In the aftermath of a political season, the first act of which just ended, I am galled by a sense of unfulfilled promise and lost opportunities. So, in an attempt to lift me out of that state of regret and frustration, I will attempt to focus on a few of my pipedreams -- nice things that might happen in the coming weeks and months. In my previous installment, I outlined my favorite pipedream: I stated my belief that the vast crowd of people in this country looking to create an independent movement, an alternative to the Republicrats, and looking for a presidential candidate to lead that alternative movement, should choose and draft a nominee whether or not that person had taken active steps to pursue that goal. I then proceeded to make the case for Bill Bradley as the most logical choice among those current figures with appeal to independents who had not so far directly and explicitly slammed the door on such efforts. While the foregoing is my favorite pipedream, I readily acknowledge that it is not very realistic at this juncture. So in my arena of wishful thinking there are other less flashy but probably more reliable contenders waiting to try their luck.
I hereby introduce you, therefore, to my first remaining contender, a
There are no lack of good ideas around with respect to how we move in the direction of a balanced budget by 2002, which is now the goal officially accepted by both parties, thanks to the dogged determination of today's Republican party. There are no lack of good ideas with respect to how we accomplish this without gutting environmental protection, and supporting education, for example. There are also no lack of good ideas with respect to how we preserve and protect the future of Medicare, which is currently threatened by bankruptcy in at least one of its funds. The most noteworthy participants in this debate are the Senate's Mainstream Coalition, led by Senators John Chafee and Breaux, and the Blue Dog bipartisan coalition in the House. Both groups have made a good faith effort to resolve all the conflicting needs listed above. Their proposals are not identical, but hard bargaining could probably resolve the remaining differences between the two groups. Neither are they perfect. The Senate Mainstream proposal, for example, caves in to current election-year pandering, and includes within its scenario a tax cut which, of course, is inherently illogical at this time when our government is broke, and our children are burdened with a staggering debt. But at least their tax cut is a far cry from the budget-busting tax cut tilted toward the rich which the Gingrich Shiites are offering in the lower house.
Currently, the tea leaves do not look good for either of these groups leading the country towards an eventual balanced budget deal, but there is a powerful case to be made in favor of the Republicrats allowing these two groups to do just that, and the primary argument in favor not only consists of an exhortation for our leaders to do good by this country and its future. The case also consists of what I believe are very compelling arguments based on political expediency.
Consider for a moment our last two national elections. In '92, a president who had seemed overwhelmingly popular lost to a relatively unknown candidate. In '94, the party of that relatively unknown candidate, which had been left riding so high after the '92 election, was unceremoniously thrown out of office in both houses of Congress after having controlled them for forty years. Some casual and/or careless observers of these two elections have come to the very sloppy conclusion that they show a country veering erratically from one side of the political spectrum to the other, uncertain of what it truly wants, and uncontrollably fickle in its loyalties. But I would submit that this is not what the last two elections show us.
I believe that, in reality, these election results are manifestations of two forces, both of which work to propel the American electorate towards its seemingly unpredictable actions. First, there is an overwhelming desire to see government accomplish something meaningful, to show competence, and to break gridlock. Second, today's electorate is ready as never before to believe the worst about its chosen and elected leaders. The rampant skepticism and mistrust in the land today is fertile ground for every Tom, Dick, and Harry of a politician to till, with the result that almost every worthwhile political endeavor or idea is easily destroyed by the demonizing tactics of one's political opponents. In such an atmosphere little of substance with even a mild ideological bent can survive.
The apparent solution? Accomplish the impossible: legislation significant enough that the people will accept that much has been accomplished while at the same time framing it and presenting it in such a manner that it becomes almost invulnerable to the demagogic machinations of the left and the right. Of course, there is an obvious trap here: require legislation that tilts neither to the left nor the right and it becomes dangerously tempting to take the easy way out, -- pass legislation that accomplishes little or nothing, the simplest route to the lulling of leftist and rightist demagogy. But one dare not do that: if one does, it may quickly become obvious that little has been accomplished and such action may be viewed by the electorate as another example of law without meaning, incompetence, and gridlock.
Such I believe was the case in BOTH the 92 and 94 elections. In '92, the issue was indeed "the economy, stupid." The public viewed government as too remote, untouched by the concerns of the average person and, more relevant to this discussion, unable to deal competently or efficiently with its obligations towards a country suffering from endemic, long-term, and seemingly intractable recession. So they elected a new leader in the hopes that accomplishment, change, and solution would be the result. But then the Clinton Administration came a-cropper over its health reform initiative. Now the public desperately wanted and needed health reform. They even were in agreement with Bill Clinton's most basic requirement, universal coverage. Yet with all that, they were willing to chuck the opportunity overboard because of the well-placed precision targeting of a demagogic cabal determined to see the initiative fail; this cabal unleashed demagogy which easily triggered that second force of rampant skepticism and mistrust I mentioned above. And yet, paradoxically, they were still more than eager to see some form of health reform happen. When health reform did NOT happen, they punished, swiftly and ruthlessly in '94.
I believe similar forces are at work this year. The public has finally woken up to the fact that we need to balance our budget and start paying off our humongous debt, and that health care costs are a large part of the reason why the pressures driving us towards debt and deficits are so powerful today. And they were fervently hoping that the congressional Republican majority would bravely and forthrightly tackle those issues. But then the congressional Republicans came a- cropper over their Medicare reform initiative. The public desperately wanted and needed budgets balanced and entitlements reformed. They were in agreement with the GOP's most basic requirement, a balanced budget by 2002. Yet with all that, they were willing to chuck the opportunity overboard because of the well-placed precision targeting of a cabal determined to see the initiative fail; the cabal unleashed Medagoguery which easily triggered that second force of rampant skepticism and mistrust I mentioned above. And yet, paradoxically, the voters are still more than eager to see some form of long-term budget balancing happen. So I predict that if budget balancing does NOT happen, they will punish, swiftly and ruthlessly, just as they did in '94. Of course, the question of who will suffer as a result of that punishment is an imponderable lurking around the corner of time.
So here are the reasons of political expedience which should drive the Republicrats towards signing a deal on a long-term six or seven year plan to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. First, such an accomplishment would satisfy the public's hunger for meaningful accomplishment, competence, and an end to gridlock, and second, such an accomplishment would weaken, perhaps fatally, the flirtation with independent and/or third party presidential candidacies in which wise heads are now saying the public is engaged. In addition, bipartisan groups like the Senate Mainstream and the Blue Dog Coalition afford excellent opportunity for cover to both establishment parties. Should these centrist proposals, or proposals similar to them, pass, skittish party leaders could always claim that the proposals did not in fact originate with them, but were merely accepted by them as the only alternative susceptible of passing. It would become easier to prove the absence of fingerprints on the final documents. Such absence of fingerprints would make it easier for the Republicrats to refrain from demonizing each other, or throwing mud at each other, with respect to the proposed balanced budget legislation. With no mud, or very little mud, being thrown, the public's rampant skepticism and mistrust (where have you heard that before??!!) would not be aroused, and they would be left only with the satisfaction of knowing that something significant was accomplished, that competence was demonstrated, and gridlock broken.
Well, there's another of my pipedreams. In the coming days, I will detail my other two rosy scenarios, each one, hopefully, more realistic than the one previous. Again, I realize that I am dealing here with long odds. Or perhaps, you don't think the odds so long. Whatever your feelings, however, on these odds, don't hesitate to figure them when writing me at