Pork and the Republican Tradition

This excellent op-ed in the WSJ yesterday, Northern Exposure, has only made my opinion of both parties continue to sink lower and lower. Raise your hands everyone who thinks the majority leader who passes any bill will be likely to label it an earmark...right....

Privately, many Republican senators believe Mr. Stevens may be forced to retire next year. "The suspicions are great," one GOP senator told me. "He's toast. You start out thinking you are representing your state and you take one step after another until suddenly you're primarily representing your friends in the state." That's a path many others in Congress have trod--which is why real earmark reform is necessary now.

The issue is that Mr. Stevens is not just the exception to the rule. Pork provides the grease for the current system to run. The benefits it provides for incumbents are phenomenal. Deviations from strict partyline voting are almost always explained by incumbency. The incumbency advantage has also grown for all offices over the past century. (Ansolabehere, 2001) Besides the simple explanations of experience, connections and patronage; in the "what have you done for me lately" world, the more money spent in state the more popular you are. The duty lies not to the nation, but to your voters. Simple facts.

Transparency and Accountability. Without them the system is lost. But how can one vote against a bill that contains "ethics" in the title? Everyone is for more ethics, even 'worthless' ones.

From the outsider's viewpoints it looks like its going downhill fast. The parties are seemingly continuing their gradual merge toward the muddled middle of empty rhetoric and big spending. Focus the 'big issues' of difference: abortion, etc. and ignore the big issue. Federal decisions or state decisions, government decisions or personal decisions, and finally, decisions or systems. These are not the debates around which government policy revolves. These questions have already been silently answered and put aside. The role of government is evolved from taking care of public goods (used in the economic sense of goods that cannot be provided by, or denied to, individuals. National security, or clean air for example. Everyone benefits from increased security (to different degrees) and it is something that cannot be taken away from individuals (who don't find it worth the cost) in a differentiated manner without jeopardizing the security of the whole.) to the classic nanny state. I believe that the Democratic party is dangerous because they (on the whole) make no bones about their desire to continue upon that path. The Republicans on the other hand have historically defined themselves in opposition to it. At least the Democrats are honest on the issue.