|
Three
Cheers for Partisanship
Cutting
a "bipartisan" agreement on tax
restructuring is just a ploy to keep the issue away
from the voters. We should stake out partisan
positions -- and then let the voters decide.
The
usual chorus of liberals has been singing the
refrain that the tax reform debate shouldn’t
become partisan. Heaven help us if the parties stake
out differing positions on a serious issue!
The
word “partisan” has become a pejorative. That's
unfortunate because partisanship is essential to the
proper functioning of our political system.
The
Founders worried about the danger of “faction.”
Their idealism led them to believe that elected
officials should focus on the interest of the
country and not divide into parties.
Jefferson
and Madison quickly learned, however, that political
parties are necessary. In every society, there are
inevitable differences of opinion over what is in
the nation’s best interest. The Jeffersonians
believed that political parties should organize
around these fundamental differences.
The
voters would be disserved by a bipartisan agreement
to refrain from public debate on an issue as
controversial as tax reform. Candidates should be
pressed to declare their position. The two parties
should also have a stand.
Elections
are the principal linkage between voters and their
government. To have any semblance of control over
the government’s direction, voters must have a
choice on election day.
Politicians
have an obligation to lay out where they stand when
they run for office and to honor their campaign
positions once they are elected. That is a predicate
to political accountability.
Jefferson
understood that good governance requires more than
well-intentioned legislators acting essentially on
their own. He organized an effective legislative
caucus of like-minded members of Congress to advance
a policy agenda. Without this disciplined approach,
Jefferson might never have implemented his agenda.
If
nothing else, opposing political parties keep each
other honest. Again, according to Jefferson:
“Perhaps this party division is necessary to
induce each other to watch and to relate to the
people at large the proceedings of the other.”
It
is inconceivable that the voters would not be given
a voice in the decision to rewrite Virginia’s tax
laws. This is a matter of vital interest to every
Virginian. A comprehensive tax reform would
significantly affect the role of state government
for decades.
The
likelihood that tax reform might lead to an increase
in state revenues gives the matter an even greater
importance. Seldom has an election year had more at
stake than this one. But where is the thoughtful
debate?
Some
interest groups actually discourage candidates from
engaging in public discussion about taxes knowing
that voters are generally not inclined to support
higher taxes. These groups believe they have better
luck lobbying legislators behind the scenes to vote
for tax increases.
This
cynical view of politics is corrosive. A government
that does not enjoy the assent of the governed is
not a true republic. How can voters assent when
candidates and parties refuse to give them a choice?
Virginians
entered this election year already distrustful of
the government in Richmond. Gov. Mark R. Warner and
several leaders in the General Assembly have
heightened this distrust by their refusal to play
straight with the voters. Warner announced this
spring that several key Republican legislators had
privately assured him that they would support tax
reform without revenue-neutrality but would not
publicly declare their position before Election Day.
It
is time for the leaders of both parties to assure an
honest debate on taxes.
-- July
28, 2003
|
