The politics of unhappiness

If politics is any guide, people in America don't seem to be happy these days. Those who elected Donald Trump did so largely from a sense of grievance at the status quo and a desire that it be turned on its head. Those who didn't vote for Trump are unhappy at his election and actions since.

America isn't alone in its unhappiness. Populist-minded candidates have done well in numerous countries. Grievance politics is the uniting theme. It succeeds because even the nonpopulists are unhappy and consequently can't muster sufficient enthusiasm for the status quo to keep the populists at bay.

Many people are throwing up their hands and saying politics doesn't work. What if they're wrong? What if their political systems are working? What if the widespread unhappiness isn't a bug in the system but a feature?

Economists describe the principal-agent problem, referring to the difficulty of getting agents to pursue the interests of the principals they work for, rather than of the agents themselves. Designers of artificial intelligence call it the alignment problem: how to keep AI bots working on a human agenda rather than devising their own and going rogue.

Whether a political system is working or not depends on what group the political system is supposed to be working for. Every political system consists of two groups: those who make the laws and those who have to obey them. In a democracy these groups are the politicians and the voters.

What do voters want out of a political system? Order, freedom, prosperity, equality, opportunity, happiness. That is, they want better lives for themselves.

What do politicians want out of a political system? Power, which is to say the authority that comes with holding office. Most politicians wouldn't put it this bluntly. They say they want the ability to make people's lives better. If betterment was all they wanted, they could do many things besides entering politics. They could become teachers and nurses and healthcare workers and counselors. They enter politics because they want the power to change laws, which compel people to act in certain ways. In a democracy they want to get elected. And once elected, they want to get reelected.

Does America's democracy work for voters? Again, by recent evidence most voters don't think so. Opponents of current immigration policy think it fails to deliver order. Advocates of abortion rights think it fails to deliver reproductive freedom. People alarmed by inflation and high housing costs think it fails to deliver prosperity. People concerned about the growing gap between the very rich and ordinary folks wish for less inequality. People in communities with shrinking populations wish for more opportunity. Everybody wants to be happier. And not many people think politics is making their lives better.

Does the system work for politicians? It gets them elected and reelected. But which ones? The ones that produce happiness? Or the ones that peddle unhappiness?

Mostly the latter. Producing happiness is hard and always incomplete. Tradeoffs are unavoidable. More order means less freedom. Maximizing GDP requires tolerating inequality. Even politicians who succeed in producing some happiness are easy to attack for not producing more. Maybe you once did a good thing for me, but what have you done for me lately?

Unhappiness is more reliable as a vote getter. People are readily persuaded that they are being put upon, that someone is doing better than they are, that they deserve more than they are getting.

One might think this would lead to a system in which challengers usually defeat incumbents. When people are unhappy, they should blame the incumbents and turn them out.

Such would be the case in an immature political system, one in which politicians have not devised mechanisms for keeping themselves in power. In the American system — a very mature system — parties, primary elections, gerrymandering and the political-industrial complex keep incumbents in power very effectively. Parties channel voters into tribes. Primary elections allow small numbers of tribal members to choose their chieftains. Gerrymandering ensures that most districts are safe for one party or the other. And the political-industrial complex of campaign managers, fundraisers, lobbyists, lawyers and media gathers money and employs it to the benefit of incumbents.

The result is a paradoxical situation in which the unhappiness of voters ensures the reelection of most incumbents. Republicans rail against past, present and future sins of the Democrats. They convince the Republican faithful that their lives are miserable, or were or will be, and that only the election of Republicans can save them. The Democrats make a comparable case against the Republicans.

The system exploits the human fact that resentment is reflexive while gratitude has to be learned. The system leaves little room for moderates who argue that things aren’t as bad as the zealots proclaim and that reasoned discussion is more likely to improve matters than constant shouting.

Many politicians agree in principle, but the system selects against those who act on this principle. The system might be broken for ordinary folks, but it works quite satisfactorily for those who make it their living.