Heated debate is the natural by-product of a consent based system

From Modern Meditations: Tyler Cowen by Mario Gabriele.  The subheading is The renowned economist shares his thoughts on AI teddy bears, nuclear risk, and darkly plausible futures.  I like this point.  

I think we’re overestimating the risks to American democracy. The intellectual class is way too pessimistic. They’re not used to it being rough and tumble, but it’s been that way for most of the country’s history. It’s correct to think that’s unpleasant. But by being polarized and shouting at each other, we actually resolve things and eventually move forward. Not always the right way. I don’t always like the decisions it makes. But I think American democracy is going to be fine. 

Polarization has its benefits. In most cases, you say what you think, and sooner or later, someone wins. Abortion is very polarized, for example. I’m not saying which side you should think is correct, but states are re-examining it. Kansas recently voted to allow abortion, and Arizona is in the midst of a debate. Over time, it will be settled—one way or another. Slugging things out is underrated. 

Meanwhile, being reasonable with your constituents is overrated. Look at Germany, which has non-ideological, non-polarized politics. They’ve gotten every decision wrong. Their whole strategy of buying cheap energy from Russia to sell to China was a huge blunder. They bet most of their economy on it, and neither of those two things will work out. They also have no military whatsoever. It’s not like, “Ok, they don’t spend enough.” They literally had troops that didn’t have rifles to train with and were forced to use broomsticks. 

Germany is truly screwed and won’t face up to it. But when you listen to their politicians speak – and I do understand German – they always sound intelligent and reasonable. They could use a dose of polarization, but they’re afraid because of their history, which I get. But the more you look at their politics, the more you end up liking ours, I would say. 

I was in a conversation just the other evening with some very intelligent individuals who were primarily out of academia and there was such a strong undercurrent of anxiety for the American future even though there own life outcomes were magnificent testaments to the American system.  I agree "The intellectual class is way too pessimistic."

And usually, the things about which they are most anxious are the very things which make the American system so strong - freedom of speech, individualism, communitarianism, immense diversity (religion, thought, familial culture, etc.), and resistance to delegated and centralized decision-making.  Sure, we are outstanding at inefficient governance but it is usually because we are are generally so focused on consent of the governed.  We get into trouble the more governmentally efficient we become where decisions are made by cloistered experts rather than the people themselves.  

And I agree that Germany, so often held up by statist central planners as an example of success over the past four decades, is rather the reverse.  The appearance of success was based on four strategic bets made by the consensus of the governing elite:

1)  The durability of the German saver

2)  The dominance of manufactured exports as the vector of growth

3)  The excess dependence on the Chinese market, and 

4)  The supply of cheap energy from Russia.

All four strategies have weakened or failed.  

Heated debate is the natural by-product of a consent based system.  What many public intellectuals take as a mark of failure is actually evidence of a healthy system.  A quiet system of governance with little debate or public contention is the one you have to watch out for.