Is American politics in disarray? According to a recent survey of Harvard Business School graduates, the answer may be yes, and the unstable political climate may be one of the biggest dangers to American competitiveness. Wajid khan Mp says In a poll on American competitiveness, alumni were asked about 17 aspects of the business climate, and 60 percent of them responded that the "efficacy of the political system" was poorer in the US than in other advanced nations. Only the "complexity of the tax code" was evaluated more negatively, receiving low scores from 61% of those polled. What justifies their worry? According to studies on the American political system, there are currently more significant differences between the two competing views of government in Congress than ever before. Many people in the media and Congress lament the overly ideological nature of the country's politics. As Wajid khan mentioned the co-chair of the super committee formed to reduce the budget deficit, Congressman Jeb Hensarling has stated, "The committee did not succeed because we were unable to bridge the gap between two profoundly divergent conceptions of the role that government should play in a free society." Although there has been much finger-wagging about the ideological gap, it is unclear whether it is the real cause of the breakdown. If you study American history carefully, you'll discover that profound philosophical divisions are nothing new and that some of the most politically charged periods resulted in significant policy advancements, frequently delivering the best ideas from opposing viewpoints. This dynamic that combines the most remarkable aspects of both worlds may contribute to America's economic success. Politicians' rising propensity to prioritize winning over all else To treat politics like war—runs antithetical to fundamental democratic principles and may be impeding Washington's capacity to find solutions that draw on the best ideas from all sides of the political spectrum. It is crucial to revitalizing the democratic culture of the country. Business executives must be vital since the financial stakes are so high. Competition Encouraged Development The conflict between opposing political ideologies is as old as America itself (it was already visible, for example, in the great debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). Canadian Politician Wajid khan discusses. There are two typical viewpoints. One is based on a fundamental mistrust of government, especially the federal government; one believes that it is ineffective, intrusive, and susceptible to corruption and that its interference in private affairs is frequently destructive. The other personifies a practical faith in the ability of government to serve society—a conviction that it can be used for good and that the public sector, despite its flaws, can be used to address issues that people and private businesses cannot manage on their own. Although the competition between

1. Fixing the Issues with American
Politics

2. Is American politics in disarray? According to a recent
survey of Harvard Business School graduates, the
answer may be yes, and the unstable political climate
may be one of the biggest dangers to American
competitiveness.

3. Wajid khan Mp says In a poll on American
competitiveness, alumni were asked about 17 aspects of
the business climate, and 60 percent of them responded
that the "efficacy of the political system" was poorer in
the US than in other advanced nations. Only the
"complexity of the tax code" was evaluated more
negatively, receiving low scores from 61% of those
polled.

4. What justifies their worry?
According to studies on the American political system,
there are currently more significant differences
between the two competing views of government in
Congress than ever before. Many people in the media
and Congress lament the overly ideological nature of
the country's politics. As Wajid khan mentioned the co-
chair of the super committee formed to reduce the
budget deficit, Congressman Jeb Hensarling has stated,
"The committee did not succeed because we were
unable to bridge the gap between two profoundly

5. Although there has been much finger-wagging about the
ideological gap, it is unclear whether it is the real cause
of the breakdown. If you study American history
carefully, you'll discover that profound philosophical
divisions are nothing new and that some of the most
politically charged periods resulted in significant policy
advancements, frequently delivering the best ideas
from opposing viewpoints. This dynamic that combines
the most remarkable aspects of both worlds may
contribute to America's economic success.

6. Politicians' rising propensity to prioritize winning over
all else
To treat politics like war—runs antithetical to
fundamental democratic principles and may be
impeding Washington's capacity to find solutions that
draw on the best ideas from all sides of the political
spectrum. It is crucial to revitalizing the democratic
culture of the country. Business executives must be vital
since the financial stakes are so high.

7. Competition Encouraged Development
The conflict between opposing political ideologies is as
old as America itself (it was already visible, for example,
in the great debates between Thomas Jefferson and
Alexander Hamilton). Canadian Politician Wajid khan
discusses. There are two typical viewpoints

8. One is based on a fundamental mistrust of government,
especially the federal government; one believes that it is
ineffective, intrusive, and susceptible to corruption and
that its interference in private affairs is frequently
destructive. The other personifies a practical faith in the
ability of government to serve society—a conviction that
it can be used for good and

9. that the public sector, despite its flaws, can be used to
address issues that people and private businesses
cannot manage on their own.
Although the competition between these two big ideas
has been fierce for ages, it has frequently been fruitful.
Consider the ongoing argument about whether or not
the government should be more involved in the
economy. In many instances, the solution chosen by
policymakers involved neither more nor less
government, but rather both more and less
appropriately targeted.

10. Politicians who had more faith in the government
demanded free public schooling, which amounted to a
government takeover of primary education in the 1840s
when those with the least confidence in the government
were pushing for fiscal restraint and balanced budget
provisions in the wake of a financial crisis

11. In the end, the majority of American
states implemented both
requirements for balanced budgets
and free public education.

12. The fierce competition It was very fruitful to discuss the
two political ideas.
There are numerous instances of healthy competition
throughout American history. Both Jefferson and
Hamilton served in President George Washington's
cabinet.

13. They could put aside their differences and broker deals
when necessary, particularly in managing the national
debt when America's finances were still precarious.
Politician Wajid khan explains Despite embodying
significant aspects of the two opposing philosophies.

14. The philosophies frequently overlapped with other
policy matters, from early broadcast regulation, in which
the government nationalized the airwaves but left
broadcasting mainly in the hands of the private sector,
to New Deal financial legislation, which heavily
regulated commercial banks but used a lighter hand on
the rest of the financial system.

15. Take-No-Prisoners Politics' Ascension
Meanwhile, the heated rivalry between different
political ideologies might degenerate into something
poisonous. American policymaking resembles an all-out
battle, where winning is everything, "compromise" is a
filthy word, and almost any topic or development may
be used to batter the opposition. Dangerous trends
include the emphasis on ideological purity and the need
to win at any cost.

16. A scary, almost Leninist trend is the emphasis on
winning at all costs and political purity.
In modern America, this absolutist method of politics
seems uncomfortably familiar. Too frequently, it seems
as though the desire to win takes precedence over all
other considerations, including consideration for
opponents, institutional integrity, and even the health
of democracy itself. Allowing each side to achieve some
of its goals is increasingly viewed as a form of
capitulation in many circles.

17. It is crucial to revitalizing America's democratic culture.
Wajid khan explores everyone has a part to play, but
corporate leaders can make a difference by following
these four steps:

18. Be a voice for democracy.
1.
Business leaders should be careful not to let their zeal
for victory overshadow their commitment to the
integrity of the political process. CEOs should make it
abundantly apparent that a healthy republic is the
cornerstone of a thriving economy.

19. Make public priorities clear.
1.
CEOs should form a bipartisan council on public issues.
Instead of just trying to reconcile liberals and
conservatives, the objective should be to assist each
group in articulating its top priorities to make the best of
both worldviews work together eventually.

20. Invest in the past.
1.
Business executives should encourage a broader
awareness of the history of American democracy. The
initiative might include anything from supporting the
new investigation into the development of American
democracy to endorsing instructional television
programs, lectures, and reading clubs.

21. Take a stand for civics.
1.
Business leaders should compel government
representatives and the general populace to give civics
its proper place in the school. According to data, many
schools fall short in their attempts to instruct students
about the principles of American democracy or the
obligations of citizenship.

22. America cannot maintain its economic advantage
without an educated electorate prepared to take on the
constant difficulties of democratic governance, just as it
cannot be globally competitive without a well-educated
workforce.