There are many big-time schools of thought. Most have fancy names. My favorite is one nobody writes or talks about — the “Yeah But School of Thought.”

We see “yeah but” thinking in lots of places. That includes the Federal Reserve. Don’t go to sleep on me, now. I won’t bore you with dry stuff about the dry and stuffy Fed.

The people at the Fed predict where the economy is going. They then raise or lower interest rates. Lots of us keep tabs on what they predict. These are some of the greatest economic thinkers of our times.

When Barack Obama was in the White House, the Fed folks saw rainbows. They kept predicting strong growth. But the economy grew more slowly than they predicted — quarter after quarter and year after year “Yeah, it is disappointing, but just wait.” That is what they told us.

Then Donald Trump moved into the White House. Now, the Fed guys saw gloom. Slow growth had set in the 12 months before Trump. They predicted more of the same. With every move, Trump’s administration made, they basically said “Yeah, it might help, but…”

So they predicted more slow growth. But wait, the economy grew faster than they predicted. Still, they said, “Yeah, that’s nice, but…” So they grudgingly predicted a bit more growth. Next quarter, same thing. The economy grew faster than the Fed predicted. “Yeah, we see the growth, but…” Next quarter, same thing.

Job numbers rose. Unemployment rates fell. People came off the sidelines to go back to work. The number of people on food stamps fell. The number of people who claimed they were disabled and couldn’t work also dropped. The Fed’s reaction: “Yeah, these things look good, but…”

My point is simple. Most of us slip on certain lenses. We see events through those lenses. No matter what happens we stubbornly stick with those lenses. Maybe it’s because we need to save face. Maybe it’s because we are stubborn. Maybe it’s due to our political leanings shading our lenses.

The Fed experts won’t change their lenses. They convinced themselves this country’s economy was doomed to low growth for many years to come. Along comes a president who scoffs at them. A lot of them hate him. This hatred distorts their views. It welds those lenses to their eyes.

A lot of the folks at the Fed cling to the economic policies of the last administration. They believe those were the right policies. They do not believe that opposite policies will work. When those new policies work, they say “Yeah, we see much faster growth, but…” But this can’t last. But this really came from our earlier policies — even though back then we predicted slow growth. But this will lead to inflation. But look at the deficit. Yeah but.

A lot of this is human nature. We all know people whose guiding philosophy is “yeah but.” Yeah, I am feeling good, but I usually get a cold in October. Yeah, the job is going along nicely, but with this outfit, you never know. Yeah, my stocks are way up, but a crash is coming for sure.

Rare are the people who change lenses. Rare are those whose lenses are plain glass. Rare are those who love one political party but will give credit to another party for policies that work.

We have people who grew famous predicting something that never came about. Two years ago, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman predicted absolute immediate doom for our stock market — all because the “hateful” Trump was elected. Krugman damned the Trump tax cuts as a “nothing burger”. Utterly wrong, he was. But he refuses to slip off those lenses. Yeah, things look good, but…

I nominate him, the Fed’s gloomy band of prognosticators, and many others for honorary degrees from Yeah But University. I am certain they will say “Gee, what a nice honor, but…”

From Tom…as in Morgan.         

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home in upstate New York. You can write to Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com, read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com, or find him on Facebook.

We live in a divided country. And I don’t just mean politically.

Our economy is creating winners and losers, with no clear way up the ladder for millions of Americans. The last few decades have produced great inequality of wealth and with it, unequal access to the levers of power. We’re split along regional lines. We’re divided along rural and urban lines. We increasingly struggle with differences of race, religion, and class.

We’re also divided politically and ideologically. Abortion, gun rights, same-sex marriage, the use and abuse of police power, curbs on corporate power, environmental protection: these issues elicit strong feelings and cut deeply through the electorate.

They’re also reflected in the overt partisan divisions that show up in elections, and thus in legislatures and Congress. The parties in many ways play a more important role in how people vote and how they think about political issues than we usually imagine. Although there are plenty of Americans who disdain party allegiance, many of us lean toward one party or the other — and whether we acknowledge it or not, more often than not follow its lead and vote for its candidates.

These divides are permeating our politics in ways that, a generation ago, would have been unthinkable. It’s not just that public debate has become coarser, less civil, and more mean-spirited. It’s that partisanship is being woven into places we once believed were safe from it, such as the courts — witness the recent debate over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

So what do we do about this? The answer, actually, is not complicated.

We have to boost public understanding about how to participate in the process. We have to be more mindful about the quality of public dialogue. We have to appreciate the roles of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in a representative democracy.

We have to vote for and value leaders who deal with opponents not as enemies, but with respect, civility, and a recognition that they share more in common than divides them.

This means listening carefully and trying to understand the other’s point of view. It means figuring out how to accommodate differences, so that rather than every fight producing winners and losers, everyone can walk away with something gained.

It means striving not to destroy your opponent, but instead persuading her or him to reach a result that helps everyone claim some measure of success. It means recognizing we’re all in this together — that we’re all searching for the common good.

Because in the end, the political process depends on personal relationships — the bonds between key actors, including elected politicians, their staff, their supporters, and others. And not just in politics at the federal level. It’s everyone from members of Congress to state legislators to township trustees.

We must not let the political extremes dominate discourse — they don’t reflect the views of most Americans, who tend to value moderation.

The greatness of our country rests on shared ideals that go beyond party labels. Most Americans want to believe that better days are ahead, that progress is possible, and that major policy disagreements may not be easily resolved, but do yield to discussion that is carried on rationally and with civility and respect.

This is not just wishful thinking. There are real-world examples. For instance, the divisions we’ve faced in foreign policy have often been mitigated when political opponents shared the view that U.S. leadership is good for the world. Or, on the domestic side, divergent views on how to provide affordable health care to all have been brought together by addressing incremental steps.

One peculiarity of this time of great unease, when lack of confidence in the country and its institutions is rampant and our differences are accentuated, is that it comes at a moment of economic growth. In the past, it’s usually been a sour economy that exacerbated divisions.

That’s a puzzle, but it’s also an opportunity. It means that we have a prosperous economic backdrop that should allow us more easily to find common ground with one another, as I’ve seen happen in the past. It’s time to step up our game, move past our differences, and propel the country forward.       

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.