The End of Political Will: Modern Congress Compared to Eisenhower's Era

On January 30, 1956, Congress passed the Federal Highway Act, authorizing the construction of the nation’s interstate highway system. Had the current Congress been in power then, would they have passed such a transformative bill? The erosion of bipartisan cooperation and the paralyzing effect of partisan politics today provide a stark testament to why such foresight might be unattainable.

Partisan Politics: A Major Barrier to Progress

The current political climate in the United States is so adversely impacted by partisanship that it is almost a joke to consider the likelihood of significant policy reforms being passed. The historical context of the 1950s when Ronald Reagan was not yet in the White House reveals the stark contrast between the effective governance of the past versus the current propensity for gridlock.

President Eisenhower, a Republican, was a visionary who understood the importance of investing in infrastructure for future prosperity. His strong support for the interstate highway system laid the foundation for the golden age of the American middle class. In contrast, today's Republicans often prioritize corporate interests over the public good, leading to plans that lack long-term vision and social equity.

The Futility of Modern Bipartisan Efforts

One can hardly emphasize enough how intertwined compromise and political compromise are in effective governance. For instance, during the 2020 presidential election cycle, the willingness of the Republican party to work with the Democrats on their bipartisan infrastructure bill was non-existent. The mere possibility of a meaningful infrastructure bill passing today is absurd—akin to the chances of rolling three consecutive sixes in a row.

The 1965 Civil Rights Act, the Interstate Highway Act, Social Security, and the New Deal, all transformative pieces of legislation, stood on the balance of bipartisan cooperation. Such sweeping reforms were not a result of one party's dominance but rather a concerted effort by both Republicans and Democrats. Men like contrast this with today's balkanized political landscape, where even less significant policies face insurmountable challenges.

A Party of Corporate Favors

The so-called "infrastructure plan" proposed during the Trump administration was remarkably skewed towards private sector interests. Instead of a straightforward federal-state partnership, the plan called for roughly 10% federal financing, 10% state financing, and 80% private enterprise financing. Given the private sector's inherent focus on profit, any such plan would likely result in exorbitant user fees and tolls. These would disproportionately affect working-class individuals, eroding financial equity.

Bringing Back the Golden Age

Republicans in Congress often tout their policies as instrumental in benefiting their constituents. However, such political posturing rarely translates into meaningful action. As illustrated by the Trump administration's infrastructure plan, the current Republican party's priorities center on profit over social reforms. Even if a bipartisan infrastructure bill were to eventually emerge, it is unlikely that Republicans would support it, largely because their primary focus remains on showing support for their constituents rather than genuinely working towards effective governance.

The contrast between past political leadership and today's shortcomings is stark. It is crucial for policymakers to reflect on the lessons of the past and strive for a bipartisan approach to governance. Without allowing partisan divisions to overshadow national priorities, it may be possible to reinvigorate the kind of progress that defined the golden age of the American middle class.