Is It Enough To Follow The Money?

A few days ago, I suggested that following the money is a good way to determine what is really going on in the political process. The key question, I suggested is "who benefits and who pays?"

Yesterday's New York Times offered a different analysis. In his article, "Forget The Money, Follow The Sacredness," Jonathan Haidt offers an alternate explanation of the American political process. He explains politics as a "competition among coalitions of tribes."

"The key to understanding tribal behavior," Haidt explains, "is not money, it’s sacredness. The great trick that humans developed at some point in the last few hundred thousand years is the ability to circle around a tree, rock, ancestor, flag, book or god, and then treat that thing as sacred. People who worship the same idol can trust one another, work as a team and prevail over less cohesive groups. So if you want to understand politics, and especially our divisive culture wars, you must follow the sacredness."

I don't deny that Haidt has a good point regarding voter behavior. On the other hand, how does it come about that a particular person, place or thing becomes viewed as sacred?

Sacred things don't necessarily become that way by growing organically from grass roots. The idea of sacredness is usually planted, watered, fertilized and nurtured by forces with a lot of money and power.

The mechanics of how this is done are examined in today's New York Times  in an opinion piece, "The Uses Of Polarization."

The central question seems to be whether our admittedly flawed political process can be improved. I am reminded of Winston Churchill's observation that Democracy is the "worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

So what is to be done?

Once again Churchill has a suggestion: "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?"