Shifting Gears

In the previous installment of this blog/newsletter, sports and tribalism were used as metaphors to describe modern American politics. These might seem like fitting comparisons, but it is important to be careful with metaphors. Metaphors can be helpful frameworks to aid us in thinking about complex topics, but they can also limit and distort our reasoning.

Different metaphors applied to the same subject can produce widely divergent outcomes in thought and action. Consider, for example, a human life through the following lenses:

• A journey
• A game
• A building
• A prison
• A classroom
• A garden

The same object produces vastly different expectations depending on the framework used.

But when running for national office in the United States, there can only be one winner per elected position, so the competitive models of sports or tribalism are applicable, right?

The problem with these metaphors is that – other than cooperation within groups to defeat other groups – the mode of operation is “all competition, all the time.” Unless faced with an existential threat to multiple groups, the answer to scarce resources is always to eliminate other groups. Cross-group cooperation is not part of these metaphors.

The sports and tribalism metaphors miss the critical point that, in the U.S. system of government, it is only the race for political office that is meant to be competitive. Once races are over, the winners are expected to switch from competition mode to cooperation and negotiation mode to get the work of government done for the people.

So, a better metaphor for U.S. politics might be an orchestra, a business, or a movie. Interviewing for a job or auditioning for a film or orchestra are competitive. But once the successful candidate gets the position, they are expected to switch from competitive mode to cooperative mode for the good of the overall project. It is usually okay in an enterprise to challenge ideas so that the best thinking prevails, but direct competition with other individuals is typically viewed as cancerous and, in healthy organizations, removed.

Government is fundamental to modern life, so it makes sense that we want it led by the most qualified among us. Competitive races can help determine who those talented individuals are, but observing what happens between races can be even more revealing. Those who show themselves unwilling or unable to turn off personal competitiveness for the public good should not be elected.

In sports, people who continue to compete after a contest has been decided are called “poor sports,” even if they won. In politics, they are simply bad politicians. If we want a government that gets work done, we must elect officials who can shift gears from competitive to cooperative mode once the race for office is over.

Yours in republic keeping,
James Carroll
BFPNC Chair