With the release of US President Barack Obama’s budget, Washington has once again descended into partisan squabbling. There is in the US today pervasive concern about the basic functioning of our democracy. The US Congress is viewed less favorably than ever before in the history of public opinion-polling. Revulsion at political figures unable to reach agreement on measures that substantially reduce prospective budget deficits is widespread. Pundits and politicians alike condemn gridlock, while angry movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party emerge on both sides of the political spectrum, and partisanship seems to become ever more pervasive.
All this comes at a time of great challenge. Profound changes, as emerging economies led by China converge toward the West, will redefine the global order. Beyond the current economic downturn, which is surely the most serious since the Great Depression, lies the even more serious challenge of the rise of technologies that may well raise average productivity, but displace large numbers of workers. Public debt is running up in a way that is without precedent except in times of all-out war. And a combination of the share of the population that is aged and the rising relative price of public services, such as healthcare and education, pressures future budgets.
Anyone who has worked in a political position in Washington has had ample experience with great frustration. Almost everyone involved with public policy feels, as I do, that there is much that is essential yet infeasible in the current political environment. Yet context is important. Concerns about gridlock are a near-constant in US political history and in important respects reflect desirable checks and balances; much more progress is occurring in key sectors than is usually acknowledged; and US decisionmaking, for all its flaws, stands up well in global comparison.
It is a commonplace that the missing center makes political compromise impossible. Many yearn for a return to what they imagine as an earlier era when centrists in both parties had overlapping opinions and negotiated bipartisan compromises that moved the country forward.
Yet fears about the functioning of our government like those expressed today have been recurring features of the political landscape since Patrick Henry’s 1791 assertion that the spirit of the revolution had been lost. It is sobering to consider the degree of concern about paralysis that gripped Washington during the early 1960s, when the prevailing diagnosis was that a lack of cohesive and responsible parties precluded the clear electoral verdicts necessary for decisive action.
While there was a flurry of legislation passed in the 1964-1966 period after a Democratic landslide, what followed were the cleavages associated with Vietnam and then Watergate, all leading to then-US president Jimmy Carter’s famous declaration of a crisis of the national spirit. Whatever the view today, there was hardly high rapport in Washington during the term of former US president Ronald Reagan. Former US president Bill Clinton worked hard to establish rapport and compromise with a Congress controlled by the opposition, only to be impeached by the House of Representatives after a bitter struggle.
Intense division and slow change have been the norms rather than the exceptions. While often frustrating, this has not always been a bad thing. Probably there were too few — not too many — checks and balances as the US entered the Vietnam and Iraq wars. By my lights and that of many others, there should have been more checks and balances on the huge tax cuts of 1981, 2001 and 2003, or on unpaid-for entitlement expansions at any number of junctures.