How can people with different worldviews overcome their disagreements to make collective decisions? Capital punishment, immigration, abortion, crime prevention, business regulation, inequality, gun control, foreign policy—these are just some of the many issues that divide us. Each of us has a unique worldview, our own understanding of justice, rights, and the consequences of political actions. So how can we possibly make shared decisions that affect us all? To address this question, economist and financial executive Michael Hutchins uses modern bargaining theory, in conjunction with analysis of important political controversies, to provide new insights into how broadly liberal people—those who are not inclined to try to enforce their own views through violence—can govern themselves despite fundamental disagreements. Irreconcilable Politics examines the ways in which we disagree and explores the very meaning of freedom and democracy. It illustrates the inefficiencies of majority voting for those in the minority who care deeply about laws and their social rights. A type of democratic government is explored that balances the majority and minority views within a national population and allows people with irreconcilable politics to be subject to domestic laws that better match their political ideology.
Politics is a tricky subject. Everyone believes he or she has the best solution to a problem, but these solutions are usually based on personal experiences, beliefs, and biases. I don't believe one person alone has the key to solving all of the world's political issues. This book is one economist's attempt to do just that. Hutchins begins the book by sharing why we have differing political views and philosophies and how this affects the world as a whole, and then breaking it down further and discussing conflicts within organizations. He discusses the idea of using bargaining to get people with different opinions to come together and agree on hot-button issues. While this book was very informative and thought-provoking, it was very long and academic. I think at least a quarter of it could have been trimmed for redundancy and to eliminate some tangents that, to me, didn't seem to contribute to the overall theme of the book. *ARC provided by the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
Great read to consider during our time of irreconcilable politics and massive differences of opinions that are only getting more polarizing. This economist attempts to take a measured view of how we got here and what some theoretical solutions may be to fix our government.