There are probably two philosophies towards governing that are always competing for priority. We will call them the get 'r done philosophy and the public debate philosophy. It's not that one idea is necessarily superior to the other, it's just that at different times different ways of getting the people's business are more effective and more practical.

Let's look at both philosophies:

Get 'R Done

As we all know, Larry the Cable Guy made the philosophy of get 'r done famous. It instantly was popular as it represented a response, a bit a crude response, to all of the seemingly endless debate and discussion we have on the major public policy questions that our country faces today.

The idea of get 'r done has a lot of attraction. Rather then focus on the process and the political debate, we focus on results. We make the country a better place to live, not by public input, but by the crude strength of our leaders. Get 'r done is a conservative philosophy, but it's also been used very successfully in the past by people like Highway Planner Robert Moses or President Lyndon Johnson to get major projects done.

There is a real desire by a lot of people today to get back to the get 'r done way of living. It is commonly believed that we don't get much done as a society, and that government instead of being an enabler of progress is blocking innovation. While few people would like to see our leadership of our country go the way of the fascists, many people would like to see stronger leaders.

Public Debate

In contrast lies an emphasis on public debate and quality of result, rather then forcing big projects down people's throats that they don't want. There is a stress on process in this philosophy, sometimes even over result. This is the more liberal response to what some see as the bad public policy choices of our leaders.

The idea is that if people participate and modify the process, better policy choices will be the result. They argue that our leaders are essentially unrepresentative of the people. Even if our leaders were active representatives of their constituencies, the policy choices they make are too complex to represent all of the interests that make up them.

So they argue that the citizen has a responsibility to get his or her voice heard in the process. People must be active advocates of in the process, even if it means delaying or stalling important projects that will greatly benefit society. Unfortunately, too often the citizens represented in the process are less then representative of the constituency as a whole. People who are interested in the process often have a higher stake in the process then others.

Together

It's not clear if both philosophies are incompatible with each other. There needs to be public process with public input, as we live in a democracy. There also needs to be an authoritative process and decisions made by leaders must be final. It's fine to have different opinions on the issue, and to express them to government. Our leaders should listen to what we have to say, then way the sides and choose. We should respect what has been decided.

Democracy is most healthy when things get done. That has to be stressed, and our government must be focused on results. And people have to accept what their government has chosen as policy choices, and move onto the next issue. There are lots of good fights to fight, and losing a battle or two is fine, as long as we win the war.