American politics: fractured, frayed, and frustrating

This is a column about policy. Policy is inherently broad and inclusive; it is also imperfect. Much of its imperfection is derived from the political process, which we all know can be corrupt, self-serving and painfully slow. Last year a lot changed on Capitol Hill, and the consequences of those changes will play out this year. In this column I will seek to project and analyze what I call “the road ahead”: the future of policymaking in the coming months.

The recent tragedy in Arizona, the shooting of Rep Sarah Gabrielle Giffords and slaying of several innocents, highlights the fractured nature of American politics. Even more, it underscores the fractured psyche of the American people, who continue to struggle through the worst recession since the Great Depression. People aren’t depressed, they are angry, and this anger is reflected in the House and Senate, where heated debates between hyper-partisan politicians often become personal and nasty.

American politics is frayed. The centrists were all but wiped out during the midterm elections last November, leaving a Congress that is ideologically split between the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Moderate Democrat Russ Feingold—a senator in Wisconsin for 18 years—was ousted by Tea Party-leaning Republican Ron Johnson, who has called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Similar challengers, not all successful, rocked elections in Nevada, Minnesota and Delaware. The ideological divide will likely cause this next session of Congress to resemble the trench warfare of the First World War: two adversaries unwilling to budge, making minimal gains and determined to outlast their opponents. This sort of political behavior could be fatal to our country’s future.

It is easy enough to say that America will weather this storm, simply because it will endure: that one party will come out on top, fix things and put the worst behind us. But at what cost to our future? That which is in front of us is far more important than that which is behind us. And that which is behind us—a proud history of hard-earned compromise and cooperation—is mocked by the current state of American politics, which asserts that policymaking is a zero-sum game. It is not.

As frustrating as American politics is, there is still some hope for the future. But, in order for it to be worth believing in, some common myths must be debunked. Many of them are held by members of the Republican Party and the followers of the Tea Party movement, who have both taken an aggressive and absolutist stance in opposing Democrat legislature and envisioning a “Restored America,” one that they say will rediscover what originally made America great—fiscal sacrifice, small government and God.

The “patron saint” of this better America happens to be Ronald Reagan. Speaking at the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, Republican Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi said, “His statue will be a constant reminder of the hope he gave us as we continue to our ‘rendezvous with destiny.’” But what people fail to realize, especially those on the right, is that Reagan’s America was hardly the conservative utopia that it is remembered as. Under Reagan, taxes were increased, not cut; government got bigger, not smaller; and the national debt ballooned—in his eight years as President, Reagan never oversaw a balanced budget. These things don’t take away from his presidency—and they certainly don’t define it—but they are probably some of the greatest reasons for its success.

Democrats believe certain myths, too. Spending can’t continue forever, especially spending on entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Cutting spending and services within those programs would hardly be the best answer either; instead, what both programs need is serious scrutiny and sustainable reform. Democrats need to lead the way on these reforms, but that will require leadership and focus, neither of which has been in abundant supply since Barack Obama took office. That will have to change.

President Obama has bowed to Republican pressure on the extension of the Bush Era tax cuts, among other things. The cuts will, at best, contribute to only modest growth—it is well established in the economics literature that tax cuts have a relatively low bang for the buck. Most likely they will simply trade future growth for growth now. At the very worst, the extension of the cuts will lead to a war over spending cuts that this country is not ready to wage. By increasing rather than decreasing the national debt, the cuts will make the need to save greater than the need to spend. By casting aside the best means to generate revenue—half of the equation for reducing the debt—the government has unnecessarily shifted the debate to spending. And that could have severe consequences for education, the unemployed and, put frankly, our future. America needs fiscal responsibility, not austerity; a commitment toward education, not negligence; and an answer to its jobless—they, like all of us, are still waiting.