政治为什么辜负了美国

从差不多所有衡量标准来看，美国政治产业都在蓬勃发展。现在的政治活动似乎无穷无尽，而且雇佣了一大批游说者、民意调查人和员工，高级顾问备受欢迎，媒体的兴趣就像个无底洞；选举方面，整体开支（通常代表着一个行业的成功水平）接近历史最高点。

只有一个问题。本该从这项繁荣事业中获利的人，或者说美国公众，变得空前地失望。盖勒普的数据显示，去年9月，表示自己至少“比较信任政治领导人”的美国人所占的比例触及历史最低点。今年2月，近五分之一（19%）的美国民众认为对政府不满意是美国面临的最大问题。相比之下，盖勒普此项调查中感觉“经济”是美国最紧迫问题的受访者只占9%。

为什么政治产业复合体一片繁荣时客户却比以往任何时候都不满意呢？要回答这个问题，我们得把商业分析工具用于美国政治。我们的结论是：美国政治这个行业由两强垄断，它的反竞争程度和大家如今可能发现的差不多。其结果就像普林斯顿大学政治学教授马丁·季伦思和西北大学决策学教授本杰明·佩奇2014年的著名研究所表明的那样，普通选民的倾向对公共政策毫无影响。

情况并非一直如此。在很长一段时间里，美国政治体系一直让全世界感到羡慕。这个体系促进了公众利益，而且带来了政治创新的恢宏历史。然而，如今它彻底变成了一个障碍，阻挠着美国去解决几乎所有需要应付的重大挑战。

哈佛商学院的美国竞争力研究项目发现，在所有重新带来繁荣和增长所需的关键政策措施上，美国政府实际上都毫无建树。陷入瘫痪的政治体系突然成了美国未来的最大威胁。

怎么会走到这一步呢？在一定程度上，是潜移默化所致。在过去几十年中，美国政治体系进行缓慢调整的目的不是服务于公众利益，而是私人盈利组织的利益，或者说主要政党及其实业界盟友。虽然基本没有引起普通民众的注意，但这些团体制定的一系列规则和惯例巩固了他们的力量，并且削弱了美国的民主。

的确，美国的缔造者可能会不认识如今美国的政治体系。它的许多日常要素在宪法中都找不到依据——宪法可没提到过任何造成眼下政治体系失灵的政党、党内初选、政党会议、提名规则、分隔开来的国会衣帽间、政党决定的委员会人事任命、阻挠国会议事的规则以及不计其数的其他惯例。美国第二任总统约翰·亚当斯是美国的缔造者中最敏锐的思想家之一。他甚至就两强垄断警告过这个新兴国家，亚当斯说：“我梦到次数最多的就是合众国分裂成两大党派，它们各自为政，并且筹划着相互敌对的措施。”

但这确实是如今局势的精确写照。要解决这个问题，关键就在于首先要认识到我们的政治体系是个价值数百亿美元的产业，而且会给参与者带来巨大经济效益。

就像我们所说的那样，这个产业的核心是两强垄断，也就是存在两大政党。围绕它们建立的是我们所说的政治产业复合体，也就是一系列相互联系的实体，它们既参与这项产业，也为它提供支持。这些实体包括专项利益团体、游说者、民意调查者、顾问、党派智囊和超级政治行动委员会，当然还有媒体。所有行业成员实际上都和这个或那个，或者说右翼和左翼派系存在联系。

政治领域的竞争看来很激烈。众多候选人、突破天际的开支水平以及不间断的媒体报道都说明了这一点。而且就像任何经济学学生都会告诉你的那样，竞争通常有利于消费者。但这里的情况并非如此。这是因为通过竞争来赢得选举的立足点不对。选举和施政都包含了反竞争的利益勾结。因此，这个行业的主要消费者，也就是专项利益团体和捐赠者基本上都受到了两方面权力经纪人的保护。政治竞争的初衷越发背离促进公众利益，而以培养忠实的资金来源和鼓励党内初选投票者为目标。

这个行业的关键供应商，比如政治活动顾问、民意调查员和数据大拿、筹款人、立法人员以及许多智囊机构都和处于垄断位置的两强紧密合作。这样，我们的电视也分成了两派，每派都有一大堆电视频道来宣扬它们各自的观点。

独立候选人在现代政治活动所需的筹款和专业人才建设上都面临巨大挑战（两党以外的任何挑战者甚至都很难上台参与辩论）。

在这里，美国政治似乎打破了经济法则。毕竟，消费者普遍不满意应该鼓励市场中出现新的竞争。但在美国政治行业，根本就没有新面孔。一百多年来，美国从未出现过任何重要的新政党。

两大党派操控了选举程序，以确保分隔，同时不鼓励解决问题和进步。两党划分选区和初选是这种机制的关键。一位划定选区选出的议员必需迎合本党初选选民，而不是回应普选投票者，对全体民众或公众利益的回应也要少得多。在党派成员使用了大多数投票权的党内初选中，持温和态度的人士成了“珍稀物种”。寻求妥协的议员可能被较极端的党内积极分子所惩罚，这会让下次初选中的竞争者更左或更右。温和只会成为政治攻击广告的炮灰；温和派议员也濒临绝迹。再也没有妥协这回事。

由此产生的结果就是两党争相分割民众，而不是做出成绩。

虽然可能会有明确证据显示这种牢固的两党体制阻碍了新竞争者的出现，人为限制和压缩了选民的选择范围，而且共同制定了确保其占据几乎全部市场份额的规则，但反垄断监管部门不太可能打破这样的局面（可惜的是，反垄断法不能用于政治）。

尽管如此，政治改革方面还是有一些实用的好主意，它们可以帮助民众重新夺回政治体系控制权。以下是对这些方案的简略介绍：

开展无党派初选。现行初选机制让竞选活动（和施政行为）走向极端。如果向全体民众开放初选，就会迫使所有候选人设法满足所有选民，而不仅仅是党内的极左或极右派。在无党派机制下，一次初选将囊括所有候选人，无论其隶属关系。得票最多的两名候选人，更理想情况下，四名候选人将参加普选。

进行无党派选区划分。划分选区人为地让掌握控制权的政党处于非常有利的位置。它减少了竞争性席位，带来了极端的候选人，让当选者的责任心降到了最低水平。这种情况必须得到改变。

别让个人团体控制众参两院的规则。必须大幅削弱党派对日常立法和管理事务的控制力。如果妨碍妥协与合作的规则和惯例被消除，通过跨党派公开对话来实施这个国家需要的立法制度调整就会变得容易的多。

降低独立候选人的参选门槛。在这个疯狂的党派制环境下，寻找有资格、有才能而又温和的独立候选人来从事管理工作并非易事。但要鼓励这种做法，我们就必须首先建立能让竞争变得公平起来的选举和财务制度。

拥抱参议员支点策略。有助于打破当前政治僵局的较快、较有效率而且效果较明显的方法是宣传三到五名独立的、打算解决问题并有相应日程安排的中立派参议员。他们可以作为一个灵活的团体，既有可能让某个政党失去多数地位，又能从核心推动变革（详见centristproject.org）。

有些措施已经开始得到支持。加州和华盛顿已经实现无党派初选。最近法院反对党派式选区划分的裁决也是个前景光明的开始。人们开始组建支持温和派独立候选人的团体。但要重新掌控我们的政治体系，就需要大规模的持续努力，包括重大政治捐助。我们呼吁，从根本上理解竞争重要性的工商界设法帮助美国政界恢复有益的竞争，以促进公众利益。

唐纳德·特朗普利用了人们对美国政府的极度不满，并且通过具有极端分离主义特色的竞选活动成为总统。但如果不是两党垄断的一部分，他就无法获胜。这个行业的结构并未改变，但它必须发生变化。重铸民主的时刻已到。我们的竞争力以及全体美国民众的未来都要依靠它。（财富中文网）

作者：Katherine M.Gehl, Michael E. Porter

译者：Charlie

凯瑟琳·M·吉尔是Gehl Foods前总裁兼首席执行官，也是一位政治创新积极分子和演说家。迈克尔·E·波特是哈佛商学院教授、竞争和策略专家。他们将在4月份就发表本报告的全文（参见www.hbs.edu/competitiveness）。

原文最初刊登在2017年3月15日出版的《财富》杂志上。

By nearly every measure, America’s political industry is thriving. Campaigns are now seemingly endless and put to work an immense roster of canvassers, pollsters, and staff; top consultants are in high demand; media interest is bottomless; and when it comes to elections, overall spending (a normal proxy for an industry’s success) is near an all-time high.

There’s just one problem. The people who are supposed to benefit from this booming enterprise—the American public—have never been more dissatisfied. The share of Americans who say they have at least a “fair amount of trust in political leaders” hit its nadir last September, according to Gallup. And in February, nearly one-fifth of Americans (19%) said dissatisfaction with government was the single biggest problem the country faced. By contrast, just 9% of those surveyed by Gallup felt “the economy” was America’s most pressing concern.

Why is the political-industrial complex flourishing while its customers are less satisfied than ever? To answer that question, we’ve applied the tools of business analysis to American politics. Our conclusion: U.S. politics is an industry—a duopoly that’s about as anticompetitive as you’re likely to find these days. The result, as a prominent 2014 study by Princeton’s ¬Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page shows, is that the preferences of the average voter have a near-zero impact on public policy.

It wasn’t always that way. America’s political system was long the envy of the world. The system advanced the public interest and gave rise to a grand history of policy innovations. Today, however, it serves as only a barrier to solving nearly every important challenge our nation needs to address.

The Harvard Business School’s project on U.S. competitiveness found that Washington has made virtually no progress on any of the essential policy steps needed to restore prosperity and growth. A broken political system has suddenly become the greatest threat to our nation’s future.

So how did we get here? In part, by stealth. Over the last several decades, the American political system has been slowly reconfigured to serve not the public interest, but rather the interest of private, gain-seeking organizations: our major political parties and their industry allies. These players have put in place a set of rules and practices that, while largely unnoticed by the average citizen, have enhanced their power and diminished our democracy.

Indeed, America’s current political system would be unrecognizable to our founders. Many of its day-to-day components have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution—which offers no mention of political parties, party primaries, caucuses, ballot access rules, segregated congressional cloakrooms, party-determined committee assignments, filibuster rules, and countless other practices that drive today’s dysfunction. John Adams, our second President and one of the most astute thinkers among America’s founders, even warned the upstart nation against slipping into a duopoly, saying, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.”

But that, of course, is precisely how things stand now. And the key to fixing it is to first see our political system as the multibillion-dollar industry it is—a business with significant economic benefits for its participants.

At its center, as we said, is the duopoly: the two major parties. Around them has arisen what we call the political-industrial complex—an interconnected set of entities that participate in and support the industry: special interests, lobbyists, pollsters, consultants, partisan think tanks, super PACs, and, yes, the media too. Virtually all the industry players are connected to one side or the other—the right or the left.

Competition in politics appears intense—¬witness the numerous candidates, sky-high spending, and minute-to-minute media coverage. And as any student of economics will tell you, competition is typically good for customers. But not here. That’s because the competition to win elections is on the wrong things. And both elections and governing involve an anticompetitive collusion of interests. Hence, the key customers of this industry—the special interests and donors—are largely protected by power brokers on both sides. Increasingly, political competition is designed not to advance the public interest, but rather to cultivate loyal funding sources and motivate partisan primary voters.

Critical suppliers to the industry, such as campaign consultants, pollsters and data gurus, fundraisers, legislative staff, and many think tanks, are closely aligned with the duopoly. So, too, are our television sets divided in two, with brigades of channels reinforcing each side’s viewpoints.

Independent candidates face huge challenges in securing the funding and professional infrastructure needed for a modern campaign. (Any challenger outside this two-party system would have a hard time even getting on a debate stage.)

And this is where America’s politics seem to break the economic rules: After all, widespread customer dissatisfaction ought to encourage new competition in the marketplace. But in the industry of American politics, there are virtually no upstart entrants. No significant new party has emerged in the U.S. in over a century.

The parties have rigged the electoral process to guarantee division and disincentivize problem solving and progress. Partisan gerrymandering and primaries together are crucial to this structure. A legislator from a gerrymandered district must cater to the partisan primary voters from his or her own party, not answer to the general-election voters, much less to citizens overall or to the public interest. In a party primary in which partisans cast most of the votes, those with moderate views are an endangered species. And a legislator who pursues compromise may be punished by more extreme partisan activists fielding a challenger further to the left or right in the next primary. Moderation has become mere fodder for political attack ads; moderate legislators are a dying breed. There is no more compromise.

The net result is that the duopoly competes to divide citizens, not deliver solutions.

And while the evidence may be strong that this entrenched two-party system has blocked new competitors, artificially restricted and narrowed voter choice, and colluded to set rules that ensure their near-total market share, antitrust regulators aren’t likely to break it up. (Unfortunately, antitrust statutes don’t apply to politics.)

That said, there are good, practical ideas for political reform that will help citizens retake control of their political system. Here, a brief playbook:

Institute nonpartisan primaries. The current primary system shifts campaigns (and governance) toward the extremes. But opening up primaries to all citizens would force all candidates to appeal to a general electorate, rather than just the far left or far right of their party. Under a nonpartisan system, there would be one primary that included all candidates no matter their affiliation. The top two vote-getters—or better yet, the top four—would then advance to the general election.

Institute nonpartisan redistricting. Gerrymandering is the process of drawing legislative district boundaries that create a strong artificial advantage for the party in control. It reduces competitive seats, leads to extreme candidates, and minimizes accountability of elected officials. This has to change.

Don’t let private parties control the House and Senate rules. Partisan control over day-to-day legislating and governance must be significantly reduced. If rules and practices that block compromise and collaboration are eliminated, it will be much easier to have an open, bipartisan discussion about the legislative fixes the country needs.

Reduce barriers to entry for independent candidates. In this rabid partisan atmosphere, it won’t be easy recruiting qualified and talented independent and moderate candidates to run for office. But to encourage this, we must first build an election and financing infrastructure that begins to level the playing field.

Embrace the Senate Fulcrum Strategy. A relatively fast, efficient, and effective way to help break the current political gridlock is to elect three to five centrist independent U.S. senators with a problem-solving mind-set and agenda. They can act as a swing coalition that potentially denies either party a majority and force change from the center (see centristproject.org for details).

Some of these steps are already starting to gain traction. California and Washington have instituted nonpartisan primaries. Recent court rulings against partisan gerrymandering are a promising start as well. And groups are forming to support moderates and independent candidates. But taking back our political system will require a large-scale, sustained effort, including significant political philanthropy. We call on the business community—which understands how fundamentally important competition is—to help restore healthy competition to advance the public interest in American politics.

Donald Trump capitalized on the deep dissatisfaction with Washington to get elected President in a campaign marked by extreme divisiveness. Yet Trump could not have won without being part of the duopoly. The industry structure has not changed, and it needs to. It’s time to restore our democracy. Our competitiveness—and the future of all Americans—depends on it.

A version of this article appears in the March 15, 2017 issue of Fortune.