Back to basics the key to government repair

From the morning email ... Lee Hamilon says fixing government is simple; return to constitutional principles:

By Lee H. Hamilton

We are at a profoundly unsettled time in our nation's history, with more than two-thirds of Americans professing in surveys that they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. They are partly reflecting concerns of the moment -- the Iraq war, high gas prices, our economic travails -- but polling also shows a more deep-seated dismay at the track our political system has taken.

Our politics is fragmented and often mean-spirited. Americans are disappointed by a sense that we lack unity and national purpose. They are disillusioned by a political leadership that has failed to instill these things, and many believe they and their concerns are unrepresented in the halls of power. Faith in our system is ailing.

So while out on the hustings the talk is mostly of policy -- what to do about the economy or our standing in the world or our dysfunctional health-care system
-- there is a more fundamental conversation that ought to be happening, as well: If we are to fix our government so it works competently, effectively, and democratically, how should we go about it? What would it take not only to revive our system, but also our people's faith in it?

My answer may seem odd, given how badly askew most Americans believe things have gotten: Rather than fix our representative government, we need to let it function as designed. We have to return to the basics of our constitutional system, understanding and appreciating its intent and contemplating how this might apply to our vastly changed circumstances today.

It's worth remembering that the basic operating manual for our government was written some 220 years ago, when we were a much smaller, less complicated, less diverse nation, when communications and events moved much more slowly, and when the sheer breadth and scope of challenges facing the government
-- while hardly minor -- were more manageable. If anything, it's remarkable that our system continues to work even reasonably well.

Still, things are out of whack. Too much power has come to rest in the president's hands, and it needs to be spread more widely again -- the balance of power
should be observed in actuality, not merely in seventh-grade civics class. As Alexander Hamilton said at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, "Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself against the other."

We also need to accept that there will inevitably be conflict -- our system presupposes it -- but that winning political battles is not the highest good; rather, resolving conflict within the confines of the Constitution and according to democratic principles trumps the victory-at-all-costs mentality that has been so prevalent in recent years. Compromise and accommodation, especially in a nation with so many varied interests at play, are the key to policy success and political legitimacy.

This, in turn, means tolerating and encouraging lively debate and thorough deliberation -- both in Washington and among a population that seems to be losing the habit of listening to those with whom we disagree. For lawmakers and Americans in general to accept the results of political compromise, they have to feel they
ve been represented in the discussion.

All of which is to say that what our Founders knew, and tried to ensure, was that in governance, the means are more important than the end. The process matters more than the result, in part because a legitimate process is the only way to ensure that those in government collectively focus on the common good, and in part because resolving our policy dilemmas requires a focused and functioning representative government.

Yet even if all these things happen, restoring Americans' faith in the system will require one other thing: patience. While our government needs to respond to the demands of its citizens, under our system the response is typically slow because it
s meant to be slow.

Our government was not designed to respond to every passing fancy of the people, but rather to give judicious consideration to the nation's needs. Nor can it solve all of our problems. Our representatives may strive to sort out the hopes, desires, and dreams of the American people, and to come up with the best solutions they can, but the plain fact is that some problems are so difficult and our perspectives so varied that only stalemate is possible.

Our expectations, in other words, need to be high but realistic. We should expect a government that encourages cohesion and political stability, and safeguards individual freedom, prosperity, and peace. If it can do that, then the fact that it can't resolve every problem we confront will come to seem a tolerable imperfection, rather than the dismaying infirmity that so many Americans believe it to be today.

Hamilton, a former longtime Democratic congressman from Indiana, is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University.

Comments?

Comments

[jim sefter]

Patience is a virtue, but in the face of stonewalling and foot-dragging, it is certainly being tried.

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

Back to the basics is absolutely essential if any organization is going to function constructively over a long period of time.

About 35 some-odd years ago, "Back to Basics" was the then new catchword in American education.

What had happen there was the alternatives and incidentials had overshadowed the basics of reading, math, English, social studies, and so on.

The people we turned out of our national high schools were deficient in these basics, however, so the "Back to Basics" movement was begun in earnest.

Our various governments are no different, however! We must again get back to: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

In other words, we can not fight an unjustified war when 25% of all Americans can't afford medical health treatment because they lack medical health insurance, because over 6% of all Americans don't now have a job, because gas costs over $4.00 a gallon, because ....!

In 1972, George McGovern ran for the Presidency on the campaign theme of: "Come home America."

It is time to listen to him!

DrJED

[Rick]

It was called Ebonics, lol

[Rick]

If Osama Obama gets elected we will be back to ebonics shortly. sup bro!

[Rick]

You want to see a soldier's view of the war in Iraq? Log on to www.rawiraq.com and see for yourself.

[Denney Clements]

Ebonics, Rick? Obama speaks and writes better English than just about anyone out there.

Beyond that, the basics of which Hamilton (co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission) speaks have nothing to do with public education. He speaks of constitutional basics, especially Congress asserting its authority to counterbalance presidential power. If we had had that between '01 and '07, we might not be so far in arrears to the Chinese and mired down in a pointless (though not possible winnable) war in Iraq, while losing a pointFUL war in Afghanistan. GOP rummber-staming has gotten us into a real pickle, no?

Does anyone have any thoughts on THAT?

dc

[Patrick Hill]

I have been Jeremy, Biker, and Janitor, but not Clem Clodhopper or whatever. I don't strive to coat the deck with posts every night, but there is so much crap sprouted here, sometimes I feel I need to respond. I type probably 70 words a minute (from my software programming days, JED. I reread my words before uploading most of the time.

I think it is interesting to reveal in a drip, drip fashion a little bit about each of us. So, yes, I have been involved in many of a campaign. My favorite one was the one where I was elected President Student Government in 1980-81 at SHS.

I used attend GSWSA meetings at that time, however (LISTEN) I not not done anything political since the fall of 1997. Before that I didn't do anything since 1982. The experiences I did have are noteworthy.

Thanks HED for the credit you gave me in lambasting you and others. I have a good grasp of the english language. Used to read the dictionary early morning in the libary prior to the first bell.

I said "Chuck You" to Rep. Henry Brown. Look up chuck.

Mr. Clodhopper:
Main Entry: 3chuck
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 15th century
1: pat, tap
2 a: toss, throw b: discard c: dismiss, oust —used especially with out
3: give up

Class is dismissed, but HED go to detention hall.

[Patrick Hill]

I married in May 1989. Within two years I CHUCKED my ring in the toilet, HED. Yea, I chucked it in the sewer. Discarded it.

Its Reading, 'Riting, a 'Rithmetic; those are the basics.

[Richard L. Wolfe]

Hamilton tells it like it is suppose to be. He forgets his party and the Supreme Court are the villians. We vote on the House, Senate and the Presidency every two to six years. The Justices on the Court are in for life. I know it doesn't have a snowball's chance but I would like to see an amendment that meant "life" was twenty years.

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

Patrick:

You're close to being correct, but not fully.

The Supreme Court members are appointed for life, but they may be Impeached by the House, and Convicted by the Senate, just as the President may be.

Therefore, they may be removed from their position.

So there is someone they must answer too - "We, the People."

DrJED

[Patrick Hill]

I love writing this post right here and right now.

JED: YOU ARE ENTIRELY WRONG AGAIN!!! The man's name is Richard L. Wolfe not Patrick Hill. I thought identity spoofs were over?

[Patrick Hill]

I was on the payroll of the USA Senate. I didn't say anything about the US Supreme Court. JED, describe your dreams to me. Can I fly in them?