.webp)
The United States has an inclusivity problem.
Before you rush to conclusions about my political leanings or ideological bent, let me unpack this. In today’s world, inclusivity can mean many things to many people. From LGBTQ+ pride to affirmative action programs, inclusivity is ubiquitous in the news cycle, particularly for those on the progressive left.
In this piece, I define inclusivity in a fairly straightforward way. Inclusivity means the degree to which people feel they have a say in the political and economic processes of a country.
The United States struggles with this.
The Independent Center’s exclusive polling conducted in July 2024 found that only 19 percent of respondents felt that their voices and opinions were being heard by elected officials in Washington. What’s more, 83 percent of respondents agreed that “We could do better” when asked if Washington, D.C. was effectively addressing the issues that mattered to them most.
This highlights a persistent problem plaguing our representative democracy: most Americans feel they are not adequately represented. Need further convincing? Consider that the number of voters identifying as independent has exceeded both Republicans and Democrats since Obama’s re-election in 2012. For over a decade, a plurality of the electorate rejected the label of a major party.
Does that sound like inclusion to you?
In 2013, political scientists James Robinson and Darren Acemoglu attempted to explain why some nations prospered while others remain in a vicious cycle of poverty. Their book, Why Nations Fail, advances an institutional argument for prosperity and development.
Fundamental to their argument is the distinction between inclusive and extractive institutions. On the one hand there are inclusive institutions. These allow for broad participation in economic and political activities, provide secure property rights, and ensure equal access to opportunities. They foster innovation, investment, and long-term economic growth.
Extractive institutions, on the other hand, are designed to extract resources from the majority of people and concentrate them in the hands of a small elite. These institutions hinder economic development by discouraging investment and innovation, while using coercion and repression to maintain power.
Inclusive institutions breed prosperity, while extractive ones lead to oligarchical rule, corruption, instability, and failed states. In many ways, this makes perfect sense. If an individual is included in their country’s political and economic processes, they are more likely to take an entrepreneurial risk, run for office, participate in public debate, or apply for a patent. Nations that foster market competition and are more culturally meritocratic attract skilled immigrants, which further enables economic growth.
But in states with extractive institutions, people are less inclined to participate in the political and economic processes. Furthermore, the state becomes something to be manipulated for personal gain. Contemporaneous examples include Islamist militancy in the Sahel region of Africa, to the Civil War in Myanmar, to the failed coup d’etat in Peru in 2022.
These are extreme examples of dysfunctional states, of course, but they effectively illustrate what an extractive and exploitive political system can do to a country. For a domestic example, consider the economic limitations of the South and their lack of innovation because of slavery. There’s a reason the industrial revolution spread to the North versus the South, after all.
The United States made tremendous advancements in creating more inclusive institutions, but the existing two-party system and increasing polarization threatens to undermine some of this progress.
If people feel alienated from the political process, they’ll be more likely to disengage entirely, further leaving the two parties commandeered by their ideological extremes.
Disengagement, unfortunately, is not limited to politics.
Take America’s young men, for example. Some have been surprised to see these young men gravitate toward fringe internet personalities like Andrew Tate and the “manosphere.” Perhaps feelings of exclusion drive young men to seek acceptance in the periphery of society. Furthermore, the perception of exclusion experienced by many young men has contributed to lower labor participation rates, reduced college enrollment rates, and an increase in suicide attempts.
Our two-party system and elected officials are failing everyday Americans. Disillusionment is increasing. If we want to kickstart American innovation and drastically improve the lives of millions of Americans, addressing this problem head on is a good place to start.
