Behaving badly

By Don Loranger

Dr. Tom Krause, a noted industrial psychologist, puts forth an interesting concept on "behaviors" surrounding safety in the workplace and elsewhere in our private lives. And though not focused on politics, his ideas seem to have applicability to the political scene as well.

Simply put, Krause claims with seeming logic that behaviors are based on an individual's perceived view of the potential alternative consequences that could result from those behaviors. He defines them as having three basic components: 1) whether or not the potential consequence is apt to occur soon or in the distant future; 2) the certainty of the consequence occurring; and 3) whether or not the consequence would be perceived as a negative or positive by the person doing the behavior. Most importantly, his research shows that, whenever possible, human beings generally choose behaviors that are most apt to result in consequences that are "soon," "certain" to occur, and "positive."

A motorist deciding whether or not to consume alcohol before driving provides us a good illustration here. In pondering this decision, most drivers would normally weigh a variety of potential consequences outlined in the matrix cited above. For the moment, let's go back to the 1960s and 1970s, and assume that our driver decides to drink in sufficient quantity that it would put him or her over the legal limit. It means this particular driver has generally perceived the consequences as acceptable: the immediate and positive buzz derived from the alcohol and the certainty of its occurrence-if you drink enough, you will get drunk-every single time. And sure, in many cases, avoidance of the negative consequence of needing to walk home may have also have played a role here.

Certainly, there were potential negative consequences, but in those days, they were frequently insufficient to "drive" the correct behavior. First, you were unlikely to get caught, and if you did, the charges in all but the most egregious cases would be pled down to a missing taillight or some such minor offense. Second, in most circles, there was little social stigma attached to a DWI-everybody did it and a few got caught. So what? It was "cool."

Finally, after countless tragedies with drugs and alcohol being primary factors, society in the form of MADD, other private institutions and our government stepped in and fundamentally changed the potential consequences of this behavior. Enhanced law enforcement that drastically increased the likelihood of apprehending DWI offenders coupled with heavy fines, driving school, suspended licenses, and even jail time were all components of this change. It was no longer "cool" either. In short, society changed the potential consequences and the behavior diminished significantly as a result.

This is not "rocket scientist" stuff, but I do wonder why it does not seem to work well in our political system. We elect office holders to solve, or at least mitigate, the many problems our society faces on a local, state and national level. The list is pretty long and substantial. Illegal immigration, tax reform, healthcare costs and access, Social Security/Medicare funding, the lack of environmentally responsible, yet profitable, resource extraction polices, grossly inefficient school system structures and a foreign policy that has seemingly increased our national security vulnerabilities are but a few of the complex and daunting problems we face. And yet, successive federal and state governments seem to only nibble at the edges and leave resolution of these pervasive challenges to future generations-more often than not making them even bigger problems in the end.

More to the point, we (the voting public) seem content with these "consequences," or lack thereof. In the House of Representatives, incumbents are reelected at a 95% rate. Nationwide, in 2006 we elected 36 governors-twenty-seven of whom (75%) were incumbents-only one incumbent governor lost. Since the first post-Seventeenth Amendment freshman class of 1920, fully 82.5% of freshmen Senators have been reelected. Overall, the senatorial number would be even higher were it not for the comparatively low 50% election rate of those who were appointed to their position mid-term to fill an unexpected vacancy. Incumbent reelection rates for state legislators are even higher though Montana's term limits tend to reduce this number slightly.

So why is it that beyond "pork barrel spending"and special favors for special interests that we seem to get so little from our elected officials.

Certainly, they do some good, but at all levels of government they seem incapable, or at best, slow paced, when it comes to confronting and resolving our most complex and serious problems.

Politicians are mindful that problem resolution also entails crossing swords with some distinct elements of the body politic. Depending on the issue this may not be a show-stopper that prevents resolution, but it becomes one more probably when these distinct elements are "pooled" as it were to confront the office holder with a larger mix of opponents than a future reelection bid can successfully confront. Thus, for the office holder the "do not solve the problem" behavior all too often wins as the consequences are soon (next election), relatively certain (reelected at the aforementioned incumbent rates), and positive (holding an office of prestige and influence).

So who is responsible here? In our democratic republic, voters control the consequences, and until voters impose unacceptable consequences on those office holders who fail to collectively and cooperatively meet our needs, I fear our most significant challenges will continue to go unheeded. Our children and grandchildren will face the consequences of that failure alone. For their sake, we must at least do for office holders what we did for drunk drivers-reward their failures with the unacceptable consequences-and watch their behaviors change.