Angry in Iowa (and elsewhere)

Voters are angry, frustrated and dissatisfied with politicians, the “establishment” and with anything connected to the federal government. They’re frustrated that the two major political parties in Congress have too often refused to reach across the aisle to find common ground and avoid legislative paralysis. The majority of Iowa caucus-goers supported a Republican ideologue, a democratic socialist, an entrenched liberal who is anything but an outsider to Washington politics, and a billionaire businessman/television personality who has masterfully spoken to American fears. The unfortunate irony is that American voters, as demonstrated in Iowa, support the very candidates who would perpetuate our nation’s objectionable polarization.

{mosads}Angry public sentiments are based on social evidence. The Affordable Care Act remains highly unpopular; more than 50 percent of Americans polled still dislike it. Public response to President Obama’s executive action on gun control has resulted in a huge increase in gun purchases by Americans fearful of Second Amendment erosion. Secretive agreements on Iran, IRS overreach against political conservatives and implementation of a progressive social agenda via executive orders, bypassing Congress, have irritated the public. National unemployment remains near 5 percent. Black unemployment is even higher. Poverty levels have increased, economic growth is anemic and the gap between rich and poor widens, driving voter anger and frustration.

So, voters are fed up. The Iowa caucuses revealed their hunger for something new politically.

Robert Putnam, author and member of the National Academy of Sciences, “Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis” in 2015. It identifies the changes in family structure from the 1950s to today. Back then, wealthy families lived near poorer families; children from both families attended the same schools and were playmates. Today, the poor struggle to survive and have little in common with the wealthy, since many Americans become stuck in low-income locations and circumstances, not regularly mingling with those financially better off. Generations of poverty and low civic engagement follow those with little education and unsuccessful role models. They represent the 99 percent that rails against the 1 percent. The rich achieve their dreams and the poor often don’t, many lacking the educational ammunition to achieve and the moral standards to succeed.

The irritating result: more dependency on government programs to assist the poor.

Putnam affirms that education deficiencies correlate to lack of economic and social achievement. Among all ethnic groups and demographics, those who don’t pursue education and hard work often lead lives of underachievement compared to those who work hard and continue learning. Underachievers are not destined to fail economically and socially, but success is harder to achieve.

Years ago, I remember reading a George Will column in which he listed five circumstances that students should avoid if they expect a lifetime of success. To paraphrase:

1. Don’t commit a crime.
2. Don’t drop out of school.
3. Don’t get someone pregnant and if you’re a female, don’t get pregnant out of wedlock.
4. Don’t be without a mentor who will teach you proper behavior. Maybe it’s a coach, an uncle or a caring teacher, but hopefully a parent.
5. Don’t use drugs.

Achievement is often the hard work of diligence and perseverance. Achievement leads to success patterns. Putnam found that students from less-educated homes are less knowledgeable about and interested in politics, less likely to trust government and less likely to vote, and often uninterested in civic engagement, unlike their counterparts from college-educated homes.

Lack of engagement and education too often feed the frustration that we see in politics today: voters dissatisfied with phony political agendas have lost faith in officeholders’ ability to resist being self-serving. More uneducated voters are either angry about public policies or oblivious to constitutionally based national standards. Founding principles are worth knowing and protecting; they anchor our coarsening culture. Disrespect for the separation of powers, lack of accountability in government, failure to control irresponsible federal spending and indebtedness, non-support for policies that create private-sector jobs, executive orders that bypass Congress and other executive overreach all combine to create voter anger toward all things government, including “establishment” candidates and institutions.

So, what’s the best antidote to voter anger, frustration with government and feelings of being stuck in place?

Education.

Those content to stay stuck in dead-end, low-paying jobs — many without the drive to lift themselves out of poverty or the means to break the cycle of non-success — can often reach beyond the 99 percent they represent by behavior changes, seeking education with purpose to live their dreams.

As they succeed, their anger will abate and they’ll contribute to necessary public policy changes.

Nethercutt is a former U.S. representative from Washington state, serving from 1995 to 2005.