The Cost of Agreement

 There’s a lesson in many management courses on “The Abilene Paradox.”  Briefly defined, it occurs when a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many of the individuals in the group.  It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections.  

In a prior entry on this blog, I tried to show that the merely negative and derogatory had real consequences.   But in fairness, so does “happy talk” and engineered consensus in a spectator community.  Yes, it’s hard to work and struggle to create something, only to have it rejected.   Any parent who’s worked to provide a good meal that their children eye with the same zeal reserved for handling an “Addam’s Family” cup of henbane knows the frustration.   Sometimes it slips out in a childish fit of pique.

Sincere critics can include good friends and neighbors who happen to disagree, for reasons both trivial and profound.  If we’re fully realized and secure adults, we don’t demand our partners or best friends agree with us unquestioningly, why then do we demand it in our politics?   People who take the time and trouble to participate in the debate deserve to be heard, especially if they are clearly trying to contribute to a civil discussion.   Let’s be honest, the cranks and the folks who just “don’t get it” will be sorted out pretty quickly.   Unhappily, the record of their invective is often public and lasting.   The Internet is a technological elephant that never forgets.  That’s why “The Price of Dissent” was written.   .

The cost of agreement can be just as high, especially if the “agreement” is “engineered” to serve a narrow segment or to suppress debate.   There are times when you lose, you go home, and gird for another contest.    It’s a lot easier to do that if everyone involved can accept that it was a fair contest.  What if it’s not – what if you lived in a community where a bizarre form of “political correctness” meant that dissent was not merely wrong, but pathological or immoral?    You could be shamed or punished or worse, “cured.”   You could be exiled – literally put beyond the city walls into the wilderness.  That’s a GULAG, in the full horrible Soviet sense.   The community can and should defend its common understanding to a point.   Majoritarianism is the root of our political traditions.   Yet our founders knew that the difference between a majority and a tyrrany is an unquestioned assumption.   That’s in part why we have the First Amendment.   To make sure that minority views get heard – especially if they’re “dangerous” to the political consensus of a ruling majority, let alone a ruling elite.   

There’s a difference between “closing a deal” and engaging in real politics.  I’m talking not about salesmanship, but statesmanship. It is the kind of leadership that encourages debate at best, and suffers it at worst, in the name of building a common, wide-spread, and enduring  understanding of a community’s goals and aspirations.   It’s politics as lengthy discussion, not just an “elevator pitch.”   The mere fact that one is elected is no guarantee of infallibility.   Being returned to office isn’t a warranty  of understanding.   There are times when a savvy leader grooms a replacement, if for no other reason than to allow for continuity of policy and to go out on a high note.  Some of us left voluntarily, in part to pursue other opportunities to serve, and in part because anyone can suffer “burnout” from the flames of the critics and the demands of the office.   If I buy life insurance because I know I’m not immortal, why not build a team of leaders to prove I’m historic but replaceable.  My legacy should be larger than my ego, if I am a good leader.

Change can be a good thing, and debate can be better.   New faces bring new voices, and new voices at the table mean new ideas, and new potential solutions. The truly strong and confident do not fear that kind of change, they draw more strength from it.  

The truly pathological “aluminum foil hat” crowd will sort themselves out of the legitimate debate.  But the dissent that’s reasoned (if passionate) and draws too close to the heart of our politics to be comfortable is the debate we must have.    For example, had the politics of Montgomery Village been healthier, our citizens would have known that the official  Village position opposed Alternative 4 and Alternative 9 of the proposed MidCounty Highway Extension equally, and we would have concentrated on demand management and SR-355 improvements.    Instead, the community spoke in a babble of opposition, with representatives of each provincial homes corporation throwing their neighbors under an SUV.  “Under the bus” won’t work as a metaphor here, because it’s transit we (and Clarksburg) need and it’s transit that the county is unwilling to get us, preferring to open up the tax mines north of us and paper over the real costs to the citizens.

By suppressing debate within the community before we engage the larger polity, we fail to speak with one credible voice when it counts.   Why do so many of the County’s best laid Master Plans cause so much damage to the Village?   In part because the Village really is (if not in its own mind) ripe for change.   But a much more important factor is that burdening Montgomery Village has no price.   Gaithersburg and Rockville are municipalities, with boundaries, and boundaries (personal and legal) are the foundation of mutual non-aggression.   Clarksburg will suffer, but it has  a “champion” on the Council.  We have no boundaries, and what’s worse, we have no record of coalescing around any issue long enough to make anyone pay a political price for “using” us.   The Village has some excellent support in Annapolis, but at the County, where it counts, we are little more than tissue paper – we are reliable votes for the political machine, no matter what it does to us.  We allowed ourselves to be carved into multiple political districts and factions like a Thanksgiving turkey.    When it comes time to vote, we’re little more than bobble-heads giving permission for the pain that’s coming our way.  Why?  Because we worship at a particular political altar?   We deserve better, but we won’t even ask for better, let alone negotiate like adults for it.

I don’t blame the County – the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.   That’s hard to say, and probably harder to hear.  This community, if it is to survive, must begin the habit of having real internal debates and learn, like adults, to march together when required, no matter what the internal divisions.  But we can no longer afford to suppress opinions our political “leaders” find unpleasant or contrary. There’s an old saying in the military commands:  “Praise in public, punish in private.”  If all we do is praise, it’s no wonder our leadership seems disconnected and entitled.   Growing leadership is much like raising a child – if all you do is tell Johnny how wonderful he is when he’s pulling the wings off flies,  don’t be surprised when his later behavior is even more awful.   

There is no virtue without discipline, and the highest form of discipline is self-discipline, as the highest form of praise is thanksgiving.