News Journal:Change is good, but we better be careful

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, three-quarters of all Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way the political system is working. Some 12 percent say they approve of Congress. Nearly all cite gridlock as the major problem.
With numbers like that, it is no wonder some are calling for fundamental changes. Third parties. Term limits.
Opening up voting in primaries to anyone, regardless of party affiliation. The list goes on, and certainly some of the ideas are worth pursuing. But making major changes in a system that, until very recently, served us well for more than 200 years should be done only after full consideration of the law of unintended consequences.
History is replete with examples of laws passed for the best of all reasons that in turn created a whole new set of problems.
I thought about unintended consequences last week when, inadvertently or not, a tea party congressman from Georgia named Jack Kingston got to the heart of why there is a gridlock problem in Washington. “We are a body of independent contractors,” he said, “each with his own constituency.”
In last week’s column, I made the case that in order to have leaders there must be followers.
House speakers like Tip O’Neill and Newt Gingrich were known as strong leaders because they could negotiate a deal with presidents of a different party knowing their caucuses would vote to support them. When you have a House full of independent contractors, effective leadership becomes impossible and gridlock is the inevitable result.
There are a number of reasons we have arrived at this frustrating and dangerous point. Gerrymandering always has been a part of our political culture, but in recent years it has been done on a far more sophisticated level and has created too many ideologically homogenous districts like Jack Kingston’s.
We ended congressional earmarks for all the right good-government reasons, but there has been an unintended consequence. House leaders used to be able to keep members in line by threatening to cut pork barrel projects in their districts. It is a lot easier to be an independent contractor now that leaders can no longer reward or punish.
Perhaps the single most important unintended change that has diminished the role of political parties, and therefore leaders, was caused by a desire to open up the political process so that it became more democratic. Until the 1970s, nearly all candidates for Congress were chosen by local conventions made up of a small number of their party’s local leaders. Political parties were less ideological, but they had far more influence over the candidates they elected to office.
That process began to change when the Democratic Party, after its 1968 campaign debacle, set up a reform commission headed by U.S. Sen. George McGovern, D-S.D. The commission put in place requirements that eventually drove Democrats in nearly all states to choose candidates in an open primary process. Over the next 20 years, the Republican Party followed suit.
The primary system we now have is unquestionably more democratic than the old system, but it also has had the unintended consequence of reducing the ability of congressional leaders to form alliances.
Some people are calling for an even more democratic primary system, one in which you could vote in any primary you like, regardless of party affiliation.
I suspect that might ultimately lead to the kind of instability seen in European countries with numerous political parties, all constantly negotiating to form coalition governments that seldom last very long. Certainly it would further weaken any positive influence congressional leaders have over their caucuses.
My favorite Dilbert T-shirt says, “Change Is Good! You Go First!” It is a reminder to think more than twice before we tinker with something that usually has worked well.
We do not want to return to the pre-primary “smoke-filled rooms,” where party leaders unilaterally chose candidates.
Overall, the primary system we have today is a vast improvement, but it is important to keep unintended consequences in mind before we open it up any more.
I personally think our system has gone through some rough patches in the past and managed each time to repair itself and survive.
So before making radical changes, I vote for avoiding unintended consequence and following the Hippocratic law for doctors, “first do no harm.”
I have a feeling that voters are so upset they will deal with gridlock in the elections of 2014 and 2016, get rid of some independent contractors, and elect representatives who want to work across party lines to solve our problems.
________________________________________