Click Here
(August 11, 1997 01:16 a.m. EDT) -- Viewed from a continent away, it is a bit amusing this question of Washington's relevance, now the subject of intense hand-wringing in the nation's capital since the "Washington Post" broached the subject earlier this summer.
Of course, Washington is not relevant. That is, not relevant unless you are part of the small (well actually, make that very large) army of paper pushers, policy analysts, lawyers, political "elites" (their term, not ours), media "elites" (again, their term, not ours) or elected representatives who make up what is constituted in the American mind-set as Washington. To this gang, Washington is simply all there is, and, therefore, all America must bow on the federal altar.
Wishful thinking. America has, over the past 25 years or so, been going through a demographic shift to the south, southwest and west that has been marked as much by a flight from federal overreach and centralized regulations as a search for greener pastures. Save for a war or two, only Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, with its emphasis on creating a federal welfare state, made Washington the center of our universe, and we have been running away from it ever since.
Devolution has finally found its mark, and one would be hard-pressed to say we are not the better for it. The remarkable U.S. economy we are now enjoying was not the result of Washington meddling; it was, if government had anything to do with it, because the states and local entities, often grouped together as economic development agencies working with the private sector, served as the laboratories that produced tax cuts, provided business incentives and questioned social directives. Over the past few years, that investment in R&D was what allowed the country to grow and prosper as never before.
If we have found the true path to national redemption, some warning signs must nevertheless be heeded.
For one, the era of big government is not over, despite President Clinton's specious reaction in response to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Witness, for example, the bills signed last week by the president that provide some tax cuts and, it is promised, balance the federal budget by 2002. It takes faith in the tooth fairy to believe this will happen, especially since the deal with Congress creates a new entitlement (for medically uninsured children) and does little to trim a present entitlement (for medically insured seniors). If national government cannot resist the temptation to take more under its wing while not facing the tougher decisions even as the doomsday clock keeps ticking, then watch out. Washington might be more relevant to our wallets than we care to think.
Another area of concern is campaign finance, now the subject of Senate hearings but also a growth industry milked by both major parties. Common Cause reports that both Republicans and Democrats are raising record amounts of soft money (that which can be distributed all around), with the GOP outpacing the Democrats by 2 to 1. Fund-raising might be acknowledged by Washington's more honest folks as the seediest aspect of national politics, but it also has become the raison d'etre of national politics. And that which consumes national politics has the potential to consume us all.
Take foreign relations, one place where Washington has clout, even if too often no good sense. We have been hounded by the elites into believing that such adventures as our mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina or the U.S.-led effort to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are in the interests of America as a force for righteousness in the post-Cold War world.
Daily, though, we are treated to the specter of a Clinton administration that would waive the rules of righteous conduct when dealing with the world's last Communist giant, China, in exchange for campaign contributions by agents of China. At the same time, we see the elites, some of them past members of the national security apparatus, lobby for China and for U.S. firms doing business in China, while elected representatives line up for junkets to the People's Republic, kowtowing America farther down the road of moral bankruptcy. What was the fight against communism if China can buy a pass as it continues to suppress democracy and dissent?
This is not a question of relevance, but of national character. It is clear where Washington stands, but not so clear whether Americans will continue to stand for it. The relevant answer? We shouldn't.
(James Hill is editor of the Opinion Pages of "The Arizona Republic.")