Quickthink

QT tracks the US debate on the politics of governance

As Senator Ted was being laid to rest, some were spoiling for a fight just outside the funeral parlour. Was Ted a saint or a sinner — or both?

Saint Ted was the guy who toiled in Congress for decades, negotiating patiently to get small improvements in legislation, and who wrote nice letters to people he disagreed with on political issues. Sinner Ted was the egomaniac who

(1) helped Ronald Reagan get elected by running against Jimmy Carter in the Democratic Party primaries in 1980, and

(2)  opened the door for intense partisan fighting each and every time a seat on the US Supreme Court opened up by making a tough speech about Robert Bork in 1987.

The Opinionator poses the question about number 2 and it is interesting reading. No doubt that Ted was a sinner (in his private life), but I think the argument he was a political sinner is baloney.

We might recall that Jimmy Carter (not Ted) was the political maverick who got elected in 1976 on a fluke — Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. By 1980, it was pretty clear that Carter (1) had done little to advance a credible legislative agenda in his first term, and (2) would have a difficult time getting re-elected. I thought at the time that Ted’s run was a last ditch attempt to win back the soul of the Democratic Party and worth the effort. I haven’t changed my view.

By the time Bork came around in 1987, the “conservatives” had been in power for nearly a decade. They were re-writing the political agenda to persuade a majority of US voters of a radical proposition — that government is the problem.  Bork’s jurisprudence was a radical endorsement and leveraging of this ideology (selectively neutering options for judicial interpretation). Kennedy and many others saw it as a sham and Kennedy had the huevos to say so. Looking back, one might disagree with this view, but it is hard to dispute that Kennedy had reasons to express it. He was re-asserting that government had a legitimate role to play in addressing social problems. I would argue that good governance requires a consensus on this basic point. Otherwise, we get (as we have experienced) an endless cycle of crisis and political food fights.

How about an alternative proposition — the current attacks on Ted reflect the ongoing insecurity of people who may want better governance but are afraid to fight for it.

FOLLOW - We should be clear about the difference between saying “government creates problems” and “government is the problem”. The former allows for legitimate debate about the proper role of government in addressing problems. This was Jerry Ford’s sort of conservatism (now extinct in the Republican Party). The latter is a trump card against any and all initiatives to improve governance. You might ask Chris Cox where that leads us. Or you can listen to the current debate over “death panels” and reform of US health care policy.

2d FOLLOW- Two historical notes for Barrack Obama (1) Jerry Ford thought he “did the right thing” by pardoning Nixon, so the country could move on. Right or wrong, it cost him the 1976 election, and may have opened the door for the Reagan revolution. This is worth remembering as the debate heats up over investigating Bush era cockups. (2) Jimmy Carter failed politically because he waffled between left and right, and thus lost trust and loyalty from both sides. This is a risk of “fusion” or “triangulation” politics. By way of contrast, Reagan sounded more clear (even if he was a bit wacky). Going further, whether Ted was right or wrong, at least it was clear what he stood for and what he was against. So, is the Obama message getting more or less clear these days?

3rd FOLLOW - Dave Brooks lays out a different view of what is driving American politics these days. Dave thinks there is a growing ”centrist” faction that demands “fiscal responsibility, individual choice, and decentralized authority”.  Sounds like wishful thinking to me. But I provide the link for those who would like to think further about the evolving politics of governance in the US.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 at 8:31 am and is filed under Law, People, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.