Politics is commonly called “the art of compromise.” The problem today, however, is that many politicians don’t agree on fundamental principles of government. Instead of disagreement on various distinctions within the framework of Constitutional principles, there is disagreement on the very role of the Constitution, which all politicians must take an oath to uphold and protect (shockingly, some who take the oath argue afterwards that the Constitution is an outmoded document, or that it is “living and breathing” aside from the amendment process). When one speaks of compromise, it is understood this means reconciling differences, but how can each side make concessions when they can’t agree on basic Constitutional principles? For example, what we have seen over the past few years since the Democrat Party took control of both houses is an intentional shift towards the political ideology of a social democracy, which accelerated with the presidency of Obama. Democrats now seek an expansive role for government far outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, which includes redistribution of wealth and greater regulation of private markets. They have produced expensive, debt-laden legislation over the past two years such as the stimulus package and healthcare bill, which Republicans rejected unanimously. By contrast, Republicans favor Constitutional government, equal opportunity instead of equal outcome, and less burdensome regulation on private companies who create jobs (well, they’re supposed to anyway).
The stimulus package and healthcare bill would appear to have elements where there could be compromise, but this could only be the case if both Democrats and Republicans first agreed on what the Constitution actually allows. Democrats focused on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and social welfare spending, along with some tax incentives. Republicans argued that these projects only provided short term work, and what was really needed was a focus on incentives that would stimulate private enterprise to invest and hire for the long term. So while there may have been compromise, the Keynesian approach followed by the Democrats was unacceptable to the Republicans. The stimulus may have had a nominal effect on the economy, but it failed miserably in its number one goal, which was to keep unemployment under 8%. Regarding the healthcare bill, the stated intent was to save on healthcare costs and to provide insurance to 30 million people who didn’t otherwise have it. Yet the Democrat approach was to effectively take over the industry through mandates and onerous regulations. This approach in no way addresses cost, does not increase competition, and creates a new bureaucracy and entitlement program that will be anything but efficient. Republicans advocated a free market approach that would stimulate competition, but the Democrats had no interest in market solutions, so there was no room for compromise. Neither the Republicans nor the American people were buying the claim that you can add a bureaucratic apparatus, insure an additional 30 million people, and actually save money.
Since the advent of the progressive movement during the time of the Woodrow Wilson presidency, we have seen a steady erosion of the Constitution as the defining document on which this country is governed. As we become less Constitutional, and increasingly a “progressive” welfare state intent on social justice, I believe we will continue to see a polarization in Washington where there is less and less productivity. I don’t believe Washington is particularly productive anyway, but the Democratic side has become increasingly progressive in its leanings, while it criticizes the Republican Party for becoming increasingly “right-wing.” Personally, I don’t see the Republican Party as becoming more right wing, but as a party that is finally recognizing it needs to get back to its roots as the party of low taxes, small government, and personal responsibility. This is hardly right wing, but a principled approach. Both Republicans and Democrats have spent this country into near bankruptcy over the past sixty years since the New Deal, and we have come to the point where if this continues we will not be a nation much longer. At the very time this country needs to be moving towards fiscal responsibility and tax policy that promotes growth, we’re continuing with the failed policies of unfunded entitlement spending and overly generous public employee benefits that we see are sending western european countries into bankruptcy. This is unsustainable, and while Republicans have been part of the problem, at least they now recognize the problem and appear to want to actually do something about it. It remains to be seen if they have the will.
Some would argue that on either side of the political spectrum, we don’t have enough moderates (or rather, “centrists”). Something could be said for this, but the problem with moderates is that while they’re so busy tending to pragmatics, they’re spending little time focusing on the Constitution. My assertion is that if we could “re-center” Congress on the Constitution, then we could eliminate much of the wrangling in Washington, because these folks wouldn’t be engaging in activity that is not within their Constitutional duties. There would be no $800 billion stimulus package because that money wouldn’t have been taken from the states in the first place. There would be no 2000+ page healthcare bill because the federal government would realize its proper role as a regulator of interstate commerce would be to break state mandates on insurance so insurance companies could sell across state lines, thus promoting competition. If Congress respected the Constitution, they would be focused on activities that empowered the states instead of taking away power from them. In turn, the states would be stronger since they would be “laboratories of democracy,” as worded by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, willing to try new and innovative approaches that would attract people and capital. In fact, this would be in keeping with the Tenth Amendment which states “all powers not delegated by the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now this would be the ultimate “compromise.”
Comments on this entry are closed.