Putting People First
Choosing good governance over cult governance
Welcome to the Civic Way journal, our quick take on the relevance of breaking news to America’s future governance. The author, Bob Melville, is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience improving public agencies.
Political slogans like “Put America First” are fool’s gold. More often than not they translate to something much closer to “Put Winning First.”
Too many elected officials govern with both eyes on winning the next election. And today that often means putting ideology first. In states or cities where ideological voters dominate primaries, officials feel constant pressure to pass ideological litmus tests, to keep their friends happy (or fired up).
The result? Cult governance, an unfortunate byproduct of “Put Winning First.” An approach to governance that features political theater. Delivering slogans, not services. Serving the few at the expense of the many.
And it works, so long as enough voters buy it.
Regardless of the form it takes, whether “woke” governance on the left or “rapture” governance on the right, cult governance can be liberating for politicians. It gives license to dodge debates and ignore problems. It frees leaders to focus on political stunts instead of managing budgets and serving people.
What is “woke” governance? It is more than smug eye-rolling or using pompous phrases like “communities of color.” It is about choosing left-wing orthodoxy over good governance.
Vice President Kamala Harris, while Senator, asked a federal judgeship nominee (and a long-time member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic charity), “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined?” Another Senator asked, “Do you intend to end your membership … to avoid any appearance of bias?” They did not ask the nominee if he intended to stop being a Catholic, but one could sense the presence of “wokeness.”
When local leaders promise to “defund” or “abolish” the police, they elevate ideology above common sense—and their constituents. When the Chicago Teachers Union tweeted, “the push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny,” it ignored state data about the impact of school closures on learning, especially for minority students. When the San Francisco School Board tried to rename schools like Abraham Lincoln High School, it seemed to forget its core mission.
What is “rapture” governance? It can be signaled by empty slogans like "take our country back" or calling Democrats “socialists.” It is really about enforcing right-wing orthodoxy. In a way, it is the flip side of “woke governance,” but with fire and brimstone—and better messaging.
In many states dominated by the Republican Party, “rapture” governance is producing a rash of dogmatic deeds. Resisting public health measures. Banning abortions. Shaming transgender people. Whitewashing history and censoring books. Overturning elections.
In Florida, Governor DeSantis personifies “rapture” governance. When the Disney Corporation condemned his "Don't Say Gay" bill, DeSantis revoked a 55-year-old law providing for the efficient governance of Disney World. Without any serious analysis, he dissolved the resort’s 25,000-acre special tax district. In doing so, he dismissed economic concerns (Disney employs 80,000 workers and generates $5.8 billion annually) and increased the prospects of higher county property taxes.
In Texas, Governor Abbott, in a ham-fisted stunt to burnish his right-wing credentials, imposed an extra mechanical inspection on commercial trucks crossing the Mexican border (only federal Customs and Border Protection agents can inspect trucks for drugs and illegal immigrants). The scheme has yielded huge delays, produce losses and business damages without catching one illegal immigrant or drug shipment. One more illustration of the costs of “rapture” governance.
The problem with cult governance—whether “woke” or “rapture” governance—is not ideology. Elected officials should have some discretion to pursue ideological goals. After all, it was ideology (if not idealism) that spurred many to enter the public arena in the first place.
The real problem with cult governance is one of blinders. Promoting ideologies can be healthy, but only to the extent good governance is ensured. And, more often than not, good governance requires actions that may be incompatible with cult governance, like listening to and compromising with those with very different views. Good governance cannot be ensured until the blinders come off.
Putting people first, not just one party or one group of voters or donors, must be every elected official’s primary credo. Politicians, regardless of party or ideology, must move beyond the lazy (but politically powerful) practice of inflaming their core voters. They must do more than blame their foes for problems, they must try to fix those problems.
And voters should reject cult governance. Instead, they should demand better governance. Like the voters of San Francisco who recalled officials who put ideology above children. Like the voters of Ohio who overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to make the state’s redistricting process less partisan. Voters should expect good governance no matter which party prevails.
To paraphrase former New York mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, there’s no Republican or Democratic way—or liberal or conservative way, for that matter—to pick up the garbage.