Crisis Governance: The New Normal

Gentle readers, have a great Halloween. You might consider going as the scariest thing out there, the Federal Health Insurance Website. I find it interesting that the House Republicans are expending a great deal of energy being upset at what they didn't want to work because it doesn't work.

 

            Is governing by crisis the new business as usual? Can we look forward to a sanctimonious soap opera and knife fight every six months? Probably. Bear in mind that the Tea Party declared a cease fire, not a surrender.

            There are four elements contributing to this new normal. The first is ideological entrenchment, i.e. your belief is right. and their belief is wrong.  Ideological entrenchment is not new in American history.

            The second is viewing the opposition as the enemy rather than as fellow Americans. This is relatively new in American history. The only other time this occurred was around the Civil War. Throughout most of American history, the opposition was viewed as concerned patriotic fellow Americans who had their heads up their butt.

            The third factor contributing to crisis governance is an appalling lack of leadership, mainly from the President. Obama has always adopted an aloof stance with Congress, even during his first term when the Dems ran Congress. He has failed to build relationships even within his own Party. Leadership is grounded in trust, relationship, persuasion, a perceived respect. Without development of these elements by the White House, there is little chance of compromise and leverage. It will be up to Congressional coalitions to moderate extremist elements.

            Some gentle readers may disagree that Obama has abdicated his influence on policy creation. It is easy to blame one guy for the failures of the System, but not accurate. I remind you that even when the Dems ruled the roost, Obama requested very few pieces of legislation, and received nothing that he personally crafted. The Affordable Care Act derisively bears his name, but Obama only requested two policy points in the Bill, and received neither when the Law was passed. Contrast this to relational Presidents such as Johnson, who were intimately involved in crafting legislation. So blaming the President for orchestrating Congressional outcomes is based in fantasy, in my view. He doesn't have the power, and apparently never wanted the power to do so.  

            The fourth factor of the new normal goes to the heart of the matter. Legislators want to keep their jobs. Big Money enables them to keep their jobs. Super-PACs, corporations as persons, and no caps on "free speech" by such corporate persons has created a new political landscape and options for keeping jobs. Think about it. If you had to spend forty to sixty hours of your week begging for money just to keep your job, what would you do? No wonder these guys aren't working on legislation.

            While it's true that the Tea Party shutdown pissed off Republican traditionalists and business folk, but with Super-PAC dinero, Tea Party members can say screw you and access the money to keep their jobs. See, even Tea Party people aren't crazy enough to give up their jobs. There's gold in them there halls.

            The nature and definition of "Republican", "conservative", and "freedom" is being rewritten and redefined by unelected special interest groups with millions of donated dollars. Such redefining is seen in the vote of the rank and file Republicans facing re-election primaries. 64% of House Republicans voted against re-opening the Government and paying our national bills. Leaders within their own Party are gutless to stand up to this handful of bullies. 

            The conjuncture of the four factors above appears to me to make crisis governance inevitable. Change from this model will require either a new President who can actually lead and build relationships, or a new Congressional mix and dynamics.

            Also at the heart of crisis governance is the distinction between politics and governance. The differences may appear subtle but are important. Politics essentially is "our side wins". Governance is about sustaining and directing public institutions and policy for the common good. The shutdown represents a perspective that blurs the line between the two and lacks both prudence and calibration. It also lacks a higher historical perspective. The late House Speaker Tom Foley once described himself as a steward of institutions which transcend generations. Creating a framework for governance was the focus of the Founders and Constitution. Madison may well have predicted the current legislative mess when he wrote "sometimes deliberative wisdom will be conspicuously absent when it is most needed."

            How are politics and governance walked out? The Democrats could test the willingness of the Reality Caucus to follow the Tea Party into oblivion by going full tilt on immigration. Immigration reform is very popular in the country and very needed for the survival of the Republican Party. If the Reality Caucus passes a reform bill similar to the Senate's, the Democrats win a substantial governance victory. If the Tea Party intimidates their colleagues and immigration reform is not passed, the Tea Party marginalizes themselves even more with the American People and the Democrats win a substantial political victory.  

            For over two hundred years, politics has permeated civic life. Only recently, a nihilistic anti-governance ideology has taken root in Congress. This trend is probably another iteration of the nihilistic revolutionary ideology of the 1960s, echoed expressions of an obsolete social legacy.

            Tonight I was listening to a forum of average Joe and Jane Tea Party people discussing the recent shutdown. Don't ask me why I continue to do such things. They enthusiastically supported the shutdown and believed their side "won" because we sent "a message". We need to strengthen our economy. I note that our economy lost $24.1 billion from the shutdown.

            We are sending a message for Government to spend less money. Ok, now their "logic" has got me riled up. Let's break this down logically, shall we?

            We have three branches of government. Who exactly is spending too much money? I think we could all agree that the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) isn't throwing a lot of wild parties and overspending, although those robes look expensive. So we have the President and we have Congress left, right?

            Presidents don't spend money. Civics 101. Presidents are given money by Congress to spend and may indeed spend their given money unwisely. But....Presidents don't spend money, regardless of what is heard on Fox News, the radio, or public opinion. Barak Obama has not raised any debt or spent any actual money. No Presidents ever do. The debt incurred under a Presidential administration is simply a figure of speech. Congress is always the branch of government that spends money and  creates debt. But Presidents don't ever spend money. Hope that spoiler alert repetition gets the point across and provides the answer. When Congress votes not to pay our national bills, they're the people that created the bills in the first place.    

            Ok, so Congress passes laws and spends money. It's kind of in the Constitution. So let's keep going. Congress is composed of the House and the Senate. Who specifically is overspending, Tea Party people? Is the Republican House overspending? If yes, then why? You have no control over the reaction of another person. You always have control over your own reactions or responses. Your own reactions and choices determine what type of world you create. So if yes, get your own House in order.

            If no, we are great and our spending is great, the way it's supposed to be....you must be saying the Democratic Senate is the naughty group of people overspending, right? You do realize that the Senate alone can't create laws and spending bills? The Senate can't be the only ones overspending. Government doesn't work that way. Civics 101. So YOU, Tea Party people in the House, are directly responsible for any overspending which may be occurring. To fail to take responsibility and create reforms is hypocritical. To blame another group in Congress is hypocritical. To blame the President, who can only spend the money Congress gives him, is the height of obfuscation and hypocrisy. Do I believe that Congress overspends, you bet. Do I believe that YOU, Tea Party people, are directly responsible for that spending, you bet.

            What pisses me off, Tea Party extremists, is that you won't step up to make things right. Fight your own bloated pig of a Party to reduce spending. Don't just vote for budgets cutting benefits of the poor and middle class. Go after the REAL money. Fight for serious structural reforms such as closing the corporate welfare loopholes in the tax laws and make it flatter and fairer for all Americans. Fight for fast tracking business entrepreneurship and streamlining conflicting and miring regulations. Fight the predatory practices of Wall Street ($13 billion dollar penalty on a bank yesterday) which is undermining the faith, confidence, and trust of the American People.

            If you are different and want to fight for the interests of We the People over the interests of keeping your job, take on the huge Big Money interests that keep the whole machine running. Fight against corporate welfare and demand accountability for "national security" spending. These expenditures and potential savings/ revenues are far larger than "entitlements" to the needy. Don't like ObmaCare? Put an alternative health care bill on the table. Fight for what you believe, Tea Party people. If you're serious about taking the country down a different course, finding common ground to cut waste and spending across ALL of government is a good start. Washington gets paid if THEY DO NOTHING. They keep their jobs when business as usual goes on. You're just providing the entertainment, Tea Party people, in a system designed not to change.              Are you willing to take on the Big Money breaks and welfare that keeps your colleagues in their jobs? If yes, then you have my support. If no, you are simply incompetent fools, perpetuating the system running the show. You are the campus radicals occupying the ROTC building and thinking you can stop the War. You can't get there from here.  

            Tea Party people, I want you to be focused channels of effective change, but what I'm seeing is a very loud and unpredictable crowd not grounded in reality, and not likely to accomplish anything related to the word effective. In both politics and governance, it is crucial to be realistic in goals and actions. There is no realistic way to accomplish an objective such as defunding an existing law. Why don't you get off your ass and propose alternative legislation to what's not working or what you don't like? Proposing actual alternatives is the foundation of both politics and governance.

            I'll tell you why you don't. Because you're not grounded in reality, tactically or strategically. I actually do listen to alternative views and have been hearing about doomsday scenarios and predictions since Obama took office. No concentration camps, national Sharia law, death panels, or other dire predictions have come true. So now I'm not interested when you repeat what you just heard on Fox News or the radio. I'm not interested in your clarion call warnings about what you're afraid of and are "certain" will happen, but never does. Your future is as grounded in fear and fantasy as your politics. And you refuse to actually govern. Why are you here?

            Whether touting a doomsday liberal future or mooning misty-eyed over mythic bygone days, it is clear that the Tea Party finds the reality of our diverse, evolving, messy democracy distasteful, a reality existent for over a half century. But...you can't love America in theory and hate America in fact.

            I don't care what you think will happen in the future. I don't want to hear that tense from you. I care about what actions you are currently taking on our current problems. If action (rather than obstruction) and the here and now become part of your mindset, we'll talk again.