Law school dean Jeremy Paul is a guest contributor to UConn Today. His posts appear on Thursdays. To read more of his posts, click here.

Presidential primary season is in full swing and another election year is upon us. Voters horrified by Washington gridlock understandably wonder if there is any way to cast a ballot for meaningful and politically viable reforms that will be pro-growth, environmentally sound, and fair to all Americans. Political scientists offer many reasons why rabid partisanship has blocked many paths to progress. Congressional district lines drawn with the aid of computers create so many safe seats that House members have little incentive to compromise. Sixty votes are now needed to get anything through the Senate, following a collapse of informal checks on the use of the filibuster. The influence of money in politics makes it increasingly challenging for our elected officials to manage many conflicting demands. My own pet peeve is how we have crippled the President since the country was foolish enough to amend the Constitution to impose a two-term limit. But today I want to place blame upon a group that too often escapes unscathed. The voters, all of us, may be getting just the sort of government and media coverage that we deserve.

Here’s the problem. The general lines of argument offered by the two major parties are both highly convincing, as long as discussion remains at the right level of abstraction. Consider the following perspective on today’s economic troubles. American enterprise is suffering from over taxation and excessive regulation. The private sector is an important engine of job growth that cannot prosper if every decision is weighed down by forms to complete, rules to master, and lawsuits to avoid. If we lower taxes on business and reduce regulatory red tape, companies will be free to do what they do best – turn a profit. This will lead to increased hiring and ultimately a higher GDP. I imagine this type of thinking has a general air of plausibility for many voters. It certainly does for me.

Now consider a second approach. Our economy cannot prosper without background conditions that unleash our citizens’ productivity. Substantial investments in infrastructure such as roads, bridges, trains, airports, bandwidth, and parks, combined with a true national commitment to improved education, are essential if the next generation of Americans is to compete on the global stage. Taxing successful businesses and individuals to pay for society’s needs isn’t just the fair thing to do, it is the only way to secure continued national prosperity. Moreover, regulations that level the playing field ensure that the pursuit of profits does not come at the expense of underpaid workers or those unlucky enough to live downstream from a polluting factory. Economic regulations actually protect companies, just as enforceable rules against taking performance-enhancing drugs protect professional athletes from having to ingest harmful substances simply to keep pace. Do you like this line of thinking? Oops. Me too.

OK. Now comes the scary part. When was the last time you heard a candidate of either party pressed to explain his or her thinking beyond one of these two well-rehearsed versions of national economics? What we should demand is that each candidate be able to explain why he or she believes that in a particular context the available evidence supports choosing lower taxes or more public investment as we choose our path forward. But this would require voters to dig deep and attempt to teach ourselves a great deal about how the economy works – something I hope we are encouraging our students to do while at UConn. Instead, we too often simply allow the candidates to trade barbs and then we vote either for the candidate on our “team” or the one who sounds best delivering his or her lines.

Imagine if we raised our kids this way, relying upon abstract arguments to make decisions about their future without considering the context. If your high school-age son or daughter came to you seeking permission to spend a year abroad, for example, you might be moved to say yes when confronted with the argument “but Dad (or Mom), you always taught me to be independent.” That precise formulation, however, would almost certainly fall on deaf ears, if your child took the family car to New York for the weekend without telling you. After worrying like crazy for 48 hours, you would need only a moment to reject the independence argument you found compelling in the study abroad context.

Our job as voters is to grasp enough about the current economic situation to embrace more than a general stance toward taxes, investment, and regulation. We need to decide: At this point in time, under these economic conditions, based on historical patterns and the best evidence available, will our country be more likely to thrive with a renewed commitment to public investment and common-sense efforts to level the economic playing field or would we be better off counting more heavily on an unchecked private sector to drive prosperity? Every voter of every background and of every political party needs to tackle this question with an open mind. It’s what the 2012 election should be about. Otherwise, we will remain gridlocked with plenty of blame to go around.