It's hard to believe that I have not blogged in over a year. Quite a bit has happened in that time and this has taken a backseat to the rest of my activities. However, I couldn't think of a better way to relaunch than with a guest column from my good friend Jess Joaquin Johnson. Enjoy...
Many eyes are turned toward Washington this week as select members of the U.S. House and Senate attempt to reach a bargain on government spending, taxation policies, entitlement changes and other reforms designed to improve the economic fortunes of our nation and, God willing, restore our stability, long-term financial viability and the public’s faith in our system of government.
As I’ve followed the coverage, I’ve noticed how members of both parties and the media have discussed the proceedings of the so-called Super Committee as “negotiations.” I’m struck by the use of the term, because in my world, and in most usages of the word, negotiation connotes the strategy and tactics used by one or more parties to get what they want from another party, often through yielding on some issues in order to achieve greater value on issues held higher in importance. Negotiation implies that the parties of the negotiation want different things. In a simple example, my company represents entities that need real estate to support their delivery of services or goods while the landlords with whom (against whom?) we negotiate want a revenue stream for their investments. The parties in this case may need each other, but they are trying to achieve fundamentally different things.
In the case of Congress, I’d like to think all 535 members are trying to achieve the same things – a strong and united democracy, the preservation of freedom, a dynamic economy, and national security to name a few. Individuals and the two parties may have different views about how those goals are achieved, but the goals are shared. In this case, the more appropriate term would be “compromise.”
I can imagine a collective groan of the political pundits, politicians and other talking heads as I write the word. It seems this term has become… well, compromised… these days. A willingness to compromise is seen by some as a sign of weakness – weakness in heart, in conviction and in values.
Values. Now that’s ultimately what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? And is not effective compromise the balancing of what actions we can take, consistent with our values, that allow us to achieve shared goals? And, as we navigate those actions to ensure they are consistent with our values, are we not constantly having to weigh closely held values against each other? This happens all the time in our judicial system. In a simple example, a judge may weigh an individual’s right of privacy against national security interests or health, safety and welfare concerns when considering whether to issue a search warrant. In this case, the values aren’t weakened – they aren’t diminished in any way – they are just being weighed against each other as an acceptable and reasonable course of action is charted.
It seems that today’s political environment leaves little room for weighing values in the discussion of the nation’s prevailing economic challenges and the structure and size of government. It may be fair to say that Republicans value low taxes and limited government while Democrats value a stronger role for government in tackling societal challenges, for example, through entitlement programs. Indeed, members of both parties have been unwilling to “compromise” on either of these “values.”
But, is this really what we value? What values will the Super Committee, the Congress and the American people ultimately bring to this discussion? I hope that the balance will swing in favor of values that I believe are more weighty than party ideologies – even those ideas with which I strongly agree. For example, as strongly as I value limited government interaction in the private lives of citizens, I much more strongly value the American representative democracy – the ability of the American people to eventually “get it right” after all the wrangling, hand-wringing, and arguing.
Does it matter less what specific actions Congress ultimately decides to take and matter much, much more that it act at all, and act with boldness in the face of very serious challenges? Should the members of Congress compromise on taxes, compromise on spending, compromise on entitlement reform, compromise until there can be no more compromise? Would this demonstrate that, on balance, the value that we value the most is working together through a representative democracy?
Or would we consider our representatives weak if they were to reach agreement with the “opposing” side on any of these issues?
No comments:
Post a Comment