"We need to run it like a business."
I am not sure from where the attraction to this viewpoint of the best means of managing public goods comes considering how short-sighted and wrong-headed the viewpoint is. As the parent of a child in the Milwaukee Public School system, I encounter statements like this regarding the best way to manage public education. One of the reasons persons voice this view so vociferously in Milwaukee is the existence of the school choice program. Having gotten a foothold in the public education system, those who would privatize it entirely regularly clamor about public education's failings, the need to give students a 'choice' in their education, and the virtues of private enterprise as an education model, particularly the notion of competition. I believe that some proponents of privatizing public education legitimately believe that doing so will improve the quality of education for Milwaukee students. However, many proponents of privatization care little for the quality of education students actually receive and primarily care about limiting the role of government in society. For this cohort, any reduction in government administration of public education is virtuous regardless of the outcome for the students.
We know from the experience of the Milwaukee voucher program that introducing 'competition' to the public education market is not the panacea that has been promised. In fact, the measured results demonstrate that introducing competition into the education market has done nothing to improve the educational outcome of students who have opted out of public education in favor of voucher schools. The plain fact is that voucher schools perform no better than their public school counterparts on standardized testing.
Even if voucher schools outperformed public schools, that would not necessarily be definitive proof that a private enterprise model is appropriate for elementary and secondary education. Education is fundamentally different from private enterprise so long as we cling to the tenet that every child is entitled to an education that meets agreed on standards. The private enterprise model, or the free market, involves a constant churning of enterprises striving to meet the needs of consumers in order to stay afloat. Most businesses that are started end up failing to sell enough products or services to stay afloat and fail within a relatively short period of time. Contrary to this constant churning, the public education system commits to educating every student regardless of ability. We do not allow the education system to churn over failures and let them fend for themselves. If a child does not meet the accepted standards, the public education system does not cast them out of the system. Instead, the public education system must continue to educate the child.
The private enterprise system would not be appropriate for elementary and secondary education unless it would be required to educate every student, regardless of ability, just as the public education system. If this requirement were imposed on a private education system, it would cease to function as a free market. Competition alone would not guide the success of the system because, like the public education system, the private education system could not simply drop failing students out of the system. So a student who misses 50% of the school days because of her family situation could not simply be forced out of a private school. This student's lack of progress would have to be included in the educational outcome measurements of the private school in the same way that the student's lack of progress is included in the educational outcome measurements of the public schools.
One argument is that competition will help individual schools rather than individual students because under-performing or failing schools would be required to improve or they would be closed. This argument has some virtues in that schools that are not performing up to accepted standards ought to be improved. The problem is that in our system of educating every student, the students of a failing school that is closed would have to go somewhere else in the system. If we grant equal access to education for all students, then no private school that is part of the public system and receives public funds should be able to turn away students that are required to find new schools as a result of their school being closed. The law would have to mandate that private schools receiving public funds accommodate the students of failed schools to the same extent that public schools accommodate them. If the law does not mandate this, then private schools operating in the public system and receiving public funds are fundamentally different from the public schools against which they compete. Private schools would have a competitive advantage over public schools that would render the education market other than free. The education market would not be like private enterprise because it would not be a fair competition between enterprises.
It may be that some hybridized public-private model actually can deliver better educational outcomes for all students than the strictly public model. The problem is that there is no evidence that this is the case. Another huge problem is that the private enterprise advocates have not adequately answered the question of whether and how the private school system will deliver an education to every child. I suspect that the question has not been adequately answered because the private enterprise advocates know it is an impossible task to be held to the same mandates as the public system and achieve better results. Delivering educational services to poor children and children with disabilities is an enormously expensive proposition, both monetarily and in terms of time. Private enterprise advocates have never been able to demonstrate how the private system would be able to overcome these hurdles any better than the public education system. If we are using public funds to educate students, it seems only fair to me that we ought not allow education to be privatized unless it can be demonstrated that private education can deliver superior results to public education, for every student, regardless of any other arguments against using public funds to support private schools.
I have not even touched on the merits of running anything like a business, though this deserves some comments as well. I personally would like the private enterprise advocates to state with clarity and precision which business the education system ought to be run like. Enron? Lehman Brothers? Washington Mutual? Even successful businesses fail. Kodak was enormously successful for decades, but eventually failed. General Motors failed. American Airlines is failing. This is to say nothing of the countless new businesses started every year in this country that do not make it past their first year. Before we commit to running education like a business, it would be wise to consider which business we wish to run education like. Enron? Lehman Brothers? Washington Mutual? Do we want our education system to have the same failure rate as new businesses? The bottom line is that running education like a business cannot guaranty it will produce better results than the current public system. In fact, running education like a business cannot even guaranty any success if our current private enterprise system is the model.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Charity Is Not Enough
This post is incomplete, but I thought I would get it out here as a work in progress. Comments are welcome.
I recently heard Paul Ryan giving an interview in which he talked about 'civil society' and during which he mentioned that charities and religious institutions should function as a social safety net rather than 'government.' The problem with Ryan's view is that we have imperfect institutions at every level. To shrink the role of government in the sphere of social welfare will not result in a corresponding increase in the level of social welfare that private institutions provide. The question of social welfare is not an either/or proposition. The reason the government increased its role in providing for the social welfare of the populace is that the private institutions of civil society were not adequately providing for the social welfare of the populace. Government is by nature imperfect, but so are the institutions of civil society.
The defining characteristic of the institutions of civil society is their voluntary nature. Citizens do not have to belong to a church or contribute to charity. When citizens decide to belong to a church or contribute to charity, they can choose which church to join and to which charity they wish to contribute. The nature of civil society requires that an individuals relations with its institutions be voluntary. If the relationship is not voluntary, the institution ceases to be part of civil society and becomes a quasi-state actor. The problem with the voluntary nature of civil society association is that no one institution will have the overarching concern for the social welfare of all as its primary focus or will not have the resources to provide social welfare for all.
A quick aside: I accept the fact that actually providing for the social welfare of all is impossible in the real world. We have competing social, commercial, and political interests that render any dream of providing for everyone Utopian. The libertarian impulse will never fully be squelched, which is frankly a good thing. There will always be a tension between public and private life that will require compromises in how the benefits and income of any given society is distributed. The compromises may lean left or right, but regardless they will result in imperfect provision of social welfare benefits. The goal should be to maximize the provision of social welfare benefits to minimize conditions of deprivation consistent with the core principles of social and individual responsibility.
Government occupies a unique position in society: it is the one institution that has the capacity to require citizens to act or refrain from acting. While we cleave to the principle of self-determination and hold dear the idea that the power of government comes from the people, we, as individuals, surrender our self-determination, at least in part, to the sovereignty of the state. Government thus has the power to compel, the power of legislation and enforcement of the laws. Having the power to compel action or inaction, government is the only institution in society that can effectively provide social welfare benefits to maximize the common good. The preferences of voluntary association does not bind the government nor does ecclesiastical tenets limit the provision of government services. In short, the government can look at society and use its powers of legislation and enforcement to limit the conditions of deprivation for all members of society. Civil society lacks the power, authority, and capacity to do the same.
The Ryan idea seems to be that there is an inverse relationship between government and charities in terms of the provision of social welfare benefits. There is also a Hobbesian aspect to Ryan's position which simply accepts that society has winners and losers, some of whom will endure conditions of privation. The fact of the matter is that history demonstrates that no such inverse relationship exists. The reason government became involved in the provision of social welfare benefits was the broad consensus that civil society did not and could not adequately provide for the poor and vulnerable in society. The earliest progressive reforms like maximum hour laws, child labor laws, and worker's compensation laws exemplify the belief among a majority of Americans that civil society was not protecting poor and vulnerable citizens. Coupled with the largess generated through the industrial revolution, government could legislate and enforce the provision of social welfare benefits for those whom civil society failed. Surely some charitable and religious institutions scaled back their provision of social welfare benefits because of government intervention, but the gross level of benefits provided increased considerably when government intervened. Charitable and religious institutions did not reduce their provision of social welfare benefits in direct proportion to the government intervention.
Government legislation and enforcement of the provision of social welfare benefits did not become the panacea many progressives and liberals wanted it to become. Nevertheless, government provision of social welfare benefits certainly had net positive effects. We err if we assume government provision of social welfare benefits fails when it does not achieve ideal results. This would be like saying that a play failed because it only yielded a first down when the ideal result was a touchdown. Incremental improvement in the actual lives of American citizens demonstrates that social welfare programs were and are effective. Success or failure cannot be measured in absolute terms but rather ought to be judged based on the practical effects on the actual lives of citizens and residents.
When evaluating the role of government in providing social welfare benefits, we should use a reasoned approach to analyze the costs and benefits of a given program. If the net benefits outweigh the costs, the program should be deemed a success. We do, however, encounter persons who oppose any form of government provision of social welfare benefits. Such persons should not deign to criticize the effectiveness of a given program unless they are willing to use a reasoned cost-benefit analysis. If such persons criticize a program because of philosophical reasons, they should so state their objection and say no more unless they can demonstrate through reasoned analysis that a particular program has more costs than the benefits it provides.
I recently heard Paul Ryan giving an interview in which he talked about 'civil society' and during which he mentioned that charities and religious institutions should function as a social safety net rather than 'government.' The problem with Ryan's view is that we have imperfect institutions at every level. To shrink the role of government in the sphere of social welfare will not result in a corresponding increase in the level of social welfare that private institutions provide. The question of social welfare is not an either/or proposition. The reason the government increased its role in providing for the social welfare of the populace is that the private institutions of civil society were not adequately providing for the social welfare of the populace. Government is by nature imperfect, but so are the institutions of civil society.
The defining characteristic of the institutions of civil society is their voluntary nature. Citizens do not have to belong to a church or contribute to charity. When citizens decide to belong to a church or contribute to charity, they can choose which church to join and to which charity they wish to contribute. The nature of civil society requires that an individuals relations with its institutions be voluntary. If the relationship is not voluntary, the institution ceases to be part of civil society and becomes a quasi-state actor. The problem with the voluntary nature of civil society association is that no one institution will have the overarching concern for the social welfare of all as its primary focus or will not have the resources to provide social welfare for all.
A quick aside: I accept the fact that actually providing for the social welfare of all is impossible in the real world. We have competing social, commercial, and political interests that render any dream of providing for everyone Utopian. The libertarian impulse will never fully be squelched, which is frankly a good thing. There will always be a tension between public and private life that will require compromises in how the benefits and income of any given society is distributed. The compromises may lean left or right, but regardless they will result in imperfect provision of social welfare benefits. The goal should be to maximize the provision of social welfare benefits to minimize conditions of deprivation consistent with the core principles of social and individual responsibility.
Government occupies a unique position in society: it is the one institution that has the capacity to require citizens to act or refrain from acting. While we cleave to the principle of self-determination and hold dear the idea that the power of government comes from the people, we, as individuals, surrender our self-determination, at least in part, to the sovereignty of the state. Government thus has the power to compel, the power of legislation and enforcement of the laws. Having the power to compel action or inaction, government is the only institution in society that can effectively provide social welfare benefits to maximize the common good. The preferences of voluntary association does not bind the government nor does ecclesiastical tenets limit the provision of government services. In short, the government can look at society and use its powers of legislation and enforcement to limit the conditions of deprivation for all members of society. Civil society lacks the power, authority, and capacity to do the same.
The Ryan idea seems to be that there is an inverse relationship between government and charities in terms of the provision of social welfare benefits. There is also a Hobbesian aspect to Ryan's position which simply accepts that society has winners and losers, some of whom will endure conditions of privation. The fact of the matter is that history demonstrates that no such inverse relationship exists. The reason government became involved in the provision of social welfare benefits was the broad consensus that civil society did not and could not adequately provide for the poor and vulnerable in society. The earliest progressive reforms like maximum hour laws, child labor laws, and worker's compensation laws exemplify the belief among a majority of Americans that civil society was not protecting poor and vulnerable citizens. Coupled with the largess generated through the industrial revolution, government could legislate and enforce the provision of social welfare benefits for those whom civil society failed. Surely some charitable and religious institutions scaled back their provision of social welfare benefits because of government intervention, but the gross level of benefits provided increased considerably when government intervened. Charitable and religious institutions did not reduce their provision of social welfare benefits in direct proportion to the government intervention.
Government legislation and enforcement of the provision of social welfare benefits did not become the panacea many progressives and liberals wanted it to become. Nevertheless, government provision of social welfare benefits certainly had net positive effects. We err if we assume government provision of social welfare benefits fails when it does not achieve ideal results. This would be like saying that a play failed because it only yielded a first down when the ideal result was a touchdown. Incremental improvement in the actual lives of American citizens demonstrates that social welfare programs were and are effective. Success or failure cannot be measured in absolute terms but rather ought to be judged based on the practical effects on the actual lives of citizens and residents.
When evaluating the role of government in providing social welfare benefits, we should use a reasoned approach to analyze the costs and benefits of a given program. If the net benefits outweigh the costs, the program should be deemed a success. We do, however, encounter persons who oppose any form of government provision of social welfare benefits. Such persons should not deign to criticize the effectiveness of a given program unless they are willing to use a reasoned cost-benefit analysis. If such persons criticize a program because of philosophical reasons, they should so state their objection and say no more unless they can demonstrate through reasoned analysis that a particular program has more costs than the benefits it provides.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Does Marriage Equality Portend Doom?
Slate.com had a piece a while back regarding the short term data trends following the legalization of gay marriage. According to the piece, in states that legalized gay marriage there is an immediate uptick in the marriage rate which captures gay couples that have waited for a long time to get married followed by a normalization of marriage rates that tracks the rate of heterosexuals marrying. Divorce rates among homosexuals have tracked the heterosexual rates as well. While the data stream is relatively short given that legalization is a recent phenomenon (Massachusetts was the first to legalize gay marriage in 2004), the data suggests that marriage equality does not impact the general rates at which persons marry. The only notable effect appears to be that the number of marriages goes up simply because gay couples can and do get married. The study obviously cannot track the wrath of an Old Testament God, but I suspect we are no closer to being turned into pillars of salt with marriage equality than without it.
So what is the big deal about marriage equality? The question is a wholly normative one that results in the unpleasant intersection of two norms common to the American experience. On the one hand we have the notion of freedom and equality under the law that has been enshrined as a norm in the American experience. This norm causes us to embrace the expansion of personal freedoms. In effect, it is the libertarian impulse in American life. In essence, the libertarian impulse, whether causing a person to complain that the government shouldn't take something that he or she has "earned" or causing a person to complain that the government shouldn't tell us who we can and cannot marry, is the same. On the other hand, Americans, like any other social beings, establish value and identity through group identification. Hence, the conflict with the social conservatism of, typically, evangelical religious groups and evangelically religious-minded persons.
A third factor is the changing cultural experience of Americans. When I was in high school and even college, an admittedly long time ago, homosexuality was a slur to be hurled. Few persons outside of those who were gay or grew up with gay friends, relatives, or acquaintances would have thought twice about calling someone a 'fag' or describing something unpleasant as 'gay.' I certainly used the terms with the regularity of my peers to express derision, displeasure, or derogation. Like many persons, for me things changed along the way for cultural reasons as much as anything.
I needn't document the heroic efforts of LGBT activists to fight the prejudice levied against gay persons and to publicize the commonness of being gay. In my own experience, I became more aware of the prevalence of gay persons in society as more persons came out. In addition, I like to think my attitudes matured somewhat as I myself matured. I also had a particular experience that altered my understanding of the struggles gay persons faced and changed my perspective forever. I was working for a small law firm and one of the partners asked me to witness the signing of a will. We had to witness the will in a hospital room because the person who made the will out was dying of AIDS. The dying man's partner was at the signing, but he could not openly discuss his relationship with his dying beloved in the hospital because it was a Catholic hospital.
I witnessed more than a will signing that day. First and foremost, I witnessed two persons in love at the very end of their relationship who could not share the simple act of a kiss or a hug or just holding hands. This outraged my sense of justice but more importantly tugged at my humanity. I walked out of the room a battered soul, thinking "who gives a shit if two men love one another?" They ought to be spared the indignities of conventional morality (which was clearly immoral in this instance) and be allowed to love freely, to show their affection openly, to spend the last days of their lives together as they wished. In such moments of greatest vulnerability the comfort of love is often the only bulwark we have that can assuage the terror and fear of leaving the world. These two men, consenting adults, decent human beings, were denied the comfort that any other heterosexual couple would and does expect. It became clear to me that no religious argument could ever convince me that two persons of the same sex should ever face impediments to their love, that allowing them to celebrate their love publicly, to enjoy the same rights and respect heterosexual couples have, would be in any way socially or morally deleterious.
While this was a watershed moment for me, I experienced what so many persons have experienced in the last 15-20 years or so as homosexuality became more public and more regular. I developed acquaintances and friendships with gay persons. I saw openly gay persons in public life, in business, and in social circles. The one thing that became manifestly clear is that all of the gay persons I met were in fact, shocker here, just persons like any other. Their sexual orientation was immaterial. I care deeply for some gay persons, I dislike some gay persons, and I don't give much thought to most gay persons in the same proportion as persons who are not gay. In effect, I came to view gay persons as persons whose sexual orientation was simply another attribute like brown hair or blue eyes.
And so I asked myself amid the furor of politics surrounding the equality of marriage movement, what is the big deal about gay marriage? Nothing. There is no big deal about gay marriage. Gay marriage does not erode or diminish the 'institution of marriage' as is often stated by those who oppose it. In fact, gay marriage actually makes the 'institution of marriage' stronger as it finally and irrevocably clarifies that marriage is about a voluntary, loving relationship between adults. If we preclude same-sex couples from marrying, we actually diminish marriage because we accept that marriage is not about love and commitment. Gay persons are as capable of love and commitment as heterosexuals. The only thing that should matter when determining who is legally allowed to marry is whether the persons wishing to marry have reached the legal age of majority and possess the legal capacity of self-determination. Once this threshold is met, there can be no valid reason for denying any two persons the right to marry.
Conservative religious types can cling to antiquated notions of morality and certainly have the freedom to do so in our republic, but they ought not to be able to use antiquated notions of morality to preclude consenting adults from exercising their freedom to love each other and to formalize their relationship with the marriage contract. The world will not end if gays marry. It has not ended in the states that allow gay marriage and it will not end if gay marriage is allowed everywhere in the United States any more than the world ended when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. To suggest that gay marriage portends doom for the 'institution of marriage' is simply wrong. The only thing gay marriage might portend doom for is a normative stance that is patently immoral. The norms that matter in America are freedom and equality under the law. If this conflicts with a norm derived from religious teaching then the religious norm must give way. Gay marriage is about equality, freedom, and respect. If this dooms us, I accept this doom willingly and with open arms.
So what is the big deal about marriage equality? The question is a wholly normative one that results in the unpleasant intersection of two norms common to the American experience. On the one hand we have the notion of freedom and equality under the law that has been enshrined as a norm in the American experience. This norm causes us to embrace the expansion of personal freedoms. In effect, it is the libertarian impulse in American life. In essence, the libertarian impulse, whether causing a person to complain that the government shouldn't take something that he or she has "earned" or causing a person to complain that the government shouldn't tell us who we can and cannot marry, is the same. On the other hand, Americans, like any other social beings, establish value and identity through group identification. Hence, the conflict with the social conservatism of, typically, evangelical religious groups and evangelically religious-minded persons.
A third factor is the changing cultural experience of Americans. When I was in high school and even college, an admittedly long time ago, homosexuality was a slur to be hurled. Few persons outside of those who were gay or grew up with gay friends, relatives, or acquaintances would have thought twice about calling someone a 'fag' or describing something unpleasant as 'gay.' I certainly used the terms with the regularity of my peers to express derision, displeasure, or derogation. Like many persons, for me things changed along the way for cultural reasons as much as anything.
I needn't document the heroic efforts of LGBT activists to fight the prejudice levied against gay persons and to publicize the commonness of being gay. In my own experience, I became more aware of the prevalence of gay persons in society as more persons came out. In addition, I like to think my attitudes matured somewhat as I myself matured. I also had a particular experience that altered my understanding of the struggles gay persons faced and changed my perspective forever. I was working for a small law firm and one of the partners asked me to witness the signing of a will. We had to witness the will in a hospital room because the person who made the will out was dying of AIDS. The dying man's partner was at the signing, but he could not openly discuss his relationship with his dying beloved in the hospital because it was a Catholic hospital.
I witnessed more than a will signing that day. First and foremost, I witnessed two persons in love at the very end of their relationship who could not share the simple act of a kiss or a hug or just holding hands. This outraged my sense of justice but more importantly tugged at my humanity. I walked out of the room a battered soul, thinking "who gives a shit if two men love one another?" They ought to be spared the indignities of conventional morality (which was clearly immoral in this instance) and be allowed to love freely, to show their affection openly, to spend the last days of their lives together as they wished. In such moments of greatest vulnerability the comfort of love is often the only bulwark we have that can assuage the terror and fear of leaving the world. These two men, consenting adults, decent human beings, were denied the comfort that any other heterosexual couple would and does expect. It became clear to me that no religious argument could ever convince me that two persons of the same sex should ever face impediments to their love, that allowing them to celebrate their love publicly, to enjoy the same rights and respect heterosexual couples have, would be in any way socially or morally deleterious.
While this was a watershed moment for me, I experienced what so many persons have experienced in the last 15-20 years or so as homosexuality became more public and more regular. I developed acquaintances and friendships with gay persons. I saw openly gay persons in public life, in business, and in social circles. The one thing that became manifestly clear is that all of the gay persons I met were in fact, shocker here, just persons like any other. Their sexual orientation was immaterial. I care deeply for some gay persons, I dislike some gay persons, and I don't give much thought to most gay persons in the same proportion as persons who are not gay. In effect, I came to view gay persons as persons whose sexual orientation was simply another attribute like brown hair or blue eyes.
And so I asked myself amid the furor of politics surrounding the equality of marriage movement, what is the big deal about gay marriage? Nothing. There is no big deal about gay marriage. Gay marriage does not erode or diminish the 'institution of marriage' as is often stated by those who oppose it. In fact, gay marriage actually makes the 'institution of marriage' stronger as it finally and irrevocably clarifies that marriage is about a voluntary, loving relationship between adults. If we preclude same-sex couples from marrying, we actually diminish marriage because we accept that marriage is not about love and commitment. Gay persons are as capable of love and commitment as heterosexuals. The only thing that should matter when determining who is legally allowed to marry is whether the persons wishing to marry have reached the legal age of majority and possess the legal capacity of self-determination. Once this threshold is met, there can be no valid reason for denying any two persons the right to marry.
Conservative religious types can cling to antiquated notions of morality and certainly have the freedom to do so in our republic, but they ought not to be able to use antiquated notions of morality to preclude consenting adults from exercising their freedom to love each other and to formalize their relationship with the marriage contract. The world will not end if gays marry. It has not ended in the states that allow gay marriage and it will not end if gay marriage is allowed everywhere in the United States any more than the world ended when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. To suggest that gay marriage portends doom for the 'institution of marriage' is simply wrong. The only thing gay marriage might portend doom for is a normative stance that is patently immoral. The norms that matter in America are freedom and equality under the law. If this conflicts with a norm derived from religious teaching then the religious norm must give way. Gay marriage is about equality, freedom, and respect. If this dooms us, I accept this doom willingly and with open arms.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Toward Pragmatics
America spawned the philosophy known as 'pragmatism,' though it seems a forgotten relic if one reads the headlines about American politics on a regular basis. While philosophical pragmatism makes specific claims on "truth," pragmatism as a practical philosophy is really more about a world view that accepts the notion that the right answer or best answer to any question is the one that works best under a given set of circumstances. In this regard, pragmatism was a quintessentially American approach to the problems of the world because it eschewed dogmatism and idealism in favor of tangible or measurable results.
In the current political climate, the idea of adopting an approach to the problems we face that focuses on results over preconceived ideas about the problems we face is anathema. I am reminded in particular of the vitriol in Wisconsin following Scott Walker's election to governor and the enactment of Act 10, which stripped public unions of many collective bargaining rights. I found Act 10, and continue to find Act 10, to be abhorrent because I believe it will not solve budgetary problems in a productive manner. Nevertheless, I felt like an outlier among liberals in thinking that Walker ought at least to have an opportunity to govern without recall and that I sincerely hoped that my disagreements with Act 10 would be proven wrong. My preconceptions are such that I do not find credence in the notion that taking away power from labor and deregulating any given market will actually yield positive socio-economic growth for the majority of citizens. It seems to me that the persuasive evidence is that the trickle down theory of economics has not yielded the tangible benefits its proponents promised. However, I am not so prideful or convinced of my own infallibility that I would preclude the possibility that I could be wrong.
The problem we face is that few persons in the policy-making process are willing to adopt a pragmatic approach to policy problems. While I feel liberals are more amenable to pragmatics than most persons who self-identify as conservative, the problem is not partisan. Both sides of the aisle cling to a priori political 'truths' without regard for the practical effects of actual policy. In structural terms, the federal deficit is a perfect example of the need for a more pragmatic approach. The current Congress has a balance of power that makes effective legislation impossible without compromise. Instead of seeking real world solutions that a majority of democrats and republicans could live with, each party in Congress draws lines in the sand that the party knows the other party cannot live with. The result, as frequently pointed out, is that the current Congress is the least productive since 1947. While gridlock may have the benefit of a certain negative stability, gridlock leaves pressing problems untouched.
The history of American politics is not a Polly Anna-ish tradition of bipartisan compromise on every issue facing the nation. On the other hand, the history of American politics demonstrates that intractable policy problems can be resolved when the political leaders of both parties adopt a pragmatic approach to problem solving. The Civil Rights Act was never going to win over large majorities in the South. Still, the Johnson Administration was able to use a realistic approach to win over enough cross-over votes to defeat the Southern bloc's filibuster. The final bill had to be drafted as a compromise in order to get enough votes, but the Administration and Congressional proponents were not so idealistically narrow-minded that they refused to promote a compromise bill. In the end, the Civil Rights Act cleared the Senate 70-29. The end result was flawed legislation to be sure, but legislation that nonetheless addressed the most egregious aspects of racial discrimination that had been perpetuated since the Republican's lost the majority that enabled them to enact the Reconstruction legislation and constitutional amendments.
In more recent memory, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton come to mind as examples of politicians whose power and popularity was not derived because of inflexibility but rather was derived because of their willingness to find acceptable compromises. As is well documented, Ronald Reagan effectively raised taxes five times during his eight years in office. Of course, the tax increases were parts of overall tax policy compromises that raised taxes in exchange for eliminating loopholes. In effect, the Reagan administration was able to increase tax revenue while decreasing the individual tax burden to businesses and individuals. This sort of creative and practical policy making is sorely missed today.
Bill Clinton's biggest accomplishments were similarly the product of creative compromise and a pragmatic approach to policy making. Welfare reform was the product of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich understanding that the current welfare policy in America did not enjoy majority support. We can quibble over the veracity of claims made about the welfare policy and whether it was in fact responsible for creating the 'cycle of dependency' so frequently descried in talking points of the time. However, we cannot quibble with the fact that a majority of Americans opposed the welfare policy as it existed in the mid-1990's. Gingrich would never get a wholesale elimination of welfare and Clinton could never get as generous a welfare program as he wanted. Instead, Gingrich was able to get the enormously popular welfare to work provisions to place conditions on receipt of welfare benefits. Clinton was able to preserve the benefits and could claim victory in the press by noting that welfare recipients would have to work to keep their benefits. This provision was in accord with the policy preferences of a majority of Americans at time.
Clinton was also able to use the welfare policy compromise to increase enforcement of child support obligations. Gingrich could likewise claim this as a victory because it allowed him to say the republican party did not condone scofflaws. In effect, the compromise allowed both parties to recognize that some form of welfare was necessary while shifting the focus of receipt of benefits from entitlement to a safety net designed to foster and enforce commonly accepted notions of personal responsibility. In fact, this is where most American's stood at the time. A solid majority of Americans supported the notion that those in need of a helping hand should receive one so long as it was only a helping hand and not a lifetime giveaway. In addition, a majority of Americans supported the idea that child support should be strictly enforced because they believed the parents of children, whether custodial or not, should bear responsibility for supporting their children.
What discourages me now is the lack of any common vision toward policies that allow both parties to gain something in exchange for giving something up. I will admit that I consider the republicans in Congress to be more obstructionist than the democrats, but I also admit that this is at least partly a bias. We need the leadership of both parties to address the problems facing the nation directly through creative compromise and pragmatic politics rather than to stand to one side of the aisle and point their collective fingers at the other side while baying, 'it's their fault' like children. The American tradition is a pragmatic one. Of finding solutions to problems that, however imperfect, are solutions. The American character is not exceptionally moral or intellectual or homogeneous. The American character is, however, practical. We are usually good at finding ways to make things work. This character is not the most ideologically pure, but it is who we are. To the extent we become more dogmatic (which I think is actually a better word than 'partisan'), we stray from who we are and we do so at our own peril.
In the current political climate, the idea of adopting an approach to the problems we face that focuses on results over preconceived ideas about the problems we face is anathema. I am reminded in particular of the vitriol in Wisconsin following Scott Walker's election to governor and the enactment of Act 10, which stripped public unions of many collective bargaining rights. I found Act 10, and continue to find Act 10, to be abhorrent because I believe it will not solve budgetary problems in a productive manner. Nevertheless, I felt like an outlier among liberals in thinking that Walker ought at least to have an opportunity to govern without recall and that I sincerely hoped that my disagreements with Act 10 would be proven wrong. My preconceptions are such that I do not find credence in the notion that taking away power from labor and deregulating any given market will actually yield positive socio-economic growth for the majority of citizens. It seems to me that the persuasive evidence is that the trickle down theory of economics has not yielded the tangible benefits its proponents promised. However, I am not so prideful or convinced of my own infallibility that I would preclude the possibility that I could be wrong.
The problem we face is that few persons in the policy-making process are willing to adopt a pragmatic approach to policy problems. While I feel liberals are more amenable to pragmatics than most persons who self-identify as conservative, the problem is not partisan. Both sides of the aisle cling to a priori political 'truths' without regard for the practical effects of actual policy. In structural terms, the federal deficit is a perfect example of the need for a more pragmatic approach. The current Congress has a balance of power that makes effective legislation impossible without compromise. Instead of seeking real world solutions that a majority of democrats and republicans could live with, each party in Congress draws lines in the sand that the party knows the other party cannot live with. The result, as frequently pointed out, is that the current Congress is the least productive since 1947. While gridlock may have the benefit of a certain negative stability, gridlock leaves pressing problems untouched.
The history of American politics is not a Polly Anna-ish tradition of bipartisan compromise on every issue facing the nation. On the other hand, the history of American politics demonstrates that intractable policy problems can be resolved when the political leaders of both parties adopt a pragmatic approach to problem solving. The Civil Rights Act was never going to win over large majorities in the South. Still, the Johnson Administration was able to use a realistic approach to win over enough cross-over votes to defeat the Southern bloc's filibuster. The final bill had to be drafted as a compromise in order to get enough votes, but the Administration and Congressional proponents were not so idealistically narrow-minded that they refused to promote a compromise bill. In the end, the Civil Rights Act cleared the Senate 70-29. The end result was flawed legislation to be sure, but legislation that nonetheless addressed the most egregious aspects of racial discrimination that had been perpetuated since the Republican's lost the majority that enabled them to enact the Reconstruction legislation and constitutional amendments.
In more recent memory, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton come to mind as examples of politicians whose power and popularity was not derived because of inflexibility but rather was derived because of their willingness to find acceptable compromises. As is well documented, Ronald Reagan effectively raised taxes five times during his eight years in office. Of course, the tax increases were parts of overall tax policy compromises that raised taxes in exchange for eliminating loopholes. In effect, the Reagan administration was able to increase tax revenue while decreasing the individual tax burden to businesses and individuals. This sort of creative and practical policy making is sorely missed today.
Bill Clinton's biggest accomplishments were similarly the product of creative compromise and a pragmatic approach to policy making. Welfare reform was the product of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich understanding that the current welfare policy in America did not enjoy majority support. We can quibble over the veracity of claims made about the welfare policy and whether it was in fact responsible for creating the 'cycle of dependency' so frequently descried in talking points of the time. However, we cannot quibble with the fact that a majority of Americans opposed the welfare policy as it existed in the mid-1990's. Gingrich would never get a wholesale elimination of welfare and Clinton could never get as generous a welfare program as he wanted. Instead, Gingrich was able to get the enormously popular welfare to work provisions to place conditions on receipt of welfare benefits. Clinton was able to preserve the benefits and could claim victory in the press by noting that welfare recipients would have to work to keep their benefits. This provision was in accord with the policy preferences of a majority of Americans at time.
Clinton was also able to use the welfare policy compromise to increase enforcement of child support obligations. Gingrich could likewise claim this as a victory because it allowed him to say the republican party did not condone scofflaws. In effect, the compromise allowed both parties to recognize that some form of welfare was necessary while shifting the focus of receipt of benefits from entitlement to a safety net designed to foster and enforce commonly accepted notions of personal responsibility. In fact, this is where most American's stood at the time. A solid majority of Americans supported the notion that those in need of a helping hand should receive one so long as it was only a helping hand and not a lifetime giveaway. In addition, a majority of Americans supported the idea that child support should be strictly enforced because they believed the parents of children, whether custodial or not, should bear responsibility for supporting their children.
What discourages me now is the lack of any common vision toward policies that allow both parties to gain something in exchange for giving something up. I will admit that I consider the republicans in Congress to be more obstructionist than the democrats, but I also admit that this is at least partly a bias. We need the leadership of both parties to address the problems facing the nation directly through creative compromise and pragmatic politics rather than to stand to one side of the aisle and point their collective fingers at the other side while baying, 'it's their fault' like children. The American tradition is a pragmatic one. Of finding solutions to problems that, however imperfect, are solutions. The American character is not exceptionally moral or intellectual or homogeneous. The American character is, however, practical. We are usually good at finding ways to make things work. This character is not the most ideologically pure, but it is who we are. To the extent we become more dogmatic (which I think is actually a better word than 'partisan'), we stray from who we are and we do so at our own peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)