“If you listen to, believe, and vote for people with zero principles, what kind of country can you expect to end up with?”

Our Proposal:

• Implement steps to recommit our country to the crucial notion of principle
• Call out and penalize politicians and commentators with zero principles
• Clamp down on “emotion manipulation” in politics and news 

The Goal:

• Make politics about ideas and solutions, instead of reelection and partisanship 
• Rein in unscrupulous political commentators 
• Restore faith in news organizations

Explanation:

Part 1: Principles are the foundation of democracy, civil society, and prosperity.

The principle of “equality under the law” is a foundation of not only our democracy, it is key to separating civilization from mindless tribalism and savagery. It means that transgressions are the focus of law enforcement and the judiciary, not the attributes of the individuals who committed them. Without adherence to this all-important principle, laws can be (and have been) weaponized and applied in arbitrary ways against people depending on their individual characteristics and/or the group to which they belong. 

In the Jim Crow days for example if a white man sexually assaulted a black woman, it was “just boys being boys”. If a black man assaulted a white woman (or even just looked at her in way that was deemed inappropriate), it was the justification for lynching or other unimaginable brutality. Equality under the law in this example means one does not focus on the race of the individuals involved, but rather only on the alleged criminal act; assault is assault, the skin color of transgressor and the victim should never be a factor when justice is served. 

It goes without saying that in many countries the concept of equality under the law does not exist. In such places, laws are hijacked to benefit the powerful few and thus your likelihood of being targeted, jailed, tortured, and even killed by law enforcement can depend solely on whether or not you are a member of the ruling party or ethnic group. These countries are much more likely to be plagued with brutal corruption and otherwise exist in a perpetual state of wretched backwardness. Conversely, countries that recognize and strive to abide by the principle of equality under the law are much more likely to be listed among the world’s most affluent. These facts remind us: adherence to this principle and prosperity are closely linked.

This principle applies in analogous and much wider ways than just with respect to the law. For example, the manner in which news is presented of course should not change depending on the characteristics of the people involved, such as skin color, religion, gender, or political affiliation. Similarly, opinion pieces and commentaries should not vary wildly if for example one merely switches the names of the individuals or political parties that are being commented upon. Just as in the case of the law, it is the act, legislation or idea in question that should determine the content of the commentary, not the characteristics of the person or political party involved. 

It applies to politics as well: politicians for example should not favor or oppose legislation depending on the individual or political party that is proposing it, but instead should do so based on deeply held convictions, what is truly in the best interests of (all of their) constituents, and so on. 

Part 2: Principle vs. Emotion Manipulation

The Solutions Party believes that the notion of principle described here has been abandoned by too many people in our country, particularly politicians and influential political commentators, to the serious detriment of our democracy and prosperity. Neither democracy nor even civilization itself can exist if a society devolves into warring law-of-the-jungle camps of rival tribes, where principles are ignored and laws (as well as standards of behavior) are applied differently depending on who we are talking about and/or the political parties of those involved. Our ability to achieve wider prosperity and respond to new challenges is greatly weakened when mindless, unprincipled partisanship dominates and shackles our ability to progress.

We should expect our elected officials to set standards for their honesty, integrity and principled behavior. This behavior should be based on the awareness of the sacred responsibility that comes with the power of public office. Instead, every day we see “say-anything” politicians who care only about their own political fortunes and over-the-top partisan interests; politicians who stay silent when they should speak up, or who refuse to do what they know is right, because they are afraid above all that their reelection prospects will be negatively affected. 

As a simple example of partisanship trumping principle, just imagine an alternate universe in which the political parties of the presidents in the last three impeachment trials were reversed, everything else unchanged. Who doubts that the vast majority of the politicians involved in those impeachment proceedings would have switched their votes 180 degrees? Same alleged misdeeds, the only difference between a “guilty” and “non-guilty” vote is the political party of the accused. (Former GOP House Speaker John Boehner recently acknowledged that the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated.) Applying different standards on an individual-by-individual basis depending on political party hardly puts these politicians in good historical company. 

As another example, take the bitter partisan fight over Obamacare, and again imagine an alternate universe where it were known as Bushcare or Trumpcare (not such a wild idea: Obamacare adopted many of the ideas proposed by Republican Senator John Chafee in the early 1990s). Would not the same political battle have played out almost exactly in the same way as it had with Obamacare, only with the roles of the Democrats and Republicans reversed?

But perhaps the most egregious violations of the idea of principle described here are demonstrated by influential political commentators on the cable channels, talk radio and other news outlets. These commentators do not provide principled and insightful opinions, but instead are simply peddlers of political infotainment, partisan propaganda, and above all, emotion manipulation. When you hear one of their anger-inducing tirades – or conversely effusive praise – about someone or something, ask yourself this: would their take on things would completely change if you were to just switch the names of the people or the political party being talked about? (If the answer is affirmative, they should be accordingly ignored.)

The fact of the matter is that emotion manipulation is a tried-and-true method for winning elections, and is big business when disguised as political commentary. The emotion manipulation described here most often involves getting people hooked on, and continually coming back for, regular rage-fixes based on demonizing (carefully crafted depictions of) people who have different political views, belong to the other political party, or are otherwise “different” in some way. The goal is to stoke anger, resentment, and animosity, carefully packaged as “us versus them”, “good versus evil”, “right versus wrong”; prod these emotions to literally trigger the brain’s dopamine delivery system, and make the viewer feel a rage-induced (and addictive) high. From this point of view, these “zero-principles" politicians and commentators are no better than drug dealers, and in fact, are worse: adding fuel to ever more bitter division and tribalism greatly weakens our country and threatens our democracy—to the delight of the enemies of both. The despots of the world can point to America and say we are proof that democracy does not work. 

So let us be clear: creating divisions among people, playing off one group against another, and fomenting tribal rage in America (“culture wars”) is really about power and money, democracy be damned. It is evident that the abandonment of principle in favor of emotion manipulation in our country is above all due to 1) reelection-obsessed politicians, and 2) news organizations that place profits above principle and the health of our democracy.

Part 3: Toward a country based on principles

In order to restore faith in our politics and news organizations, and in turn protect and strengthen our democracy, the dual threat and unholy alliance of power-addicted politicians and greedy, unscrupulous political commentators needs to be reined in, and higher expectations of principled behavior need to be set. To do so we briefly propose the following:

For Politicians:

1. Do away with reelection: with reelection off the table, politicians should have much more incentive to adhere to principles, and in turn avoid senseless “say-anything” emotion manipulation, while they strive to make the most of their one opportunity to define their legacy.
2. End the conventional notion of political parties: give officially recognized political parties limited lifetimes (say 12 years), after which they must be disbanded so that new parties—with new leaders—can be formed. The intent is basically twofold: a) eliminate (or at least reduce the possibility of) counterproductive, zero-principles partisanship, and b) have new political parties be vehicles for fresh ideas and solutions, as free as possible from charged partisan emotions.
3. Hold political candidates accountable to false advertising-like laws: let there be possible (and significant) financial consequences for candidates who state outright falsehoods or out-and-out lie about what their opponents stand for—let’s make ridiculous, anger-inducing attack ads and silly, over-the-top exaggerations of political opponents a thing of the past. Make elections about ideas, not about distorted, emotion-manipulating portrayals of personalities. 
4. Give candidates and politicians a “trustworthiness rating”: in the same way students are graded, candidates for office and elected officials should be rated according to the consistency with which they stick to facts and principles, and otherwise avoid distortions of the truth and downright lies.

For Political Commentators:

1. Just as doctors and lawyers are board certified, set up a neutral organization to certify journalists, commentators, and news organizations.
2. The certifying organization would also issue a quality rating, based on adherence to principled, fair and balanced fact-based reporting and commentary.
3. Lack of adherence to principle results in downgraded rating, and in egregious cases, decertification. 

In addition to these measures, the notion of principle, and the menace of emotion manipulators disguised as politicians and political commentators, should be widely reinforced in the same way that the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse are.

It is easy to see why emotion manipulation, instead of principle, has come to dominate politics in our country—people unfortunately tend to respond more to rage-inducing nonsense than they do to principled discourse about ideas. But the abandonment of principle (and the subsequent rise in unbridled emotion manipulation) in our country is a major reason our country is in a state of ever-worsening disfunction and bitter tribalism. The preliminary proposals offered here are meant to help reverse these maladies, and usher in a new era of wider prosperity by restoring faith in our political institutions, news organizations, and ultimately our democracy. This will in turn set an example for other countries to emulate. Our example will be crucial to strengthen representative governments, and weaken authoritarianism, around the world. 

In subsequent posting these proposals will be expanded upon.