Note: In a previous post, I had written about the six political mindsets in America, which includes the progressive, conservative, liberal, libertarian, Democratic Socialist, and Game mindsets. In this post, I delve deeper into the Game mindset.
Nevertheless, there are important themes we can take from it. Indeed, doing so is a critical task, since this mindset is the one held by a large number of independents, undecideds, and swing voters in the United States. It is crucial to understand how this group of people thinks because they are one of the primary determinants for political elections.
For the sake of convenience, I'm going to refer to people who hold the game mindset as gamers.
There are two basic beliefs shared by gamers. The first is that government can play an important role in shaping and improving society. They do not necessarily believe that government plays the most important role, but they do believe government has the potential to affect the quality of people's lives for the better - if government officials want to.
The second basic belief, which contrasts sharply with the first one, is that although government can be important, ultimately politics - the way that officials gain, hold, and wield power in government - is a game. Different groups, factions, parties, individuals are all vying for positions of power so that they can create or implement laws or policies that further their own vision or objectives. In other words, everyone, every group, has their own political agenda - however noble - that they are trying to advance in playing the game of politics.
Following from this basic belief is the impression that there is an amoral, deceptive element to politics. Politics necessarily involves a level of inauthenticity. To get the support they need to win elections, politicians often have to lie, feign sympathy or outrage, tell half-truths, flip-flop on issues, or sell out. Such inauthenticity eventually makes it so that it's very difficult to know who is telling the truth and when, and who is not. This creates what can be called a fog over the political process and government in general.
Due to this impression, gamers believe that politicians generally cannot be trusted. This doesn't mean they believe all politicians are evil or liars, but that politicians, in having their own political agendas, naturally become corrupted by the game of politics. The longer they play the game, the more corrupted they'll likely become, where they either are incapable of being honest and authentic, or have actually convinced themselves of their own (or their party's) half-truths, lies, and deceptions.
Another phenomenon also has also occurred in the game since the country was founded. As different groups, factions, and individuals have been playing the game for a long period of time, a kind of established way of playing has taken hold. The game has become predictable and the different sides, in order to consolidate power, have been reduced to two or three parties. This predictable, established way of playing is referred to as the establishment, or the status quo. It forms the implicitly agreed upon norms, rules, conventions, and strategies that different players can have in the game.
For gamers, this idea of the establishment is disheartening. It implies that not only is there a political fog obscuring truth and authenticity, but the fog is not likely to dissipate on its own. Rather it is kept there by the establishment - by the two-party system - in order to keep the game predictable and controllable.
Thus, gamers believe that true social or societal change can't really happen from within. Because of its predictability, the establishment is not likely to allow for any significant change to its way of doing things. Rather, true change requires an outside agent - a third party, or someone not part of the establishment - who is able to cut through the fog - to speak authentically about the issues that really matter, and provide common-sense solutions that don't simply repeat party talking points.
To summarize:
Rather their vision is centered on the intelligence, rationality, and trustworthiness of their candidates or elected leaders. When looking at a candidate or leader, they ask themselves the following types of questions:
The second value is rationality. Leaders must appear rational and common-sensical. They strive for simple solutions that make sense on the face of it. They aren't driven by extreme passion or high-sounding moral ideals, but by clear, logical thinking.
The third value is expertise. Gamers want leaders who know what they are talking about. They must have a storehouse of knowledge and experience that allows them to speak intelligently and correct false statements. In other words, they are easily able to see bullshit and call bullshit.
The fourth value is directness. Gamers value leaders who are blunt and straightforward. They do not have time for bullshit and cut right through it.
Lastly, the fifth value is ownership. Gamers value leaders who take responsibility. Because their name is on the line, real leaders put their all into making sure whatever they are looking after will be successful. They don't view their position as a job, but as something they own.
These core values follow the acronym CREDO, which comes from the Latin meaning, "I believe," or "I trust." In order for gamers to trust in a candidate or elected official, that candidate or official must embody the five core values. They must show that they are credible, rational, knowledgable, honest, and serious.
And the idea, then, is that institutions led by leaders who embody these core values will become un-believable - that is, they will produce incredible results and will function and be structured intelligently and rationally.
The first principle is direction. Game Leaders communicate a clear vision, with well-defined goals and objectives. They create a compelling picture of the future - of what can be accomplished through following their ideas and leadership.
The second principle is discipline. Game Leaders demand excellence, results, and commitment. They are clear about their standards and expectations and are blunt and even harsh when those standards or expectations are violated or not met.
The third principle is defiance. Game Leaders do not follow the standard rules and conventions of the establishment. Rather, they follow what they believe is rational and works for their vision. They could care less about convention.
The fourth principle is dominance. Because of how brutally competitive politics can be, Game Leaders must work hard to quell any doubts about why they should be the ones in charge. They must continually prove - through their results and communication style - that they deserve to be on top. As a result, they tend to be witty, sarcastic, and biting.
For ease of remembering, I call these principles "the four Ds," since each of them start with the letter D.
In addition, they are generally in support of policies that reduce crime and keep communities safe.
They also believe that science and technology should be used to make government processes more efficient, just as it is used in the business world. In keeping with this, they are in favor of using technology to support decentralization, believing that a decentralized system allows more flexibility than a centralized one.
For this reason, they tend to be in much greater favor of things like crypto-currency and blockchain technology to help decentralize current institutions. They do not believe that all solutions should be uniform, but should apply differently to different people.
This game is played much more peacefully in a democracy than in the times of old or in authoritarian states, where rulers often resort(ed) to violence in order to win and keep power. The game of politics in a democracy is governed by clear rules and conventions regarding campaigning, elections, term limits, duties, and the transfer of power, with minimal violence.
As such, progressives do not have an issue with this game nature of politics. Politicians should be trying to connect with diverse groups in ways that these groups can support and understand. Diverse groups deserve representation, and they need to know that their elected officials are focused on winning their support and wielding power with their needs and concerns in mind.
Of course, this doesn't mean that progressives support politicians lying or playing with the truth. On the contrary, we progressives believe that politicians must take accountability for what they say and do. But in our view, politics is not just about what politicians say and do; it's about how informed and engaged citizens are about what is being said and done. Citizens play just as much a part in the game of politics as politicians do. Which means that if there is a political fog (which many progressives would believe there is, myself included), we citizens are just as responsible for trying to cut through it.
The issue for progressives is not whether politics is a game, but whether the game in its current form is adequately responsive to the people. After all, if politics is supposed to enable positive change for the people, then we should have a political system that is responsive to the wants, needs, and conditions of the people.
Many progressives would argue that our current political system is not adequately responsive. Consider what is allowable in our current political system:
The second point on which gamers and progressives agree is the need for rational, straightforward, trustworthy leaders - people who are not afraid to say unpleasant truths, who are able to produce real results, who respect data and science, and who are willing to buck convention in favor of positive change. Progressives generally support unconventional candidates who might say things that go against the grain.
I think what progressives may question, however, is the impulse that change is only possible by electing political outsiders. It leads us to what I call the political Oedipus complex: the idea that all we need is a smart, capable, effective leader to save us, when in fact that person can very well be the cause or part of the problem we are trying to fix. (The complex is named after Oedipus, who became of king of Thebes after solving the riddle of the Sphinx, whose presence at the gates was necessitated by the death of King Laius of Thebes, who was previously slain by Oedipus himself.)
Even more, progressives believe that real progress occurs when the people are engaged and able to participate in the democratic process. Responsible leaders are important, but it's the people who drive true change in a society. Progressives want leaders who see themselves as servants of the people - not as "saviors" or "fixers" of a "broken" system.