WCMessenger.com: Politics often hinder solutions to problems

Most folks cling to what they know and resist change, probably because it represents things unknown and unfamiliar. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking and reaction often leads to the present condition of our nation and at almost every level of government - a state of rigid political philosophy with no give or take.

For the past half-century or so, Republicans (especially those seeking office) have been expected to be anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-environment. Conversely, Democratic candidates must assume stances of pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-gun, pro-tax and pro-environment.

The net result is that those in elective office - local, state or national - seemed to be trapped by whichever of these political philosophies they've embraced, particularly if most of their campaign financing came from people with those beliefs. What you often have is a stalemate with problems that beg solution because we've forgotten that government is supposed to be about solving problems for people. And, as distasteful as it may seem to those with such rigid political philosophies, compromise is often required to solve a problem. No, one shouldn't compromise on moral and ethical principles but so often the philosophical hang-ups block government from doing its job.

Plus, we get candidates who don't know which end is up. A personal favorite is someone running for state office that is going to cut and cap property taxes. The state doesn't have property taxes - cities, counties and school districts do. When state government caps local taxes then passes down mandates to do something that has to be paid for locally with tax money, well, you see where that's going. Education is the best overall example.

Many of us have known elected or appointed officials who have taken liberties within the scope of their position that seem unethical if not downright dishonest.

One example that comes to mind is that of a county commissioner (long since deceased) who was just plainly an outright thief. He did such things as turn in invoices to the county auditor for fence posts for road right-of-way, get the check, cash it and buy livestock with which to stock his substantial ranch.

But, propose the unit system - whereby a commissioners court is more like a board of supervisors where you have a "manager" or "engineer" directing and overseeing all road and bridge building and maintenance as well as pooling equipment and personnel (thus saving money) - and you get a lot of resistance from most commissioners and a significant segment of the public.

Texas county government's very structure and nature lends itself to abuse of the system. Granted, the general sophistication of today's electorate and the speed of communication, tends to ramp down the level of abuse or at least make the abusers slicker in their methods.

Any system can be abused. However, all this rigidity in political philosophy brings about gridlock and little progress toward problem solving.

It seems ironic to me that a couple of people who were at what you'd think was opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, seem to come up with the same basic solution.

One, Ronald Reagan, clung to that pretty rigid GOP philosophy that promotes smaller government. John Henry Faulk, a fine writer and a Constitutional scholar who was viewed by many as a liberal Democrat, said the best way to solve problems was with a block party. In other words, neighbors helping neighbors.

If that question were put to a national vote - less government with people helping people - you'd have to bet it would pass overwhelmingly.

No doubt each of us knows someone or several someones who believe in freedom of choice, anti-gay rights, pro-gun, anti-tax and pro-environment or any other number of mixtures of those basic philosophies. Ask them if they want problems solved that they can't solve individually or with a block party and you'd probably get a resounding "YES!" Yet, we get gridlock with no compromise and absolutely little in the way of solutions that help the most people.

Part of the problem is that the system makes it almost impossible for anyone to be nominated and elected except from the two major parties. Laws and campaign finance rules perpetuate the present system. One theory is that if we did away with all campaign finance laws and eliminated the restrictions that we'd still have two parties, they'd just be called Green and Libertarian instead of Democrat and Republican.

Perhaps that's far-fetched, but we should remember the intent of the founding fathers that government should find solutions to problems.

Willis Webb is a retired community editor-publisher of more than 50 years. He can be reached by e-mail at wwebb@wildblue.net.