It is this situation – in which people perceive that politics is functioning mainly in function of powerful side interests – that polarization is thriving. Citizen frustration with politics makes them receptive to protest votes and ever more uncompromising positions. While Tea Party members might be especially uncompromising, in effect all politicians have not been able to escape popular tensions demanding to resist business-as-usual compromises.

The sincerity of ‘true believers’ only plays a small part in this. Even if one concedes that Tea Party supporters act on sincere beliefs, their ultimate influence is a function of the backing of self-interested actors (amongst them Fox News and large financial donations of PACs) and a disengaged citizenry willing to take a more radical stand. Hence, reasonable compromise is not so much prevented by philosophical truths, but rather by a change in the basic rules guiding the political game. In theory, if the root problem were merely to consist of a new crop of politicians lacking in the art of compromise, the crisis in governability would be easily resolved with the next elections. However, the usual recipes do not seem to apply anymore. Normally considered a virtue, compromise is now seen as the outcome of a skewed process to the benefit of special interest groups.

The Minister of Interior Affairs in The Netherlands (my native country) recently announced his wish to enact legislation to make it more difficult for journalists to obtain inside information (minutes of formal meetings, etc.) on political deals – compromises if you wish. He compared the political decision making process with making sausages, and stated that nobody actually would like to have a look inside the factories to see how sausages are made. His position was that politics is a dirty and difficult process, but it is the only way to make gradual progress. Nevertheless, this position negates that politics has become an ever more unequal place and that citizens tired of politics-as-usual first of all demand political reforms to make public decision making less dirty. Without such reforms, protest votes for anti-establishment parties will unfortunately keep politics from meeting governability requirements for the time being – defying factual truths.

However, economic growth however is a key part of reducing the deficit. For the full impact of it to be felt, it would need to be equitable and not disproportionately benefit the top income brackets. This would not be a problem if more businesses had a sense of social responsibility. That is currently in short supply, so a change in corporate culture would seem to also be a part of the solution, maybe a big part.

I that that Gary might be ambivalent about Tea Party sincerity. Good to have that clarified. But we don’t only disagree in our political judgments. We have a significant theoretical difference as well. I am convinced by my teacher (metaphorically speaking), Hannah Arendt. I think philosophic truth (that of libertarianism for example) is an enemy of politics. Politics has to be about opinion. On this I am also with Madison. On this I am more informed by the master conservative Edmund Burke than present day conservatives are. Whether incremental or revolutionary, democracy is endangered when partisans believe they have the truth and their opponents don’t. In this way, opponents become enemies, something that is quite evident in our present political situation. In the second half of the 20th century, this danger came from the left. In the US today, it comes from the right.

The facts provided are consistent with analyses offered by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) in “The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook” dated January 2010 update (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10468sp.pdf) and 2011 update (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11451sp.pdf) ; and its “Citizen’s Guide to the 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government” (http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2010/10guide.pdf). All of these demonstrate that our current policies are unsustainable in the long run, and there is a tremendous cost to delaying dealing with them sooner than later. This is consistent with the financial downgrade warnings of S&P and Moody’s Ratings services.

What these reports show what has happened after the horses have been left out of the barn, and what the trajectories are for the future. The warning signs had already posted decades ago as the United States for a variety of reasons has drifted away from primary industries towards a consumption driven service economy. Along with it, the life changes of most Americans have also fallen. There are many reasons for this. One of the most commonly cited is the hourly compensation costs for the rest of the World versus China. In 2009, hourly compensation costs in manufacturing for the United States were $33.53. Guesstimates for China in 2008 were about $1.36. These are based on studies done by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ichcc.pdf). There are many other reasons including tremendous barriers for obtaining governmental approvals for new projects in the United States.

In my view, if we want to deal with the budgetary issues, then it will be necessary to deal with finding ways to rebuild the U. S. economy by shifting more emphasis to production. This is where substantial value can be created and value creation is the basis for redistribution.