Imagine what would happen to a dithering figure like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell if he was required to show up every week to answer questions from members of the Senate.
The long shutdown of portions of the American government shares some features with the Brexit impasse that has left the U.K. in a catastrophic stalemate. As this is written, neither system seems capable of building coalitions to execute needed changes. But one system has the better odds: a better structure for moving forward.
From a political and communications perspective, the standoff in the United States is much more predictable than the impasse in the United Kingdom. Here’s why. A communications starting point typically emphasizes direct discussion and negotiation as basic tools for moving a lumbering government off dead center. A parliamentary model has the kind of deliberative infrastructure that requires direct communication. Debate in the House of Commons will not allow members to exist only in their own informational bubbles. The system requires public and frequent contact between key ministers and their shadow counterparts literally just a few feet away. Since the key business of the House is debate, members must be prepared to be effective advocates and better listeners.
British parliamentary debate is often riveting, and it is also public. Granted, positions tend to solidify when spoken in public. Any system emphasizing public discussion can turn intellectual fluidity into hardened cement. But debate in the commons is still better than our ‘no debate’ Congress, which emphasizes “statements” issued mostly for the record rather than the ears of other members.
All of this leads one to expect that Brexit would be closer to resolution than it is. Alas, the problem in London is really not structural, but one of basic leadership. The nation has weak leaders in the form of Prime Minister Theresa May and the Labor Party’s Jeremy Corbyn. May is especially risk-averse and inflexible: precisely the opposite of what seems necessary.
What a comparison of the two systems makes clear is how American divided government lacks any systemic requirement for a public airing of competing political claims.
If it’s possible, the American system right now is even more anemic, having just come off a two-year period with a mostly comatose Congress that had been thoroughly rolled by the President. As is obvious, the checks and balances that are ostensibly part of the system have been absent. Compliant Senate and House majorities have shown little interest in challenging a rogue executive.
More misery in the country was only avoided when enough Americans voted last November, resulting in split party majorities in the two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives will now fulfill the oversight function the founders envisioned. But the GOP-dominated Senate and White House are still sufficiently entrenched to make it difficult to build coalitions to solve problems.
What a comparison of the two systems makes clear is how American divided government lacks any systemic requirement for a public airing of competing political claims. Remember that C-SPAN cameras controlled by both bodies of Congress routinely conceal the truth that few are present when the House and Senate are in session. Elected deciders are usually not in the room to hear the comments of those on the other side. The cameras are never allowed to show empty seats. Instead, we depend mostly on journalists to summarize and sometimes create proxy debates on some core issues. And that’s not journalism’s job.
Journalism is not structured to foster direct one-on-one debate. It is almost never in the interests of news organizations to turn over control of a venue to opposing political figures. To be sure, we have many fine journalists working these days. But routine journalistic practices require the interruption of direct debate. Journalistic norms range from the need for heavy editing in the interests of time or space to a compulsion to introject new issues for discussion before old ones have been fleshed out. Television and ‘short-read’ articles make discursive political discussion problematic.
So it seems clear that the Parliamentary system has the edge in resolving a political impasse. If that judgment is not apparent, try to imagine what would happen to a dithering figure like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell if—as in a parliamentary system–he was required to show up every week and answer questions from Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. There’s a big difference between being a party leader in Congress and being an authentic champion of democratic discourse.
Eventually we will hear of a privately negotiated deal to end the shutdown. That’s our de-facto system, put in place not because of any constitutional requirement, but because we have mostly ignored the collective action of a body of legislators working out their differences in public debate.
The solitary self is becoming an unfamiliar place we would rather not visit.
We can all celebrate the expansion of information made possible by the internet. But there is a price to be paid for total connectivity, especially the portion of it that drops into the black hole of phone culture. The ability to call or receive messages from people we know or public figures we ‘follow’ takes a heavy toll on the energies of addicted users. It’s becoming a familiar complaint.
Notice what people are doing when they are caught in a pause between activities: maybe waiting for a train, a friend, or the start of a meeting. They are usually in the thrall of their devices. Any pause in the day must be filled with the search for an incoming distraction. The solitary self is mostly an unwelcome place we would rather not visit. True, a person could be reading a provocative book on their device. But it is far more likely they are cleansing their phone of throwaway messages: thumbing through the detritus of a culture increasingly caught in a web of inconsequential moments.
If the need for personal mobility arises, the protocols of this addiction usually require a device clutched in the right hand, ready to receive an incoming “message.” The left hand is the withering appendage still used to carry whatever else must also come along.
There can be no doubt that a portable phone has all kinds of useful functions for journalists, travelers, business people, and many of the rest of us. But it has become an easy reason to postpone more demanding tasks. We are too ready to divert our attention to screens of minor delights. Even counselors and psychotherapists are now advised to tolerate mid-session phone-checking from their younger clients, who now average well over 100 hits a day (Psychotherapy Networker, November, 2018).
Consider a brief sampling of what this overuse is costing us.
–Intrapersonal thought is impaired. We are not the people we should be if we don’t consider our actions and decisions. The work of a fully functioning human includes examining the events and moments in our lives. Plato’s reminder that “an unexamined life is not worth living” is self-evident. We need time to hear ourselves in order to set our own compass for the days and weeks ahead. While many are proud to cite their devotion to yoga or meditation, the concentration and sustained awareness they can produce used to be a common experience for previous generations. The natural rhythms of the pre-digital world gave individuals a natural window to their consciousness.
A spectator’s world is one where things happen to them; where the screen is to be seen; where reaction dominates over action.
–Time is lost on tasks that could be more innovative, creative and educational. We seem to turning into the kinds corpulent and devoted spectators that populated Pixar’s prescient WALL-E (2009). A spectator’s world is one where things happen to them; where the screen is to be seen; where reaction dominates over action. Since creativity and innovation require sustained attention to a single task, we must nurture the capacity for such linear thinking. How many symphonies would Joseph Haydn have written if his pocket held an iPhone 8? He wrote over a hundred in his lifetime, but I doubt he would have made it even to the Farewell Symphony, Number 45.
–Personal identity that needs to form and evolve is put under siege. We can easily succumb to the seemingly happier but mostly inflated self-presentations offered by others. Evidence from recent studies suggests that many adolescents tend to fall into lower levels of self-esteem if they are heavy users of social media. (Journal of Adolescence, August 2016, 41-49). This is probably because online communities like Instagram tend to norm what’s “cool” and what’s not. The resultant checking of self against others drains away the natural impulse to shape one’s identity to passions found in the inner self.
–Real-time contact with others is decreased. For many of us, rates of daily “screen time” have crept into the eight hour range. Phones make up about half of that time. Researchers have also documented a disturbing recent trend indicating that middle and high school students are avoiding actual interaction with strangers or adults. For them, face-time with all but a best friend is stressful. More perversely, as recently noted, a phone has become its own excuse to not see or connect with another.
The new year is a good time to reconsider what matters. Phone culture is too often the cause of a downward spiral where ‘listeners’ no longer hear, observers no longer notice, and the rest of us are on the verge of becoming immune to the advantages of figuring out what we actually think.
There can be no doubt that a portable phone has all kinds of useful functions for journalists, travelers, business people, and many of the rest of us. But it has become an easy reason to postpone more demanding tasks. We are too ready to divert our attention to screens of minor delights. Even counselors and psychotherapists are now advised to tolerate mid-session phone-checking from their younger clients, who now average well over 100 hits a day (Psychotherapy Networker, November, 2018).
