Politicians Abandon Shared Goals, Historic Practices

Maine Gov. Paul LePage refuses to meet with the newly elected President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House.  He’s a Republican, and they are Democrats.

It is a one-sided war, because the Democrats have even offered to take LePage out to dinner.  He refuses any of their efforts to talk, ostensibly because he does not like the Democratic Party making videos of his public speeches.

This apparently unprecedented breakdown in a basic and necessary working relationship is a symptom of a dangerous development in government, state and federal.

As much as we like to believe that we have a government of laws, we understand that our system works because those who govern have a shared view of how to deal with their disagreements and work for the public interest.

Or at least, they used to have such a shared understanding.

These days, in Maine and in Washington, that sense of common purpose seems to have disappeared.

In his first two years, LePage had GOP majorities in the Legislature and had no trouble talking to its leaders.  Now facing Democrats, he uses a weak excuse for not meeting with them to do the people’s business.  Instead, he says they should be content to meet with his staff.

His position reflects a misunderstanding of the role of the state’s chief executive, who should lead the state not just his party.

LePage has also refused to allow the issuance of state bonds that have been approved by the Legislature and the people.  He imposed his personal policy in a matter that was supposed to be an administrative action not subject to his veto.

The voters expect road repairs and other actions that don’t happen because of his policy.

In Washington, much the same is happening.

Since the early 20^th Century, Congress has routinely approved increases in the ceiling on the national debt to cover appropriations of public funds that it has already made.  Any opposition has been mere political grandstanding, not a real attempt to gum up the works.

Now, the Republicans use their ability to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling as a way to repeal previous spending commitments.  That breaks a long-standing way of doing business, recognized over more than a century by both parties.

Democratic leaders have urged President Obama to use a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to issue debt even if the debt ceiling is not raised.  Obama, who used to teach constitutional law, has said he does not think it allows him to do what they ask.

For the time being, at least, the President wants to preserve the common understanding even if that makes his life more difficult.  He sticks to the idea that the debt ceiling is only a formality.

Recently, Obama has announced some nominations for key positions in his cabinet.  Some Republicans say they will oppose and may even block those nominations, because they disagree with policy positions taken by the nominees many years in the past.

The system used to allow the President, who after all had won the only national election the country has, to pick his own team.  Presumably, his appointees will follow his policy lead and not be able to pursue their own personal agendas.

Some Republicans in Congress seem to believe that the election meant nothing and they should tell the President whom he can choose, thus undermining his ability to carry out his policies.

In fact, some GOP House members argue that their district elections means as much as the election of the President.  The country has not traditionally equated a member of Congress with the President when it comes to governing.

And then there’s the filibuster.  Even if it is somewhat modified this year, it will continue to allow a Senate minority to prevent hundreds of bills from coming to a vote.  That’s plainly contrary to the Constitution.

All of these actions undermine the ability of government to function and to adopt laws to meet public needs.  The fabric of the common commitment to make government function has been badly damaged by those in government who would rather undermine the system than have measures adopted which they oppose.

The proof lies in the work of Congress.  The session that ended early in January produced the fewest pieces of real legislation, excluding the naming of post offices, in decades, even less than the famous “Do-Nothing Congress” of 1948.

What seems to be missing is a sense in either the Congress or the Blaine House that government owes it to the voters to preserve the basic understandings essential to a functioning democracy – and produce results.