What the Ryan-Murray budget deal really means

The Ryan-Murray budget deal reflects an approach that some states are trying with new political structures that force leaders to compromise, not on principles but on ideology.

AP Photo
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R) of Wis.,and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D) of Wash., announce a tentative agreement on a government spending plan Dec. 10. Negotiators reached the modest budget agreement to restore about $65 billion in automatic spending cuts from programs ranging from parks to the Pentagon.

The latest budget deal in Washington teaches at least one lesson about a key virtue of constitutional democracy: To balance conflicting ideas, elected leaders must first build up trust between a small group of people who can then come up with a moderate agreement that tempers the excesses of each side.

That lesson has been elusive in the American capital. For years, politicians have sought a “grand bargain” that would trade tax increases for entitlement cuts. When the brinkmanship of hardened ideologies finally led to a long government shutdown in October, wiser heads looked to two lesser-known leaders of Congress, Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin and Sen. Patty Murray (D) of Washington State. The two budget chairs set about quietly finding a modest middle ground that would fund the federal government for the next two fiscal years.

The details of their agreement matter less than the political lesson: Government must be restructured to force leaders to negotiate with trust, seek incremental progress, and weave differing values into a compromise for the common good.

Americans should not expect much restructuring from Washington anytime soon, however. Its political class of incumbents thrives on gerrymandered districts, primaries that rely on ideological voters, and powerful, monied special interests. Rather, smaller levels of government must create new ways to push politicians into negotiating with the virtues similar to those that led to the Ryan-Murray deal.

A few states have taken the process of redistricting legislative seats every 10 years out of the hands of elected leaders and given the responsibility to independent groups. Others have restrained the level of money in politics. But perhaps the most interesting experiment lies in new ways to hold state-run primaries.

California, Washington, and, to a degree, Louisiana, have primary elections in which voters can select a candidate of any party on the ballot. The top two primary winners – no matter what their party – then face off in the general election. In many cases, the final vote pits a liberal Democrat against a conservative Democrat, or a conservative Republican against a liberal Republican.

This “top two” method can have one big effect: It pushes candidates to appeal to independents and the moderates of an opposing party. Any party dominated by narrow interests may not do well.

Once in office, a politician who seeks reelection would be more willing to forge coalitions across party lines, hoping to define a middle ground through give-and-take rather than play to a small wing of a party with disproportional influence in a primary.

In California, which began using “top two” primaries in 2012, the effect of the new system has been most noticeable. The state has had 28 races in which the top two candidates were of the same party. And many incumbents either lost or decided not to run.

Nonpartisan election primaries are not perfect. Wealthy candidates might tend to dominate. Small parties built around a single issue would not do well. Voters would need to do their homework on candidates rather than “vote the party.” Some analysts prefer that the top four instead of top two vote-getters in an open primary be allowed to run in the general election.

Still, states need to start fixing American politics piece by piece. They serve as laboratories for experiments in different styles of governance.

For elected leaders, reaching across party lines can sometimes require a compromise of ideology but not necessarily of principles. As analyst George Friedman of the Stratfor think tank recently wrote:

“There is a vast difference between principle and ideology. Principles are core values that do not dictate every action on every subject, but guide you in some way. Ideology as an explanation of how the world works is comprehensive and compelling. Most presidents find that governing requires principles, but won’t allow ideology. But it is the senators and particularly the congressmen – who run in districts where perhaps 20 percent of eligible voters vote in primaries, most of them ideologues – who are forced away from principle and toward ideology.”

The Ryan-Murray deal was achieved in that spirit of principled compromise. But it is in the states now experimenting with new political structures that may eventually lead Washington to change its ways.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.