On a slow news day before a holiday weekend, I am thinking more about broad questions of history than I am about the news. Two questions in particular have been occupying me over the last few days:
Has Grand Ideological Struggle Ended In the West? Over the past month, I have argued that the actual ideological differences between left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans are surprisingly minimal when it comes to the economy. That phenomenon is not just limited to the United States, however. Public spending as a percentage of GDP in wealthy democracies has been stagnant for over 25 years now, according to the OECD (PDF, page 4). This surprising lack of policy change across Western Europe, North America and Japan is enough to make one consider Francis Fukyama's Last Man and the End of History thesis might be correct, at least within the context of OECD nations.
While it is fairly obvious that grand ideological struggle and political turmoil continues in most of the world, and that the outcome of those struggles are far from clear, it also seems that liberal democracy with public spending at 35-55% of GDP has proven itself to be the most stable form of government instituted within the past 250 years. No OECD government has been overthrown in the past 50 years or more, either. As such, while there is no guarantee at all that this is the "final form of human government" for the entire world, or even for most of it, it does appear exceedingly unlikely that this form of government will be replaced within the wealthy countries where it currently has taken root. So, my first question is, was Fukuyama right, at least when looking at OECD countries?
If we don't pass health care and climate change in 2009, is there any chance of passing them later on? It seems unlikely to me that the current legislative battles we are facing over reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing health care investment will be re-opened at any point in the Obama administration if they are defeated in 2009. Examples from previous administrations suggest as much. After the Clinton attempt at health care reform was defeated in 1994, it was not reopened during the next six years of his presidency. Much the same happened to Bush on Social Security, which he never re-opened after mid-2005. Even the Democratic Congress never really bothered to reopen the Iraq fight after they were defeated on it back in May of 2007.
When a President or new Congress loses on a big legislative fight, it is highly unlikely that he / they will ever accrue enough new political power to win on that same fight at a later date. Members of Congress who withstood the first push for the legislation in question are not likely to be swayed during the second push. Also, specific to President Obama, it is unlikely that he will ever have as high approval ratings and as much political capital as he has right now. Further, it is unlikely that the Democratic majority in Congress will increase beyond current levels in any significant way--especially if we are defeated on health care. Without big new legislation, we are close to maxing out..
As such, my second question is whether or not 2009 will be the apex of legislative activity under the Obama administration and the Democratic trifecta. Are this summer's legislative fights over health care and climate change our one and only chance to pass meaningful reform in those areas for another 10-15 years? I think it might be, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Those are the two big questions I am contemplating today. In addition to hearing your thoughts on these questions, I would like to know what "big questions" are occupying your mind.
