Systematic

If you ever have time on your hands, and want to be bored to tears, listen to people argue about how the economics of the United States should be structured. Sure, people could actually put some effort into understanding the opposite viewpoint, but where's the fun (and moral superiority) in that? So instead, people tend to talk past one another, and look for excuses to accuse the other side of bad faith.

Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that the fundamental arguments isn't really about economics. Generally speaking, you'll hear people talking about what is best for the worst-off in American society, sometimes couched in the language of caring. Economics and social care are two different things. A society can change one, without substantially altering the other.

The social distance between any two Americans one might happen to come across determines the degree to which one might want a system, any system, to work for or against the other. Take, as an example, the justice system.

[T]he criminal-justice system is not well-suited and perhaps should not be primarily a vehicle for venting anger. It should be a vehicle for trying individual cases.

Sam Buell

This, of course, would require that the justice system not need buy-in from the public at large. And this is a situation that we are unlikely to find ourselves in anytime soon.

The systems of the United States tend to work in the way that they do because most people would rather not be directly involved with them. And that general passivity tends to allow the systems to be shaped to the interests of those people who are willing to engage with them (and the people who have been given the job of shaping them). What's interesting about the arguments over what system the United States should have going forward is that this same desire for passivity is still evident. People don't advocate for a particular system on the basis that it will allow them to better care for their fellow citizens. Instead the idea is that it will free them from needing to be directly involved in the care of others. The system will do the heavy lifting, of both uplifting the deserving and punishing wrongdoers.

The United States comes across as an uncaring place, because people's first priorities are themselves, and the nation, as a whole, does a poor job at creating an environment where people feel that their needs will be consistently met, and thus, their anxieties are at bay. Being the person who seeks to advance the general welfare instead of their own is viewed with some combination of disdain and suspicion. Politicians, in general, tend to adopt an "us versus them" viewpoint, which mouths the language of national prosperity, but is generally understood to be espousing partisan advantage.

In order to end these sorts of disputes well, it would need to be agreed by all sides that everyone cares for one another; then the debate can center on what programs are more or less effective. But when people have made up their minds about the latter, bickering over the former is all that's left.