For most of our history, the American military has drawn on the strengths of our society for its sustenance. Today, the situation has reversed itself. Bluntly put, government is badly broken, incapable at present of addressing even simple challenges. To fix what is broken, the military may have something to offer.
For those who may not be aware of or in full agreement with this diagnosis of a badly dysfunctional government, the symptoms are in plain sight. Whether one was for or against the war in Iraq, the White House and Congress-Republicans and Democrats alike-have made or contributed to making virtually every mistake in the book in the three years since Saddam Hussein was overthrown. At best, the new Iraqi government is hanging on by its fingernails. To underscore this chaos, it the violence in Iraq were transposed to the United States-and we have a population some 12 times greater-the equivalent of 150,000 Americans would be killed each year, about half the number who died in World War II.
The derelict response to Hurricane Katrina at all levels and the recent Homeland Security Department's dire assessment of the states' preparedness for disaster demonstrates the government's dysfunctionality. And the 9/11 Commission reminds us that we have failed to take corrective action almost five years after the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon were leveled. That Congress persisted in debating same-sex marriage or removing the feeding tube of a brain-dead woman at the expense of far more serious issues is a footnote documenting a broken process.
The military has been very successful for many reasons. First, virtually all of its people are engaged in making the organization work. Second, clear lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability are mandatory. Third, sufficient resources have been provided to recruit able people, give them the best tools tor the job, and train them in their duties. In government, quite the opposite has happened.
Unlike the military, most Americans are not engaged, in this case with government. Only 52% of eligible voters turned out in 2004 to choose between Messrs. Bush and Kerry. The largest post-World War II turnout was the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race in which about 63% voted.
Let's lace it. Except in rare instances or elections, there is no accountability in government. And the jurisdictional lines between and among responsibility and authority at the national and state levels were purposely blurred by the Founding Fathers, who believed that checks and balances and a federal system were the best means of protecting individual liberties by guaranteeing a eertain inefficiency in government. Hence, a gnawing question is whether a political system invented by the best minds of the 18th century can endure the rigors of the 21st. As we know, in the past, two oceans and huge resources made up for these inefficiencies. However, technology and economics have bypassed those insurance policies.
So can the military virtues of engaging people and the principles of accountability be translated into the conduct of government? Here are two ideas that are both substantive and symbolic.
First, to engage the public, we should consider making voting in national elections (or at least showing up to vote) mandatory. With 80% or 90% or more Americans voting, politics would be turned on its head. Space precludes showing how this can be done. However, Australia and Brazil, among other nations, have had universal voting lor decades and it works. That is one way to engage the publie.
Second. we need a Sarbanes-Oxley Act to make government fully accountable all of the time, as the military is. Following the corporate scandals of 2002. this act was implemented mandating transparency and accountability by corporations and boards of directors.
For example, in submitting a budget to Congress. Cabinet officials would certify, as CEOs do. that the figures and costs were accurate. If the figures proved wrong by a significant amount, the bill would become null and void. To drive accountability home, before voting, why should members of Congress not be required to affirm that they have read and understood the bill, something they do not do?
Grafting these and other virtues of the military onto government is a long shot. However, not trying to fix what is so obviously broken is simply unacceptable.
This column is taken from Mr. Ullman's newest book America's Promise Restored: Preventing Culture, Crusade and Partisanship from Wrecking Our Country.