COMMENTARY: Government Or Governance?

FAYETTEVILLE — A central issue in the current political tumult would appear to be the role of government in our society.

Is it really government that is the issue or is it governance?

In considering this question, let’s be clear on some basic points: There is considerable - if not always wellfounded - discontent with government, and there’s no doubt that government is over-sized and federal spending has been out of control.

Much of the present discontent, however, is directed at a president who currently lacks broad public confidence. And, in this year of congressional elections, Congress ranks even lower than President Obama with the public.

Considering the low standing of the presidency and Congress, it is not surprising that disdain for government is said to be widespread. Yes, the president and Congress are government, at least the elected part of it. But is what we are seeing actually dissatisfaction with governance - the perceived performance of elected leaders?

So what about that performance? Ironically, President Obama can point to major achievements in his first 18 months in office: health care, financial regulation, a stimulus package. Yet, a highly contentious Congress, where Republicans have acted as a mostly monolithic bloc, has Washington looking like a battleground where no one really wins. Just this week, it took every Democrat but one in the Senate to break a filibuster extending unemployment benefits, overriding Republican objections that the costs would add to the federal deficit.

Underlying these problems are the nation’s continuing economic woes, and in various ways the government and those in governance positions are held accountable.

This is certainly a factor influencing the public discontent, including that which began to be manifested a year ago in the tempestuous townhall meetings and has continued through the tea-party movement, much of which has been characterized as antigovernment.

However, many of the issues which inspired these protests weren’t new, even if the Obama administration was.

Yes, there had been some criticism of the profligate policies and actions of the previous administration, but most of that came from Democrats. As conservative guru Richard Viguerie reminds us, most conservative leaders and organizations “were silent when George W. Bush and congressional Republicans were expanding government at a record-breaking pace.” And little is heard today about the way the Bush administration ran the war in Iraq on an open tab, and how much that contributed to our budgetary dilemma.

There are plenty of reasons for concern about our governmental Goliath. National security is obviously a centraland vital government responsibility. However, those truly concerned about “big government” and big spending might turn their attention to the exorbitant expenditures and the privatization of national security work, as reported in the Washington Post’s investigative series, “Top Secret America.” Redundancy doesn’t begin to describe the situation. No one knows the costs nor the number of employees. But much of the gusher of money has gone to the nearly 2,000 companies that work on top-secret contracts.

Many in today’s “antigovernment” crowd bemoan the enhanced government role they see resulting, for example, from financial regulation legislation. However, a major factor leading to today’s economic mess was the weak or non-existent regulation that prevailed earlier in this decade.

Remember Bernie Madoff? Lehman Brothers? Enron?

AIG? Derivatives and all the excesses that led to the financial crisis?

Reaction to the Gulf oil spill exemplifies the ambivalence that many have toward government.

Clearly there was inadequate oversight of offshore drilling. And the massive spill reminds us why we need regulations and look to government in times of crisis. Indeed, the Obama administration’s seemingly faltering response - though it was never clear exactly what the president could do - further weakened his favorability rating.

Political point-scoring too often takes precedence over real national interests and problem solving. And if we are going to see serious progress toward deficit reduction, it will require nonpartisan effort.

Meanwhile, some of those fanning the flames of the anti-government - or, more correctly, antigovernance sentiments - may not be able to douse the fire. Few want to see a government without Social Security or Medicare, but privatizing Social Security, abandoning safety-net programs, and withdrawing from the United Nations are among the positions advocated by some prominent figures in the Tea Party and other activist groups.

Active involvement in politics is important and there’s definitely room for passionate participation.

However, it is important for citizens to be well informed and not settle for simplistic slogans or decoy targets.

The reality is that much of what propels these “anti-government” forces is opposition to those, Obama in particular, who are in governance positions.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.