Government is a core pillar of society. When choosing our leaders, there is a lot to unpack, and this column is intended to help readers do just that before election day.
I still have an email in my inbox from the Colorado High School Athletic Association (CHSAA) responding to my inquiry about becoming a high school sports referee. I thought that with a couple decades of politics under my belt, I might have thick enough skin to tolerate parents shouting over each other, and at me. I’m always amazed at how loving, reasonable parents can be transformed into angry, unreasonable fans so quickly. They might get along great off the court, but as soon as they put on the jersey, it’s us versus them.
Unfortunately, the same has become true for members of Congress and the political party loyalists. They simply can’t see beyond the D or the R. My observation is that most Americans simply want to unpack from the rhetoric what really matters — political party favoritism be damned. But technocrats try to make the world too complicated to understand, and populists try to make the world too simple to function.
My sense is, if we simply got a little curious about the challenges we face, we might learn something. So, I thought I’d indulge my curiosity here …
Is government the problem or the solution?
All of us could probably cite examples of both. The fact that no one, including the government’s own auditors, can say with confidence that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in any net-savings, certainly calls into question the claims of rampant fraud, waste and abuse. But it doesn’t mean that our government, at all levels, couldn’t use a big dose of innovation and inspiration to break the bureaucratic log jam that plagues many federal, state and even some local agencies.
Can we be strategic about making government work well, instead of trying to hack it up with a chainsaw? Can we agree that the government’s role is to protect individual freedoms, rather than restrict them whenever the party in power gets a bee in their bonnet?
When did we achieve equality in America?
I have yet to hear a good answer to this one. Our society is fundamentally unequal in deep ways, but some see that inequality in the form of systemic racism and sexism, and some see “identity politics” as an over-correction that attempts to concentrate power in group identity instead of individual rights. That isn’t liberal democracy, and doing so has only marginalized more groups.
Is it possible that the things we have tried to change (e.g. racism) are real, even though what we tried (e.g. DEI) has failed to bring true equality? Can we fulfill Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to not judge by color of skin (or a host of other subjective traits) but by content of character?
What does functional immigration look like?
America was founded as a nation of immigrants and it’s indisputable that we all have benefitted enormously from the immigrants who have preceded us. And it’s hard to imagine a future of economic prosperity for younger generations without a functional immigration policy.
The pundits would have us believe that there are only two views: those who want open borders, and those who think that white people are genetically and culturally superior and therefore should rule the roost. We are learning the hard way that immigration policy is tricky anyway you slice it.
Is it reasonable to be concerned about large-scale, rapid demographic change (a tripling of foreign-born residents in my lifetime), without punishing an inherently and uniquely pluralistic country with cruelty and lawlessness?
What does ‘America First’ really mean?
For decades it has meant “America for all.” For some it means “America alone,” and for others it means “America the bully.”
For more reasons than one, we now have no choice but to scale back our global presence and prioritize domestic affairs. I’ll be the first to admit that no other country is better suited to be a global leader, but can America stop trying to be all things to all nations, while still demonstrating respected international leadership?
Would we rather buy things, or make things?
Free trade agreements from the ‘90s ushered in a new-world order of consumerism, converting the world’s most industrious people into its most loyal shoppers. China and corporate America made out like bandits, while we consumers grew our addictions to the cheap, sweet and tweet.
Making things again in America is a worthy goal, but if we can’t commit to new policies that truly support a working class, at work and at home, then we better start teaching more Chinese language courses.
The questions above only scratch the surface of the conundrums we face, and I’m optimistic that as a society we are up to the challenge. But we’ll either need to be willing to face these conflicts with curiosity in hopes of finding some common ground, or we’ll need some pretty skilled referees to manage the D’s and R’s childish antics. As for me, I’m not ready for any jersey yet, including the striped one!