Governing isn’t their strong suit

This may sound silly, because it probably is, but I’ve long believed that the nation’s two major parties each had key strengths, and the political process works best when each are able to utilize their respective assets.

Republicans are excellent at message development, hardball tactics, campaigning, and railing against perceived rivals, but they’re really bad at governing. (By “governing,” I mean crafting effective public policy proposals, explaining why those proposals work, and then implementing them.) Democrats, conversely, are the polar opposite: strong on matters of policy, generally lost when it comes to the political game.

It seems to me, therefore, that no one is in their right place right now. Dems are ineffective in the minority because they’re awful antagonists, while Republicans are ineffective in the majority because they don’t actually like the policy process. Tom DeLay was born to be the Minority Whip, but he’s miscast as the House Majority Leader. Bill Frist is clearly out of his league as Majority Leader, but may make an effective critic as Minority Leader. And George W. Bush has no idea how to use the power of the presidency. It’s as if everyone’s wearing the wrong hats.

With this in mind, I enjoyed Dick Stevenson’s piece in the New York Times today on renewed calls for Republicans, particularly the Bush White House, to start taking their governing responsibilities seriously.

President Bush and his hard-charging political team, which seemed to make all the right moves in winning re-election last year, have stumbled when it comes to governing in a second term, many Republicans say, leaving the White House scrambling to get back on track.

Even as they expressed continued support for Mr. Bush and his goals, influential Republicans said Karl Rove and the White House political operation have been slow to shift from campaign mode, with its base-energizing positions, to an approach that allows for more compromise and increases the probability of Mr. Bush signing legislation that directly addresses the everyday concerns of voters.

“The tone has been too much of a permanent campaign,” said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker. “When you’re the minority, you need to fight. When you’re the governing majority, you need to produce.”

I hate to agree with Gingrich, but that’s absolutely right.

Stevenson points to all kind of interesting explanations for the GOP’s current predicament — overreach, misunderstood mandate, revitalized Dems, intra-party strife among Republicans — all of which ring true.

But I think it boils down to something less complicated. Campaign politics and governing are not only incompatible at times, they’re actually mirror opposites. Campaigns tend to divide, us vs. them, our guys vs. their guys. Governing is, or is supposed to be, a cooperative process, with responsible people reaching consensus, striking compromises, and finding a shared sense of purpose.

Today’s Republican Party has mastered the prior, but doesn’t even understand the latter. And now that the GOP enjoys firm control of the federal apparatus, they seem lost because they want to utilize their skills — confrontational campaign tactics — even though the circumstances don’t warrant it. Listen to their rhetoric: Dems hate the troops! They hate Christians! They’re ruining the country!

Unfortunately for the GOP, no one cares because Dems no longer have any power. It’s as if Republicans haven’t quite realized that they’re running the show, so they’re sticking to the permanent campaign because it’s the only approach they know. It’s not working — and it’s getting kind of embarrassing.

Of course, there’s an upside. Republicans can stay on their current path and voters will set things right by returning them to the minority. I know this may cause the GOP great consternation, but trust me, we’ll all be better off.

I think your missing a small point about the governing part, The Republicans do not want to govern they want to rule.

  • “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.” — P.J. O’Rourke

    Republicans have a hard time governing because the don’t believe in government.

  • Republicans can win elections but can’t govern.

    Democrats can govern but can’t win elections.

    Interesting situation we’ve gotten ourselves in here.

  • The “governing” is the essence of my contention with the socialist agenda that the Democratic Party has so long advocated. Throughout this website is the constant criticism of all things Republican. Carpetbagger- tell me if I’m wrong, but probably less than 10% of the posts on this site discuss the Democratic agenda and how if implemented our nation will be better off. My point (as follows) that I keep asking, but no- one will address is the “European Endgame” as I call it. We already have a real world example in the nations of Europe- who do all the things liberals in this country want to do- and particularly in the economic fields (which you guys always stress as your greatest concern, along with healthcare). They have the “progressive” income taxation you advocate, greater expenditures in education (which is “free” for all eligble persons for postgraduate studies), head to toe, cradle to grave healthcare, higher enemployment benefits, extremely strong unionized labor, unrestricted abortion rights- i.e, they are everything you long for us to be in this nation. AND THEIR SITUATION SUCKS! Just look at their unemployment statistics: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flseur.txt

    THEY ARE TERRIBLE!!! The average unemployment for the core 15- member European union has NEVER been below 7.2%, and in most years has been over 8%!!! We all know that JOBS are the number one statistic. Germany, which is the “pinnicle” for your agenda, has unemployment over 12% So Democrats have the “better policy?” I really cannot agree with that- you have nothing to show us that if we follow your agenda that we will not end up the same way as Europe.

  • Oh, and before anyone says I just picked out one statistic and flaunted it- peruse the site I noted. Run the numbers on percentage of home ownership (another very important number to the common people) and several others. The picture is still substantially the same.

  • A party that is dependent on the notion that “the government is the problem” and that it just wastes “your money” can’t then be expected to make the government work well. It’s in their interest to make sure that the government always messes up.

    They don’t ‘misunderstand’ their role. Their role is to get re-elected. With the advantages of incumbency and the complacency of the media, all they need to do is steer enough federal dollars back into their districts and they’re done for the day.

  • FM, here’s what you said:

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, you all suck and I don’t listen to your ideas. I also like to write you all off as broad supporters of socialist policies that you haven’t even articulated. I compare tiny, homogenous countries to the United States and pretend it’s like comparing apples to apples, meanwhile I assume that their socialist schemes are the root cause of their high unemployment, discounting a myriad of other factors. It doesn’t matter that it would be more apt to compare, say, what their unemployment was like before these policies– all while ignoring the fact that people without jobs still have health insurance in many of those countries.

    It is silly to blame this site for spending too much time criticizing the GOP– the GOP is holding the reins, steering the car, so to speak. If the Dems controlled anything or had much power to speak of it’s a safe bet we’d all be talking about them a heck of a lot more.

  • What I think is interesting is that FM says “high unemployment is awful” and “high home ownership is good”, but (even if one assumes that the comparisons are apples to apples, which I do not), a lot of the reason that high unemployment is awful and high home ownership is good in the US is because the US doesn’t have any of the social safety nets that the EU countries do. So high unemployment here looks like a lot of human suffering, and low home ownership looks like a lot of exposure to landlords whims (except in the cities which regulate landlord-tenant relations, something to which I suspect FM would object as well.

    Of course, you could have the current Republican management team, which seems to be driving us off a cliff toward both high-unemployment *and* no social safety net. What’s good for business is *not* necessarily what’s good for the rest of us.

  • FM, I appreciate your comments, as always, but I’m afraid you see a European boogeyman behind every left-leaning corner. It doesn’t exist.

    First, you raise a good point about my choice of emphasis. Far fewer than 10% of my posts reference the benefits of the Dem agenda, not because it doesn’t exist, but because it’s in stasis, waiting for a chance to be heard. If Dems were in the majority of even one chamber right now, there’d be more room for a Dem approach vs. GOP approach to policy. But at this point, Dems are rarely even allowed to add amendments to legislation, better yet advance a series of goals. I critique Republican ideas and proposals because they’re the ones getting consideration.

    Nevertheless, I’ve noticed that in your comments here, as well as in other posts, you point to the superiority of the U.S. model over a European model. Fair enough. But the problem, as I see it, is with your built-in assumptions about Dems racing to embrace a European-style “mixed” economy. I’m not entirely sure what gives you this impression.

    Take the Clinton years, for example. There were some fairly narrow proposals such as Family and Medical Leave and a modest increase in the minimum wage that prompted howls from the right over “Europeanism!” but this was more hysterical partisanship than serious policy debate. Were there creeping-euro policies advanced by the Clinton White House that convinced you of a hidden agenda? (Please don’t point to Clinton’s health care plan; I know you know better.) Were 22 million new jobs and the largest budget surplus in the history of the world in any way similar to results found on the other side of the Atlantic?

    Even now, consider the policy agenda proposed earlier this year by Senate Democrats. Where, exactly, is this alleged fixation on turning the U.S. into the Franco-German States of North America?

    They have the “progressive” income taxation you advocate, greater expenditures in education (which is “free” for all eligble persons for postgraduate studies), head to toe, cradle to grave healthcare, higher enemployment benefits, extremely strong unionized labor, unrestricted abortion rights- i.e, they are everything you long for us to be in this nation.

    Come on, FM, this is hardly a helpful description. Aside from union support, you more or less just described the policies of Richard Nixon’s administration. The devil is in the details.

    The American system is preferrable to the European model. I agree. The American economy is stronger than the European economy. Fine. But the “European Endgame” you fear remains no where in sight.

  • There is no Democratic agenda. That’s why we don’t
    talk about it. Democrats started abandoning their
    core values back when Reagan convinced the American
    people that government was the problem. And they’ve
    been running from them ever since. So much so that
    by default, “liberal” has become a universal, derogatory term. No one admits to being one anymore.
    It’s as shameful as being bright or well educated.
    I think only atheists and child molestors are lower
    on the ladder than liberals. Even lawyers are a rung
    above them.

    As to Europe vs. America, it’s much more complicated
    than that. There are many categories in which
    America ranks dead last, or poorly. There are also
    intangibles to which no dollar value can be assigned.
    For example, what must it be like to know that
    you won’t ever be bankrupted by catastrophic
    medical costs? Only the multimillionaires in this
    country are free from such concerns.

  • What I’m talking about goes beyond just a “current Congress” and “current administration” examination Carpetbagger- I’m talking about the broad policy leanings of the Parties for the last forty plus years- in which Democrats have held the reins in Congress for the majority of that time, and about half of the years of the Executive Office. Where’s the showing of superiority there?
    And Zoe- you’re just hem-hawing and side-stepping (in classic liberal fashion whenever I corner you guys on this). You reply: “Your just a blunt headed conservative. etc,etc.” AND NEVER ADDRESS WHAT I”M SAYING. Are there other reasons for fifteen nations of the advanced civilized world to not have socialism causing their problems? Hey, I’m open to it- SO PLEAD YOUR AGRUMENT. But you don’t. The “numbers” of the European nations are not just a bunch of “homegeneous microstates.” And when you are comparing international macro and micro economic standards and statistics, you naturally take into account many offsetting factors. But fifteen nations (and now more) who ARE NOT HOMOGENOUS, but do choose to adopt the vast majority of what you advocate (and carpetbagger, I’ll look at the link you provided, and if I’m wrong on the similarities in your political/economic objectives, I’ll come out and admit it) and have the problems that they do is not something to blythly ignore. And this whole commentary of “well they may have unemployment that is worse than ours, but its not so hard being unemployed over there” is absolutely ludicrous. That’s like saying “well, I may have run over you with a truck and now you’re a cripple, but at least I bought you a nice wheelchair.”
    There is a “European Endgame.” It’s just that you choose to ignore the big picture of all the facts.

  • Hey, we excel in unwanted pregnancies and teenage births. We excel in murder rates and numbers of executions. We excel in high school dropouts. Hell, I bet we even watch more TV and go to church more than the Europeans do. And they don’t have anyone to even compare with Rush, ‘cept in the li’l ol’ minority fascist parties.

    Seriously, paperwight and Carpetbagger already nailed it, FM. Apples vs. aardvarks. The chief difference between Democrats and Republicans, as far back as I can remember or even read about, is that Democrats have governed and thereby improved enormous numbers of lives here and abroad, while Republicans have largely lied … while a few of them have improved their own private holdings and advantages at our expense. I’m trying to recall a program of theirs which has accomplished anything. Okay, I’ll give you Nixon’s Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (which ShrubCo is now dismantling).

    The simplest example is Social Security. The Republicans and their lapdogs keep asking us what the Democrat program is. The answer is “the one we put in in 1935”, the one the Republicans have been trying to gut ever since, the INSURANCE plan, not some phony “investment” scheme. It needs fixing (particularly, tossing out thatarbitrary ceiling for paying in). Even the Shrub, throughout his two month tour of restricted dog-and-pony shows for his hallelujah chorus, admits his scheme won’t fix anything. And, at long last, with a lot of help from dedicated bloggers, the public is beginning to see through the lies.

    Anyway, that’s it. Straight out Pareto — those who can govern (the Dems) do, those who can’t (the Reps) lie. That’s why the former is the party of hope, the latter the party of fear.

  • Hey Force Majure,

    Denmark and the Netherlands look pretty darn good to me. Nice low unemployment rates. And don’t they have all the things you said would break an economy? Heck even Austria looks pretty good.

    If you are telling me we could have universal health insurance, and much much higher high-school graduation rates (and lower overall crime rates) for an rough average unemployment figure for the 2000s of Austria: 4.4%, Denmark: 5.5%, Netherlands: 4%…shoot, I’d take it!

    Also, you must have never been unemployed for a long period as an adult. Unless you truly think 0% unemployment is possible, then you had better acknowledge that some unemployment is inevitable. Not having decent unemployment insurance or healthcare during the inevitable transition phases between jobs is not akin to being given “a nice wheelchair” after being hit by a truck. Rather that support is food on the table, and overnight stays in Oakland Children’s hospital for a sudden ailment in your two-year old, without going into bankruptcy.

  • I’ll put my two cents in on political agendas.

    My own ideas are that it is not quite appropriate to consider a liberal agenda better than a conservative agenda, or vice versa. One should ideally act as a check against the other. I’ll explain:

    Both liberals and conservatives agree that government is necessary. Conservatives (I am one, I admit!) tend to favor limits on government use of power for a variety of reasons that are painfully obvious due to the Bush administration. For example, too much government creates dependence. And no, I’m not worried about the so-called welfare queens spunging off the state; rather, dependence gives government a hammer with which to threaten individual liberty (e.g., a political party gets control and punishes a group who voted for the other party by taking away their entitlements and leaving them to starve). I can go on with other advantages. At the same time, conservativism has the disadvantage of being too slow to use the massive collective power of the government to deal with very real social problems. That’s what liberalism has to recommend it (and other reasons), but at the cost of giving government greater clout over individual lives. In any event, one philosophy can inform and enrich the other. We don’t need to go to a European-style socialist state, and neither do we need (or want) a laissez-faire government where anything goes.

    Then politics intrude, and liberalism and conservativism are postured as enemies of each other. Democrats might not get elected and Republicans might not be able to govern, but neither being a liberal or being a conservative really has anything to do with whether one can govern or get elected. One can make a pretty good reason-based case with either. It would be nice if these parties could clearly stand for one philosophy and work toward making them interdependent. Unfortunately, both parties consist of human beings and, as the Chancellor Palpatine said in Revenge of the Sith, “When people have power they do not want to lose it.” So much for my ideal world.

  • They’re sales pukes. Karl Rove and Company was a direct mail marketing firm.

    I’ve seen this over and over again in business. When the sales pukes take over, the whole company goes down the fucking toilet. Think Carly Florina as a recent and high-profile example.

    They don’t know how to run a company, or a country, *because they are full of shit*. Being full of shit is a huge help if you are a sales or BusDev puke. Being able to lie through your teeth with a straight face, be both ingratiating and ruthless, manipulate people and play on their fear and greed, be addicted to the adrenaline rush of conquest, be unable to see beyond this month’s quota or this quarter’s quota, and negotiate like a bastards, are all key elements of sales success.

    But actually running a company is a completely different skill set. VP’s of Sales make lousy CEO’s.

    Furthermore, CEO’s make lousy government officials (cf. Bush, McNamara, Cheney). A CEO is a feudal-style autocrat or plutocrat. There is no democracy in a corporation. The larger the corporation, the more heirarchical and autocratic it is. The worst *possible* government official you could imagine is an ex-CEO whose area of expertise is sales or BusDev.

  • I find it funny how many times in the past few months the Dems have been called upon to profer their plans for things like fixing Social Security. The Dems have no reason to set anything forth since it would only be used as a trial ballon to be shot down for political advantage and besides the Republicans have been elected to positions of leadership and therefore it is their duty to lead. It appears the Republicans simply have no ideas and really don’t know how to be compassionate and conservative at the same time.

    The Bush Administration has been extraordinary at dismantling and destroying things, but has constructed remarkably little. A favorite saying is that if the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The Republicans have been avidly pounding away with their hammer, but when surgery is required such as with diplomacy or Social Security, their only tactic is to smack away with their hammer. We will never tax cut our way to prosperity nor deregulate ourselves to a perfect world. The Republicans need more tools, such as cooperation, compassion, fiscal responsibility and a sense of stewardship for this nation for them to be able to fix what ails us.

  • With some few exceptions, the Dems and Reps are devoutly into putting each other down as opposed to finding compromises that actually lead to progress.

    “When you’re the minority, you need to fight. When you’re the governing majority, you need to produce.”

    I hate to agree with Gingrich, but that’s absolutely right.

    I don’t hate to agree with Gingrich and I don’t necessarily agree with his statement. Even the minority has power if they can just figure out how to use it. Hasn’t THAT been the core of Liberal activism since FDR?

    you more or less just described the policies of Richard Nixon’s administration.

    Listen, both Nixon and Newt were slimy ankle-biters. But there is no sense in denying that BOTH had some excellent ideas for advancing individual rights. Nixon’s ’69-’70 Health Care proposal was even more Liberal than the Clinton’s offering!

    I really think the base-issue is pointed out nicely by goatchowder: A CEO is a feudal-style autocrat or plutocrat. There is no democracy in a corporation. But how many people really understand the efficacy of that concept?

  • This is what I see as being the main differences in Democrat vs. Republican policies.

    Democrat – Equlity of outcome regardless of work ethic, perseverence, personal responsibility, morality, or general ability. Appeasement and out-reach programs in the face of danger both foreign and domestic. Government regulation and programs so that people will never have to deal with the consequences of thier own actions or inactions. A higher concern for international relationships than national interests.

    Republican – Equal opportunity, but the outcome depends on your work ethic, perseverence, personal responsibility, morality and general ability. Strong military and tough as hell on domestic crime. They do need to get tough and close the borders as national security trumps capitalism. Overall, they believe in the free-market economy, but they need to cut out the hand-outs to farmers and other domestic interests that can’t cut it in a free-market society. They seem willing to work with the international community, but not to be held hostage to self-destructive policy.

    You can call bullshit on these perceptions if you like, but the majority of the American electorate sees things the same way. If democrats want to get back in the game they need to adjust their positions on some issues. Otherwise, a two-party system will reassert itself. However, it will be social conservatives and libertarians.

  • Shan,

    You can call bullshit on these perceptions if you like

    Done. I’d refute line by line, but you clearly are not open minded.

    but the majority of the American electorate sees things the same way.

    That’s an extremely broad generalization and not accurate.

    If democrats want to get back in the game they need to adjust their positions on some issues.

    And the same can be said about Republicans in Blue states and in a majority, growing majority, of local districts.

  • Well Edo, it has been said that the definition of stupidity is continuing to do the same things over and over again while expecting a different outcome. Good luck with that. Maybe after 2006 or 2008 you’ll want to talk.

  • Um … Force Majure? I just wanted to make sure you knew that it’s actually spelled “Force Majeure.” But maybe you knew that and decided to spell it wrong on purpose because the term is actually FRENCH?

    Just checking.

  • Comments are closed.