When I lived in New Zealand, I had a very interesting history lesson from a member of its Parliament that has resonance with American politics today, indeed all politics everywhere.
The year was 1995, and the young parliamentarian had just returned from a trip to a conference in Paris; on the way back, he had stopped in Washington and we – I was Cultural Affairs Officer in the embassy in Wellington – had arranged for him to spend a week visiting government offices and national parks.
I escorted him to visit the Ambassador and debrief him on the trip, and afterwards, he and I had a long, to me very educational, talk of our own.
Part of that talk was his take on recent political developments in New Zealand. In the course of the last ten years, New Zealand had transformed itself from one of the most controlled economies in the world to one of the most open. It had never been a bastion of communism, but socialist principles had been very important. The government marketed the country’s most important exports, farm products. High tariffs and other restrictions kept many foreign products out. And the government ran the companies that provided electricity, fuels, airlines, trains, health, and telephones, among others.
The Member told me that the initial cause of the changes was that New Zealand’s most important overseas market – Great Britain – joined the European Union. That meant that England could no longer import New Zealand’s farm products at favorable terms. New Zealand had to find other markets, and had to revamp its agricultural and other economies to adjust to the new world it found itself in.
At the time this was going on, New Zealand’s government was controlled by the Labor Party. In their parliamentary system, this meant that one party controlled both the legislature and the executive. New Zealand farmers always voted for – and always would – the more "conservative" National Party. The Labor government was quite willing to abolish tariffs on agricultural imports, and remove other subsidies and protections that benefited farmers, in part because it saw these moves as necessary, in part because it did not see itself losing the farm vote that it would never win anyway.
A few years later, a new election swept the National Party into power. By this time, however, New Zealand’s farmers had discovered that not only did they not need the subsidies and protections, but also they were better off without them. They had learned, for one, that the soil and climate of many parts of the country were better for grapes than grass, and New Zealand wines are now among the best in the world.
But the National Party did not want to stop there. They, in turn, enacted a number of reforms that attacked the Labor Party’s supporters, namely unions, and in addition sold off the government’s interest in the national airline, the railroad company, the telephone company, and other utilities. The result was an economic boom that we were in the middle of at the time.
It is a side note that because the New Zealand government was identified as "conservative," and because it had, indeed, stepped away from the heavy socialism of previous governments, we were getting numerous visits from Republican politicians, who lavished praise on the National Party for their Republican-like governing principles. This was odd, because New Zealand still had a cradle-to-grave, single-payer, universal coverage health care system; free education for all through university level; a generous welfare and unemployment insurance system financed by the government; and in general a level of government involvement in the economy that has never been contemplated in the U.S. To use the standard way of describing governments, just because New Zealand had moved to the "right," it was still way "left" of what even Democrats proposed for America.
But that’s another issue.
One reason we were discussing this history was that at the time, New Zealand was moving from a winner-take-all district electoral system for their parliament to a system called "Proportional Representation." The details would double the length of this essay, but one can say that, before, winning by 51% in every district would give one party 100% of the seats in parliament. After, they would only be given 51%. It was a system that made party affiliation much more important, and, according to my friend the MP, would guarantee that the kinds of fundamental changes that New Zealand had enacted over the previous ten years would never happen again. Coalition governments would become the norm under proportional representation.
To a certain extent, the U.S. is a winner-take-all system. Unfortunately, however, we are big enough and diverse enough – otherwise excellent qualities – that it is rare to go through a period such as the last six years in which one party controls everything. It was extra unfortunate that it was the wrong wing of the wrong party. As has become standard wisdom, the need for consensus prevents the accomplishment of pretty much anything.
John Dean has written about the fact that Bush’s Republicans are perfectly happy to impose their flawed policies without regard to their popularity. One can say that there is nothing inherently wrong with this. We, too, could benefit from ending the agricultural subsidies that subsidize corporations rather than "family farmers," but as long as the rhetoric and the politics prevent even thinking about policies that will only hurt a few people – and as long as those people can fill the campaign chests of both parties – nothing like that will happen here.
As usual, I am not arguing in favor of either side of this equation. As usual, I am saying that this is not a binary choice; there is much to be said for both sides, and the only wrong choice is any choice that leaves the other side out.
In foreign policy, it makes sense to argue that if you choose stability over democracy, you get neither, and if you choose democracy over stability, you also get neither. The real choice, then, is to pursue both. To be both smart and moral.
In politics in general, the choice between individual liberty and collective security and prosperity is also a false choice. If you seek either without the other, you get neither.
If all political choices are determined by what is popular, those choices will be spineless. If all political choices are determined by adherence to an ideological agenda, those choices will be corrupt. No one ideology is rich enough to encompass the variety of human culture and society. No craven, desperate pandering to popularity will produce either success or popularity. No winner-take-all approach to governing, as if winning were the only thing that counted and the details of actually governing the country were not important, will destroy – is in the process of destroying – our security, prosperity, and even identity.
This analysis omits the effects of corporate corruption on the political process. That is another important issue entirely, but one not easily fit into the discussion at hand.
The least satisfying method of managing our problems and issues is muddling through. It’s also the best.