RALEIGH — Democrats are ruling North Carolina like they have been in power for 16 years — which they have if you include the brief interregnum when Republicans controlled the House in the mid-1990s.
By that, I mean they are exhibiting the three key characteristics of a party that has held the reins of government for a very long time: hubris, exhaustion, and internal squabbling. Let’s take a look at each of these traits separately.
There is an air of arrogance about a regime that has governed for such an extended period. It feels invincible and cares little about the interests of others. This is particularly the case in policymaking, where the minority is marginalized and public opinion matters little.
The state’s recent budget furnishes a good example. House and Senate Republicans were left out of the room and the public’s views on taxes and spending, at least those recorded by most polls, were largely ignored.
Worse, this hubris brings about an acute sense of entitlement in some of its members. Former House Speaker Jim Black, former Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps, and former state legislators Mary McAllister and Thomas Wright are not inherently bad people. They just got the impression that the regular rules did not apply to them and they could help themselves to some of the money that inevitably flows through politics. After all, the voters kept returning them to office.
Then there is the exhaustion. Dominant regimes just run out of ideas. Again, the state budget provides a nice illustration. To be sure, some Senate Democrats were thinking creatively about overhauling the tax system by broadening the number of services levied and lowering base income and sales rates. The final budget, however, was a mishmash designed to win the support of a majority of legislators by appealing to their political interests. It was not coherent policy.
These kinds of regimes weigh the benefits of rewarding certain constituents and punishing others, they have few genuine ideas.
In the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, the states are supposed to be “laboratories of democracy” where policy innovations are tested. Where are ours? On many issues, the literature shows North Carolina to be a laggard, not a leader. Yes, new policy ideas are not intrinsically good ones. But at the very least fresh proposals challenge the status quo and force its supporters into an intellectual, rather than reflexive, defense.
Finally, there is the in-fighting. Again the state’s budget is illustrative. Gov. Beverly Perdue issued a thinly-veiled veto threat to a version of the bill negotiated by legislative Democrats. This followed weeks of squabbling between House and Senate Democrats over the level and complexion of spending cuts and tax increases. These differences are clearly not ideological or about the future of the state. They are personal and about influence.
Moreover, the regime has been around so long that no one is in a position to dictate, or even mediate, agreements between its principals. No one and everyone run the regime. Senate President Pro-Tem Marc Basnight and Majority Leader Tony Rand are entrenched. In the House, procedures are so centralized that the speaker, Joe Hackney, has tight control.
Armed with the veto and extensive patronage opportunities, the governor also is mighty powerful. Hackney and Perdue are relatively new to their current positions, but both are stalwarts of the regime. Hackney has been in the House for 30 years, Perdue has been around since 1986 when she was first elected to the General Assembly.
To be fair, these kinds of things happen to many regimes that outlive their sell-by date. Republicans in Washington were rocked by lobbying and campaign finance scandals and, by the end of President George W. Bush’s tenure, leaders were largely paying off supporters with tax breaks and government subsidies, not tackling critical problems in an intelligent and systematic way. The White House had lost control.
Our regime needs to go or change. We could, of course, replace it with solid Republican rule or at least Republican control of the House, Senate, or governor’s mansion. Having Pat McCrory as governor would have opened up interesting debates about energy and economic development policy. Having Paul Stam as speaker would broaden the scope of the budget debate and make it a discussion of state government’s mission.
Or the regime could be transformed by new leadership. There are some smart and energetic, generally young, Democrats in the General Assembly and Council of State who follow the big policy debates going on around the country and across the world. They should have a better understanding of what it means to keep the public’s trust. Their promotion would at least refresh the state’s politics.
Andy Taylor is Professor and Chair of Political Science in the School of Public and International Affairs at N.C. State University.