Why Washington’s growing irrelevance is good for the country

December 13, 2013

After three years of sclerosis, Congress is poised to at last pass an actual budget. We’ve been so consumed with the dysfunction of the parties on Capitol Hill that this feat appears significant. In fact, it should be routine. Yet in the context of the past few years, it is anything but.

The budget that passed the House still must wend through the Senate, and it is not exactly a study in legislative daring. It is, however, an actual budget, passed with substantial support from both parties by a vote of 332 to 94 and negotiated by two leaders, one from each party and each chamber — Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington). The bill is the most modest endorsement of the current status quo, which stems from both the automatic and crude 2013 budget cuts known as the sequester, and from the chronic inability of either party to compromise over the past three years.

Even though the only real change over current spending is a modest $60 billion increase (meager in relation to the $15 trillion-plus U.S. economy), conservative groups still condemned it as too profligate and liberal groups assailed it as too draconian. Said Ted Cruz, who may be having mild limelight withdrawal, “The new budget deal moves in the wrong direction: it spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare…I cannot support it.” Paul Krugman argued the contrary — that the bill is too meager, and does nothing to address the problem of structural, chronic unemployment. Writes Krugman: “if you look at what has happened since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2010 — what you see is a triumph of anti-government ideology that has had enormously destructive effects on American workers.”

Partisanship aside, it’s tempting to look at the budget deal in one of two ways: our political system has fallen so low that just doing the minimum amount required to be a functional government is seen as a victory, or the fact that it took three years to pass a budget that essentially makes no changes is proof that the system is broken.

A third perspective is even closer to the mark — and cause for optimism. Namely, that both parties’ willingness to pass a budget that no one much likes is a sign that Washington neither can nor will torpedo the country. It is a sign as well that Washington neither can nor will save the country. That’s a far cry from an activist government doing good, or a small government doing much less. But it should come as a positive sign.

The self-created Washington crises over the past years have created an image of government as the vital actor on the American stage. But these crises have failed to either impede or energize economic activity, and they have led large numbers of Americans to tune politics out. In the New York mayoral race, for instance, voter turnout was 24 percent, which appears to have been a record low. Similar numbers were seen in New Jersey and Virginia. The political class, from Washington to the local level, has managed to alienate voters and make government less relevant, except in its ability to spy on citizens and manufacture crises.

The result of the budget deal is to remove crisis from the agenda in 2014. Yes, the debt limit still has to be raised in February, but it is difficult to see Congress refusing to increase the limit on a budget that it passed. Crisis also creates a negative feedback loop with partisans such as the Tea Party and the media. You need crisis to fuel passion, and donations to the cause, and you need crisis to justify media coverage.

As proof, notice how little attention the budget deal received in the media, relative to October’s government shutdown — which dominated the news and the airwaves. The budget deal didn’t even merit a page one story in the New York Times when it passed in Congress.

And for all of this, we should be thankful. In an ideal world, we would be served by a political system of noble legislators attending to the public good with dignity and passion. There are many such individuals throughout government, on the local, state and federal levels. But Washington has become a morass of a system, and expecting and demanding the locus of societal change to emanate from that system is unrealistic and counterproductive. Lowering the volume, shifting the focus away from the goings on of government, and turning to what is happening outside of that realm, in a world teaming with billions of new entrants to the middle class and hundreds of millions of Americans navigating a changed workplace without daily reference to government, that is all for the best.

PHOTO: Senate Budget Committee chairman Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) (R) and House Budget Committee chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) shake hands after a news conference to introduce The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, December 10, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst 



We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

But dude, there are far more reasons why Washington’s growing irrelevance is BAD for the country. Start by the fact that the rest of the countries in the world now realize that there is no stable government in the US to deal with anymore. Even our allies now know this. This will lead to emerging economies looking to China. At least their government is consistent, reliable, and improving all the time.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive

This is crazy. What Karabell is advocating is an end to regulation, which will hurt the economy, not help it.

Posted by rvm3 | Report as abusive

A dull government. How will the media survive?

Posted by pataland | Report as abusive

Whipping voters up into an emotional “anti-government/anti-Obama” lather didn’t work for the Republicans, so they’re backing down quietly. The danger to their crises tactic was, and likely still is, that while they may get their constituents to vote for them, they also inspire their opposition to vote against them.

Plus, they’re gearing up for the 2016 election. A nice quiet period between now and 2016 may help to diffuse the anti-Republican sentiments throughout the nation. Democrats don’t have that short a memory though.

@tmc, our “emerging economies” have been in China for a long time. It isn’t new – but I agree with you; it’s not good for the U.S.

Posted by JL4 | Report as abusive

One of the great gifts of Federalism is we don’t rely on D.C. for divine guidance. But de-centralization is happening world wide, and while China is modernizing faster than some other places, it’s also happening in places like rural Ethiopia, where the pace of change and development is amazing.

One of the core rules of Claude Shannon’s Information Theory is that Information Breaks Down Hierarchies. Stalinists in the old USSR were finally forced grasped that, it’s taking longer for it to sink in to American Liberals.

Posted by ARJTurgot2 | Report as abusive

This follows faithfully the ‘both sides are equally at fault’ paradigm so popular in the media. If everything comes down to a simple matter of two sides unwilling to move their positions, why has the country been drifting rapidly to the right for the last 3 decades ?

Posted by brianpforbes | Report as abusive