Taking a Political Stand


"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." - Alexander Hamilton

How do we apply wisdom to our current global political situation in which polarization and demonization seem to be the new currency? And, if we applied some curiosity with that wisdom (the mark of a modern elder), could we imagine new, centrist approaches to education, immigration, healthcare, and political funding? That’s why I wrote the five posts below that appeared last week. Was I a little too spicy toward criticizing our new President? Yes, but I also offered some policy solutions from both sides of the political aisle. If you missed this series, here are the links:

We Are Under The Influence

How About a Department of Learning?

Is There a Solution for Immigration?

Longevity as the Litmus Test for a Great Society

Greenland isn’t for Sale, but America is

Nothing will change if we don’t change our underlying approach to how we constitute our three branches of government. I spent Saturday afternoon and evening at the MEA ranch in Santa Fe with a well-known TV political pundit who’s been active in both Republican and Democratic politics and we discussed how Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski could be so independent (due to rank choice voting) or how Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy could vote for impeachment (due to the “jungle primary” in which the top two vote getters – of either party end up in a runoff), but unfortunately these are the aberrations.

Candidly, none of our three branches of government are all that representative which is dangerous in a democracy. There are no term limits in the Supreme Court. There are really only 5 to 7 “swing states” that determine the President based upon our electoral college system. In the Senate, Wyoming has as much power (with less than 600,000 people) as California (with nearly 40 million people). And, in the House of Representatives, the districts are so gerrymandered that only 5% of House races are truly competitive and Congresspeople have to run to the extremes to fend-off challengers in their own party that are more right or left than them. 

Here’s an idea that might bring some representation back to the House of Representatives. The last time Congress expanded the House of Representatives was in 1911 when each Representative had 210,000 constituents. Prior to that, the number of Representatives grew incrementally as the population expanded. After the 1910 Census, it was decided to set the number of Representatives at 435 (which remains today) to prevent the House from becoming unwieldy in size. The initial rule was roughly one Representative for every 30,000 people, but as the population grew, that ratio got stretched, and now, each Representative is responsible for about 750,000 people, so it’s hard for a Congressperson to know their constituency when districts get this large. 

What if we increased the number of members in the House every 10 years based on population growth, defining the size of a district based on the population of the smallest state, Wyoming, which would have just one representative? This would allow the number of electoral votes to move beyond 538 (currently, 435 House members, 100 Senate members and 3 from Washington DC). Based upon population growth, it means the House would have a growing influence in the electoral college which means smaller states would have a little less influence. 

Here are the ways this might help with polarization: reduce the impact of gerrymandering, create a closer connection between Representatives and constituents, and reduce the tyranny of the minority (small state influence) that currently stymies the Electoral College (I know some of you want to get rid of the College altogether). Yes, there are logistical challenges with this (the House Chambers are only so big and who needs more, not less, politicians?), but it also doesn’t require any amendment of the Constitution and can merely be done by passing a law in Congress.

Okay, I promise that’s my last daily blog post focused on politics and policy for a while. I’m enthused to create an MEA workshop focused on how we can reduce political polarization by helping all of us become better listeners, more curious, and less judgmental. Every workshop week, I see how people get to know each other from the inside out and learn to deeply appreciate each other’s moral beauty and humanity. It’s always fun to see, later in the week, two new best friends realize that they’re actually from different political parties. But, instead of this ruining their newfound connection, it gives them hope that we can bridge this political divide by creating new habitats for people getting to know each other and finding common ground. 

Let’s take a stand, but let’s stand with others who are different from us as much as we can because that’s how we stand united. How can we move from divisiveness to diviness in how we invest in our sacred democracy?

-Chip

Discover More Wisdom

November 22, 2024

Just like when you meet another Burner, there’s a knowingness that connects you, I ...

The Gift of Cancer (Part 5)

March 8, 2020

The question arises: how do we distance ourselves and bring the world closer together? ...

Wisdom in the Time of Coronavirus.
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Choose Your Path to Midlife Mastery