Time to send government to rehab

Former Republican congressman Mickey Edwards (now at the Aspen Institute) believes American government has been reduced to an out of control "battle between warring tribes." He's right. Republican or Democratic majorities come and go, but nothing ever changes. It just gets worse.

Pardon the lengthy excerpt, but Edwards' take on what ails our democracy is worth reading:

"If we are truly a democracy—if voters get to size up candidates for a public office and choose the one they want—why don’t the elections seem to change anything? Because we elect our leaders, and they then govern, in a system that makes cooperation almost impossible and incivility nearly inevitable, a system in which the campaign season never ends and the struggle for party advantage trumps all other considerations. ..."

"Many Americans assume that’s just how democracy works, that this is how it’s always been, that it’s the system the Founders created. But what we have today is a far cry from what the Founders intended. George Washington and James Madison both warned of the dangers posed by political parties. Defenders of the party system argue that parties—including Madison’s own—arose almost immediately after the nation was founded. But those were not parties in the modern sense: they were factions uniting on a few major issues, not marching in lockstep on every issue, large and small. ..."

"What we have today is not a legacy of 1789 but an outdated relic of the late 1800s and early 1900s, when Progressives pushed for the adoption of primary elections. ... This reform was supposed to give citizens a bigger role in the election process. Instead, the influence of party leaders has been supplanted by that of a subset of party activists who are often highly ideological and largely uninterested in finding common ground. ... [Ergo] small bands of activists to limit our choices of people to represent us in making the nation’s laws ..."

"If we really want change—change that will yield a Congress that is more representative and more functional, change that can be replicated in state and local governments—we need to rethink the party-driven structures we have so casually accepted for decades ..."

"In a democracy that is open to intelligent and civil debate about competing ideas rather than programmed for automatic opposition to another party’s proposals, we might yet find ourselves able to manage the task of self-government. Our current political dysfunction is not inevitable; it results from deliberate decisions that have backfired and left us mired in the trenches of hyper-partisan warfare. Political parties will not disappear; as a free people, we will continue to honor freedom of association. The goal is not to destroy parties but to transcend them; to welcome their contributions but end their dominance; and to take back from these private clubs control of our own elections and our own Congress."

In his piece, Edwards outlines a compelling Six-Step Method to fix Congress. Think of it as rehab for glassy-eyed politicians habitually strung out on the potent Mary Jane they call partisanship. However, there are two problems. First, we Americans should have banded together to do an intervention long ago. Congress' political substance abuse is now Winehousian in scope. These guys and gals may be too far gone to save. Asking them to change now is like telling your dog to stop wagging its tail. It's a fool's errand. Second, to pull off the excellent reforms Edwards suggests would require throwing most of these bums out of office and replacing them with folks who, when push comes to shove, do not regard compromise as a "dirty word," as Obama put it. We want a majority of principled, cantankerous, hard-fighting folks who will nonetheless give their their first allegiance to the nation.

But frankly, the actual path to this political Shangri-La eludes me. Edwards is silent on the matter. Except for the "Era of Good Feelings" (1816–1824), a time when partisan combat abated under President Monroe, Congress has been a viper's nest of parochial interests. Yes, the system works. But just barely. We deserve better. But so far, nobody has come up with a viable way to let us "take back" our government. Could Obama still lead a change movement that goes beyond mere rhetoric?

It is famously said that only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps only Obama can return the government to the noble place that the Framers intended for it. As the last adult standing, no one is better equipped for the task than Obama given his trustworthiness and talent, combined qualities rarely seen in American presidents. Obviously, accomplishing "change" has proven impossible in his first term. In retrospect, that isn't surprising. Who knew the "loyal opposition" would morph into near treasonous jackals and willfully sabotage all efforts at truce-making? But now they've shown us their cards and another chance to overturn the tables beckons in 2012.

This time, Obama could marry his patented change message with an earnest plea for governmental competence and patriotism. Extending his coattails, the president could pitch the counterintuitive idea of a "Congress You Can Believe In," hammering home the critical importance of not electing narrowcast mouth-breathers into state or federal office. "You want decisive government, not dysfunctional government," the sound bite might go. Such a message would appeal to every frustrated voter in the country. You want a liberal congressman? Fine. How about a conservative one? Fine. Just make damn sure his or her IQ is higher than room temperature. And then go all Missouri on them by saying "Show Me" how you'll get stuff done through both debate and cooperation, Mr. or Ms. Candidate.

"Help me help you, America," Obama could entreat using his great rhetorical gifts. "Uncle Sam needs a new pair of shoes, folks -- and maybe a swift kick, too. (laughter) Elect the best, you get the best, America." I can easily imagine Obama having fun with this, and the crowds eating it up. If Obama thundered this message relentlessly in 2012, would it resonate with voters? Absolutely. Could it create the groundswell that would be necessary to turn the reforms proposed by Edwards into reality? Maybe. But it would be well worth a try.