The ease of electoral rhetoric is behind us and now the Herculean task of governing looms ahead.
Yes, GOVERNING!!
And while the focus of GOP/Tea Party electoral success was reining in government, the enormous scope of government and its far-reaching tentacles is still with us. Whether education, infrastructure restoration, environmental necessities, transportation, the plight of inner cities, not too mention the colossus of our entitlement programs, these challenges require decisions to be made, and not every decision can be “reining in government.” Decisions require that both houses of Congress and the President agree, at least more than rarely, and that requires compromise.
But “compromise” evokes such opprobrium from some quarters of the left and right that its attainment is in genuine doubt, at least for two years. So, how to bridge the great divide and “govern” this stunningly divided nation is to me the paramount question today.
To glimpse the future, it is usually worthwhile to glance backwards to see if history offers useful guidance. And for me the very recent past does in Governor McDonnell’s proposal to privatize liquor sales in our Commonwealth.
First, conservatives should embrace it because it offers to “reduce the size of government” and take the government out of an enterprise that it is clearly not necessary for government to perform. Only nine states run liquor monopolies, whereas the other 41 allow some form of private sales of booze!! Hardly a show case for pro-government advocates.
But since the subject is “demon rum” there are many limited government advocates who want the state control because they believe it decreases the amount of consumption and keeps “liquor stores off every corner.” For these folks, it is okay for government to extend its reach here because it is performing a social good by protecting us from the destructive effects of excessive drinking and its ruinous consequences.
But is this any different in essence from the arguments those favoring any government intrusion advance? Don’t the proponents of every government program justify them on the basis of the “good” they will do overall? Of course! The differing definitions of what government should protect us from or help us with define the problem, even for those favoring “reining in government.”
Then there was the cacophony coming from all those who were affected financially, such as wholesalers, small retail outlets, etc. lobbying for this and that protection. Not too mention the no tax, no way, no how, ever devotees who could not stomach the small levies others deemed necessary to plug the hole in the already tight state budget.
There’s more, but you get the picture. As always, the “devil is in the details” and what should have been a slam dunk for conservatives who want to streamline government turns into just another example of the magnitude of the challenge when the general collides with the specifics.
And for the new Congress, the iceberg’s tip is showing with at least two of Virginia’s newly elected congressmen voicing the need to protect Virginia’s military installations from any reductions in the defense budget, even though military experts think otherwise in some instances.
With many representatives from the other 49 states moving to protect the government spending that most seriously affects their constituencies, the challenge looms large, not to mention the powerful interests permeating DC’s culture of big money politics.
Will enough Republicans take on the Pharmaceutical industry when they begin their efforts to dismantle ObamaCare? Or the insurance industry? We’ll see.
The point here is not that the effort to rein in government, get spending under control, inject predictability into the expectations of government, avoid significant tax increases while the economy sputters and alter the tax structure into one more favorable towards US industries in the global economy should not be undertaken. It is imperative that these goals move to the top of the agenda!!
But we did not get into this mess overnight and we won’t get out in one election cycle. We won’t get out without making hard choices with direct consequences in every state and even every congressional district. We won’t get out without compromises, at least for two years, and most likely for a long time to come. And we won’t get out if the focus is always on the next election and not the formation of sound public policy.
In other words, our newly elected representatives and the ones continuing must accept the reality of what governing requires for progress to be made. This reality is that one party controls the Senate and White House and the other the House of Representatives.
If both parties choose gridlock over governing, if both choose to focus primarily on posturing for the 2012 elections over problem-solving, neither will serve those who elected them and the expectations of the vast majority who voted for them. I believe the majority of the electorate wants them to work together to address a vast array-maybe too vast-of problems, including, but not limited to, stopping the growth of government and scaling it back.
If cooperation does not emerge from the new caldron of political firepower now in DC, and uncertainty about spending, taxes, regulations, etc. continues, the climate for rational decisions by investors and entrepreneurs will remain elusive. Economic growth will continue at disappointing rates and unemployment will hover at nine per cent. We deserve more from those we elect and they should find a way to meet our expectations. But they must govern and to do so must compromise. Extremes on both ends of the political spectrum must be rejected.
Compromise must reclaim its rightful role as necessary to the task of governing and not be always perceived as the sinister connotation of abandoned principles.
As this is written there is little indication that the leadership of either party is focused on governing. Rather 2012 dominates the landscape. Maybe that is inevitable in today’s environment but if so, we are the worse off for it. And we need leaders to emerge who will begin to change it.
Leaders have stepped up in the past and gone against the seemingly insurmountable tides. While there appears to be a sever shortage of men and women of this caliber in the ranks of those now and soon to be serving in elected office, maybe they will surface soon. “A few good men [and women]” could make a huge difference!
Leave a Reply