In politics as in other areas of "news," the last few days of the year are often a period when not much is going on, and the media are hard-put to fill their space. That's probably how the Washington Post came to feature a story about freshman Congressman Mike Kelly on its front page a couple of days ago.
It is nevertheless an interesting piece that tells us a lot about the continual waves of political change that erode the cliffs of entrenched incumbency. Such change is one of the strengths of our system. Kelly represents in microcosm two conflicting trends in our politics: Change is possible, and possibly constructive; but outsiders usually have to become insiders -- i.e. to understand their new environment -- to make it happen.
Kelly comes to Washington on a mission to "fix" it. That's a sentiment that many in his home district and in the country, might agree with -- even across party lines. He hopes to apply his business acumen to making the government run better. Good, but the test of his success will be how quickly he grasps the fundamental differences between running a small business (which is a big business in his home town) and making a government work.
Business lessons can be applied in government with good effect (the example of businessman-turned-Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is instructive). It helps a lot, though, if the businessman in question recognizes early on that he is no longer responsible only to himself; no one elected him to run his automobile dealership. Kelly's initial formula for his political debut is for government to "kill more than it eats." This sounds like a plan for raising taxes, which clearly isn't what he means (in fact he really means to suggest that government must do with less).
More to the point, though, it suggests that so far, he hasn't grasped the essence of his new environment. In business, "killing more than you eat" is not a bad trope and is applied to customers and competitors equally; but it's rare (not to mention erroneous and politically suicidal) for a politician to consider his constituents, his country, or its resources as game on the hoof. If the government hunts, it does so not to "feed" itself but to feed the people - the same ones who constantly demand food, and who are also the game in Kelly's analogy.
Second, business has a potential to offer creative, practical solutions to problems but it doesn't have all the answers. Kelly comes to Washington blaming the government for the near-loss of his Cadillac dealership in Butler, Pennsylvania (he also sells Chevrolets). Wrong! The government made it possible for a badly led business (GM) to restructure itself while blaming the government for changes; the changes may or may not rescue GM from its own folly, but had the restructuring not taken place, Kelly's GM dealership would very likely have been worth near nothing a few short years hence.
I wish Mr. Kelly well in his quest to fix Washington, because he sounds as if he might be a moderate pragmatist if he masters his orientation lessons. As for cutting back, perhaps he would like to begin by rejecting the "government-issued" Blackberry he's been given. I personally was surprised at the revelation (if true) that Congressmen are provided these toys at government expense.
In my own government service, before blackberries ceased being a fruit, it was strongly and officially urged that I acquire a cell phone so I could be contacted 24/7 about, and respond to, anything from crises to routine questions within my purview. The government specifically declined to pay for that service, however, even though I felt no need for a cell phone for personal use.
Comments