While certain problem areas like health care and environment are truly lacking for suitable policy, I come to the realization more and more that much of what ails us stems more from a lack of competent administration than a lack of competent policies. And while President Bush has certainly taken incompetent administration to new levels, this problem certainly didn’t begin with him. It likely has a lot to do with the Presidency becoming a more legislative leadership position.
One area where the failure to properly execute laws is favorite of the blog, gun rights. Certain gun control policies (background checks, waiting periods, registration, gun safety) are almost undoubtedly more effective than bans. Many of these good policies are already on the books but are simply poorly carried out.
Another area where the failure to execute came up was looking at the gender wage gap. While a lot of the raw gap has to do with choices of industry and the fact that family matters often interrupt career progress (because maybe sometimes women would prefer to put family over work), controlling for everything under the sun reveals a persistence in the wage gap. Reading through this document I see a lot that suggests the laws needed to deal with this are already there, it just takes effective enforcement. Of course then there is stuff like this:
Under the EPA, when an employer is found to be paying female employees less than male employees for equal work, the employer may assert an “affirmative defense” that the pay differential is based on a “factor other than sex.” Some employers have argued for interpretations of this affirmative defense that are so broad (e.g., to include factors such as a male worker’s stronger salary negotiation skills or higher previous salary) that they may themselves be “based on sex” and would seriously undermine the EPA.
Heaven forbid we consider that some of the wage gap might be based gender differences in psychology rather than discrimination. Also, considering women still expect men to be the breadwinner and make more money, it would devastate society if they ever truly made the same amount in raw numbers. I say they can only get paid the same when they stop preferring richer men.
Of course I might feel better supporting Right To Work initiatives, which end union shops, if I felt labor protection laws were going to be well executed. I ran some multivariate analysis that revealed many of the claims about Right To Work, that the provision hurts state economies, wages, and workplace safety, to be spurious. Yet, I consider a right to work also strong protection against the punishment of individuals for choosing to be members of unions, and this requires effective administration of labor laws.
Given that Obama is perceived to be devoid of serious policy positions (I don’t believe this is true, but that is the perception that seems to persist because people don’t believe someone can be both good at policy and effective at communicating) but has a strong background in community organizing and the administrative effectiveness that can come with that, I’m hoping that if he becomes the next President, he might leave policy making up to the Democratic Congress and focus on getting the executive branch in order as an administrative unit.
Tactical Buddhist adds:
Putting forth detailed policy positions is something that became the ‘in’ thing when President Clinton started debating during the 1992 election. Prior to that, candidates were just expected to look good and avoid major screw-ups. There is a reason tall men with heads full of hair have been elected since television became widespread. I agree with Bondo and hope that the executive returns to whence it came: the executive branch.
