In the climactic scene in the movie “Cool Hand Luke,” Luke defiantly exclaims, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” How true that sentiment is today. Let’s start with a few questions. If you wrote an email or sent a letter to a public official, would you expect a personal reply? If not, then why bother sending it? If communication with our elected officials is always one way, how effective is it?
Politicians have the ability to expound at length on any topic. They talk endlessly whether they are knowledgeable on the topic or not. They sometimes ramble even if there is little or no truth to what they are saying. Their messages through various sources are endless.
As citizens, we can talk and write freely about politicians, which is one of the foundational rights of our great country. Still, politicians are talking at us, and we are talking at them. They aren’t talking with us, and we aren’t talking with them. There is a disconnect between our elected officials and their constituents that isn’t healthy, nor does it build trust and faith in our political process or politicians themselves. Not surprisingly, Congress has had an extremely low approval rating for quite some time.
A month ago, I sent personal letters to two candidates for president. To one candidate, I personally handed a copy of the letter. In these correspondences, I asked each candidate very specific questions. The only response to date has been automated daily texts and emails, none of which have addressed my questions.
If our politicians don’t engage us personally, how do we hold them accountable? How do we challenge their thinking if they don’t read our emails and letters personally? How can they claim to represent us if they don’t communicate with us? And why in the world would anyone send money to a person who refuses to communicate with them on a personal level? Perhaps this is why so many people feel detached from the political process, and why voter turnout isn’t higher. Now the obvious excuse is that candidates for political office, especially at the national level, are too busy and receive too many letters and emails to respond to all of them. There may be some truth to that, but if they cannot find the time to answer all communications personally, does this make it acceptable to answer none of them, except with an automated reply?
I suspect the campaign staffs of national candidates do in fact have a methodology to produce thoughtful responses to some portion of the communications they receive. Are they responding to the right ones and overall, what percentage are they responding to of the total received? These are our representatives, but do they really understand how we feel about issues, or are they basing campaign strategy on polls and pundits who may be inaccurate and biased?
I would really like to see a politician stop talking and listen. Really listen to us without saying a word. I would also like politicians to do nothing without fully understanding the potential consequences, intended and unintended. Throughout history, it is usually the latter that is more impactful and does the most harm. Sometimes doing nothing, while patiently waiting for market forces and our collective wisdom to sort things out is the best approach. Common sense, the laws of economics, and the inherent goodness in people tend to be stabilizing forces when imbalances occur, gradually reversing trends that have gotten too extreme. Unfortunately, when politicians and their unelected minions are driven by an insatiable lust for power, these positive, self-correcting forces are largely ignored. That seems to be what is happening all too often today.
From an investment perspective, there has been a long-held belief that gridlock is good. Essentially, it is good for the economy and markets if nothing substantive happens in Washington. Sadly, many investors think gridlock is the best scenario possible. I tend to agree with this sentiment, especially in the context of recent political developments. Still, I remain ever hopeful that one day this will change. As I have said many times in the past, this will take truly dynamic leadership. Who will that individual be and when will he or she show up? Until then we are left with the uneasy feeling that bad things are coming in the future, as the age of American Exceptionalism may be ending.
My favorite scene in Cool Hand Luke was the card game in which Luke bluffed and won the largest pot. He didn’t say much, but there was a lot of chatter as the other players tried to figure out how good a hand Luke was holding. As it turned out, he had nothing, it was all a bluff. Then Luke smiled and said, “Sometimes nothing, is a real cool hand.” Yes, indeed.