Judd Gregg: The great disruption

We are in a time that could be called “the period of disruption.”  

Across all arenas we are seeing major — and, to a large degree, unpredictable — disruptions in what has been the norm.

{mosads}Everywhere one turns, changes are occurring that will affect the fundamental processes of our society and of world politics.

Technology is the largest driver of these changes. We hear a lot these days about “the internet of things” but really what we have now is “the internet of everything.”

Communication, education, work, healthcare — virtually every area of activity is now being fundamentally changed by technology in general and by the internet in particular.   

We are just beginning to see the effects. The shift will be dramatic in every aspect of how we live, how our economy works, and how the world functions.

Our American political system has been very much drawn into this process of disruption. The consequences are already showing. They have significant implications for how we govern ourselves in our unique democratic system.

The role of the political parties is going through fundamental change as a result of the internet and its impact on the manner in which people interact around political discourse.

The internet has also given us instantaneous and constant coverage of news and events, which has its own effects.

Our government is rooted in a checks-and-balances system. We are not a parliamentary system where the majority party has de facto control over the machinery of government.

Rather, when James Madison set up our government at Philadelphia, the idea was to contain the power of the governing class by not allowing excessive power to be concentrated in either the executive branch or the legislative branch.

Our form of government requires that there be a significant level of consensus before serious actions occur.

This consensus is arrived at through some level of principled compromise. This compromise generally has a bipartisan component. This, in turn, enables legislation or other government action to be seen as fair. 

In fact, the creation of the Constitution was itself the first major reflection of this approach. It is often referred to as the product of “The Great Compromise.”

We have a two-party system in this country because it allows us to set out on the road that eventually ends in consensus.

The parties offer a big tent, under which people can gather even if their views differ on matters other than some essential principles.

Those who gather as Republicans do so because they generally agree that government should focus on individual initiative, liberty and keeping the burden of government under control.

Those who gather under the Democratic banner do so because they generally believe that government should be used to promote the general welfare and social justice of the nation in a more activist way.

In this way, the parties provide an organizing function that is essential if our complicated and diverse nation is to exhibit some kind of coherence. Without this structure, a nation as large and rambunctious as the United States could become essentially ungovernable.

The political disruption we are seeing today is leading to the breakdown of the two-party system.

The need for politically engaged people to develop an allegiance to parties has been dramatically eroded by the internet and other forms of communication. So, too, has the need to reach consensus within those parties.

The Donald Trump phenomenon and the Bernie Sanders movement reflect this shift that is muting the consensus-building role of the two major parties.  

This makes governing difficult because the system that enabled consensus is being superseded. The new form of dialogue for the most part rejects the concept of consensus.

Political dialogue is now dominated by the internet. It is a medium that gives primacy to those who do not tolerate views that differ from their own.

This is a major political disruption.

It is not the sole cause of the dysfunction we see in our system. There are other causes, including the failure of President Obama and the Congress to show leadership.

But the nature of internet-led dialogue does raise a major concern. The organizational forces that have evolved over decades to facilitate the principled compromise needed for governance have been marginalized and rejected. How, then, will our system work?

This disruption is only going to grow in importance. Its implications will only become broader and more profound as we move further into this century. 

The question is, how do we adjust a checks-and-balances form of government so it can work in this new, mutating, technology-led era?

The state of this year’s presidential election suggests we have no answer to this question. 

This is not good for our nation or our form of government.

Judd Gregg (R) is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee.