Of all the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom in today’s Washington, the most lazy, stupid, and ubiquitous is that our politics is broken. On the contrary. Our political system is working well (I make no such claims for our economy), indeed, precisely as designed — profound changes in popular will translated into law that alters the nation’s political direction.
The process has been messy, loud, disputatious, and often rancorous. So what? In the end, the system works. Exhibit A is Wisconsin. Exhibit B is Washington itself.
Advertisement
The story begins in 2008. The country, having lost confidence in Republican governance, gives the Democrats full control of Washington. The new president, deciding not to waste a crisis, attempts a major change in the nation’s ideological trajectory. Hence his two signature pieces of legislation: a near–$1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in galactic history; and a health-care reform that places one-sixth of the economy under federal control.
In a country where conservatives outnumber liberals 2–1, this causes a reaction. In the 2010 midterms, Democrats suffer a massive repudiation at every level. In Washington, Democrats suffer the greatest loss of House seats since 1948. In the states, they lose over 700 state legislative seats — the largest reversal ever — resulting in the loss of 20 state chambers.
The tea-party-propelled, debt-conscious Republicans then move to confront their states’ unsustainable pension and health-care obligations — most boldly in Wisconsin, where the new governor proposes a radical reorientation of the power balance between public-sector unions and elected government.
In Madison, the result is general mayhem — drum-banging protesters, frenzied unions, statehouse occupations, opposition legislators fleeing the state to prevent a quorum. A veritable feast of creative democratic resistance.
In the end, however, they fail. The legislation passes.
Then, further resistance. First, Democrats turn an otherwise sleepy state-supreme-court election into a referendum on the union legislation, the Democrats’ candidate being widely expected to overturn the law. The unions/Democrats lose again.
And then last Tuesday, recall elections for six Republican state senators, three being needed to return the senate to Democratic control and restore balance to the universe. Yet despite millions of union dollars, the Republicans hold the senate. The unions/Democrats lose again.
The people spoke; the process worked. Yes, it was raucous and divisive, but change this fundamental should not be enacted quietly. This is not midnight basketball or school uniforms. This is the future of government-worker power and the solvency of the states. It deserves big, serious, animated public debate.
Precisely of the kind Washington (exhibit B) just witnessed over its debt problem. You know: The debt-ceiling debate universally denounced as dysfunctional, if not disgraceful, hostage-taking, terrorism, gun-to-the-head blackmail.
Spare me the hysteria. What happened was that the 2010 electorate, as represented in Congress, forced Washington to finally confront the national debt. It was a triumph of democratic politics — a powerful shift in popular will finding concrete political expression.
But only partial expression. Debt hawks are upset that the final compromise doesn’t do much. But it shouldn’t do much. They won only one election. They were entrusted, as of yet, with only one-half of one branch of government.
But they did begin to turn the aircraft carrier around. The process did bequeath a congressional super-committee with extraordinary powers to reduce debt. And if that fails, the question — how much government, how much debt — will go to the nation in November 2012. Which is also how it should be.
The conventional complaint is that the process was ugly. Big deal. You want beauty? Go to a museum. Democratic politics was never meant to be an exercise in aesthetics.
Not just ugly, moan the critics, but oh so slow. True, again. It took months. And will take more. The super-committee doesn’t report until Thanksgiving. The next election is more than a year away. But the American system was designed to make a full turn of the carrier difficult and deliberate.
Moreover, without this long, ugly process, the debt issue wouldn’t even be on the table. We’d still be whistling our way to Greece. Instead, a nation staring at insolvency is finally stirring itself to action, and not without spirited opposition. Great issues are being decided as constitutionally designed. The process is working.
Notice how the loudest complaints about “broken politics” come from those who lost the debate. It’s understandable for sore losers to rage against the machine. But there’s no need for the rest of us to parrot their petulance.
Mr. Krauthammer. You are quite correct, I beleive. The system still works. For me, the words "the system is broken" refers to the system of allowing the wrong people into power. I do not think Americans (not the winners or the loosers as a group) feel the system is broken because they no longer trust anyone in government, nor do they trust in the possibility that anyone they can trust will ever be elected into a position of importance. It is a subtle but significant difference in semantics.
Thank you. I wish that many Americans who get a megaphone abroad would remember this. I am often reminded that we are the most open country in the world. Everyone gets to see how we make sausage, but the product in the end is nourishing.
I agree with Krauthammer that politics need not be aesthetically pleasing to be classified as something other than dysfunctional. Politics ain't beanbag. I don't think we should be shy about our differences. I have no problem with passionate and loud debate.
I also agree with him that it takes winning multiple elections in a row to make big changes, and this is how the system, by design, is supposed to work.
That said, I disagree with him that on the question of whether our politics are broken or not. Our politics are in fact broken.
I don't expect conservatives to agree with me on the role of government or on optimal rates of taxation. However, I do expect them to be decent human beings. I do expect them to be patriotic, and put country before party. I do expect them to uphold common traditions that should bind us together, regardless of our fiercely held differences in political opinion.
One of the longest held traditions we have had as a country is to never purposely cause serious questions to be asked about the full faith and credit of the United States. There are just some things one does not DO. Passionate and even angry disagreement is a good thing. But an unprincipled lack of all limits in how far you are willing to go in order to achieve your preferred political ends is another.
Republican politicians have behaved, I will say it, in a manner similar to terrorists. They have crossed a line they should never have crossed. They have purposely threatened the economic well-being of the entire country for political advantage and caused a downgrade of our credit. They have, just like many terrorists, reasoned that what they believe to be their well-intentioned ends, justify the means.
Republican politicians are NOT actually terrorists. I do not believe they would ever murder anyone to achieve their political goals. But they are starting to share certain similarities with terrorists. In that their certainty in the rightness of their own cause leads them to act in an extreme manner. In that they are starting to use the ends justifies the means reasoning to excuse wrongful acts. In that they are lacking in restraint and are behaving as radicals rather than conservatives. In that they are willing to threaten self-destruction (though I believe not actually follow through on that threat) in order to coerce others.
The fact of the matter is, that none of this lack of restraint is actually necessary to achieve conservative political ends. To achieve conservative political ends, all conservatives need to do is win big in 2012.
And if the American people do not give conservatives the mandate for change they need in 2012? Well, then conservatives should accept that judgment as well.
There is something wrong with our political system. We do not have to get along politically, but there must still be restraint and reason for the system to work. And conservatives should remember that they are creating precedents for similar behaviors by non-conservatives. And that their lack of restraint is turning the American people against them.
What??!!! "Republican politicians have behaved like terroritst. They crossed a line that they never should have crossed". What line is that?
Two points: First, the point of Dr. K's article is that the congress acted exactly like their constitutional duty was defined. Secondly, the credit rating was not downgraded because the republicans wouldn't let the lib/dems have their way on the debt, but because S&P saw no will in the administration and congress to address the real problem of Medicare, SSI and other entitlements. This includes both republicans and DEMOCRATS!
Why didn't the democrats address the debt limit and pass a budget when they had super majorities? They passed everything else they thought important...Stimulus and ObamaCare. They wanted to make this a politicial issue they thought they could win. Obviously, they have won you over.
Here you go again. You are nearly as entertaining as MikeB, and I'm sure he'll be along shortly.
You roll out the standard media talking points about how civility needs to come from the conservative side. I would direct you to WI. As I recall, those who were threatening lawmakers lives and their families came from your side of the aisle. Your idea of compromise is typical leftist tripe. Compromise only seems to occur when the r's cross the aisle and fully embrace the ideas of your side. It never seems to be the other way around, ever.
It almost seems as though you might be one of those folks who has been sent out by the Casa Blanco to answer each and every volley thrown up by us vitriolic, hateful Tea Party types.
I would ask you to name one example of how our side has been manning the flame-thrower against your tepid, milquetoast, peace-loving side. We are still waiting for your folks to actually produce proof that our folks were screaming racial epithets at the Congressmen/women last year.
What I see is the union folks threating people with bodily injury, threatening people at their home, using their children as "human sheilds", and locking employees in their offices (see Verizon).
Please tell me again who needs to show civility and cross the aisle, I'm waiting.
"One of the longest held traditions we have had as a country is to never purposely cause serious questions to be asked about the full faith and credit of the United States."
Interesting. It sounds as though you believe those questions are not, in fact, the result of many years of both sides refusing to improve programs (or scrap them and start over) that have have been money pits, and cruelly ineffective, for too many decades. Someone has been at pains to convince you that the problems are of recent origin, when in fact some of them are, but many of them are not.
The danger to our full faith and credit is not to be found in the people who point it out and call for actions that should have occurred long ago. It is obvious that you fear the changes these actions will set in motion, and that is true for many of us. But I bet you, like others, will find in yourself the courage politicians have been long denying that any of us have.
You liberals are calling your opponents “terrorists” for trying to stop the destructive debt and save the future of the US but yet you have the audacity to talk about civility? Seriously the hypocrisy and stupidity of you liberals are astounding.
OK, just short of terrorism, but sound politics, No.
To propose that there should be an amendment to balance the budget is preposterous. To absolutely limit ANY deficit spending EVER is absurd. Anyone remember the great depression? Or what brought us out of it?
And how are we to pay for all these wars? Every single action of the US that was not budgeted would be unconstitutional, were this to be enacted. Buying some armored personnel carriers so Johnny doesn't die... sorry, not in the budget, it's illegal.
Runaway spend is preposterous and will bankrupt us if we don't get it under control. Despite what liberals would have you believe, NO, spending didn't get us out of the depression either. Besides, there will be provisions that exclude wartime and emergencies. Unfortunately, a balanced budget amendment is the only thing that will make politicians responsible with our money.
Most proposals for a balanced budget amendment include a way to bypass the requirement in case of national emergency, for example by the vote of a supermajority in Congress.
The "full faith and credit of the USA" was never at risk. The government brings in more than we pay in interest each month. It would have been painful, but no default would have occurred. In fact, I would argue that raising the debt limit puts the USA at greater risk of default.
Wow. Thanks for that. How quickly Mr Welker forgets the arrogance of Dear Leader, his infamous "elections have consequences," and, "I won," his being dismissive of the Republicans in the kabuki healthcare meeting. Krauthammer is spot on. That you complain that the Tea Party acted like terrorists - can you help me find the budget Dear Leader was responsible for? To think this socialist wanted a "clean bill." Think THAT would have helped the rating? And, Mr. Welker, didn't more Dems vote AGAINST the bill than Republicans?
Mr. Obama, as a senator, opposed raising the debt ceiling; no doubt, because it was a throw-away vote, and allowed him to politically posture. There was political posturing this time as well. Only one side is accused of acting like terrorists.
As president, Mr. Obama was quite clear that he demanded an extension that would take him past the election. He was threatening to put the U.S. into default if his personal political interests were not served; yet again only one side is accused of acting like terrorists.
So Mr. Welker's argument seems to be reduced to: when our side does it, it's good and noble. When your side does it, it's evil and terrorist-like. He is espousing the most basic politics-as-usual argument. At least in this regard, it isn't broken!
Ever heard of the saying: "politics stops at the water's edge"...? It means you (lefties) need to put down politics in time of war (for example in Iraq) and support your nation.
Did y'all do that? No, or you'd never have been elected in 2006 and 2008.
Now you want to apply this adage to the debt extension debate -- a domestic issue where it doesn't even fit -- AND call republicans (small r is intentional) unpatriotic?
"One of the longest held traditions we have had as a country is to never purposely cause serious questions to be asked about the full faith and credit of the United States."
And you can provide evidence of this "tradition", right?
This was a crisis that Obama tried to game by falsely implying Social Security and other sensitive payments wouldn't be made. Why lie about that and unnecessarily frighten a large part of the public? Because he wanted one thing; to get discussion of the deficit beyond his election. He succeeded in that effort.
Other than WWII, there's never been a time in the nation's history where spending has grown to such a large portion of gdp, so swiftly. No one was going to talk about public debt during a WORLD war but this period, despite the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, is unprecedented. To ignore it would be the height of irresponsibility. And with only control of a third of the power, Republicans could do little more than to try and, at least, generate an understanding of the magnitude of the debt/deficit issue.
But, no, they aren't even supposed to do that according to liberals. Can't even TRY and provoke a serious debate of the issue. If bringing up fiscal disaster constitutes "terrorism" than we've never needed such action more.
Well, this Welker comment has been completely rebuffed by multiple posts. Wisconsin Democratic Union thugs may be the best thing to happen since Obama started the Tea Party as they will cause more votes against them. And using this post as an example, the overt spin against those who dont adore Obama has been so blatent in the last week that all but the most gullible can see right through it.
"(Republican politicians)have purposely threatened the economic well-being of the entire country for political advantage and caused a downgrade of our credit."
With all due respect, Welker just not thinking through his argument very well re: the debt issue. So he thinks it not likely that if President Obama and liberal politicans got what they wanted -- a "clean" increase in the debt ceiling with out any of those pesky spending cuts, etc. --- there would have been no downgrade???? Good grief, man! You need to sharpen your critical thinking skills.
Follow
