Can our poll-driven leaders save us?

by Frank James

For those who have their doubts that any presidential administration or Congress could successfully navigate their way through the complex assorted problems now facing the nation, David Broder writes that you're in some pretty good company.

He attended a meeting of people, some if not all with senior-level federal government experience, who candidly discussed the challenges presently facing federal policymakers. Broder agreed not to quote them by name.

He writes:

There was no disagreement on one point: What Obama has launched with his address to Congress and his first budget is a change of domestic policy of historic proportions. Views about its potential and pitfalls varied widely, but no one disputed that it could remake the government's relation to American society -- if the plans can be accomplished.

But many of these governmental pros clearly are doubtful whether this administration -- or any other -- can make it work. A law professor and former White House aide warned that the American habit of "muddling through" crises could prove fatal this time, given what she sees as the fragility of the economy and social structures in the industrial Midwest, where she works.

A far more rational, disciplined approach is needed, she said, but how to achieve that in a government run by politicians?

Good question. "Rational" and "disciplined" aren't the two words that leap to mind when you contemplate many federal policymakers. Poll-driven and expedient are more like it.

That's largely because American politicians have always lived with the kind of fear about keeping their jobs that many Americans have only recently become acquainted with.

That fear has only intensified since even politicians don't want to be looking for a job in this economy.

Anyway, back to Broder:

Obama was able to keep earmarks out of the stimulus bill, but Congress loaded hundreds onto the next appropriations measure and the president was forced to acquiesce.

Another participant pointed out that "many of the programs getting huge bumps up [in funding] are already on the 'at risk' list compiled by the White House Office of Management and Budget."

And repeatedly, people voiced their worries about who was going to manage these startling expenditures. "They ought to be hiring 1,000 new contracting officers," one person said.

A veteran of the Clinton White House said she worried that the administration is still in a campaign mind-set, with the president and vice president on the road every week promoting their programs. "The only thing that's important now is getting the money out the door, so it can start to work in the real world," she said. "Anything that distracts from that is a waste of time."

Given the advanced state of modern communications and the military transport resources at his disposal, it's probably less important than ever that Obama be in Washington to oversee the spending of the stimulus.

Actually, it's probably a good idea that Obama travel the country regularly to campaign for continued voter support for his programs as well as patience. It also provides authentic moments like the one in Florida where a homeless woman at her wit's end beseeched his help.

But the problems arising from lack of enough experienced contracting personnel and the fact that additional money will be going into programs the Government Accountability Office has already designated as "at risk" because they lack of proper financial controls can't be overstated. Much more attention needs to be paid.

Indeed, we need all as many journalists and bloggers as possible keeping an eye on this to keep it from becoming the mother of all boondoggles.

If greater focus isn't placed on these areas of concern, then even politicians who were more "rational" and "disciplined" than our current crop would have difficulty succeeding.