Stephen B. Young, The Daily Record Newswire
It is the current wisdom that, in Washington, the people of the United States do not have a governing party. Since the entire people are divided three ways in their sentiments — right, left, and neither — the disposition of power in Washington is also divided. Neither minority party has a governing mandate.
Our national constitutional institutions are divided as to who has authority to make decisions. The presidency and the Senate respond to the leadership of Democrats; the House of Representatives to the leadership of Republicans; and the Supreme Court is divided between justices who are conservative and justices who are liberal in their general views of law, economics, society, and morality.
What does it mean to “govern”? Is it the same thing as “winning”?
Now, when I hear talk of “winning,” I can’t help thinking of Charlie Sheen as an exemplar of the goal of “winning” being perverted into stupidity and a caricature of virtue by self-indulgence. When there is no governing party, there is less sense of responsibility among those supposedly in charge; it’s more like having a claque of Charlie Sheens producing the show. There is an urge to grandstand and to hold fast to partisan perspectives and special interests. To govern is to put those kind of personal goals behind us.
Responsibility is more than a bother; it is a burden subjecting us to concern for others — and not just our friends — and for the probable outcomes of our behavior. To govern is to make decisions as to the future. It is to steer and not to drift with the tides.
Our word for governing comes from the Latin gubernare — to steer. Other words associated with the verb “to govern” are images of making headway, deciding and directing, charting a course, making progress, moving toward a goal.
Thus, to govern is both to have authority so that others listen and obey and to have effective power to make a difference. Decisions must be made, and they come with consequences. With consequences come risks of mistake and loss. The course set can be advantageous or hurtful, correct or wrong, given the goals to be achieved.
What sort of mind is best capable of handling risks? One that is mature; one that is centered and not easily unbalanced; one that is thoughtful and prudent, courageous but not foolhardy. Most importantly, it is a mind that can see the greater good, the farther shore, and steer toward it — even if tacking to the wind now and then becomes necessary.
A fine example of governing is provided by the current movie “Lincoln,” wherein we see President Lincoln accepting responsibility for both ending slavery and ending the Civil War on just terms, being simultaneously firm and flexible. This was a man with a great mind and greater character. A model for us all even today.
There is another aspect of the concept of governing: When something or someone is governed, the object or person under governance is held in check. Excess is prevented. To govern is to constrain and restrain, to prevent divergence from the set and proper course.
Governance is thus to curb and to bridle. It is to hold the reins and keep the horse on track. But those who govern need to be curbed and bridled as well; we don’t want those who steer to go astray.
Bracton, in his 1260 treatise on English law “De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae” — the first book setting forth the jurisprudence that we have inherited — noted that a king needs a “bridle” and so must have a council to provide him with “governance” from outside his own personal will and determination: “The King has a superior, namely God. Also the law, by which he is made king. Also his curia, namely, the earls and barons, because if he is without bridle, that is without law, they ought to put a bridle on him. That is why the earls are called the partners, so to speak, of the king; he who has a partner has a master.”
A governing party is not one to indulge itself wantonly or look upon itself as a special interest. It is to be curbed and kept on a bridle held by a rider.
To govern is not to be arbitrary so that power will not be abused. To govern is to hold an office, to be a steward of the future.
This vision of “steering” public power was very dear to John Locke, whose ideas about government have become ours through the Declaration of Independence and the federal constitution. Government, he advocated, was a trust, consisting of powers held in order to advance the good of the commonweal, not to favor one interest, religion, or section over others.
Under any trust arrangement, the good and interest of those who are to benefit from the administration of the trust — its governance — ultimately hold the bridle over their trustee.
It is not for trustees in public or in private office to become autocratic and impose their values and preferences on those dependent upon their powers. They are to act with loyalty and due care, placing some considerations higher than their own predilections and always reflecting on the wider consequences of their actions and inactions.
