This is a great letter that puts the stark reality no candidate is stating publicly. Neither the Rove-ian nor the Pelosi-an models will work. We desperately need the political leadership that will bring all of the resources of this country to bear on these enormous problems.
The one thing the current financil melt-down has made clear is that big problems don’t just go away; they get worse and worse and eventualyy pop unless conceerted action is taken.
Having made the mistakes with the current banking and asset exposion we just can’t let the same thing happen with the really big issues- social security and medicare because if not addressed and solved these problems wiull make our current dilemmas pale by comparison.
I agree, we are on an island of diminishing viability and the fight is over which candidate and party will make it more comfortable by providing bread and circus. Time to find ways back to the mainland of our deeper origins.
Paul Schervish
You make great points and this is probably the most “straight talk” many of us have heard since the start of the campaigns. It is shameful that these critical resources will not exist. How about the even lower functioning schools, increases in crime, health issues etc. we will experience because our federal government is out of funds. I agree that there is no time for partisanship in this climate. The Party is Over…..
Great piece. I would add one additional cost for consideration: Extreme Politics (aka “The Politics of Personal Destruction”) produces as a form of collateral damage a dirth of good people willing to enter public life. As a result, our fields of candidates are extremely limited. Many extremely well qualified people simply do not want to subject themselves and their families to the abuses the system subjects them to. On the other hand, many less-than-desirable candidates appear for all the wrong reasons, as evidenced by the plethora of ethics violations and criminal behavior that we have seen in recent years. This collateral damage is one of the highest costs to the nation resulting from extreme politics.
Mario,
At a dinner meeting recently, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) gave an impassioned talk about the issues you address in this article. He and Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) have introduced HR-3654 which, if passed, would establish a bipartisan Commission to make recommendations to restore fiscal balance. The Commission would make recommendations which would be presented to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote. This approach is the one used to achieve military base closings by forcing Congress to vote yes or no, and it worked. Over 100 Congress persons have signed on to the bill, but it is not moving.
The acronym SAFE is being used as a “grabber” for the proposal. This stands for Securing America’s Future Economy.
The elements of the proposal are (1) a bipartisan 16 member Commision, (2) all spending and tax policies will be on the table for discussion, (3) public hearings will be held across the country to hear from the American people, and (4) Congress will be REQUIRED to vote up or down on the SAFE Commission’s recommendations.
This approach worked for base closings, and it can work again. Spending on the three largest mandatory spending or entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) plus interest on the national will consume all (ALL) of the government’s revenue by 2026. Something MUST be done to restore fiscal balance.
To learn more about the SAFE Commission, go to wolf.house.gov/SAFE. If you like what you see there, spread the word.
The time to act is now.
I understand and empathize with the frustration voiced here and applaud your putting your money where your mouth is. But I’m unconvinced.
Your approach endorses bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake, assuming that if everyone just put their differences aside, we could really get stuff done. Those differences, however, matter. McCain and Obama, their advisors and surrogates, and their political allies disagree on some of the most important issues of our day - the economy, national security, human rights, you name it. People don’t get into politics to just put that stuff aside. They get into politics to fight for it.
If reaching across the aisle helps you achieve your goals, by and large, you do it, but you don’t reach across the aisle just to make people feel better about the tone of our politics. The stakes are high, and so are our differences. It will get ugly sometimes. But that’s democracy.
As Tocqueville said, “Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy.”
I agree with some of your comments. However, the economic mess that the U.S. is facing not only involves the current administration, but much of the blame lies at the doors of Congress, both the House and Senate. This includes the current members of Congress and the members of Congress who served during the Clinton and Carter administrations. Added to this problem is the greed of top executives who serve and/or have served a leaders in many of the corporations which have been identified as contributors to the sub-prime home loan problems. Neither Obama or McCain can solve the current crisis alone, it will take a combined effort of the public and private sector to unite in a unified common cause in addressing our economic crisis, including the challenges currently faced by elementary, secondary, and higher educational institutions. What we need now is a president who has the courage to lead the nation in resolving the current economic problems, one who is truly a representative of the people and not just special interest groups.
Thanks for the very thoughtful comments. I agree with your recommendations, though I’m not sure they will do the trick. Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it’s largely irrelevant to a growing share of the population for whom the two-party system is of no interest. For these folks, and they are many, the traditional role of parties has been preempted by media—not primarily the newspapers and the networks, but cable, talk shows, blogs, etc. It seems to me that these are the forces that are driving opinion formation for more and more people, and political leaders need to develop skills and vocabulary that will reach them.
Yet bipartisanship remains important if only because Congress runs on a party system, and Congress is key to making the changes you suggest are needed. So we have a dilemma: How can we use a bipartisan approach to modify the outcomes of a partisan legislative process? It seems to me that we need a generation of legislators willing to jeopardize their Congressional tenure in the interest of achieving a fundamental retooling of the way we define and underwrite the role of government. Maybe the folks at the Kennedy School who offer the program for newly elected members of Congress might think about how their curriculum could help this happen.
Thanks for starting a dialogue on this.///Dick Baznik
But I wonder what role philanthropy could play in helping find road maps out of this mess. I think back to how foundations played such a decisive and forceful role in the civil rights movement of the 60’s. Where are the foundation leaders now to help address this challenge of steadily increasing separation and hardening partisanship on both sides?
A belated thanks to those of you who read my October 14 posting. What a great forum SSIR has created. I’ve put together some additional views in response to your thought-provoking comments.
I was gratified to see in these responses and in many others I received via email that my overarching point—regardless of who wins on November 4 (or by how much), our elected and other leaders have to find a more effective and civil way to work together, with less collateral damage—resonated with most readers.
I want to start by commenting on the insightful “push back” by “K.” This commenter correctly noted that “bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake” is not in and of itself of any consequence. He or she refers to one of my own favorite sources, Tocqueville, with this quote: “Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy.”
I couldn’t agree more. The goal is not bipartisanship; it is finding ways to effectively work together to advance our nation and break the shackles of political parties and extremism to realize we have a common fight—for our very future and, more importantly, that of our children.
Even before the banking and credit crisis, this country was facing a major challenge to our global leadership—the greatest challenge in my lifetime. We have to pull out every stop if we are to ensure our competitiveness and maintain our global position—from finding ways to stimulate greater innovation, to slow the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and expand access to the 45+ million who lack health coverage to make the massive investment (public and private) essential to rebuild an aging infrastructure and achieve energy independence. We MUST have healthy debate and constructive conflict to push us to the best solutions, yet we can’t afford vitriolic, scorched-earth tactics. These approaches can only yield temporary and partial solutions.
To illustrate that what I’m suggesting goes beyond a naïve call for bipartisanship, I point you to the posting by Earle Williams, whom I know and greatly respect. I can’t speak specifically to the bill he cites (HR 3654), but I can commend the process he lays out. Disagreeing is fine; it is expected. Different viewpoints are not only good; they are essential. Yet we have to find ways to come together at some point with a reasonable outcome and positive action that makes a good difference.
Alan Salisbury made an astute addition, noting that another huge cost of extreme politics is the repellent effect it has on talented people who might otherwise seek public office. I fully agree. The Partnership for Public Service (http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/) would tell you that the repellent effect is also a huge problem when it comes to recruiting talented people for all types of public-service positions—not just elected offices.
As Richard Baznik noted, “Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it’s largely irrelevant to a growing share of the population for whom the two-party system is of no interest.” I couldn’t agree more. I’ve heard from many people—including a good number who have contributed significantly to party coffers over the years—who are fed up with both major parties and party politics in general. And it is my own bet that when we drop the party shackles and exclude the far extremes of the left and right, we will find more common ground and greater opportunity for a shared purpose.
A posting by Peter states, “I wonder what role philanthropy could play in helping find road maps out of this mess?” I am not smart enough to know the solution. But I do believe philanthropy has to step up as a vital voice, even a countervailing voice, to challenge our political system to rise to the expectation that we can re-establish civil debate and deliberation, the very basis of our democracy. One example is the Hewlett Foundation’s work to bring together traditionally competing political interests to address critically important energy and environment issues. Another is the Aspen Institute’s esteemed Congressional Program (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.612053/k.6DA1/Congressional_Program.htm).
Keep the comments (both pro and con) coming. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what’s already working to foster dialogue, deliberation, and good decisions on important national and global challenges.
COMMENTS
BY James Ratner
ON October 15, 2008 12:16 PM
Dear marrio,
This is a great letter that puts the stark reality no candidate is stating publicly. Neither the Rove-ian nor the Pelosi-an models will work. We desperately need the political leadership that will bring all of the resources of this country to bear on these enormous problems.
The one thing the current financil melt-down has made clear is that big problems don’t just go away; they get worse and worse and eventualyy pop unless conceerted action is taken.
Having made the mistakes with the current banking and asset exposion we just can’t let the same thing happen with the really big issues- social security and medicare because if not addressed and solved these problems wiull make our current dilemmas pale by comparison.
Jim Ratner
BY Paul Schervish
ON October 16, 2008 08:16 AM
I agree, we are on an island of diminishing viability and the fight is over which candidate and party will make it more comfortable by providing bread and circus. Time to find ways back to the mainland of our deeper origins.
Paul Schervish
BY Glen O'Gilvie
ON October 16, 2008 09:25 AM
Hi Mario,
You make great points and this is probably the most “straight talk” many of us have heard since the start of the campaigns. It is shameful that these critical resources will not exist. How about the even lower functioning schools, increases in crime, health issues etc. we will experience because our federal government is out of funds. I agree that there is no time for partisanship in this climate. The Party is Over…..
Thanks for sharing.
BY Alan Salisbury
ON October 16, 2008 09:41 AM
Mario:
Great piece. I would add one additional cost for consideration: Extreme Politics (aka “The Politics of Personal Destruction”) produces as a form of collateral damage a dirth of good people willing to enter public life. As a result, our fields of candidates are extremely limited. Many extremely well qualified people simply do not want to subject themselves and their families to the abuses the system subjects them to. On the other hand, many less-than-desirable candidates appear for all the wrong reasons, as evidenced by the plethora of ethics violations and criminal behavior that we have seen in recent years. This collateral damage is one of the highest costs to the nation resulting from extreme politics.
BY Earle Williams
ON October 16, 2008 12:58 PM
Mario,
At a dinner meeting recently, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) gave an impassioned talk about the issues you address in this article. He and Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) have introduced HR-3654 which, if passed, would establish a bipartisan Commission to make recommendations to restore fiscal balance. The Commission would make recommendations which would be presented to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote. This approach is the one used to achieve military base closings by forcing Congress to vote yes or no, and it worked. Over 100 Congress persons have signed on to the bill, but it is not moving.
The acronym SAFE is being used as a “grabber” for the proposal. This stands for Securing America’s Future Economy.
The elements of the proposal are (1) a bipartisan 16 member Commision, (2) all spending and tax policies will be on the table for discussion, (3) public hearings will be held across the country to hear from the American people, and (4) Congress will be REQUIRED to vote up or down on the SAFE Commission’s recommendations.
This approach worked for base closings, and it can work again. Spending on the three largest mandatory spending or entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) plus interest on the national will consume all (ALL) of the government’s revenue by 2026. Something MUST be done to restore fiscal balance.
To learn more about the SAFE Commission, go to wolf.house.gov/SAFE. If you like what you see there, spread the word.
The time to act is now.
BY K
ON October 16, 2008 02:00 PM
I understand and empathize with the frustration voiced here and applaud your putting your money where your mouth is. But I’m unconvinced.
Your approach endorses bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake, assuming that if everyone just put their differences aside, we could really get stuff done. Those differences, however, matter. McCain and Obama, their advisors and surrogates, and their political allies disagree on some of the most important issues of our day - the economy, national security, human rights, you name it. People don’t get into politics to just put that stuff aside. They get into politics to fight for it.
If reaching across the aisle helps you achieve your goals, by and large, you do it, but you don’t reach across the aisle just to make people feel better about the tone of our politics. The stakes are high, and so are our differences. It will get ugly sometimes. But that’s democracy.
As Tocqueville said, “Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy.”
BY Ray Beckett
ON October 16, 2008 02:43 PM
I agree with some of your comments. However, the economic mess that the U.S. is facing not only involves the current administration, but much of the blame lies at the doors of Congress, both the House and Senate. This includes the current members of Congress and the members of Congress who served during the Clinton and Carter administrations. Added to this problem is the greed of top executives who serve and/or have served a leaders in many of the corporations which have been identified as contributors to the sub-prime home loan problems. Neither Obama or McCain can solve the current crisis alone, it will take a combined effort of the public and private sector to unite in a unified common cause in addressing our economic crisis, including the challenges currently faced by elementary, secondary, and higher educational institutions. What we need now is a president who has the courage to lead the nation in resolving the current economic problems, one who is truly a representative of the people and not just special interest groups.
BY Richard Baznik
ON October 16, 2008 02:55 PM
Mario:
Thanks for the very thoughtful comments. I agree with your recommendations, though I’m not sure they will do the trick. Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it’s largely irrelevant to a growing share of the population for whom the two-party system is of no interest. For these folks, and they are many, the traditional role of parties has been preempted by media—not primarily the newspapers and the networks, but cable, talk shows, blogs, etc. It seems to me that these are the forces that are driving opinion formation for more and more people, and political leaders need to develop skills and vocabulary that will reach them.
Yet bipartisanship remains important if only because Congress runs on a party system, and Congress is key to making the changes you suggest are needed. So we have a dilemma: How can we use a bipartisan approach to modify the outcomes of a partisan legislative process? It seems to me that we need a generation of legislators willing to jeopardize their Congressional tenure in the interest of achieving a fundamental retooling of the way we define and underwrite the role of government. Maybe the folks at the Kennedy School who offer the program for newly elected members of Congress might think about how their curriculum could help this happen.
Thanks for starting a dialogue on this.///Dick Baznik
BY sail
ON October 16, 2008 05:16 PM
Marion,
You make good sense here.
I agree.
But I wonder what role philanthropy could play in helping find road maps out of this mess. I think back to how foundations played such a decisive and forceful role in the civil rights movement of the 60’s. Where are the foundation leaders now to help address this challenge of steadily increasing separation and hardening partisanship on both sides?
Thanks again.
Peter
BY Mario Morino
ON October 21, 2008 11:42 AM
A belated thanks to those of you who read my October 14 posting. What a great forum SSIR has created. I’ve put together some additional views in response to your thought-provoking comments.
I was gratified to see in these responses and in many others I received via email that my overarching point—regardless of who wins on November 4 (or by how much), our elected and other leaders have to find a more effective and civil way to work together, with less collateral damage—resonated with most readers.
I want to start by commenting on the insightful “push back” by “K.” This commenter correctly noted that “bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake” is not in and of itself of any consequence. He or she refers to one of my own favorite sources, Tocqueville, with this quote: “Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy.”
I couldn’t agree more. The goal is not bipartisanship; it is finding ways to effectively work together to advance our nation and break the shackles of political parties and extremism to realize we have a common fight—for our very future and, more importantly, that of our children.
Even before the banking and credit crisis, this country was facing a major challenge to our global leadership—the greatest challenge in my lifetime. We have to pull out every stop if we are to ensure our competitiveness and maintain our global position—from finding ways to stimulate greater innovation, to slow the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and expand access to the 45+ million who lack health coverage to make the massive investment (public and private) essential to rebuild an aging infrastructure and achieve energy independence. We MUST have healthy debate and constructive conflict to push us to the best solutions, yet we can’t afford vitriolic, scorched-earth tactics. These approaches can only yield temporary and partial solutions.
To illustrate that what I’m suggesting goes beyond a naïve call for bipartisanship, I point you to the posting by Earle Williams, whom I know and greatly respect. I can’t speak specifically to the bill he cites (HR 3654), but I can commend the process he lays out. Disagreeing is fine; it is expected. Different viewpoints are not only good; they are essential. Yet we have to find ways to come together at some point with a reasonable outcome and positive action that makes a good difference.
Alan Salisbury made an astute addition, noting that another huge cost of extreme politics is the repellent effect it has on talented people who might otherwise seek public office. I fully agree. The Partnership for Public Service (http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/) would tell you that the repellent effect is also a huge problem when it comes to recruiting talented people for all types of public-service positions—not just elected offices.
As Richard Baznik noted, “Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it’s largely irrelevant to a growing share of the population for whom the two-party system is of no interest.” I couldn’t agree more. I’ve heard from many people—including a good number who have contributed significantly to party coffers over the years—who are fed up with both major parties and party politics in general. And it is my own bet that when we drop the party shackles and exclude the far extremes of the left and right, we will find more common ground and greater opportunity for a shared purpose.
A posting by Peter states, “I wonder what role philanthropy could play in helping find road maps out of this mess?” I am not smart enough to know the solution. But I do believe philanthropy has to step up as a vital voice, even a countervailing voice, to challenge our political system to rise to the expectation that we can re-establish civil debate and deliberation, the very basis of our democracy. One example is the Hewlett Foundation’s work to bring together traditionally competing political interests to address critically important energy and environment issues. Another is the Aspen Institute’s esteemed Congressional Program (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.612053/k.6DA1/Congressional_Program.htm).
Keep the comments (both pro and con) coming. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what’s already working to foster dialogue, deliberation, and good decisions on important national and global challenges.
Mario