Questions originally posed by Ironhorse:
"Can we get the politics out of governing?

Is it possible?"

"Yes, but..." as an answer. It will literally take such an exceptional crisis (one where it was largely obvious to all that the continued existence of the United States was directly at stake), where everyone would be focused enough.

I would say the last extended crisis where the politics were largely relegated to the background was of course the Second World War, but a second place finish could probably be the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We forget that even during virtually all of the Revolutionary War, that George Washington was having to fight numerous political battles, and oftentimes those political fights were far more difficult than fighting the British.

To me, to fully respond to the question, one has to define what you consider "politics" to be. For myself, I define "politics = influence". As a result, my outlook on the question is "Can we get the influence out of governing?", which is really a much clearer question.

Answer: Probably not, due to what I see as four primary (recent) developments (although there is some hope).

01 New media vrs. MSM. MSM has always held sway, and honestly, they were into groupthink. Not the way it is any more, with blogs, Web 2.0, Wikis, talk radio, but also Internet radio. Old media is losing ground, and by substantial chunks. Communications is a wide open game these days. But it's also turned into a full scale ideological battleground, and I don't mean R v. D, or liberal v. conservative. It's a much bigger fight than just those limited outlooks, and everybody's out (on both sides) for every bit of influence they can get, and that process is coloring the entire spectrum. And these media/influence wars spill over into everything else.

02 Global Economy. We're still the big kids on the block in the global economy, and contrary to the pessimists, we'll be there for a long time to come. But global trade used to be structured like a flowchart, now it's a multitude of spider webs. And it doesn't all come through a single location. And you always have leaders who want to change, adjust, and/or influence that global economic situation (there's that word again).

As an example, witness Al Gore (Global Warming) v. Bush WH v. John Dingell (D-Big 3 Auto Makers) v. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). There's some unusual alliances there.....

03 Location, Location, Location. I truly believe this is a vastly underrated, and oftentimes unrecognized issue. As an example, for NYC, LA, & Chicago, "business" in these places is "business". But in Washington, DC, "business" = "politics" (Influence). Been that way forever. That's the way it's always been, so expecting the environment in Washington, DC to change is not really very likely.

What would happen if we relocated our federal government base to one (or even several) municipality locations where there has always been an extremely strong business environment? I tend to think the "business" would win out over the "politics".

04 Technology. Technology in the 1970's through the 1990's created greater standing for Washington, DC. as the leading political capital. But what technology creates, it can also take away. There is fast becoming no reason to have to have a "one location fits all" as in Washington, DC. Witness the government growth into the Maryland/Virginia areas outside of Washington, DC. It could easily expand to locations like South Carolina (witness Google's latest data centers), Georgia, Texas, Indiana, or other locations. If the federal government can expand there, why not relocate there? Technology could easily make it happen, and even force it to happen.

Just a few thoughts.