Governing The Salad Bowl

The reaction to Ted Cruz’s twenty-one hour tirade against the Affordable Care Act, has been a study in diversity. For many he has become their knight in shining armor, the champion of the dismissed and ignored; for others he is the fly in the ointment, putting his own political aspirations above the good of the party; and for yet others he is the silver-tongued devil, the reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy. In reality, he is but the latest tip of the spear for a significant group of people that are at odds with their own party leadership, and to an even greater extent with the opposition party.

The disfunction that we are seeing in the halls of Congress, and from the Oval Office, is a demonstration of just how different we Americans are from each other. It is not entirely new; there have always been divisions; and if the Government does shut down for a few days it will not be the first time. Contrary to the Democrat alarmists it will not be the end of the world. The hyperbole of impending doom in the political debate grows wearisome. Political disagreements are now cast as epic battles between good and evil, where adherence to the Constitution and the rule of Law is secondary to the vanquishing of the Enemy. Americans with a different point of view are referred to as “terrorists”, “anarchists”, and “arsonists”. They are not to be negotiated with, reasoned with, or even spoken to… they are to be conquered and destroyed.

The problem with dismissing Cruz and his constituents as kooks, devils, or rabble is that you ignore the concerns of a quite large group of people. To tell them that they need to sit down, shut up, comply, and just pay their taxes has been tried before. To repeat this mistake with a movement that takes its name from a rebellion against taxation without representation would seem to be tempting fate. The 2010 elections should have been a clarion call to the Republican leadership to embrace this new force within the party. The political savvy of the party machinery should have been employed to incorporate the raw grassroots power of this movement. Instead, fear, petty jealousy, and excess caution caused leadership to struggle against this embarrassing step-child and marginalize it. Marginalized, underfunded and under qualified candidates emerged from the Tea Party factions, and lost. Conservative after conservative fell before the “safe” candidate Mitt Romney, because Obama was so beatable; and the same establishment Republicans who are railing now against Cruz’s antics encouraged moderation then. No real overtures were made to the more conservative and libertarian elements of the party, their votes were taken for granted. The civil war within the party could have been averted, but now it is inevitable; indeed it has begun. The outcome is easy to predict. On the one side you have the energy of those led by men who can stand and speak for hours without even a bathroom break, those who quote Washington, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, those who put principles and core values above political expediency or even election success. On the other side are the Washington insiders, the moderate dinosaurs who have survived by going along to get along. These are the Arlen Specters, the Charlie Crists, and the trembling leadership who historically lose, fold, and concede. I would not expect such cowardly and inept leaders to long withstand an all out civil war. At some point they will see the writing on the wall and either retire, switch parties, or find religion.

The rift in the GOP is just the beginning of change. Do not expect that the Democrats will remain forever monolithic. America was once a melting pot. There were always differences between people groups, of course, but they were less pronounced, and less enduring. Like it or not, America is now better represented as a salad bowl. We are a collection of very different peoples, with very different views, and our differences are persistent. For good or for ill, we have no national language, we accept all manner of alternate life-styles, we embrace all religions, or even no religion. We have within our borders peoples unlike each other in so many different ways. Governing such a menagerie is a difficult task. Historically it has been accomplished through subjugation with one group dominating the others, combining tyranny with just enough patronage to avoid rebellions… the Eloi and the Morlocks. It is an arrangement of bondage, not the liberty to which we are accustomed. So how is such a diverse people to be governed? How does one government serve and represent the NRA, the NAACP, and the NEA? What is the reasonable and practical function of government in a “salad bowl”?

IMHO: Ironically, the solution to this new ordering of society is the old idea of Federalism, with limited power centralized in Washington, and more governance handled at the state and local levels where differences can more easily be accommodated. The function of the central government in a “salad bowl” is not to order all the ingredients, and certainly not to turn everyone into a tomato. The function of the central government in a “salad bowl” is to be the bowl. It keeps the ingredients together and out of the mashed potatoes (and keeps the mashed potatoes out of the salad!). Beyond that, it stays out of the way and lets the salad be the salad. Having one central government trying to serve the varied needs and opinions of our diverse population is like trying to please fans of Duck Dynasty, Glee, and Breaking Bad with one television channel. Can’t be done without conquering and subjugation. Imagine government on the model of cable T.V., we’re all on Time Warner, but otherwise free to support whatever channel suits our tastes! The reason we have such dysfunctional government in Washington is because we are trying to control far too much diversity from one central power structure. Because of this, preserving your own values and choices seems to necessarily mean sacrificing someone else’s… subjugation. And so, we wind up with a government based on political warfare, legislative conquest, and societal subjugation, because the halls of power are trying to do too much, and the cost of defeat is too great. Criticism is quick for those who don’t play the Washington game, when it is the game itself that is the problem. Washington insiders who care more about what they hear at cocktail parties than at town hall meetings will not be helpful in fixing it; they are part of the problem and need to be removed. The only way to fix this government is by tearing it down. I suppose that makes me an anarchist… or a patriot.