Stanford Social Innovation Review

Stanford Social Innovation Review is an award-winning magazine covering best strategies for nonprofits, foundations, and socially responsible businesses. Published quarterly by the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Subscriber Login



Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?
Obtain a login

RSS Feed

Related Opinions

Browse by Categories

The Extreme Cost of Extreme Politics

Other articles on: •  • 
Posted: October 14, 2008 12:08 PM
Author: Mario Morino

I don’t know about you, but this election is killing me. I’m not exactly a rose-colored glasses guy, but I genuinely thought that the matchup of Senators McCain and Obama had the chance of bringing back a semblance of civility to our presidential elections and politics in America. Instead, this election has evolved into the most hateful and divisive of my adult lifetime, ultimately threatening the very governance of our nation.

This political circus is horrible for America at this time of economic crisis. It will adversely impact our middle-class families and be particularly devastating for the children and families in poorer, working-class communities. As if these families were not being hit hard enough by record home foreclosures, massive layoffs, falling wages, and surging food and gas prices, I fear that what’s in store is going to be worse.

And, I’m not even talking about the meltdown of our banking system. My greatest concern is that extreme partisanship deprives our next president of the ability to address a core fiscal challenge that is as daunting and politically sensitive as the rescue of America’s banking system, if not more so. Both the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office (GAO) project that mandatory spending—the wonky term for big-ticket items like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt—are on course to exhaust all federal revenue within a generation. In the surprisingly stark words of a GAO forecast released this summer, “absent significant changes on the spending or revenue sides of the budget or both,” the government will be able to do “nothing more than pay interest on its debt and mail checks to retirees and some of their health providers.”

Think about what this looming crisis will mean for children and families. If we don’t alter our fiscal course now, we will take away the very essence of the American promise—that all children, regardless of background, have the opportunity to rise as far as their passions and talents will take them.

The federal government will not have a dime for helping improve public schools, for early childhood education, or college scholarships. Not a dime for Food Stamps, for nutritional support for women and infant children, or for protecting children from abuse. Not a dime for helping working families secure stable housing and reliable health coverage.

After a 30-year career in business, with 14 more years of working full-time as a philanthropist and advocate for social change, I am convinced that nothing else we do for children and families will matter if we don’t address this budget crisis—and that extreme partisanship is the greatest impediment to solutions. Without thoughtful discussion and debate, America’s charitable community and the families it serves will be left gasping for air. If ever there were a time for mavericks of both parties to come forward and set aside narrow political interests for the national interest, it’s now.

I’m going to put my money where my mouth is. This ugly political season has convinced my wife and me to apply a new test before we offer any more support to political candidates with our personal funds. From this moment on, a key litmus test for our supporting any candidate will be this: Does the candidate have a demonstrated track record of working with decision-makers of the other party and steering clear of the vitriolic politics tearing away the soul of our nation?

If you make campaign contributions—whether it’s $5 or far more—I encourage you to reward candidates and public servants when they put our nation ahead of party. And come down hard when they do not.

Even more important, do the same when you enter the voting booth. Vote for those who level with us about our budget realities and who will reach across the aisle to find solutions.

True leaders lead by example. Just imagine what would happen if, on January 20, our new president were to announce in his inaugural address that he and his competitor had joined forces to help find the common ground necessary to confront our budget crisis and implored their respective constituencies to do the same.

There’s no exact precedent for taking such a daring step, but bitter rivals almost always find ways of quickly putting aside grievances after bruising primary battles. And remember that two recent presidents who once despised each other, Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, successfully joined forces not long after their terms in office to assist victims of the Asian tsunami and Gulf Coast hurricanes. It can be done.

If Senators McCain and Obama were to team up even in a modest way on day one, imagine the tone that would set. Whether the call came in the form of soaring rhetoric or unadorned straight talk, imagine how much easier it would be for us all to summon our better angels and sacrifice for the common good.


imageMario Morino, a former software entrepreneur, is the chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners, based in Washington, DC.

Chat Bubble Comment

Dear marrio,

This is a great letter that puts the stark reality no candidate is stating publicly. Neither the Rove-ian nor the Pelosi-an models will work. We desperately need the political leadership that will bring all of the resources of this country to bear on these enormous problems.

The one thing the current financil melt-down has made clear is that big problems don’t just go away; they get worse and worse and eventualyy pop unless conceerted action is taken.

Having made the mistakes with the current banking and asset exposion we just can’t let the same thing happen with the really big issues- social security and medicare because if not addressed and solved these problems wiull make our current dilemmas pale by comparison.

Jim Ratner

»» Posted by: James Ratner on October 15, 2008 11:16 AM

Chat Bubble Comment

I agree, we are on an island of diminishing viability and the fight is over which candidate and party will make it more comfortable by providing bread and circus.  Time to find ways back to the mainland of our deeper origins. 
Paul Schervish

»» Posted by: Paul Schervish on October 16, 2008 07:16 AM

Chat Bubble Comment

Hi Mario,

You make great points and this is probably the most “straight talk” many of us have heard since the start of the campaigns.  It is shameful that these critical resources will not exist.  How about the even lower functioning schools, increases in crime, health issues etc. we will experience because our federal government is out of funds.  I agree that there is no time for partisanship in this climate.  The Party is Over.....

Thanks for sharing.

»» Posted by: Glen O'Gilvie on October 16, 2008 08:25 AM

Chat Bubble Comment

Mario:

Great piece.  I would add one additional cost for consideration:  Extreme Politics (aka “The Politics of Personal Destruction") produces as a form of collateral damage a dirth of good people willing to enter public life.  As a result, our fields of candidates are extremely limited.  Many extremely well qualified people simply do not want to subject themselves and their families to the abuses the system subjects them to.  On the other hand, many less-than-desirable candidates appear for all the wrong reasons, as evidenced by the plethora of ethics violations and criminal behavior that we have seen in recent years.  This collateral damage is one of the highest costs to the nation resulting from extreme politics.

»» Posted by: Alan Salisbury on October 16, 2008 08:41 AM

Chat Bubble Comment

Mario,
At a dinner meeting recently, Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) gave an impassioned talk about the issues you address in this article. He and Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) have introduced HR-3654 which, if passed, would establish a bipartisan Commission to make recommendations to restore fiscal balance. The Commission would make recommendations which would be presented to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote. This approach is the one used to achieve military base closings by forcing Congress to vote yes or no, and it worked. Over 100 Congress persons have signed on to the bill, but it is not moving.
The acronym SAFE is being used as a “grabber” for the proposal. This stands for Securing America’s Future Economy.
The elements of the proposal are (1) a bipartisan 16 member Commision, (2) all spending and tax policies will be on the table for discussion, (3) public hearings will be held across the country to hear from the American people, and (4) Congress will be REQUIRED to vote up or down on the SAFE Commission’s recommendations.
This approach worked for base closings, and it can work again. Spending on the three largest mandatory spending or entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) plus interest on the national will consume all (ALL) of the government’s revenue by 2026. Something MUST be done to restore fiscal balance.
To learn more about the SAFE Commission, go to wolf.house.gov/SAFE. If you like what you see there, spread the word.
The time to act is now.

»» Posted by: Earle Williams on October 16, 2008 11:58 AM

Chat Bubble Comment

I understand and empathize with the frustration voiced here and applaud your putting your money where your mouth is.  But I’m unconvinced.

Your approach endorses bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake, assuming that if everyone just put their differences aside, we could really get stuff done.  Those differences, however, matter.  McCain and Obama, their advisors and surrogates, and their political allies disagree on some of the most important issues of our day - the economy, national security, human rights, you name it.  People don’t get into politics to just put that stuff aside.  They get into politics to fight for it. 

If reaching across the aisle helps you achieve your goals, by and large, you do it, but you don’t reach across the aisle just to make people feel better about the tone of our politics.  The stakes are high, and so are our differences.  It will get ugly sometimes.  But that’s democracy.

As Tocqueville said, “Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy.”

»» Posted by: K on October 16, 2008 01:00 PM

Chat Bubble Comment

I agree with some of your comments. However, the economic mess that the U.S. is facing not only involves the current administration, but much of the blame lies at the doors of Congress, both the House and Senate. This includes the current members of Congress and the members of Congress who served during the Clinton and Carter administrations. Added to this problem is the greed of top executives who serve and/or have served a leaders in many of the corporations which have been identified as contributors to the sub-prime home loan problems. Neither Obama or McCain can solve the current crisis alone, it will take a combined effort of the public and private sector to unite in a unified common cause in addressing our economic crisis, including the challenges currently faced by elementary, secondary, and higher educational institutions. What we need now is a president who has the courage to lead the nation in resolving the current economic problems, one who is truly a representative of the people and not just special interest groups.

»» Posted by: Ray Beckett on October 16, 2008 01:43 PM

Chat Bubble Comment

Mario:

Thanks for the very thoughtful comments. I agree with your recommendations, though I’m not sure they will do the trick. Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it’s largely irrelevant to a growing share of the population for whom the two-party system is of no interest. For these folks, and they are many, the traditional role of parties has been preempted by media—not primarily the newspapers and the networks, but cable, talk shows, blogs, etc. It seems to me that these are the forces that are driving opinion formation for more and more people, and political leaders need to develop skills and vocabulary that will reach them.

Yet bipartisanship remains important if only because Congress runs on a party system, and Congress is key to making the changes you suggest are needed. So we have a dilemma: How can we use a bipartisan approach to modify the outcomes of a partisan legislative process? It seems to me that we need a generation of legislators willing to jeopardize their Congressional tenure in the interest of achieving a fundamental retooling of the way we define and underwrite the role of government. Maybe the folks at the Kennedy School who offer the program for newly elected members of Congress might think about how their curriculum could help this happen.

Thanks for starting a dialogue on this.///Dick Baznik

»» Posted by: Richard Baznik on October 16, 2008 01:55 PM

Chat Bubble Comment

Marion,

You make good sense here. 

I agree.

But I wonder what role philanthropy could play in helping find road maps out of this mess. I think back to how foundations played such a decisive and forceful role in the civil rights movement of the 60’s. Where are the foundation leaders now to help address this challenge of steadily increasing separation and hardening partisanship on both sides?

Thanks again.

Peter

»» Posted by: sail on October 16, 2008 04:16 PM

Chat Bubble Comment

A belated thanks to those of you who read my October 14 posting. What a great forum SSIR has created. I’ve put together some additional views in response to your thought-provoking comments.

I was gratified to see in these responses and in many others I received via email that my overarching point—regardless of who wins on November 4 (or by how much), our elected and other leaders have to find a more effective and civil way to work together, with less collateral damage—resonated with most readers.

I want to start by commenting on the insightful “push back” by “K.” This commenter correctly noted that “bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake” is not in and of itself of any consequence.  He or she refers to one of my own favorite sources, Tocqueville, with this quote: “Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy.”

I couldn’t agree more.  The goal is not bipartisanship; it is finding ways to effectively work together to advance our nation and break the shackles of political parties and extremism to realize we have a common fight—for our very future and, more importantly, that of our children.

Even before the banking and credit crisis, this country was facing a major challenge to our global leadership—the greatest challenge in my lifetime.  We have to pull out every stop if we are to ensure our competitiveness and maintain our global position—from finding ways to stimulate greater innovation, to slow the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and expand access to the 45+ million who lack health coverage to make the massive investment (public and private) essential to rebuild an aging infrastructure and achieve energy independence.  We MUST have healthy debate and constructive conflict to push us to the best solutions, yet we can’t afford vitriolic, scorched-earth tactics. These approaches can only yield temporary and partial solutions. 

To illustrate that what I’m suggesting goes beyond a naïve call for bipartisanship, I point you to the posting by Earle Williams, whom I know and greatly respect.  I can’t speak specifically to the bill he cites (HR 3654), but I can commend the process he lays out.  Disagreeing is fine; it is expected. Different viewpoints are not only good; they are essential.  Yet we have to find ways to come together at some point with a reasonable outcome and positive action that makes a good difference.

Alan Salisbury made an astute addition, noting that another huge cost of extreme politics is the repellent effect it has on talented people who might otherwise seek public office. I fully agree. The Partnership for Public Service (http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/) would tell you that the repellent effect is also a huge problem when it comes to recruiting talented people for all types of public-service positions—not just elected offices.

As Richard Baznik noted, “Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it’s largely irrelevant to a growing share of the population for whom the two-party system is of no interest.” I couldn’t agree more. I’ve heard from many people—including a good number who have contributed significantly to party coffers over the years—who are fed up with both major parties and party politics in general.  And it is my own bet that when we drop the party shackles and exclude the far extremes of the left and right, we will find more common ground and greater opportunity for a shared purpose.

A posting by Peter states, “I wonder what role philanthropy could play in helping find road maps out of this mess?” I am not smart enough to know the solution.  But I do believe philanthropy has to step up as a vital voice, even a countervailing voice, to challenge our political system to rise to the expectation that we can re-establish civil debate and deliberation, the very basis of our democracy. One example is the Hewlett Foundation’s work to bring together traditionally competing political interests to address critically important energy and environment issues. Another is the Aspen Institute’s esteemed Congressional Program (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.612053/k.6DA1/Congressional_Program.htm).

Keep the comments (both pro and con) coming. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what’s already working to foster dialogue, deliberation, and good decisions on important national and global challenges.

Mario

»» Posted by: Mario Morino on October 21, 2008 10:42 AM

Chat Bubble Post a Comment

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Please enter the word you see in the image below: