Op-Ed: Is Governance Possible Without Continuity?

Continuity in Policy: A Stumbling Block for Modern Society

Edward Saltzberg, the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum, reflects on the importance of continuity in long-term planning and governance for modern societies. He notes that many of our critical institutions such as electric grids, defense, public health, and fiscal stability all hinge on the ability to maintain long-term priorities across multiple administrations. The problem arises, he points out, when there is a gap between winning elections and actual governance.

The Consequences of Political Flip-Flopping

Saltzberg explains how policies tend to reverse rapidly between administrations, making it increasingly difficult for systems reliant on stable direction to adapt to these abrupt changes. This wasn’t always the case. In the past, even amidst heated political conflict, broader governing coalitions sustained lengthy planning horizons. Factors such as stronger committee structures rewarding specialization, a shared information environment that overrides today’s partisan-sorted media, and political coalitions organized around governing priorities rather than mutual opposition all contributed to continuity.

However, these conditions have significantly weakened over time. The institutional habits that used to carry significant commitments across administrations have dwindled. This is concerning, especially as networks we rely on — electric grids, infrastructure, defense, technology, public health — have become more interconnected and less tolerant of sudden policy reversals.

The Energy Sector: A Case Study

Saltzberg uses the energy sector to exemplify this issue. He mentions the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that marked a significant federal commitment to domestic clean energy investment. However, with a change in administration and the introduction of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, many of these incentives were phased out and grants for ongoing projects rescinded. As a result, a number of projects underway were cancelled, with sixteen of them being scrapped in just the first quarter of 2025.

Tribal nations were severely impacted by these changes. Saltzberg notes that around 85-90% of the $484 million in grants awarded to 46 tribes in 2024 have since been retracted. The already high energy costs for these tribal nations remain high. Meanwhile, private capital committed to these projects for development, engineering, and site preparation was left in limbo. The money already spent before the policy reversal hasn’t been recouped, and the energy capacity it was supposed to create doesn’t exist.

The Global Impact

The constant policy flip-flopping isn’t just a domestic issue; it also has significant global impact. Saltzberg illustrates this with the example of how Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. and Israeli strikes in 2026 caused an international oil crisis. Although the U.S. doesn’t rely on Middle Eastern oil due to sufficient domestic production, oil prices are determined globally. This means that American consumers still feel the pinch at the pump, regardless of where the oil comes from.

The Inflation Reduction Act was building capacity that would have reduced this vulnerability by accelerating the shift to electricity in various sectors. However, the U.S. canceled this policy, demonstrating its increased vulnerability just a year before events proved its necessity.

Democracy and Its Dependencies

Saltzberg argues that while democracies thrive on disagreement and political change, they also depend on institutions with the capacity to sustain long-term priorities across political transitions. The fast pace of technological advancement, instant communication, and closely knit economic and information systems have shrunk political time horizons in a way that previous major events like the Civil War, the Depression, and the Cold War did not.

The ultimate question, Saltzberg states, is whether American coalitions can adapt to these shrunk horizons. He believes the answer lies in voters’ hands. Political realignments tend to be visible in local and state elections before they influence national politics. The current picture, however, is made murky by voters’ seemingly contradictory behavior. Some appear to be moderating, while others are moving further towards extremes, and yet others are withdrawing from electoral politics altogether. The prevailing pattern over the next few election cycles will provide greater clarity on the potential for reorganization of the coalitions than any existing party behavior analysis.