"THE AMERICAN people are hungry for something different," declared Sen. Barack Obama in a speech last Saturday. And so Obama has successfully tapped into a nationwide funk by declaring himself the "post-partisan" presidential candidate. He dreams of a "working coalition" of both Democrats and Republicans who can achieve major changes in American policy. Too bad that's not what the founding fathers had in mind.
James Madison feared political factions "who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion" and adverse "to the rights of other citizens." In other words, Madison was deeply afraid of modern political parties and interest groups. He saw two ways to solve this dilemma: "One, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen ... the same passions and the same interests." By opting for the latter, the founders ensured that "the variety of sects dispersed over the entire" nation would prevent a single group from dominating the U.S. government. The founders' solution to partisanship was not to attempt to transcend it, but to pit parties against each other in the competitive marketplace of ideas.
In fact, this is one of the most important lessons of the Enlightenment. John Locke didn't say men should forget their differences and live to together in magical harmony. He wrote that men maximize their individual freedom by agreeing to give up certain rights and tolerating differences in others. John Stuart Mill went even further by arguing that dissenting opinions made everyone better off by forcing both sides to publicly defend their arguments. So in the real world, the more open disagreement there is, the better the policies enacted.
Yet the allure of post-partisanship remains. I find this even more surprising because a quick look at recent history shows just how well partisanship serves the American people.
A great example is the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This landmark bill helped clean up America's muddled tax code, made tax rates more equitable, helped poor, low-skilled Americans, decreased disincentives to work, and helped spur economic growth. It was signed by Ronald Reagan and passed by a Democratic House that hated Reagan's guts. The same thing happened in 1994 with welfare reform, except the sides were switched. The bill was initiated by a Republican-controlled House who got elected by demonizing Bill Clinton. Clinton signed the bill which increased the Earned Income Tax Credit and, therefore, decreased welfare rolls while helping the least well-off. It was so successful that Clinton actually campaigned on it in 1996.
Even right now, the divisive split between the White House and Congress is improving American policy. Since the Democrats won control of Congress, President Bush has suddenly discovered his veto pen: In the past few months he's used it repeatedly to rein in government spending. Similarly, intense congressional oversight has forced the Bush Administration to become more transparent. In other words, Democratic control of Congress has significantly improved the Bush White House.
For all these policy outcomes, the politics isn't pretty. In fact, the only people with approval ratings lower than Bush's are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
It's in this political atmosphere that Obama's post-partisanship rhetoric has so much traction. Americans hate listening to politicians bickering while little, especially anything big, gets done. But that's exactly how our system is set up. While Plato might have been worried about good leaders being able to do too little, the founders were worried about bad leaders being able to do too much. They saw King George III and a Parliament stuffed with nobles eat away at their freedoms, and were determined to prevent the American Congress from ever doing the same.
But Obama refuses to accept this. He goes from state to state mesmerizing adoring fans with his flowery rhetoric. But a quick look past the poetry shows that he passed almost nothing in his time at the Senate. Actually serving the American people means fighting it out in the gritty arena of politics. Out of the muck and low popularity ratings, good legislation is born. Obama just refuses to get his hands dirty.
Josh Levy's columns appear Monday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jlevy@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 16 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
