3 Bipartisan Policies & more

In a recent post I offered 6 policies for Democrats to run on in 2026 that I think would be good for them electorally, but also good for the country. I followed it up with 6 policies for Republicans; some of them might fit into Trump’s bailiwick and others that could be directions for a post-Trump GOP. What follows is where those policies could overlap.

The Throw the Bums Out Bill:

Concerns around corruption, politicians aging, and there being little to no churn in government, are everywhere. This goes beyond party; I think everyone can agree that politicians shouldn’t be bribed, they should be cognizant of their behaviors and choices, and they should know when to quit. A solution for this would be to require federal politicians to put investments in blind trusts, a gifts regime similar to federal employees, and term limits. I like my 8, 10, 12, 14 scheme, but I’m sure there are other rational ratios out there.

Housing for America

I was interested to learn that Vivek Ramaswamy recently came out in favor of Ezra Klein's Abundance agenda. His only objection was that the description was too “democrat coded.” (Imagine that, the two parties actually agree on one of the biggest issues facing our country, they just don’t like each other’s language… where are our English Majors?) So that’s super interesting for the state of Ohio, where Ramaswamy intends to be the next governor. It is also interesting for establishing some sort of bipartisan consensus around housing policy.

What do you suppose each side getting half a loaf around housing policy might look like? Some serious public investment in building coupled with incentives to regulate “more like Texas than California” to lift up Klein’s overworn phrase. Maybe encourage some local buy in with county architecture prizes named after an Ayn Rand character? (What up and coming architect wouldn’t want to put “Hunterdon County HRAI Awarded Architect” on their resume?)

Artificial Intelligence Regulation, Compensation, and Treaties

              This is one of those things where there needs to be some consensus. As a country, what do we think AI ought to be for? Is it to eliminate all entry-level white-collar jobs? Is it for intellectual property theft by proxy? Is it a coding tool? Is it a union busting device? Is it an educational tool? Is it a digital parent or romantic partner? Is it a taxi driver? Is it a medical diagnostic tool? Is it an electronic day trader? Is it a replacement for human relationships writ large? Is it a digital slave? Is it a replacement for humans? Is it a replacement for CEOs? Is it a steroid for economic growth? Is it a dead man’s switch for nuclear weapons? Are we trying to create an electronic god? Is it clippy? What exactly are we planning to do with AI?

I understand Artificial Intelligence can be a digital Swiss Army Knife, but if someone stabbed someone else to death with such a knife, we’d still call it murder—even if they use the corkscrew. So, what are the no-gos for this tool/person/set of code? We can regulate how AI develops. In fact, we can push for the development of a global consensus about what this tool is for. We can also mitigate the damage it causes in the lives of those it displaces.

So, for example, if 20% of the people younger than me will be unable to have a job on account of AI… we should maybe have a plan for that.

If a good number of people who are directly involved with AI are sending up alarming warnings about AI developing interests that diverge from humanity, ways of communicating beyond human understanding, and means of “escaping” their current digital habitats… perhaps a bit of caution is in order.

If AI is sucking up water and power resources to such an extent that it is noticeable on everyone’s electric bills and there is talk of AI droughts… maybe we name no-go boundaries for resource use.

One of my favorite tools is a concrete framing of Aristotelian Ethics: Glasses, Hammer, and Map. Where are we? What tools do we have? Where are we going? As a society and as a planet we need to answer those types of questions about AI. There should be a bipartisan consensus to ask those questions broadly and act on our eventual answers. My assumption is that after a robust conversation about AI we would end up: regulating AI nationally, compensating and retraining folks who are especially adversely affected by AI, and push for global treaties around AI.

Other Points of Convergence

              Thinking aloud about the other potential places where partisanship could take a back-seat there seem to be three areas of convergence. It seems like it is in the best interest of the GOP to stabilize the Affordable Care Act—otherwise they’ll take the blame for the Big Beautiful Bill’s contribution to the problem. Who knows, once they start working on it they might come up with a long-term fix. There may still be a bipartisan consensus around arming Ukraine and preparing weapon systems for a direct confrontation with China. There may still be room for an immigration deal, it could be an off-ramp for the current horrific deportation regime.

Points of Divergence

              I imagine my Cap & Trade suggestion is not where the GOP is at, climate change denialism is still prevalent in the Republican Party. Strengthening public colleges, even in a federalized way, and empowering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also seem out of reach.

Conclusion

              With a little creativity the US Government could: reform our federal political system, address housing shortages, and shape the future of AI, instead of being shaped by it. If we were really brave and thoughtful, we could also make healthcare affordable, provide for the defense of our allies and deterrence of our competitors, and make our immigration system logical for immigration in the 2020s and beyond.