Monthly Archives: August 2008

It’s hard not to feel sorry for Mayor Greg Ballard. Not just because he’s being hit with criticism from all sides, but because he was so clearly unprepared for the realities he faces.

The most basic question of politics—the question every mayor must confront—is “what is government’s job?” The answers fall into a spectrum between “you’re on your own” and “we’re all in this together.” It should be noted that these aren’t partisan categories; Steve Goldsmith and Bill Hudnut, both Republicans, had very different visions of government’s responsibilities. (I used to describe the differences between them by suggesting that, if a poll showed lack of public support for transportation planning, Hudnut would explain to people why such planning was essential, while Goldsmith would stop planning.)

Most of us agree in the abstract that government should do only those things that must be done collectively, and should leave other tasks to the private sector. The problem comes when we try to apply that principle to specific tasks.

Let’s take garbage collection as an example. There are private scavenger companies that will pick up your garbage for a fee—why not leave that responsibility with homeowners? The short answer is that some people will be irresponsible or unable to pay for the service, and uncollected garbage is a threat to the health of all of us.

We don’t hire private security firms to provide public policing, not just because we have made a collective judgment that the use of force should be controlled by those who are accountable to the public, but also because we have learned that providing public safety is a broader, more complex task than policing alone.

We support transportation planning because failure to do so creates traffic nightmares and costs a fortune when gridlock forces us to add more concrete to our already bloated highways. (We are paying dearly today for prior mayors’ decisions to “save” money by cutting back on planning.)

We support the arts, public parks and public transportation (however inadequately) because we have learned that successful economic development depends upon the quality of life in a community—and economic development is critical if we are to maintain a tax base that allows us to collect garbage, pay police and pave streets.

It’s impossible to construct a city budget without first deciding what it is that government must do. People of good will can differ on the answer to that question, but those differences must be based upon an appreciation of how cities actually work. Money saved by refusing to pick up garbage will eventually be offset by increased costs of public health. Money saved by selling off parks will add to the costs of public safety and make it much more difficult to attract new employers.

Greg Ballard seems like a very nice man, but it is increasingly clear that he is in over his head. And while he’s learning that running a city is complicated, all of us are paying his tuition.

I’ve just finished Fareed Zakaria’s recent book, “The Post-American World,” in which he discusses—among other things—the growing power of India and China, and what that growth portends for American interests.

To my mind, the most interesting part of the book came in the final chapters, as he evaluated America’s strengths and weaknesses in the context of the global challenges we face. One paragraph in particular struck me as a particularly apt statement of our current dilemma.

“The economic dysfunctions in America today are real, but by and large, they are not the product of deep inefficiencies within the American economy, nor are they reflections of cultural decay. They are the consequences of specific government policies. Different policies could quickly and relatively easily move the United States into a far more stable footing….Policy experts do not have wide disagreements on most of these issues, and none of the proposed measures would require sacrifices reminiscent of wartime hardship, only modest adjustments of existing arrangements. And yet, because of politics, they appear impossible. The American political system has lost the ability for large-scale compromise, and it has lost the ability to accept some pain now for much gain later.”

In short, Zakaria says our economic system is fundamentally sound when appropriately regulated. Our political system, however, is broken. Zakaria gives a number of reasons for this state of affairs, and most of us can add to his list. But one reason, I think, has gotten short shrift, especially from the so-called “chattering classes.” It’s what Bush 41 used to call “the vision thing.”

It has become fashionable to dismiss articulation of a vision as naïve, as the opposite of the sort of “can-do” policy-wonk approach that pundits and bureaucrats favor. But just as you can’t get Mapquest to give you directions to an unknown destination, you cannot muster political will or encourage political compromise in service of incremental changes and “course corrections.” In a democracy, unless there is a clearly articulated vision—a map clearly showing where you want to take the city, state or country—it is simply not possible to overcome the entrenched politics of self-interest and self-dealing.

When Ronald Reagan became President, “sophisticated” observers sneered at his evocation of “Morning in America.”What they failed to appreciate was the importance of placing policy specifics within an overarching framework mapping a destination.

I think Americans are hungry for that map, that vision, showing how America can do again what it has always done best—lead through example. But first, we have to believe in ourselves again. We have to remind ourselves of the values that make us American. We need to recommit ourselves to those values, and we need to restore the rule of law.

If history teaches us anything, it is that we need visionary leadership to remind us who we are, and what Americans can achieve when we work together.
How many of us, after all, are willing to set off on a voyage without a clear map?