LOS ANGELES — Washington these days is the symbol of governmental failure, rocked by a shutdown, legislative paralysis and the disastrous debut of President Obama’s health care program. Public opinion of Mr. Obama and members of Congress is on a steady decline.
But something different is taking place in statehouses.
At a time when Mr. Obama and members of Congress are mired in partisanship and gridlock, many governors — including Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican who was re-elected by an overwhelming margin on Tuesday, and the chief executives of such states as Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Ohio — are showing that it is possible to be successful in elected office, even in this era.
These governors are, at least by comparison to lawmakers in Washington, capable and popular leaders, pushing through major legislation and trying to figure out ways, with mixed success, to avoid the partisan wrangling that has come to symbolize Washington.
Part of this is cyclical. As a rule, governors look bad during an economic downturn, as they are identified with spending cuts or tax increases to balance budgets, and are bold and in command during an economic rebound. And some governors are certainly struggling, be it Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican who failed to get his Legislature to back him on expanding Medicaid coverage, or Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, a Democrat who is widely unpopular after a failed effort to change pension laws there.
Yet the contrast these days appears as strong as any in memory, reflecting not only the breakdown in Washington but also a particularly activist class of governors, often empowered by having a legislature controlled by a single party as they enact the kind of crisp agenda that has eluded both parties in Washington.
“Right now, governors are the most popular political players in the country, mainly because of the dysfunction in Washington and because the public perceives governors as being bipartisan, pragmatic and able to work things out,” said Bill Richardson , a former governor of New Mexico and Democratic candidate for president in 2008. “Governors are the hot political items right now.”
The difference is reflected in polling. In the latest CBS News poll, 85 percent of respondents expressed disapproval of the performance of Congress, and 49 percent expressed disapproval of Mr. Obama. By contrast, less than a third of respondents in a variety of state polls said they disapproved of the performance of governors like Mr. Christie; Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat; Bill Haslam of Tennessee, a Republican; and Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat.
Many governors said they were intent on making certain that their political parties were not defined entirely by their compatriots in the nation’s capital. Mr. Christie, who will take over leadership of the Republican Governors Association this month, said in an interview that it was especially imperative that Republicans not be defined by their deeply unpopular congressional wing.
“We all talk about the fact that we’re actually accomplishing things and the people in Washington, D.C., are frustrating people,” said Mr. Christie, recounting his conversations with other Republican governors. “We need to be out there talking about our successes to help to build the brand of our party nationally beyond the capitals and have it replace the Washington, D.C., brand.”
The disparity could have implications for the 2016 presidential race. It suggests some of the challenges that Hillary Rodham Clinton , a former senator and secretary of state, could face should she end up running against a governor like Mr. Christie. Historically, governors have tended to be much more successful presidential candidates, even at moments when animosity toward Washington has not been at this level.
Governors, of course, have always loved to beat up on Congress — drawing arguably self-serving, chest-thumping comparisons — and rarely more than these days. “When you look at D.C. now, a member will write a letter, call for a hearing and they’ll call that a day,” said Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri, a Democrat.
Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, a Republican who served more than 20 years in Congress, ticked off a list of what he viewed as his main accomplishments as governor: pulling the state out of a deep deficit, investing in road building without federal assistance and overseeing a significant increase in employment.
“What’s not to like, right?” Mr. Kasich said. “And they can’t even pass a highway bill there.”
Mr. Brown, who has been widely praised for pushing through laws on education, taxes and the environment in California, said in an interview that in all 50 states, “there is more dynamism and more openness and more capacity to deal with change, to deal with problems.”
Even before the advent of this era of sharp partisanship, governors have proved to be more successful in getting programs passed. Thad Kousser , an associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of “ The Power of American Governors ,” estimated that governors won approval of more than half of their initiatives, compared with 45 percent for presidents.
“Governors have the latitude to make their own policy in their own state,” Professor Kousser said. “They don’t have to go back to Washington, D.C., and toe their party line on these issues. If they want to conduct immigration, they conduct immigration. If they want to stay away from gay rights, they can do that.”
Governors and analysts pointed to a host of reasons state executives are faring better than members of Congress. For one thing, they are forced to work more closely with their legislatures, if only because of the close confinement of the states and capitals, said Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, a Republican. “The lack of relationship building, the lack of conversation, the lack of problem solving — people are tired of that,” she said.
Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Democrat, said the constraints and powers of governors can prompt them to act responsibly and, in theory, enhance their own leadership credentials.
“Most states require a balanced budget and forbid the state to take on debt,” he said. “That eliminates some of the pitfalls and the problems in the federal government.”
Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles, and Jonathan Martin from Washington. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from New York.
(Page 2 of 2)
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican who was first elected to the post in 2010 after serving in Congress for 16 years, said the difference between Topeka and Washington was in how much the system could bear. “At a state level, you can build consensus around what you need to do and get it done,” said Mr. Brownback, who has changed his state’s tax and state employee pension structure. “In Washington, the system is just so big.”
Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a Democrat who just ended his term as the chairman of the National Governors Association, said governors also faced sterner political consequences for inaction.
“If we don’t perform, we get thrown out of office; governors cannot be gerrymandered,” he said. “In Washington, if you’re properly ideologically aligned for your state or district, you’re often given a pass.”
Beyond that, states have resisted one of the changes in Washington that seems to have contributed to gridlock there: the elimination of earmarks, those budget sweeteners directed at specific legislators that made it easier for leaders to corral votes.
Several Democrats said the contrast in how Washington and the states were viewed could be an issue for Mrs. Clinton should she run for president. But Neera Tanden , a longtime supporter of Mrs. Clinton and the president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research group, argued that Mrs. Clinton would not suffer the burden that many Washington lawmakers would.
“I do think effectiveness is a critical issue going forward,” she said. “But I think people see her as highly effective. She has not been in the partisan wars in Washington. She has been secretary of state.”
One striking difference between the federal and state level is how governors have dealt with the new health care law . Even as lawmakers in Washington have been embroiled in battles to repeal it, governors in Arkansas and Iowa, to name two, have successfully worked with both parties in search of a compromise to expand insurance coverage for their constituents.
Mr. Beebe overcame a Republican-controlled legislature and a constitutional requirement that he secure a three-fourths supermajority to expand Medicaid coverage. And he did so by winning the approval of Mr. Obama’s administration to use the federal money included in the law to buy private insurance for low-income residents.
This hybrid model won 77 of 100 votes in Arkansas’s House. “We did it by inclusiveness, we did it with facts, and we did it with logic over ideology,” said Mr. Beebe, noting that six Republican governors had since contacted him to ask about his approach.
For governors, what is striking is not the notion that Washington is divided now, but rather how intense the division has become.
“Between 1995 and 2000, you saw welfare reform, you saw a balanced budget, you saw a reduction in the capital gains tax,” said Mr. Kasich, who was in Congress at the time. “That was the golden age in Washington that we might have lost.”
Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles, and Jonathan Martin from Washington. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from New York.
(Page 2 of 2)
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican who was first elected to the post in 2010 after serving in Congress for 16 years, said the difference between Topeka and Washington was in how much the system could bear. “At a state level, you can build consensus around what you need to do and get it done,” said Mr. Brownback, who has changed his state’s tax and state employee pension structure. “In Washington, the system is just so big.”
Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a Democrat who just ended his term as the chairman of the National Governors Association, said governors also faced sterner political consequences for inaction.
“If we don’t perform, we get thrown out of office; governors cannot be gerrymandered,” he said. “In Washington, if you’re properly ideologically aligned for your state or district, you’re often given a pass.”
Beyond that, states have resisted one of the changes in Washington that seems to have contributed to gridlock there: the elimination of earmarks, those budget sweeteners directed at specific legislators that made it easier for leaders to corral votes.
Several Democrats said the contrast in how Washington and the states were viewed could be an issue for Mrs. Clinton should she run for president. But Neera Tanden , a longtime supporter of Mrs. Clinton and the president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research group, argued that Mrs. Clinton would not suffer the burden that many Washington lawmakers would.
“I do think effectiveness is a critical issue going forward,” she said. “But I think people see her as highly effective. She has not been in the partisan wars in Washington. She has been secretary of state.”
One striking difference between the federal and state level is how governors have dealt with the new health care law . Even as lawmakers in Washington have been embroiled in battles to repeal it, governors in Arkansas and Iowa, to name two, have successfully worked with both parties in search of a compromise to expand insurance coverage for their constituents.
Mr. Beebe overcame a Republican-controlled legislature and a constitutional requirement that he secure a three-fourths supermajority to expand Medicaid coverage. And he did so by winning the approval of Mr. Obama’s administration to use the federal money included in the law to buy private insurance for low-income residents.
This hybrid model won 77 of 100 votes in Arkansas’s House. “We did it by inclusiveness, we did it with facts, and we did it with logic over ideology,” said Mr. Beebe, noting that six Republican governors had since contacted him to ask about his approach.
For governors, what is striking is not the notion that Washington is divided now, but rather how intense the division has become.
“Between 1995 and 2000, you saw welfare reform, you saw a balanced budget, you saw a reduction in the capital gains tax,” said Mr. Kasich, who was in Congress at the time. “That was the golden age in Washington that we might have lost.”
Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles, and Jonathan Martin from Washington. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from New York.
But something different is taking place in statehouses.
At a time when Mr. Obama and members of Congress are mired in partisanship and gridlock, many governors — including Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican who was re-elected by an overwhelming margin on Tuesday, and the chief executives of such states as Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Ohio — are showing that it is possible to be successful in elected office, even in this era.
These governors are, at least by comparison to lawmakers in Washington, capable and popular leaders, pushing through major legislation and trying to figure out ways, with mixed success, to avoid the partisan wrangling that has come to symbolize Washington.
Part of this is cyclical. As a rule, governors look bad during an economic downturn, as they are identified with spending cuts or tax increases to balance budgets, and are bold and in command during an economic rebound. And some governors are certainly struggling, be it Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican who failed to get his Legislature to back him on expanding Medicaid coverage, or Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, a Democrat who is widely unpopular after a failed effort to change pension laws there.
Yet the contrast these days appears as strong as any in memory, reflecting not only the breakdown in Washington but also a particularly activist class of governors, often empowered by having a legislature controlled by a single party as they enact the kind of crisp agenda that has eluded both parties in Washington.
“Right now, governors are the most popular political players in the country, mainly because of the dysfunction in Washington and because the public perceives governors as being bipartisan, pragmatic and able to work things out,” said Bill Richardson , a former governor of New Mexico and Democratic candidate for president in 2008. “Governors are the hot political items right now.”
The difference is reflected in polling. In the latest CBS News poll, 85 percent of respondents expressed disapproval of the performance of Congress, and 49 percent expressed disapproval of Mr. Obama. By contrast, less than a third of respondents in a variety of state polls said they disapproved of the performance of governors like Mr. Christie; Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat; Bill Haslam of Tennessee, a Republican; and Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat.
Many governors said they were intent on making certain that their political parties were not defined entirely by their compatriots in the nation’s capital. Mr. Christie, who will take over leadership of the Republican Governors Association this month, said in an interview that it was especially imperative that Republicans not be defined by their deeply unpopular congressional wing.
“We all talk about the fact that we’re actually accomplishing things and the people in Washington, D.C., are frustrating people,” said Mr. Christie, recounting his conversations with other Republican governors. “We need to be out there talking about our successes to help to build the brand of our party nationally beyond the capitals and have it replace the Washington, D.C., brand.”
The disparity could have implications for the 2016 presidential race. It suggests some of the challenges that Hillary Rodham Clinton , a former senator and secretary of state, could face should she end up running against a governor like Mr. Christie. Historically, governors have tended to be much more successful presidential candidates, even at moments when animosity toward Washington has not been at this level.
Governors, of course, have always loved to beat up on Congress — drawing arguably self-serving, chest-thumping comparisons — and rarely more than these days. “When you look at D.C. now, a member will write a letter, call for a hearing and they’ll call that a day,” said Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri, a Democrat.
Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, a Republican who served more than 20 years in Congress, ticked off a list of what he viewed as his main accomplishments as governor: pulling the state out of a deep deficit, investing in road building without federal assistance and overseeing a significant increase in employment.
“What’s not to like, right?” Mr. Kasich said. “And they can’t even pass a highway bill there.”
Mr. Brown, who has been widely praised for pushing through laws on education, taxes and the environment in California, said in an interview that in all 50 states, “there is more dynamism and more openness and more capacity to deal with change, to deal with problems.”
Even before the advent of this era of sharp partisanship, governors have proved to be more successful in getting programs passed. Thad Kousser , an associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of “ The Power of American Governors ,” estimated that governors won approval of more than half of their initiatives, compared with 45 percent for presidents.
“Governors have the latitude to make their own policy in their own state,” Professor Kousser said. “They don’t have to go back to Washington, D.C., and toe their party line on these issues. If they want to conduct immigration, they conduct immigration. If they want to stay away from gay rights, they can do that.”
Governors and analysts pointed to a host of reasons state executives are faring better than members of Congress. For one thing, they are forced to work more closely with their legislatures, if only because of the close confinement of the states and capitals, said Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, a Republican. “The lack of relationship building, the lack of conversation, the lack of problem solving — people are tired of that,” she said.
Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Democrat, said the constraints and powers of governors can prompt them to act responsibly and, in theory, enhance their own leadership credentials.
“Most states require a balanced budget and forbid the state to take on debt,” he said. “That eliminates some of the pitfalls and the problems in the federal government.”
Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles, and Jonathan Martin from Washington. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from New York.
(Page 2 of 2)
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican who was first elected to the post in 2010 after serving in Congress for 16 years, said the difference between Topeka and Washington was in how much the system could bear. “At a state level, you can build consensus around what you need to do and get it done,” said Mr. Brownback, who has changed his state’s tax and state employee pension structure. “In Washington, the system is just so big.”
Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a Democrat who just ended his term as the chairman of the National Governors Association, said governors also faced sterner political consequences for inaction.
“If we don’t perform, we get thrown out of office; governors cannot be gerrymandered,” he said. “In Washington, if you’re properly ideologically aligned for your state or district, you’re often given a pass.”
Beyond that, states have resisted one of the changes in Washington that seems to have contributed to gridlock there: the elimination of earmarks, those budget sweeteners directed at specific legislators that made it easier for leaders to corral votes.
Several Democrats said the contrast in how Washington and the states were viewed could be an issue for Mrs. Clinton should she run for president. But Neera Tanden , a longtime supporter of Mrs. Clinton and the president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research group, argued that Mrs. Clinton would not suffer the burden that many Washington lawmakers would.
“I do think effectiveness is a critical issue going forward,” she said. “But I think people see her as highly effective. She has not been in the partisan wars in Washington. She has been secretary of state.”
One striking difference between the federal and state level is how governors have dealt with the new health care law . Even as lawmakers in Washington have been embroiled in battles to repeal it, governors in Arkansas and Iowa, to name two, have successfully worked with both parties in search of a compromise to expand insurance coverage for their constituents.
Mr. Beebe overcame a Republican-controlled legislature and a constitutional requirement that he secure a three-fourths supermajority to expand Medicaid coverage. And he did so by winning the approval of Mr. Obama’s administration to use the federal money included in the law to buy private insurance for low-income residents.
This hybrid model won 77 of 100 votes in Arkansas’s House. “We did it by inclusiveness, we did it with facts, and we did it with logic over ideology,” said Mr. Beebe, noting that six Republican governors had since contacted him to ask about his approach.
For governors, what is striking is not the notion that Washington is divided now, but rather how intense the division has become.
“Between 1995 and 2000, you saw welfare reform, you saw a balanced budget, you saw a reduction in the capital gains tax,” said Mr. Kasich, who was in Congress at the time. “That was the golden age in Washington that we might have lost.”
Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles, and Jonathan Martin from Washington. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from New York.
(Page 2 of 2)
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican who was first elected to the post in 2010 after serving in Congress for 16 years, said the difference between Topeka and Washington was in how much the system could bear. “At a state level, you can build consensus around what you need to do and get it done,” said Mr. Brownback, who has changed his state’s tax and state employee pension structure. “In Washington, the system is just so big.”
Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a Democrat who just ended his term as the chairman of the National Governors Association, said governors also faced sterner political consequences for inaction.
“If we don’t perform, we get thrown out of office; governors cannot be gerrymandered,” he said. “In Washington, if you’re properly ideologically aligned for your state or district, you’re often given a pass.”
Beyond that, states have resisted one of the changes in Washington that seems to have contributed to gridlock there: the elimination of earmarks, those budget sweeteners directed at specific legislators that made it easier for leaders to corral votes.
Several Democrats said the contrast in how Washington and the states were viewed could be an issue for Mrs. Clinton should she run for president. But Neera Tanden , a longtime supporter of Mrs. Clinton and the president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research group, argued that Mrs. Clinton would not suffer the burden that many Washington lawmakers would.
“I do think effectiveness is a critical issue going forward,” she said. “But I think people see her as highly effective. She has not been in the partisan wars in Washington. She has been secretary of state.”
One striking difference between the federal and state level is how governors have dealt with the new health care law . Even as lawmakers in Washington have been embroiled in battles to repeal it, governors in Arkansas and Iowa, to name two, have successfully worked with both parties in search of a compromise to expand insurance coverage for their constituents.
Mr. Beebe overcame a Republican-controlled legislature and a constitutional requirement that he secure a three-fourths supermajority to expand Medicaid coverage. And he did so by winning the approval of Mr. Obama’s administration to use the federal money included in the law to buy private insurance for low-income residents.
This hybrid model won 77 of 100 votes in Arkansas’s House. “We did it by inclusiveness, we did it with facts, and we did it with logic over ideology,” said Mr. Beebe, noting that six Republican governors had since contacted him to ask about his approach.
For governors, what is striking is not the notion that Washington is divided now, but rather how intense the division has become.
“Between 1995 and 2000, you saw welfare reform, you saw a balanced budget, you saw a reduction in the capital gains tax,” said Mr. Kasich, who was in Congress at the time. “That was the golden age in Washington that we might have lost.”
Adam Nagourney reported from Los Angeles, and Jonathan Martin from Washington. Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from New York.
window.location = «http://essay-writ.org»;
