The Great Mismatch

It is a general truism about American politics that two forces shape the country: market forces and the heritage bequethed by the founders. The founders play a significant role because they gave us the Constitution, and their words, specifically Hamilton's and Jefferson's, gave us the tools to interpret the Constitution. Thus, the history of the country has largely been a contest between Hamilton's emphasis on the need for a strong central government and Jefferson's emphasis on the need for states to have strong rights against the central government, and the need for limited government. Thus, the market should provide for citizens' needs first, and government last.

More important, the philosophy guiding the market is one of supply and demand. If there is a demand for a good, a supplier will arise to provide that good. Thus, the important historical areas of the country have been characterized by politicians who come to the rescue exactly when the country needs them. This starts with the first president, George Washington, the "Father of our nation"; continues with the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, who saved the union; then with Franklin Roosevelt (32nd president), who helped the country through both the Great Depression and World War II. In the post-World War II era, America has seen a number of so-called greats: President Johnson gave us the Great Society; President Reagan, the Great Communicator, gave us the end of the Cold War. Now, we come to the present time, which I call the Great Mismatch.

If every past era has produced nearly perfect leaders who responded to the needs of their time, our era has produced small leaders who are completely out of touch with the needs of our time. Our leaders are so small that they end up getting into colossal fights over irrelevant issues. We try to tell them which issues are important to us, yet they insist on looking the other way.

Take two examples: (1) the use of contractors to provide services that used to be provided by the federal government, and (2) Sen. Joe Biden's dismissive attitude of Sen. Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. In the first example, we see a mismatch between the requirements of waging 2 simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the use of contractors to do everything. The result is predictable: poor quality work, rampant waste, and lack of oversight by Congress or normal citizens through the Freedom of Information Act. In nearly every war that the United States has been involved, the size of the federal government has grown, taxes have risen, and there was a general sacrifice by the citizens to win the war. In contrast, during what the federal government calls the "war on terror", taxes have been lowered, the size of the volunteer army has remained the same, and federal government has allocated even essential services like intelligence and defense to contractors.

In the second example, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is probably one of the most articulate, if not the most articulate politician in the United States today. Obama is offering a remedy to our political culture that nearly everyone wants: unity instead of polarization, a willingness to work with the other side instead of demonize the other side, and, most important, a willingness to consider facts instead of ideology as a motivating factor in policy. Yet, Sen. Biden argues that Obama is just another flashy politician who lacks substance.

The United States does not need more expert politicians or policy wonks in government. We already have a very educated government that still can't seem to end what everyone considers to be a disaster, the Iraq war.
What the United States need more than anything else right now is vision: a vision of the nation that everyone can work toward, and a vision of the world that our allies can help us implement. Over the past decade, we have either had fear and paranoia, or a complete absence of vision. When politicians like Barack Obama or John Edwards start to offer vision, it's time for us to listen.