There they go again.
The White House and Congress are in a nasty stalemate over expanding access to children's healthcare. President Bush predicts a "fiscal showdown" this fall with Democratic legislators over virtually all his spending priorities. "We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people," Bush told a news conference last week. "Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills. Now the clock is winding down, and in some key areas, Congress is just getting started." In a familiar tit for tat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: "There is no better example of why Washington is not working for the American people than the president claiming to seek common ground at the same time he is bitterly attacking Congress."
Beyond that, no solution has emerged for the subprime mortgage meltdown that may cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes and endangers the wider economy. The Iraq war grinds on, with no apparent end in sight. Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is reviving the sleaze-factor saga that has been so damaging to Washington by trying to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a restroom sex sting.
It's the constant refrain from the presidential candidates, political scientists, and, most important of all, everyday Americans: Washington is broken. Rancorous partisanship has nearly paralyzed the government. The nation's leaders have lost touch with the people. Above all, it's time for a change. Historians and pollsters say the zeitgeist is clear. Americans are more frustrated with their government today than they have been in a long time, even more so than during the Watergate scandal. And those negative feelings have become the subtext of the 2008 presidential race. "Distrust of politicians and politics are part of American culture," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "But the distrust is getting worse."
With good reason. The government can't seem to solve any of its major problems, from reforming Social Security to illegal immigration. "Anytime there is a major policy failure," such as the disastrous government response to Hurricane Katrina, Zelizer says, "it decreases Americans' belief that government can do good." The Democrats and Republicans are increasingly relying on their base voters and aren't reaching out to anyone else, making compromise nearly impossible. Corruption scandals have increased public cynicism. The 24-hour news cycle emphasizes conflict and wrongdoing more than ever. The Iraq war has deepened the nation's anxiety. President Bush and Congress endure record-low approval ratings. In fact, 7 out of 10 Americans now say the country is headed in the wrong direction. "People feel nothing gets done in Washington, that the hot air of summer has become a permanent condition," says Kenneth Duberstein, former White House chief of staff for Ronald Reagan.
The need for change is such a dominant theme that all the main presidential contenders are calling for an end to business as usual. The Democrats, trying to draw contrasts with the GOP White House of George W. Bush, are the most pointed. Front-runner Hillary Clinton says her experience as first lady and as a senator from New York enables her to bring more positive and effective change than her rivals. "She has represented change all her life," says Mark Penn, her chief strategist , "and she's been fighting the special interests all her life." Illinois Sen. Barack Obama goes further. "There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington," Obama says. "But the problem is the system in Washington isn't working for us, and it hasn't been for a very long time." And John Edwards told U.S. News: "Washington is severely broken. And I think the system is rigged, and I think it's rigged against the American people and it's rigged by powerful interests and their lobbyists in Washington."
The Republicans are more restrained in attacking Bush, the titular head of their party, but they realize that public resentment of the status quo runs deep. "When, every day, Americans are being shot and Iraqis are being blown up, it feels lousy," says former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "I happen to think that the failures in Iraq have a great deal to do with the wrong-track sentiment that exists in the country today."
Can't say no. Beyond Iraq, other reasons for public frustration with Washington include anxiety about job security, wage stagnation, retirement, and access to affordable healthcare—all situations that the White House and Congress have failed to improve. "Because the two parties are so evenly balanced, it's not possible for one party to pass its own agenda," says conservative strategist Grover Norquist. "When you've got a fifty-fifty balance, each team needs all its most motivated players and each team can't say no to its radical special interests."
Adding to the perception of an inept or uncaring federal government are public anger at waves of illegal immigrants, a furor over unsafe toys imported from China, continuing questions about food safety, and endless waits and deteriorating service in air travel. "People feel the deck is stacked against them, that the rules and regulations are written for the powerful," says David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist. "People feel abandoned."
That's not to say Americans are close to full-scale rebellion. Quite the opposite. "People would like government to work on the big problems facing the country" but do it more effectively and efficiently, says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin.
Americans have distrusted their central government going back to its founders. But anti-Washington sentiment seems to be on the upswing. A poll released in July by Republican Brian Tringali of the Tarrance Group and Democrat Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners found that a majority of Americans now believe most politicians are not trustworthy. About 71 percent believe their own member of Congress puts partisan politics ahead of constituent interests. That represents a worsening cynicism, because polls have consistently found up to now that most Americans held their own members of Congress in higher regard than they held Congress overall. "It's a warning to all the candidates that they have to straddle these two worlds: effectiveness and not being an insider," says Lake.
In another indication of the growing pessimism, 38 percent of Americans feel that their children will be worse off in the future, compared with a third who think their own children will be better off, a drop of 7 points in the positive assessments since January. Tringali says it would be "hard to overemphasize" how much of a change this is in a nation that has been known for its optimism.
Another factor adding to the cynicism is the generation gap. Polls show that many younger people think the baby boomers have had their day with little to show for it and it's time to elevate new leaders with fresh ideas. "People in their 20s and 30s say, 'You baby boomers had 25 years to solve these problems,'" says Mike McCurry, former White House press secretary for Bill Clinton. "'We're tired of the old ways of Washington and the tired old baby boomers.'" This notion of passing the torch to a new generation, reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, is being used as a principal theme by Obama.
What can be done? There are several theories being put forth by political strategists, academics, historians, and the candidates themselves:
A fresh start. Some experts believe a new president, who was trusted to do the right thing and would work with all sides on the major issues, could help Washington get its act together. "People have given up on Washington, at least until the next president takes over," says a senior Republican with close ties to Capitol Hill.
That is what the Democratic candidates are promising after two terms under a polarizing GOP president, during which Congress was mostly in Republican hands. Obama talks about the politics of hope. Clinton talks about the politics of experience. Edwards promotes the politics of anger. All promote the politics of change.
There is also the chance, however improbable, that Americans may turn to a third-party or independent presidential candidate. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considered the mostly likely possibility, even though he says he isn't running as of now. Bloomberg bills himself as an independent problem solver and, as a billionaire, someone who could finance his own campaign and wouldn't have any political IOUs.
A one-party takeover.If one party could convince the nation that it has the right answers, it could conceivably win working majorities in Congress and control the White House next year. Still, that party would have to show it could govern effectively in difficult times. Clinton is making the pitch that she has the experience to rehabilitate the system. She isn't calling for reconciliation, either. In a TV ad she has been running in Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton says she would fight strongly to improve healthcare and promises that she will "never back down."
On the Republican side, Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are making the same case. Both say they have the bona fides, as men who have led huge bureaucracies under adverse conditions, to move government in a better direction. But fellow GOP candidate Fred Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee and sometime actor, says he is a more reliable conservative who would bring about greater change.
Shifting power. Some policymakers and political theoreticians say the only way to transform the government is to push power back to the state level as much as possible. And indeed there is evidence that in recent years the states have improved vastly in their ability to move beyond partisanship and get things done. Perhaps the best example is in California, where Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has become a popular and effective leader by choosing compromise over confrontation with majority Democrats in the state Legislature on issues ranging from climate change to spending priorities. Others think the private enterprise route is the way to go. "The government only does one-size-fits-all, so it can't fix most problems," says strategist Norquist.
Historian Zelizer adds that the problems of stalemate and partisanship are so deeply rooted that it's unlikely the next president will be able to improve matters very much. "These are big issues," says Zelizer, "and to think that one person or one president can change it is wishful thinking."
Realistic or not, many Americans long for a shake-up. "That's part of what presidential elections are for," says political scientist William Galston, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, "to renew people's confidence that a clear agenda and competent leadership can catalyze action."
All in all, this zeitgeist of change could be the most important trend of all in next year's presidential election.
