Houses of Pain: More Americans Support Communism than Approve of Congress

NPR's All Things Considered featured a story on Friday regarding growing discontent in the US over Congress and lawmakers' sentiments on political problems in America. In October, a CBS News/New York Times poll showed that Congress' approval rating had sunk to 9 percent, an all-time low. It appears that the vast majority of Americans do not approve of Congress as we hobble towards the 2012 elections.

In response to the poll, Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado, while on the floor of the nearly empty Senate quipped that, "More people support the United States becoming communist -- I don't, for the record -- at 11 percent, than approve of the job that we're doing." Bennet continued, "I guess we can take some comfort that Fidel Castro is at 5 percent."

While political gridlock and economic troubles may play into Congress' poor approval rating, there may be deeper issues at stake. Commenting on the failure of the congressional bipartisan supercommittee to make a deal on federal savings, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, told reporters that the question to be asked is, "What is the problem?" And in response, Kerry concluded that "the problem is a huge ideological divide in our nation."

Nevertheless, a stark ideological divide in the US is old news. From the NPR story: "[Michigan Rep. Candice Miller] noted that voters did elect a divided government last year." Miller: "We are really a reflection of the country...because you have half the country that probably wants more government, more government spending, etc., more government regulation. You have the other half of the country that is saying, 'no'."

Even so, again, political division based on ideology in the US is old news. This country has worked through political division in the past. In this time period, the crux then becomes actually working towards a sense of viable compromise going forward by way of mutual cooperation. But in this light, increasing polarization in American society is causing the American political process to appear counterproductive. Political factions do not seem to even want to come to the table to discuss options -- let alone work together to find common solutions.

Is political polarization to blame? NPR commentator David Brooks said that, "[The polarization] is about a third out in the country, but I think it's two-thirds in Washington. Almost every member of Congress is more polarized than the district they represent... People do have [diverse] opinions, but they want Congress to compete cooperatively, to compete and then cut a deal."

While the failure of the congressional supercommittee came onto the scene with the backdrop of the Eurozone financial crisis, Brooks noted that Europeans "have much better family lives" than most Americans. Brooks suggested that Europe's stronger familial structure helps to explain why Europeans have more social mobility than Americans. In a similar vein, NPR commentator EJ Dionne suggested that "a little bit of socialism" may be "actually very good for capitalist upward mobility." Dionne: "Bigger inequality turns out not to be very good for upward mobility."

While lawmakers may blame congressional disapproval on a lack of compromise or mere ideological division, the bottom line is that the nation is fast growing impatient with political gridlock and wants to move forward. As I have written previously, it's like the kids and passengers in a van want to get heading out on the road and the parents are arguing and bickering in the gas station. Only in the case of Congress and US citizens, the American people are unsure if the "parents" actually know how to drive the car at all.

Where political polarization, a struggling economy, income inequality, and societal malaise may be at work with congressional disapproval, I think Americans would do well in taking a closer look at the socio-economic issues behind the political gridlock. For instance, during the NPR interview, Dionne correctly noted that Europeans have "guaranteed health care for everyone, much lower cost for higher education, relatively uniform public education system, [and] working-class parents get relatively decent levels of income." Of course, Europe is not paradise, but Dionne's comment raises a significant comparison of European life to American life.

Where many Americans today may feel that they are being taken advantage of by the establishment, American society has Congress in place to represent the people, not the elite or political aristocracy. Where Congress is failing to represent the people, the political process is broken and may need to be reworked somehow. With the prospects of a dire economy, political gridlock, and massive bureaucracy while members of Congress are free to trade stock on inside information, we have a serious political problem in the US. And this political problem is not merely owing to ideological polarization or a lack of social mobility. Rather, the problem appears to be systemic; the question cuts to the heart of the society itself. Even in light of the Occupy movements, where you have 9 percent unemployment and a national debt of 15 trillion -- and meanwhile members of Congress are permitted to engage in insider trading, people are going to get upset. And even further, after a while people are going to refuse to participate or they may even reject the system altogether. Washington, we have a problem.

It is important to see that there is a sense of economic karma at work here. As confidence in the government declines while the state widens its jaws, individuals are less likely to invest time, capital, and resources in businesses, stocks, labor, each other, etc. The same goes for the market as well: As confidence in the markets declines as the market-game appears to be rigged, individuals are less likely to want to participate. Even in the case of the Soviet Union, where the state completely overtakes and dominates the market, many individuals find themselves participating in the black market.

Thus, it is as if we are seeing these political problems go back to the current state of American society. With a lack of cohesiveness and a lack of compromise, a house divided against itself cannot stand. From the media to entertainment to education, as the societal Zeitgeist begins to push against the establishment, there may be a negative influence on the markets. And again, the political polarization is not news, and it is not like political and economic analysts have not offered any potential solutions. Months ago I discussed how we could find political compromise in the US by respecting states' boundaries. If states can craft their own policies and individuals could vote with their feet, perhaps there would not be as much political gridlock in Washington. If the state could take a step back and allow businesses to work and commerce to flow, maybe the economy would get back on track.

And see, at this point, the national political dialogue is a loud, disjointed, dysfunctional, and counterproductive phenomenon. It's like trying to listen to an orchestra where the strings are playing Tchaikovsky, the winds are playing Debussy, and the brass instruments are playing Holst. If those in government cannot get on the same page, then how can anything get done? By letting business and the free market accomplish what the government cannot.

The problem is evolving too because issues related to Congress go further than politics. For those who are like me that enjoy following the stock market and economics, the failure of the supercommittee was very frustrating. A lot of individuals' wealth was wiped out owing to a lack of compromise on the part of the supercommittee. Investors and traders have good reason to be angry over the "superfailure".

On the Nov. 22 episode of Mad Money, Jim Cramer discussed the failure of political leaders and how that failure is ruining the economy. Cramer: "I have never seen leaders here or in Europe do so much damage in the name of doing so much good. Business people around the globe are paralyzed by the indecision, the bickering, the lack of resolve of their leaders. No matter what positive steps business takes they seem always to be counteracted by the very people they elected and choose to lead them."

Cramer suggested that political leaders and business executives are pitted against each other and we are seeing the conflict playing out in the markets. Cramer: "Those who are supposed to serve the people are destroying the people's savings." As governments struggle to deal with financial problems, businesses and everyday citizens are being negatively affected. Cramer: "This house ('house of pleasure')? Uh-uh. They gave us this house ('The house of pain'). What a shame on all counts."

One cannot help but agree with Cramer's eloquent assessment. And while Congress has not proven to be all that helpful in solving the problems, the current situation leaves Americans wondering what can be done regarding this quagmire. Cramer: "Here in many ways, the politicians are doing an even worse job... It's especially painful because we are beginning to see many good signs of recovery brewing. I am so fearful it's going to be wiped away by what's happening in Europe and our lack of resolve here." Therein lies the rub: Congress' political issues are starting to substantially spill over into the macroeconomic realm. And where businesses and everyday citizens may have to clean up the politicians' mess, one has to wonder why Congress has not figured it out yet. Has Congress already forgotten that one of the main reasons for the S&P downgrade of the US credit rating was political uncertainty?

The media and academics may choose to paint problems in Washington as being solely ideological in nature, but I would contend that perhaps the media and academia are a major part of the problem. With a government controlled by lawyers and academics, it is easy to see how Congress could so easily get bogged down in political bickering. Some business leaders may feel that the legal profession and academia have done the American people a great disservice in light of the nation's current state of affairs. From economics to law to politics, Americans are getting tired with being led by faulty individuals living in an ivory tower. It's as if the politicians and bureaucrats are out of touch with reality. As Jim Cramer so eloquently said on Nov. 21, "At this point, I feel like the lawmakers on our deficit supercommittee as well as the leaders in Europe are living in a different universe. They aren't part of the real world, not after the total breakdown of the supercommittee tonight."

Furthermore, one cannot help but feel that the US is not as united as it should be. And where diversity of opinion can be fostered in a marketplace of ideas, too much diversity of opinion leaves a situation where no one is on the same page. Far from having I-Thou relationships within the country, more materialistic, objectified I-It relationships are becoming prevalent. It seems that more and more individuals in the US see their fellow countrymen as "others" and look upon fellow citizens with a severe distrust & skepticism, as in an "us vs. them" situation. To say the least, this appears to be quite counterproductive in American society.

And at the end of the day, there comes a point where the rubber has to meet the road; when the sun rises, there is work to be done in America. As such, the government is probably going to have to defer to the business world if it wants to maintain any sense of control going forward. And if the golden goose must be killed by way of regulations, taxes, and fiscal smothering, then businesses and citizens may find themselves in a position where it would be more financially advantageous to move to Canada, Mexico, or Europe. I'm sure that there are many young people in America today in search of a land of opportunity somewhere.