Democrats were happy with the elimination of deductions (loopholes) they considered unfair. Opposing partisans supported the same package based on different values and goals.
I have personal experience with another federal policy that received strong bipartisan support–employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). The ESOP laws enabled me to sell a family business to our employees and keep it intact. Republicans liked ESOPs because they encourage the “ownership society” (Mitch McConnell is a big fan) and Democrats liked them because they help “spread the wealth.” Different values for the same policy.
To tackle the big problems of today, we don’t need more people of vision—each party has a strong vision of what government should be. Instead, we need creative people who can find common policies that partisans with different visions can support for different reasons. This is not so different from other parts of society. A salesperson on the job to support a family can work with a customer who is shopping to find the right item at a reasonable price. Together they create a successful transaction, even with starkly different goals. They do not need to share each other‘s vision to make things work. We should expect no less from our elected officials.