How to fix US politics? Maybe start by seeing it as an ‘industrial complex.’

America’s political dysfunction stems from a duopoly structure that’s been amplified in recent decades, a new report argues. Some states may already be pointing toward solutions that better serve the public interest.

Cliff Owen/AP
Sen. John McCain, (R) of Arizona is pursued by reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington in July. He opposed an effort to pass health care reforms with only Republican votes, saying in an impassioned speech that Congress needs to make more effort toward bipartisan policymaking.

In 2015, shortly after selling her family’s food-products business, CEO Katherine Gehl had an epiphany: What if you analyzed the US political system as an industry? Suddenly, new answers appeared for questions, such as: Why are politics so partisan? Why can’t Washington get things done? Ms. Gehl teamed up with Harvard business professor Michael Porter, a consultant for her family business, to investigate the industry of politics. On Sept. 13, they released a report, “Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America.” Here are edited excerpts of their conversation with Monitor business writer Laurent Belsie.

What kind of industry is the US political system?

Katherine Gehl: Eisenhower in 1961 said: Beware the military-industrial complex. He said that the industry could become so powerful and would put its own aims ahead of what it was supposed to be for. What Michael and I are saying today is beware the political-industrial complex. That business, that industry of politics, has its own gain-seeking behavior. And that industry is thriving even as customers, citizens, are increasingly dissatisfied.

Why do you say it’s thriving? Most people say Washington politics is broken.

KG: The system is designed to deliver what it’s delivering. The challenge is that it’s not designed to deliver for citizens, for the public interest. Instead, our system has been designed and optimized over time to benefit the interests of our two political parties and all their associated industry allies.



Jacob Turcotte/Staff

And that’s the problem – two parties?

Michael Porter: If you have two dominant competitors, the last thing they want to do is compete for the same customers. They’d rather divide up the customers, because then they can differentiate themselves. Their respective loyalists will then be very dedicated to support them and give money and vote.

How does the industry’s structure frustrate voters?

KG: Partisan primaries combined with gerrymandering constitute the largest impediment to compromise…. The partisan primary was originally introduced as a political reform by the progressives designed actually to make the political system more responsive to what voters wanted by taking the selection of candidates away from the smoke-filled back rooms. But it turns out that the unintended circumstance is that it now cements this control of extremists on both parties.

Is this a recent phenomenon?

MP: This was not a grand conspiracy where a bunch of people got into a room and said: “We’re going to totally take over our system.” It was rolled out over time. But the net effect is that over the last 20, 30, 40 years, we start to see the failure of our system to deliver solutions. And it’s gotten now to be super acute. We can’t solve anything now…. Particularly tragic is that this competition we’ve created among the parties – not to serve the middle but to serve their constituencies on the extreme – is driving a discussion and a set of norms that are really tearing our country apart. We are turning Americans against Americans and the enemy is our fellow-citizens.

Is the Trump phenomenon a healthy rebellion against the system?

KG: The election of Donald Trump is, first of all, an endorsement of this widespread view that the public is dramatically dissatisfied with what’s coming out of Washington, D.C. So Donald Trump represents the public trying to do something different and perhaps drain the swamp. We don’t, however, believe that Donald Trump’s election fundamentally changes the structure.

How do you change the structure?

KG: We want to see the implementation of nonpartisan primaries, nonpartisan redistricting, and ranked choice voting [where voters rank candidates in order of preference, rather than picking one person]. Together those reforms introduce a new level of accountability and lower barriers to entry to new competition that could better serve the public interest.

MP: What we’d love to do is file an antitrust case against the political parties. Unfortunately, the parties are exempt…. In the short run, we talk about this idea of jump-starting new moderate competition. We have the Senate fulcrum strategy – just electing four or five centrist senators to actually create a swing coalition or a fulcrum.

How do you run candidates that have a viable chance of getting elected?

KG: In the case of the Centrist Project – full disclosure, I’m on the board there – our plan is to strategically select states where there is a viable electoral opportunity open to an independent. Then you have to find the right compelling candidate the same way that Democrats and Republicans have to do. It is not rocket science, but it is hard.

Your long-term solutions also look hard.

KG: Each state decides how its going to run its election system. In 27 states, they have citizens referendums. That’s where you’re going to get the first breakthrough on changing the rules of this game. And we’ve seen it. Nonpartisan primaries and nonpartisan redistricting passed through citizens referendum in the states of California and Washington. Ranked-choice voting passed by citizen referendum in the state of Maine. There’s a case going to the United States Supreme Court, which is from my home state of Wisconsin, that will be heard on Oct. 3 that is challenging partisan gerrymandering.

Is change possible, realistically?

KG: It’s transformational looking at the problem through a new lens…. [Benjamin Franklin] knew a long time ago that it wasn’t a given that this American experiment was going to work and that it was going to endure. When he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, he was reportedly asked: “What have you given us?” And he said; “A Republic, if you can keep it.” And that is the question for us. It’s in danger right now.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to How to fix US politics? Maybe start by seeing it as an ‘industrial complex.’
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today