Breaking gridlock requires systemic changes

To make Congress and the Legislature work, the parties and institutions that have failed us need to relinquish some of their power

Yesterday, columnist Gary Conkling wrote about the extreme partisanship that has led to a Republican walkout and virtual shutdown of Oregon’s legislative session and to dangerous debt-ceiling brinkmanship in Congress that was temporarily resolved last week.

I agree with his description of the facts and circumstances that led us down this dead-end path, so I’ll focus my column on detailed descriptions of possible paths forward.

A more libertarian approach to culture-war issues

Though Oregon Republicans are unhappy about many things, the issue that appears to be the leading cause of the walkout by Republican senators (and one independent) is House Bill 2002, which expands access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Though many of the Republicans in the Oregon Senate would vote against any Democratic-sponsored bill on these topics, the bulk of the anger is directed at provisions that would allow children of any age to receive abortions without parental consent. Those 15 and older already can receive medical care, including abortions, without parental consent so the bill only effects those younger than 15. As often happens with culture-war issues, neither side appears likely to compromise.

At the state level, cultural issues are especially difficult. It’s not feasible to have different laws from each county, legislative district, congressional district or whatever. The Oregon law is a reaction to national politics and specifically to the Supreme Court decision last year that overturned Roe vs. Wade and gave states more freedom to set their own abortion laws. Long before that ruling, Oregon was strongly pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ. But, though they occasionally floated unsuccessful bills and ballot measures, Republicans in the state did not elevate those issues above all else. And Democrats did not push to codify rights for minors that, even if you think they are justified, create at least some concern for conservative parents.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, single-party states have rushed to pass laws that disregard the possibility that the opposition party, and its supporters, has anything constructive to say. What each party has in common: They are attempting to force compliance rather than persuade those who disagree to comply. History is full of warnings about what happens when you attempt to force changes in culture through political force.

Maybe this is the question both sides should ask: How can I secure the rights I desire without infringing on others’ rights? There won’t always be an acceptable answer. Maybe, there’ll rarely be an acceptable answer. But just having that conversation would improve political dialogue.

Change the quorum requirement

The ballot measure barring legislators from seeking re-election if they have 10 or more unexcused absences illustrates the problem with Oregon’s ballot initiative system. Proposed laws are written by special interests with political goals in mind. The goal rarely is more efficient government.

Anyone who wanted to stop walkouts, should have taken the direct route and lowered the quorum requirement. At best, the measure that passed is an indirect method of accomplishing the primary goal. Or maybe the real goal was to keep certain Republicans from seeking re-election. I voted against the ballot measure. In hindsight, it was an even worse proposal than I thought – one that perhaps contributed to a broken session by leading Democrats to think they held a stronger hand than they really did in legislative negotiations. The law also is destined to be challenged in court, which could cast a huge shadow of uncertainty over the next legislative elections.

Separate essential and non-essential issues

When the Republicans walked out in Oregon, many bills with bipartisan support died. The walkout also stalled progress on a budget, though one way or another (on the last day of the session, in a special session, sometime) the Legislature must complete that constitutional task. Meanwhile, Congress played an even more dangerous game of fiscal chicken with the debt-ceiling standoff – threatening to deprive the nation of the ability to pay its bills.

When they want to pretend that they are doing their jobs the way they should, members of the Legislature and Congress point out that the overwhelming majority of bills have bipartisan support. That’s true because most bills deal with relatively mundane issues that are necessary to keep government functioning. The most disturbing part of this year’s standoffs in Washington, D.C., and Salem is it shows an accelerating willingness to hold these routine bills hostage and effectively sabotage government. When that happens, nothing has bipartisan support. And that’s a very dangerous way to run a country.

Create a pragmatic third party

I’m a longtime advocate of a third party, in part because my views on many issues do not comfortably fit in either the Republican or Democratic party. But that’s not the primary reason I think a third party is a possible solution to gridlock. Both parties have moved farther away from the traditional political middle, albeit in different ways.

The Republican Party has drastically changed its foundation, moving from a small-government party to a populist party that is as aggressive, if not more so, with the use of government power to control individuals and the economy as Democrats. These changes in the Republican Party have driven some pro-business Republicans to the Democratic Party, which has become somewhat conflicted on economic issues (as the debt-ceiling debate showed) but has moved strongly left on cultural issues.

I know the odds of a third party on somewhat equal footing with the Democrats and Republicans are long. But a specific type of strategic third party could be a catalyst from restoring functional government.

Even with rampant gerrymandering, each state has at least a few legislative swing districts and most states have one or two competitive congressional districts. Likewise, eight to 10 states remain competitive in national elections. A third party should target those states and districts with moderate candidates. Rather than focusing on specific policy issues, the party should emphasize two things: a strong commitment to democracy and functional, efficient government.

In presidential elections, the party should select its candidate after the Democratic and Republican primaries. If one of the parties (or in a dream world, both) nominates a qualified candidate committed to serving everyone and avoiding ideological fights, the third party could opt not to nominate a candidate. But if neither major party nominee is acceptable it would offer voters an option.

My third-party dream might be unachievable, but the other suggestions in this column are not particularly ambitious. They simply require a commitment to making functional government a higher priority than appeasing special interests.

Mark Hester is a retired journalist who worked at The Oregonian for 25 years in positions including business editor, sports editor and editorial writer.