Of his eight such speeches, it was
among the most compact, and certainly the most thematic, bringing out three
major items tied by their impact on his legacy and how that will become
interpreted in the future. After a review of the past that mentioned genuine
accomplishments in the areas of ethics reform, expanding choice that lead to
improvement in education, streamlining and improving government’s role in
healthcare delivery for the indigent, and in overseeing general economic growth
statewide with the implications that right-sizing government and holding the
line of taxes did the trick, he promised resolution of a creaky budget by asking
for repeal of and heaping blame onto “corporate welfare,” to eject the Common
Core State Standards Initiative from the state, and to support the effort to
protect constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom by prohibiting state
coercion that would force service providers to support behavior relative to
marriage that they see as immoral.
The first of these Jindal and all
other policy-makers have known for months would be forced upon them, but, even
as his no tax increase pledge remained familiar, novel to his response was the
identification of “wasteful spending” by government courtesy of programs to
give generous tax breaks beyond tax liability. He essentially said nothing
about this in the previous seven years, leading astute observers to wonder
whether past omission of excising these, as he indicated was his preferred
solution to ensure adequate funding to government this year, came from an oversight
on his part. Many of these were as wasteful then as they are now, and if this
now is a big deal, why not then? This comes across more as a defensive measure
to avoid an unpleasantry than anything else.
As for the second, it also
continues from the past, a hangover from last year that relied minimally upon persuading
the Legislature for his preferred outcome as compared to other executive
actions and judicial attempts. This time, Jindal urged a legislative solution
that could involve his giving more than moral support to efforts to repeal the
structure adopted five years ago with his blessing. Yet with argumentation that
somehow adoption of standards equates to curriculum content being now no more convincing
than it was then, whether this succeeds on a framework more embedded by the day
into the fabric of the state’s elementary and secondary education remains
questionable. This emphasis, however, should not surprise as Jindal has talked
up the issue for months nationwide, becoming one of Common Core’s most visible
critics.
Regarding the third, even a month
ago it would seem unlikely this issue would come up during the session, much
less become a major objective of the governor’s. Circumstance elsewhere
intervened to give the issue publicity and combined with the special election
of an extremely knowledgeable and experienced new legislator in this policy
area to put it on the policy agenda. Whereas CCSSI criticism constituted an
enduring attempt to argue for less intrusive government, the religious freedom
argument burst onto the scene as a means by which to demonstrate fidelity to
conservative social values.
In all, concentration on these
facilitates Jindal’s shaping of his legacy as a leader who tried to empower
people at the expense of government, to make government work better, and to
protect traditional values congruent with those of his faith specifically and generally
of a majority in the country. But as complimentary as these would appear to how
he would like history to see him, they also serve as a projection of himself
for a future political career, one that gives him a chance to succeed in
attaining higher office.
Jindal did not choose these issues
accidentally for his speech. The budget difficulties he cannot avoid, but he
will count any resolution that does not raise taxes overall as a success that
reflects well on his tenure and informs about his governance in the future. His
embracing of Common Core opposition and religious freedom support refine the
lens through which not only does he hope future generations see him but also
plays to the niche that he hopes he occupies in the political universe going
forward.
Of course, whether Jindal wants to
exert enough effort or has the ability to produce the outcomes for which he
strives is another matter. James Madison argued that representative democracy held
great promise to translate political ambition into superior public policy. His
last address telling us Jindal keeps one eye on the past and the other on the
future, we shall see if his subsequent behavior affirms Madison’s theorem.
No comments:
Post a Comment