The question asked is “What will it take for federal regulators to actually exercise their authority? (e.g. DoJ & Antitrust, SEC & insider trading, EPA & fracking/pipelines)?”
Ahhhh, regulators. One the most boring, yet critical functions of government.
Government Regulation
Conservatives have a default answer for most federal regulators – fire them all or weaken them to the point of irrelevance. They often say ‘no’ or ‘maybe’ ad-nauseum slowing us down, and they seemingly have zero interest in the time value of money. Frankly, some of this reputation is 100% earned. I once walked into a meeting with a client to meet with a regulator/government staff, and my client was greeted with a “Man, we haven’t bankrupted you yet? Ha Ha.” It wasn’t funny.
But I don’t think me railing against government bureaucracy is the point of your question. So, to explore your question, lets agree that the federal regulators that you speak of are fine upstanding government servants carrying out their charge to the best of their abilities.
Our agency has done work in the clean energy space and land development space and this comprises most of our experience. I will say for the record, most of upper staff members in these spaces are smart as heck and understand the bureaucratic process. I am almost always appreciative of their expertise in their fields.
BUT…..the appointment officials of regulatory bodies often leave a lot to be desired for because of the concept of “regulatory capture.”
One must never forget, at its heart, the appointed officials were appointed because they at the time of their appointment aligned with the current administration. These are political bodies. Three phrases: Pipelines, Joe Machin, FERC Chairman.
And it is the politics that leads to regulatory capture.
Florida: An Example of Regulatory Capture
Let me give you an example in Florida – The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). This body is to regulate utilities in the State of Florida. They are to be the safeguard, patrolling if Florida’s monopoly utility industry is justified in their actions & requests. These people are routinely making multi-million if not billion-dollar decisions, and in my opinion are 100% captured by the utility industry.
Florida’s monopoly utilities dominate the communities they operate in by steering philanthropic donations to key groups, sponsoring everything from business conventions to little league teams.
The PSC is to have a citizen’s advocate or the office of public counsel. The legislature promptly removed the lawyer who kind of, tepidly fought against utility rate increases – at least making them work for it. Yeah, he was replaced by a lobbyist from the utility industry.
And finally, this system of Legislative nomination, executive branch appointment, and PSC regulation allows everyone to shirk any responsibility. Especially, with elected officials getting to blame the faceless bureaucrats at the PSC avoiding any electoral blame.
Put in the simplest of terms – the entire game is rigged.
Why does this regulatory capture exist? Because the incentives are there and extremely high. The monopoly utilities are going to act like monopolies by using all their power and money to reward supporters, punish defectors, buy the love of people who are indifferent, and influence the process. The financial gains are too high (remember BILLIONS) for them to do anything else. Monopolies and massive industries (pharma, energy, banking, etc) are going to do everything they can legally (and in gray areas) to win.
As you see in Florida, we have a complete failure of Florida’s regulatory ‘system’ due to nearly complete regulatory capture.
Frankly, the PSC is so unresponsive to Florida’s ratepayers and Florida’s citizens this is why I wrote an op-ed calling for the way we organize this body – changing from an appointed position to an elected position. It is unlikely to happen or even get off the ground.
Political Science hasn’t spent a lot of time researching this phenomenon and there are no simple answers.
It is unlikely regulatory capture is ever eliminated; more likely we need to work to minimize it.
Some have called for deregulation (my personal default), others have called for making these regulators answer to the public, but I would think that in this case, the lowest hanging fruit is the creating/making the watchdog or “Office of Public Counsel” more independent and interdisciplinary – almost like an Inspector General office.
You may also be able to tell, I am completely cynical about the odds of any positive change happening. With most of these systems, the incentives are all aligned against the “exercise of their authority.”
It could be argued that Florida’s monopoly utility industry had the absolute worst years with scandal after scandal. They are likely to get most if not all, they are asking for from Florida’s ‘regulatory body.’
This one is basically asking me to distill a seemingly lifetime of work into a blog post. Let’s say upfront that I am going to speaking in sweeping generalities. Human behavior is complicated, nuanced, messy, and at times unpredictable.
Attitudes or Behavior
I find it important to mention there is a difference between changing someone’s mind and changing someone’s behavior. When talking persuasion, it is incredible how often they are conflated. Often in the short-term transactional power politics, changing behavior is the goal; coercion is often the means.
But for this blog challenge, we will assume we are talking about opinions.
In most cases, I believe – and this may be blasphemy for most in the political world – we can’t change minds. Only the target can change their own mind; as political practitioners we are trying to influence the process.
Zone of Acceptance
It matters where someone starts on any topic, belief or attitude or how strongly held their opinion is.
If a person starts off with strongly held opinions, you’re going to have a hard time changing their opinion. Franky, it may be impossible. With strongly held opinions, it requires a trusting and personal relationship, and to have a trusting and personal relationship requires time and effort. Without that, true opinion change is rare. There is some interesting work (ignore that one scandal though) being done in the field of deep canvassing, and again that takes a lot of time and effort.
If a person has a weakly held opinions about a subject, they often acquiesce to the leaders of the group’s signals. This is why the school of fish metaphor works. If the opinion is not of great importance to the person, the groups we identify with and the cues from trusted leaders matter – a lot.
If a person has no opinion on the matter, they will pay attention to recency and somewhat still to trusted leaders. If it is a new subject preferably get there first with a trusted leader. But with no opinions, trust is likely less of a factor than frequency and recency. Propaganda works.
Direct Assaults
One way not to persuade people is to challenge them directly. This often leads to a boomerang effect that when the subject is directly challenged, they spend more time coming up with better arguments to refute.
Same with calling people “idiots, knuckle-draggers, racists, dummies, etc.” We are all guilty of it, and it is really counter-productive to persuasion.
More often, rather than a direct, full frontal assault, we are better off trying to increase motivation and shaping the path / environment.
Trust
As you read, you notice the importance of trust – especially in partisan politics.
Without trust, there is no persuasion. How many times has a news story been believed or discredited solely on the trust of the source?
We observe it all the time in polling. We believe the polls we ‘trust’ and discount the polls that are ‘partisan hacks.’
Our agency has been conducting on going research into how energy policies are received by conservatives. It is clear that source plays a huge deal. If the policies are advocated by the “Global Green Commies”, it won’t get far. In fact, it won’t get heard at all.
Conclusion
Almost everything about this subject can be taught by parents of teen-agers.
First, the difference between changing minds or behavior. Does a parent care if a kid has a deeply held belief in the importance of a clean room or does that parent just want the damn room cleaned – even if it is under the threat of massive grounding?
If the teenager, for whatever reasons, has deeply held beliefs that his room is his space and keeping a clean room is stupid, calling him a troglodyte leading to slammed doors is unlikely to change his mind or his behavior. In fact, this little ingrate will likely sit in his room and write a list of the top 10 reasons why a clean room is leading to the deterioration of America. In this case, you may want to enlist the person he is crushing on to share with him that a clean room is super attractive and indicates a responsible person. If that doesn’t work, threaten to take away the car keys or turn off the wifi until the room is clean.
If the teenager, for whatever reason, has loosely held beliefs about a clean room, enlist the help of their friends, coaches, YouTube influencers, etc. Best to make a clean room the norm and have those cues received from multiple sources, only to see it all reversed when he walks into his friends’ messy rooms. He will likely flip flip back and forth depending on the accumulation of cues seen most recently.
But the absolute best way to convince a teenager the importance of a clean room is to get there before they become teenagers. Early, repeated, consistent signals that a clean room is normal, important, and that the behavior is expected. Spend time with them, associate a clean room with other positive experiences. Develop a relationship around a clean room.
But even then, with all these strategies, it still maybe freaking impossible to get a hard-headed teenager to change their opinions or behavior.
Once the opinion / behavior is set and coercion is no longer available because they moved out and pay for their own car & wifi, the teenager/young adult will have to change their own mind when they decide the time is right, if ever.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
I am basking in the USMNT win and advancement, and leave it to my brother to dive right in with the following question / comment: I’d like for you to explore how we went from a country founded on the specific separation of church and state to a country where one party is openly trying to force the entire country to be Christian and made it front and center of their platform.
What we CaNt StArT WiTh An EaSiEr ToPiC LiKe RaCiSm?
The short answer: The rise of Christian nationalism.
This ideology has a lot in common with the evangelical movement, but they are different. Christian Nationalist believe that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation and they should be working to “restore” or “take back” our nation through government action, if needed.
The rise of Christian Nationalism across the world seems to have taken off with the COVID pandemic, the rise of self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist Marjorie Taylor Green, and assorted alt-right wing talk show hosts like the Nick Fuentes. Pew Research has conducted some polling on the topic asking people to describe Christian Nationalists. Here are some examples:
“Fanatics distorting Christian values for self-serving opportunities to further their perceived righteousness.”
Born-again/evangelical Protestant, age 50-64
“Excessive pride in White Christian identity, often trying to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of the nation and attempting to transform the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.”
Jewish, age 18-29
“Christian nationalism means to me applying the principles of Christianity into American society without being compelled to believe in Jesus as the savior of the world.”
Born-again/evangelical Protestant, age 18-29
If you want a close look into this, look no further than Mike Flynn and the Hallow. Frontline took an in-depth look ““Michael Flynn’s Holy War.” If you have an hour and want to learn more, the video is below. It is eye-opening.
Like most things that start on the fringe and get traction, you can observe Rep politicians and right wing media picking up phrases, laundering it for mass consumption. Look no further than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ re-election campaign and the release of “God Made a Fighter.”
What is bringing all this about?
Religion in America
Pew Research is the main place I go when I look for quality research on Religion in America. They have been studying it for years.
If recent trends in religious switching continue, Christians could make up less than half of the U.S. population within a few decades
There is not much worse than a loss of status of a once majority group. They do not go quietly. They fight back, often violently.
At some point I feel, some in religion saw their efforts in churches to persuade people begin to fail they turned to legislating and lobbying.
They recast history as American being ‘founded as a Christian nation’ rather than a nation founded by some Christians who made a point of establishing a government that could protect us against factions.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion,………… Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.
federalist No. 10
So, How did we get here?
Loss of Status of Religion and religious leaders.
Move to extremism assisted by the Internet.
Political “Leaders” sending signals and flirting that Christian Nationalism is “okay.”
Political organization.
Personally, I have always found that trying to live up to my own faith difficult and fraught with failure. I’d recommend more people worry about themselves and their walks and less with legislating. Being a good example is more persuasive than forcing people to do something, right?
I am not sure liberty, christian nationalism, and legislating can co-exist. But between you and me, often, the debate on “freedom” isn’t really about freedom rather it’s about who has the freedom to make the rules.
I was on my walk today, and a decent metaphor explaining political behavior came to the surface: a school of fish.
I think I was imagining myself standing in a cold stream being mocked by trout, but that morphed into a school of fish.
The underlying psychology of this is how influential others behavior is on our own. We all remember peer pressure, but somehow when we become adults, we seem to believe we have outgrown the phenomenon.
We have not.
Whomever we define as “our peers” has profound effects on our behavior – especially our political behavior.
People in our friend groups, our co-workers, our fellow parishioners – all provide constant cues that influence our behavior. We implicitly understand that going against those cues will likely bring censure or exclusion. Censure we are smacked across the face by a tail, exclusion we are ejected into the sea.
Simply, social influence or peer pressure is one of the significant drivers of our behavior.
It is also why bots are effective at spreading bullshit, but that is a different post.
Once we define our groups, the small, constant cues tell us which way the group(s) are going.
There is safety in the group, and there is laziness in the group. I’ll not stray from the school and just draft on the work of others. Exactly like a school of fish.
I did read years ago a dense book by Nobel Prize winner Thomas C. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior. It explores in an academic, dense way how small meaningless decisions and actions by individuals (micro-behaviors) often lead to significant unintended consequences for a large group (macro-behaviors). One example he uses is white flight from neighborhoods. I won’t recommend the read because it is a slug, but here is a good summary. It is a work that Malcolm Gladwell made accessible in Tipping Point.
Elected Officials Behavior
I had an earlier question about the behavior of elected officials, but I want to state that they are not immune from peer pressure. In fact, they may be even more attuned to it, but there is a catch: their school is likely to have a lead fish.
Many elected bodies are organized in a hierarchical top-down fashion. The Speaker, Senate President, Mayor – often are “guiding” these schools with an iron fin (terrible pun!). Step out of the wake, and a politician is often left to fend for themself.
BUT – that isn’t the ONLY fish in their schools that they are swimming in. There are donors, activists, associations, lobbyists, voters, co-workers, media, social media followers, etc – all providing cues and constant feedback.
Conclusion
If one wants to affect change in this fractured world where nothing is important – and yet everything is important, one must think of the macro-outcome – likely a policy outcome – as a series of almost infinite multitudes of mini-interactions.
Each little fish must emit a small cue towards the process.
If everyone does that, and a “head fish” doesn’t pick up on those cues – well they can be the one out by themselves. That is the nature of schools.
I think some it is explained by sincere differences in policies. “Best for the country” is up for true debate. There are those that truly believe ‘an unregulated militia’ is ‘best for the country’. Others believe a ban on war-like weapons is ‘best for the country’. I am not sure those two sides can compromise.
BUT, I think your question is best answered by political scientist David Mayhew.
SideNote: A lot of the early political scientists got the big concepts right explaining 80% – and the rest of us are just proving nuance.
Mayhew wrote “Members of Congress are single-minded seekers of re-election….” And I think that is the answer to your question.
Politicians’, parties’, donors’, consultants’, etc. actions are explained by that statement. I mean it makes sense, one can’t affect policy, if one is not in office.
And, this explains the often cowardliness of politicians.
This explains the many, many conversations I have had behind closed doors with elected politicians and party officials that know that much of the current political climate is complete and utter bullshit then opens the door to spout that exact bullshit.
Why?
Representatives have pretty cool jobs (if you don’t mind the death threats, constant travel, and pesky constituents), and the halls of power are marked with scalps of the Liz Cheneys of the world while Lauren Boebert retains the title of “Representative.”
Leadership, true leadership, is often at first seen as blasphemy – especially in tribal politics. What often is ‘best for the country’ is telling your friends you disagree. The price is often being shunned and ostracized – see – Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney or Adam Kitzinger.
What to do?
So, if one wants to affect the behavior of politicians – one must affect their re-election odds.
Want them to be more responsive to your opinions? One must organize in numbers large enough to at least have them fear you at re-election time. If not, one gets lip service, if not ignored completely.
Oh, now you have stepped into one the greatest modern debates in political science. Abramowitz versus Fiorina. Sorting versus polarization – and now we have calcification. Let’s get ready to rumble!!!!
In broad strokes, Morris Fiorina has argued for years that polarization is limited to the political class (elected officials and activists) and that a huge middle is hiding in plain sight.
Alan Abramowitz countered argued – for years – that polarization has moved into the masses and that it is related / following polarization in the political class.
Sorting is a process where voters sort themselves into the “correct” parties and polarization is where partisans ascribe to more and more extreme positions.
So, how bad is it?
I think in our world, it is pretty bad. I define our world as people that work in politics, work around elected officials, work with activists, read blog posts on politics. You know – the political nerds of the world.
Sorting
We have sorted. A quick example, in the blue county that I live in there are 64 precincts. At the county level, Alachua voted for Charlie Crist 57% versus Ron DeSantis 42%. On average, a 15% spread.
However, if we look at the precinct level….
In 80% of the precincts in Alachua County, the vote spread is more than 15%.
In 74% of the precincts in Alachua County, the vote spread is more than 20%.
Box plot of Absolute spread (Crist / DeSantis) in Alachua County, FL
In a quick box plot, we observe some real outliers. In one precinct alone, the spread is 83%! 83%!
The data isn’t easily available to explore all of Florida most recent returns, but in previous research using the precinct as the unit of analysis, the same rough pattern played out.
So, we, the voters, have sorted not only in ideology – but also geography – and now marriage.
And we recognized how critical others behavior is on our own.
Polarization
Pew studies polarization in the United States and has one of the best gifs of the polarization.
My hope is that they update it with new information.
Elite Polarization
General Polarization
As you can see, political elites polarized first and the public trailed. It’s only gotten worse.
Yes, there is a large portion of the public that sits “in the middle” or not as extreme – but most of them are not politically engaged. Don’t believe me? Go to any Walmart and conduct an interrupt poll. (Secret – a lot of people just aren’t that into us….)
But of the politically engaged, polarization is pronounced, ugly and for some of us – at a truly unhealthy level.
How we got here is beyond the scope of this blog post that is attempting to answer “What is the solution to extreme divisiveness?”
A deceptively simple question, but we have to agree on the unit of analysis. Are we talking solution at a mass level or at an individual level?
Mass Level
I believe firmly that social media isn’t the “cause” of our divisiveness – I think our human nature / behavior is, and social media is the gasoline that ignites and flames our worst passions.
But to make it all the worst, social media companies knew what they were doing in “increasing engagement” was going to lead to more divisiveness.
“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation (Facebook).
“If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”
Unfortunately, these platforms are the perfect hack for our human brains / nature – especially the bad sides.
It is rare that I would argue for government regulation, but in this case, I am.
I think it is critical that these platforms be held accountable for the bullshit on their platforms – bullshit they know is harmful, bullshit they know is divisive and most importantly bullshit they know is bullshit.
I would say the same for cable news ‘opinion’ shows.
In addition, I think we are going to need to figure out how to ‘save’ local journalism, but that is a longer post.
Individual level
I think awareness is key. None of us are immune from the toxic environment that we work in; and none of us are smart enough to outwit human nature.
There are individual things you can do to minimize social media. Turn it off, watch what you post, take responsibility for your own behavior.
I did this about a year ago. At some point, I loved posting explosive political content. It was a jolt. Let’s “debate”. However, at some point I realized it was all bullshit and I was a participant in it. So, now, I post pictures of my puppy, laments about Gator football, and other hobbies.
This is Jackie-O – don’t you already feel better?
Funny thing happened on the way, I retrained the algorithms to show me Boxer puppies, people catching monster trouts, and other assorted silliness. The political stuff – when I stopped – stopped being served to me as much.
Additionally, I have been experimenting with information diets, literally starving myself of news content or turning it all off. It is difficult, but I am also finding that ALL truly important news finds me – really, really quickly. A call, an email, a text – I don’t want to brag – but I have yet to miss a “major news story.”
BUT, here is the most important suggestion to solving divisiveness at the individual level: scotch (or coffee if you don’t drink).
We must seek out different people and form trusting relationships with them. We must not allow ourselves to label the others as “evil” or even worse. We all need more circuit breakers.
I will agree, some people are likely gone. Gone into a dark place that we aren’t going to be able to form a relationship with. Pick some one different.
My wife keeps me grounded (in more ways that I can count), and she is gasp….a member of the other party.
She is my circuit breaker.
When I find myself enraged at the other side and on the verge of calling them all names – she appears and asks me to put the damn toilet seat down for the 1,000,000 time. It is literally impossible for me to hate her and her patience.
When elected officials call the others “animals” or when talking heads call the others “evil” or when political “leaders” swear the “left is out to murder us all”, my wife steps in and waves.
Each of us needs such a stop gap in our political dealings – especially if you work in the field.
So here is the concrete suggestion – find someone on the “other” side to have a scotch or cup of coffee with and just have a natter. (Maybe more pubs without wifi and tvs…..)
It is critical we form a trusting relationship with an “other”(s) so that when you have the urge to start hating, you too have a circuit breaker.
Conclusion
Divisiveness is all around us – it is rewarded financially; it is rewarded socially – one could argue it is a near currency in today’s public.
Until government regulation and case law catches up, we need awareness that we are essentially on our own.
And divisiveness is a strange game. The only winning move – at the moment – is not to play and have a scotch.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
