Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs...[3]
I'm going to make the case that conservatives and independents in Wisconsin should vote to put Democrats into the majority in the Senate using the recall elections to achieve it. It might sound counter-intuitive, but I'm going to make a few very specific points that I think will be compelling even to Republicans. The argument is that this would be a good idea for conservative politics in the long run even if you disagree with almost everything the Democrats stand for.
The Mess
What is 'slash and burn' politics?
Well let me give you an example outside of the political arena. Consider football. There are certain strategies in football where you use advantages created by the realities of the rules to achieve in-game goals. A good example is when the winning team runs down the clock by throwing safe passing plays whose goal is clearly not to gain field position. This is not an intended game tactic, it is an unavoidable reality of the game rules that constitutes a useful technicality for one side.
However technicalities, like spices in food, need to be used sparingly. A team who relies on them or seeks constant use of the actual rule system to achieve victory is seen as cheap, cheating, unfair, unreasonable and unsportsmanlike. People pay for a seat to see a game not just get a technical win.
Politics are no different. The purpose of a legislature made up of representatives from both parties is to represent the entire constituent body. The more of the legislature that belongs to one side, the easier it is for that side to direct the agenda of the State. However unless one party runs the table, the expectation is that the minority party will still be included in the process of leadership.
Under normal circumstances, this means throwing the minority party certain bones or concessions to let them forward some measure of their priorities and keep them at least tolerant of the fact that the majority is plotting a different course. It is these compromises and concessions that keeps the majority party honest to the actual will of the people. Remember, the people DID elect the majority – but they elected the minority too. They want that minority to have a mitigating impact on the majority – to soften the pure ideological direction the majority might otherwise take so the final political product is more in line with the actual people of Wisconsin. In short, balanced politics is not completely defined by control of the house or assembly. Even when a party is not in control, it is still part of the State's leadership.
However something ugly happens when the majority treats their election as a mandate and starts to use technicalities to eliminate the ability of the minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process, we call it 'slash and burn' politics. The name comes from the burning of bi-partisan relationships that leave one group of representatives isolated from their ability to do their job.
This was what happened when the non-budget 'budget repair' bill that would later be determined 'non-fiscal' was rushed through the legislative process on a fast track without any meaningful input or mitigation from Democrats. It was the absolutism of the Walker approach and the use of a technicality to achieve highly partisan goals that had the Democrats using their own technicality to assert the input they had been denied – by leaving the State.
Regardless of what you think about the validity of Walker's choice, both these moves shifted the political environment in Wisconsin. To be more accurate, these moves ended the political process in Wisconsin. Our representatives stopped making collective decisions, and simply started gunning for the win at any cost using all procedural weapons available: Rare rules and subcommittees, midnight meetings, legal battles, and protests filling the streets. Everything that made our government a collaborative process fell to pieces around the vicious use of process to win at any cost.
Underneath the Surface
Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing n. a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood.
In contracts law, this is the concept of 'good faith and fair dealing'. It is a presumption necessary to find any contract between parties enforceable. The point of this idea is simple – When you hold yourself out to another to do something, do that thing, don't hide your real motive or agenda behind technicality, trickery, or deceit.
No matter what you think of Scott Walker's plan, you have to admit that his leadership has resulted in nothing short of chaos at the capital. This isn't Wisconsin's first Republican governor, nor is it a sudden upsurge of liberal angst. This is a leadership style that has created a procedural war that undermined the trust that either party had in the good faith efforts of the other. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans believe the other side will actually play politics. They expect the worst in procedural exploitation and underhanded efforts to win at all costs no matter what the issue.
Responsibility
Anyone who has worked in management knows that while the actions of the individuals under your leadership are their own, you, as the manager, are ultimately responsible for the department, division, or company. If a culture of poor service or performance arises, it is management that is held accountable and no executive on the planet will accept a manager's excuse that 'the employees or supervisors did it'.
Scott Walker is responsible for the culture of mistrust, bad faith, and procedural warfare that now dominates the Wisconsin political landscape. It was his decision to use his power the way he did and establish the kind of vicious political exchange that subsequently took place. Whether you want to say he caused it or not, he is responsible for it now.
Repairing Wisconsin Politics
How do we restore political civility in light of the situation as it stands? How do we end the procedural battles and utter lack of trust that dominates our capitol? Like any dispute, the only likely solution is by forcing both sides to work together. That is impossible while one side holds final say on everything and has proven they are willing to use that power without engaging in political dialogue. To get Wisconsin politicians actually engaging in politics again will require a division of power between the parties that requires them to work together to get anything done. The cost of sabotage, back stabbing, and procedural chicanery needs to be raised by putting at least some of the government's power in each party's hands requiring that the normal process of give and take return to the floor.
In other words, the recall elections need to go to the Democrats to make sure they are both invested and a part of any solution Wisconsin develops to this mockery of our government.
Can Wisconsin Republicans do that? Can they set aside their desire to win long enough to recognize that the political process itself in this state has been shattered and needs a balance of power to be restored? Wisconsin voters need to see that capitol Democrats and Republicans can work towards the common good of the state, and that means sharing the power and responsibility associated with the policies that arise. So long as the Democrats are in the absolute minority, they can justify any sabotage to Republican plans by pointing to the procedural violence enacted against them early in Walker's administration. So long as Republicans hold all the power, they can justify any sabotage to the political process by wrongly pointing to the November elections as a mandate for unilateral rule.
Only in a balanced legislature are both parties truly accountable for the policies that emerge. Wisconsin needs a period of balanced representation if for no other reason than to restore the public's faith in the process completely broken by the poor leadership choices of the current governor that have resulted in protest after protest across our State and now nine separate recall elections.
An Act of Faith
Whatever you think about the parties, the need right now is not for partisan loyalty. The need is to restore faith in the very foundation of this State's political process. It is to reign in the unilateral execution of power whether it is by the Republicans by shutting out the Democrats or by the Democrats using a procedural loophole to shut down the government.
Wisconsin government needs a time out. And it won't get that time out while one party holds all final decision making power. The parties need to be pulled apart, forced to hug each other, and then put in a room and told they're not getting their cake or ice creme until they build something together that helps Wisconsin – all of it – not just the people wearing your animal pin, but the whole of the State's diverse and very angry population.
I'm going to make the case that conservatives and independents in Wisconsin should vote to put Democrats into the majority in the Senate using the recall elections to achieve it. It might sound counter-intuitive, but I'm going to make a few very specific points that I think will be compelling even to Republicans. The argument is that this would be a good idea for conservative politics in the long run even if you disagree with almost everything the Democrats stand for.
The Mess
What is 'slash and burn' politics?
Well let me give you an example outside of the political arena. Consider football. There are certain strategies in football where you use advantages created by the realities of the rules to achieve in-game goals. A good example is when the winning team runs down the clock by throwing safe passing plays whose goal is clearly not to gain field position. This is not an intended game tactic, it is an unavoidable reality of the game rules that constitutes a useful technicality for one side.
However technicalities, like spices in food, need to be used sparingly. A team who relies on them or seeks constant use of the actual rule system to achieve victory is seen as cheap, cheating, unfair, unreasonable and unsportsmanlike. People pay for a seat to see a game not just get a technical win.
Politics are no different. The purpose of a legislature made up of representatives from both parties is to represent the entire constituent body. The more of the legislature that belongs to one side, the easier it is for that side to direct the agenda of the State. However unless one party runs the table, the expectation is that the minority party will still be included in the process of leadership.
Under normal circumstances, this means throwing the minority party certain bones or concessions to let them forward some measure of their priorities and keep them at least tolerant of the fact that the majority is plotting a different course. It is these compromises and concessions that keeps the majority party honest to the actual will of the people. Remember, the people DID elect the majority – but they elected the minority too. They want that minority to have a mitigating impact on the majority – to soften the pure ideological direction the majority might otherwise take so the final political product is more in line with the actual people of Wisconsin. In short, balanced politics is not completely defined by control of the house or assembly. Even when a party is not in control, it is still part of the State's leadership.
However something ugly happens when the majority treats their election as a mandate and starts to use technicalities to eliminate the ability of the minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process, we call it 'slash and burn' politics. The name comes from the burning of bi-partisan relationships that leave one group of representatives isolated from their ability to do their job.
This was what happened when the non-budget 'budget repair' bill that would later be determined 'non-fiscal' was rushed through the legislative process on a fast track without any meaningful input or mitigation from Democrats. It was the absolutism of the Walker approach and the use of a technicality to achieve highly partisan goals that had the Democrats using their own technicality to assert the input they had been denied – by leaving the State.
Regardless of what you think about the validity of Walker's choice, both these moves shifted the political environment in Wisconsin. To be more accurate, these moves ended the political process in Wisconsin. Our representatives stopped making collective decisions, and simply started gunning for the win at any cost using all procedural weapons available: Rare rules and subcommittees, midnight meetings, legal battles, and protests filling the streets. Everything that made our government a collaborative process fell to pieces around the vicious use of process to win at any cost.
Underneath the Surface
Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing n. a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood.
In contracts law, this is the concept of 'good faith and fair dealing'. It is a presumption necessary to find any contract between parties enforceable. The point of this idea is simple – When you hold yourself out to another to do something, do that thing, don't hide your real motive or agenda behind technicality, trickery, or deceit.
No matter what you think of Scott Walker's plan, you have to admit that his leadership has resulted in nothing short of chaos at the capital. This isn't Wisconsin's first Republican governor, nor is it a sudden upsurge of liberal angst. This is a leadership style that has created a procedural war that undermined the trust that either party had in the good faith efforts of the other. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans believe the other side will actually play politics. They expect the worst in procedural exploitation and underhanded efforts to win at all costs no matter what the issue.
Responsibility
Anyone who has worked in management knows that while the actions of the individuals under your leadership are their own, you, as the manager, are ultimately responsible for the department, division, or company. If a culture of poor service or performance arises, it is management that is held accountable and no executive on the planet will accept a manager's excuse that 'the employees or supervisors did it'.
Scott Walker is responsible for the culture of mistrust, bad faith, and procedural warfare that now dominates the Wisconsin political landscape. It was his decision to use his power the way he did and establish the kind of vicious political exchange that subsequently took place. Whether you want to say he caused it or not, he is responsible for it now.
Repairing Wisconsin Politics
How do we restore political civility in light of the situation as it stands? How do we end the procedural battles and utter lack of trust that dominates our capitol? Like any dispute, the only likely solution is by forcing both sides to work together. That is impossible while one side holds final say on everything and has proven they are willing to use that power without engaging in political dialogue. To get Wisconsin politicians actually engaging in politics again will require a division of power between the parties that requires them to work together to get anything done. The cost of sabotage, back stabbing, and procedural chicanery needs to be raised by putting at least some of the government's power in each party's hands requiring that the normal process of give and take return to the floor.
In other words, the recall elections need to go to the Democrats to make sure they are both invested and a part of any solution Wisconsin develops to this mockery of our government.
Can Wisconsin Republicans do that? Can they set aside their desire to win long enough to recognize that the political process itself in this state has been shattered and needs a balance of power to be restored? Wisconsin voters need to see that capitol Democrats and Republicans can work towards the common good of the state, and that means sharing the power and responsibility associated with the policies that arise. So long as the Democrats are in the absolute minority, they can justify any sabotage to Republican plans by pointing to the procedural violence enacted against them early in Walker's administration. So long as Republicans hold all the power, they can justify any sabotage to the political process by wrongly pointing to the November elections as a mandate for unilateral rule.
Only in a balanced legislature are both parties truly accountable for the policies that emerge. Wisconsin needs a period of balanced representation if for no other reason than to restore the public's faith in the process completely broken by the poor leadership choices of the current governor that have resulted in protest after protest across our State and now nine separate recall elections.
An Act of Faith
Whatever you think about the parties, the need right now is not for partisan loyalty. The need is to restore faith in the very foundation of this State's political process. It is to reign in the unilateral execution of power whether it is by the Republicans by shutting out the Democrats or by the Democrats using a procedural loophole to shut down the government.
Wisconsin government needs a time out. And it won't get that time out while one party holds all final decision making power. The parties need to be pulled apart, forced to hug each other, and then put in a room and told they're not getting their cake or ice creme until they build something together that helps Wisconsin – all of it – not just the people wearing your animal pin, but the whole of the State's diverse and very angry population.
Comments
Post a Comment