Musings Over a Paradox

One of Bush's top aides muses on the defining paradox of this presidency: How did a man who promised a change of tone in Washington preside over one of the most partisan and divisive periods in the country's history? Bush doesn't conduct feuds or hold personal grudges, this adviser insists. "The president is polarizing, even though he isn't polar." Here's where I find a disconnect: Bush's aides seem not to understand how Bush and Cheney's statements have poisoned the water.

Perhaps there is a structural problem caused by congressional redistricting, this aide reflects, with most Republicans and Democrats in safe one-party districts where the biggest threat is a challenge from their extreme wings. The aide pauses, and then offers a devastating analogy: "We may be the Israelis and Palestinians here, each trying to avenge the latest outrage." If so, that's not good for the country.

David Ignatius

The Next Challenge

During the 1990s, Paul Romer, a Stanford economist, emerged as one of the world’s leading theorists on economic growth. Recently, though, Romer has changed his focus, and he told me that the country, too, is entering a new phase. For most of the 20th century, he explained, economists focused on stability — that is, understanding and controlling inflation and depressions. Then, toward the end of the century, growth became the central obsession. Now, Romer said, we are embarking on the next great challenge in American economics: mitigating inequality.

Matt Bai, a contributing writer, covers national politics for the NY Times magazine. His book, “The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics,” will be published in August.

Vanishing Moderates?

David Broder, here:

Today, however, the partisan chasm in Washington is deeper than it has been in 100 years, according to some academic studies, as moderate blocs in both parties have all but vanished.

But of course this is not the last word on moderation, or molasses-pace of change:

“I agree that it is a bad thing for it to take an extraordinarily long time to deal with problems,” said Mickey Edwards, a former Republican representative from Oklahoma and now a vice president of the Aspen Institute and a lecturer in government at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. “But I think it is a worse thing to rush into solutions when you’re dealing with a nation of 300 million people.”

He cited Prohibition and the Medicare drug benefit as examples of laws that carried large and unintended consequences.

“I don’t suggest that given enough time you can make everything perfect,” Mr. Edwards said. “But you do need enough time to make sure all views are heard and you can avoid the unforeseen circumstances that plague so many things.”

“You don’t just want them to act,” he said. “You want them to act responsibly.”

Well said guys.