Steve made an interesting comment in another thread:

the problem is pretty simple: there is a lack of willingness to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term gain.

He was actually talking about individual households, but it has got me thinking: can this same diagnosis be applied to US politics as a whole?

To put it another way, are politicians of all stripes too concerned about winning re-election for themselves or their party (short term) to actually formulate the solid, long term plans that America actually needs? I don't follow US politics as closely as many of you do, but I am unaware of any politician with serious aspirations of power actually proposing proper solutions to issues like your budget deficit. What their proposed "solutions" might be surely depends upon their position on the political spectrum and each of us may well disagree with them. But I haven't seen anyone make an actual, serious proposal to solve this problem which was true to their own political philosophy.

So I wonder if this is the real problem in US politics - that all politicans on all sides are so concerned with short term issues which effect poll ratings and attempting to pin blame for problems on the other side that they are all neglecting the big picture. Where is the strategic planning? Where are the people to look a few years ahead, consider the likely problems facing the US and propose reasonable solutions? Where is the long term view?

This isn't a question of sides in the political spectrum, nor of agreeing or disagreeing with some particular proposal of this or that individual - this is a much deeper concern. Is short-termism the real problem is US politics? Does anyone share this view? Can anyone suggest a solution?

That's not just a problem with US policy but in every democratic society. What is the individual polticans benefit in proposing, supporting or establishing unpopular policies that will decrease growth shorterm but in 10 years lead to longterm gains ?
He'll still lose reelection, because the other side will certainly take advantage and attack unpopular policies even if they know they will have a longterm positiv impact.

javelin

Where is the strategic planning? Where are the people to look a few years ahead, consider the likely problems facing the US and propose reasonable solutions? Where is the long term view?

In the US, other than for the military, much of the industrial strategy was left to the wisdom of the markets. International corporations were left to make important decisions without the involvement of significant policy or significant involvement from the government.
I'd say this was not the case in Germany Fax.

As for short term political thinking...The problem is the constant state of election. With election cycles that are only two years in length no one (nationally) is in power long enough to see their policies bear fruit. (Well, they need the short term effect). The other problem is the cost of elections. With so much money involved those with money hold an outsized influence on policy. And third, would be the two party system which has evolved to us vs. them....with no room for divergent views or compromise positions more likely to come from multi party systems of government

Javelin,

There are politicians that have the courage of their convictions. The problem is they don't really get elected. I mean seriously, if anybody campaigned saying they were going to cut medicare/social security/military spending or raise taxs he wouldn't get elected.

Or if they do, they have a problem actually implementing their policies because of the opposition. Ricky likes to point at Ronald Reagan as an example of a politician who caved on his principles but neglects to point out that Reagan always faced a Democratic Majority Congress. Chris Christie of New Jersey is another example. He is trying to do exactly as he said he would while campaigning. However, the Democratic controlled General Assembly is opposing him. One could argue that Barack Obama is trying to do what he thinks is best but has to deal with a Republican majority

Ricky's point about the electoral cycle and cost of campaigning is a very perceptive one. The fact that any politician can be challenged in primaries adds to this effect as well. As a Congressman you're basically in a permanent state of political campaigning unless you're established in a rock solid district, and even then you may face a challenge from within your own party. This requires a huge amount of money to be raised and so opens the door to all kinds of influence from special interest groups.

Ultimately, I think that the leadership has to come from the President via his direct route to the American people. The reality is that Congresspeople will always be worried about their own careers and the next election. But Presidents shouldn't be worried about their resumes and should think about their responsibilities and historical reputations 20 years out.

RJ - that would be nice, but you have Representatives in the House who have to face election every two years, and that's after a Primary which takes place nearly a year before. Essentially, every year they face a potential election. You have Senators who often came up through the House who may have 6 year terms but will have been influenced by the earlier.

The money aspect is also pretty important. In many countries, people don't finance their own election campaigns, they get money from the party. In the US, candidates don't get much from the party, and have to get their warchests from donations, which means sucking up to interest groups.

Then the President is expected to somehow transcend the whole system underneath him? It ain't gonna happen - especially if they have to co-habit with a hostile Congress.

That's leadership. Winston Churchill did it ... FDR did it ... Reagan did it to a lesser extent (fired air traffic controllers) ... you go over the heads of Congress directly to the American people, and the sheep that sit in the Congress realize that the American people are with the President and they run for cover.

I read an analysis months ago (written by a Democrat) that Obama lost the Presidence in his first 10 days of office when he approved the budget bill (which has not been approved on schedule during Bush's last term). It was filled with earmarks, and Obama said we've got to approve this thing because it is late, but in the future, no more earmarks. (reminds me of some parents I know).

If he had said, "I campaigned on no earmarks and I meant it." VETO. Moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents would have loved it, and Pelosi / Reid would have fallen in line for the next 4 years. Instead he ceded all of the power back to them right away and we were stuck with the stimulus bills, etc.

Winston did it? Well, he was a maverick, and was damn lucky to be where he was in 1940. Before then he was regarded as an outsider, impulsive, traitorous and wrong on many of the issues of the say (economically primarily, but also in other ways). He was lucky that he had a safe seat that he only had to fight every four years mostly. He didn't face election as PM until 1945 (and lost heavily), and the government he led during the war was a coalition by necessity. He also handed over internal policy to others, concentrating on the war effort (and having a lot of his 'cunning plans' vetoed by generals who knew better). His second term in the early 50s was pretty much a continuation of the previous government, he compromised a lot and was barely more than a figurehead over a cabinet that did all the real work.

I know he's a hero to many, but he's not an answer to every question.

On that budget, all very well, but you needed a budget, you needed it quick, and you needed it to do stuff. While perhaps he could have done as you say, what would have been the result at the time?

But yes, he should have stuck to the no earmarks thing after that and meant it. Of course, is there a recent President who hasn't complained about earmarks and yet done much about them? Perhaps there's a structural reason for them that makes such promises all but impossible to keep. The rules of Congress, perhaps?

First Dan, I am pretty sure in non-presidential election years most primaries are within 6 months of the General election. Many are closer then that.

Second, the issue of not being able to eliminate earmarks is probably constitutional in that the President does not have a line item veto. If there is one part of the budget that he doesn't like, i.e. excessive and stupid earmarks, he must veto the entire bill. Very few President's have the intestinal fortitude to take the political gamble necessary in such an action.

Thanks Randy. Though to be fair and non-partisan, just about every president has asked for it. Clinton got in in 1996 and used it a few times before it was voided as unconstitutional by the Court.

Also, historically, we have never really had "citizen legislators" as I believe you are trying to define it. Even way back when, most elected officials were professional politicians in that they had been involved in politics their entire adult life.

Question for you Randy: you propose fixed term limits as a potential solution. Seems reasonable, and I have to assume that it was a similar argument that reduced the number of terms a president can sit to 2 after WW2. However, in the last couple of years of a second term president are they not referred to as being a "lame duck" since they won't be around long enough to get anything done? Would fixed term limits not simply expand this problem further?

Also, would this not lead to a lack of continuity if everyone changes every few years? If you know you've only got this job for 5 years and that's it, would that not exacerbate the same short-termism tendencies it is supposed to combat?

There are certainly problems with term limits, but Lame Duckism is one of the least of them. The Prez has a problem with that because the theme of his reelection campaign can set the national agenda, and because the power of the office enables him to make long-term promises (and threats) with real meaning. Take those away and he's lost some oomph. Also, as you implied, a Prez needs time to pursue large goals and when it's short there's a presumption that he must lower his sights. A Representative, however, has power because he gets to vote on legislation. In some ways this power actually glows a bit hotter just before burning out because the retiring Rep. is no longer subject to the outside pressures that influence his voting; he can actually vote his conscience (except regarding issues important to his next employer!). But let me not overstate; it's important to understand that a lame duck Prez is hardly powerless and that a Rep. isn't totally immune. Reps also can make threats and promises, albeit on a smaller stage.

Consider: what does a Senator or Congressman do after leaving office? Not too many are like Cincinnatus, returning to the plow. Most stay in public affairs, often working for one or more special interests. If they were term-limited no one could contemplate making a career out of being an elected official in DC. I fear that many people would run for Congress and start using the office right away to find a more permanent position. That could get quite ugly.

Also consider this: it takes a term or two for most Reps, and much of their first term for most Senators, to become familiar enough with the rules of their body, the characters involved, the DC press, and the nuances of power, and to build an effective staff, to become effective legislators. If you construct a list of legislators you most admire - regardless of your ideology - you're very likely to find it populated by very few freshmen. If we term-limit legislators we automatically increase the power and influence of the staffers and lobbyists, who know how to get things done, and of civil servants. These people are already a sort of permanent class in DC and they are not at all beholden to voters. So in a very real sense, imposing term limits on Congress will be an anti-democratic move that shifts power from the people to bureaucrats and professional political operatives.

There are some people who think that taking power away from Congress and giving it to that permanent political-bureaucratic-technical class wouldn't be a bad idea precisely because the permanent class really does know how to get things done and are less subject than elected officials to the pressures of money-raising. So if your complaint about the US Gov't is generally that it's wandered away from its democratic roots, term limits might be the very LAST reform you'd want to consider. The age of "citizen legislators" cannot be reconstructed and a naive nostalgia in that regard is a lot more dangerous IMHO than crotchety old cynicism.

X

There are some people who think that taking power away from Congress and giving it to that permanent political-bureaucratic-technical class wouldn't be a bad idea precisely because the permanent class really does know how to get things done and are less subject than elected officials to the pressures of money-raising. So if your complaint about the US Gov't is generally that it's wandered away from its democratic roots, term limits might be the very LAST reform you'd want to consider.

When governing bodies write laws that are objective they do a good job. When they become prescriptive they do a bad job.
Prescriptive law becomes needlessly detailed, with loop holes and specifications intended to control how a law is executed down to the tiniest detail.
Generally congress' men and women don't have the detailed knowledge to be able to analyze and understand the mechanics of every situation. But they do know what kind of outcome they want, and what general direction things are to go in...
Perhaps it a dependence on hands on congress that makes the US beauracracies inefficient? They attempt to proscribe how an objective is to be carried out in such detail that it constrains the technocrats and beauracrats from functioning efficiently?
Beyond that, the checks and balances in the US system are generally admirable. But don't they also tend towards solutions that are often muddles in the middle?
I think of Obama care here. Where the majority of US citizens seem (if polls are to be believed) a system more akin to Switzerland but end up with a squishy half measure that barely makes progress in the direction of serious reform? If the electoral system was such that all members stood for 4 years, and elections were only held every 4 years true majorities could be achieved with clear mandates, and the party in power could bring in uncompromised solutions rather than mushy compromises doomed to mushy performance? (just a thought)

rickyp wrote:Generally congress' men and women don't have the detailed knowledge to be able to analyze and understand the mechanics of every situation. But they do know what kind of outcome they want, and what general direction things are to go in...
Perhaps it a dependence on hands on congress that makes the US beauracracies inefficient? They attempt to proscribe how an objective is to be carried out in such detail that it constrains the technocrats and beauracrats from functioning efficiently?

Do you think the elected Members of Congress are the ones who actually write the bills they vote? Very rarely does the actual member draft the bills they propose. Most bills are drafted by the lobbying group that supports the idea or by the permanent legislative staff. And I call them permanent because even if their member loses reelection, the capitol office staff will find job with another member. For example, the staff counsel in my boss's Harrisburg office is on her 3rd or 4th member.