I have just finished reading the book with the above title by Robert Reich. He has some interesting ways of presenting the problems we face in this recession we are having. He is not optimistic about the future, although he tries to end on an upbeat note, more on the basis of hope and faith than of anything real. He has some good, interesting economic proposals. When he ventures into political issues, however, he disappoints. He is for "getting the money out of politics", the same shibboleth that has motivated the last century of campaign reform with little success. I have no hope that such efforts will ever produce any real change. Beyond that he relies on the hope that the rich will realize the error of their ways.
What Reich and others miss are the defects within which the political system works--the focus of my book and the essence of what my book has to offer as an addition to the tired discussion of economic problems.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Subordinating the Senate
The primary suggestion I make in the conclusion of my book for changing our government to make it more democratic and functional is to subordinate the Senate to the House of Representatives, that is, to change the current status of two supposedly co-equal chambers of the legislature, to one where the Senate is clearly subordinate to the House, unable to materially impede the process of legislation.
We have all grown up believing in the doctrine that the two houses of Congress are and should be equal in status. There are two problems with this: first the effective result is that the Senate is able to dominate the House, since the Senate operates under rules that allow minority obstruction, and is able to force the House to compromise with the Senate in order to get a bill passed. The opposite is not true: the House is not able to force the Senate to accept the House version of a bill. Thus the Senate dominates the House.
The second problem is that there is nowhere in the Constitution that dictates that the House and Senate are co-equal branches of Congress. I am not an expert on early political history, but as I understand it, in the beginning the Senate did not consider itself the equal of the House, and as it turned out, was on its way to becoming like the House of Lords in Britain today. It was only in the early 1800s (1805-1825) that the Senate transformed itself into the co-equal chamber of Congress that it is today. It did so without any Constitutional Amendments or even legislation. It simply asserted that it was equal to the House, and the House accepted its assertions.
If this is true, then it is also possible, without any need for Constitutional change or legislation, for the House to assert that the Senate will no longer be considered equal to the House. It is just that simple. The Senate of course will not accept that assertion, and there would be extensive debate, but in the end the issue is not one of the Constitution: it is one of relative power. If the House truly wanted to assert its power, the Senate would have no choice: the House controls the purse. The question then becomes, does the House want the power? Do the people want the House to be in charge? My position is that they do.
We have all grown up believing in the doctrine that the two houses of Congress are and should be equal in status. There are two problems with this: first the effective result is that the Senate is able to dominate the House, since the Senate operates under rules that allow minority obstruction, and is able to force the House to compromise with the Senate in order to get a bill passed. The opposite is not true: the House is not able to force the Senate to accept the House version of a bill. Thus the Senate dominates the House.
The second problem is that there is nowhere in the Constitution that dictates that the House and Senate are co-equal branches of Congress. I am not an expert on early political history, but as I understand it, in the beginning the Senate did not consider itself the equal of the House, and as it turned out, was on its way to becoming like the House of Lords in Britain today. It was only in the early 1800s (1805-1825) that the Senate transformed itself into the co-equal chamber of Congress that it is today. It did so without any Constitutional Amendments or even legislation. It simply asserted that it was equal to the House, and the House accepted its assertions.
If this is true, then it is also possible, without any need for Constitutional change or legislation, for the House to assert that the Senate will no longer be considered equal to the House. It is just that simple. The Senate of course will not accept that assertion, and there would be extensive debate, but in the end the issue is not one of the Constitution: it is one of relative power. If the House truly wanted to assert its power, the Senate would have no choice: the House controls the purse. The question then becomes, does the House want the power? Do the people want the House to be in charge? My position is that they do.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
minority obstruction
The general population in this country does not seem to be aware of the extent to which the Senate minority is obstructing the political process. People blame the Democrats because they have the majority in Congress and the President, but it is the shenanigans in the Senate that even the President cannot withstand under the present rules. The recent withdrawal of the appropriations bill is a good example of the chaos the Senate causes. Harry Reid could not even get a basic appropriations bill through the Senate in spite of having a clear majority, because of the Republican minority. Congress has failed in its basic job of keeping the government running. The cause is clear: it is not partisanship, or the lack of bipartisanship; it is that we allow minority obstruction in the Senate. The only real solution is to subordinate the Senate to the House.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
washington rules
I recently read the recent book by Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War, in which he rails against the dominance of the military in determining policy in the US. His contention is that the Washington establishment has settled on a small number of rules for relating to the rest of the world that have survived over the last fifty years, through several different administrations. These rules, he believes, have little relation to the real world, and have instead been an effort to bend reality to the prejudices of a small number of people.
His book is an interesting read, but as with so many of these books, his conclusion is only that the people need to be more involved in government and making sure that their concerns are properly reflected in determining international policies. He does not deal with how this is going to happen.
He comes across as being almost an isolationist, saying that our influence in the world should be a function of our example as a democracy, rather than of our military power. I have rather more sympathy for the necessity of the expression of military power in our interactions with the world, and the obligations of being a world power, at least until we are no longer in that position.
From my admittedly biased position, the problems he is concerned about are the result of the structure of the government we have, which he does not address at all. In particular, the conduct of international relations, and by extension, foreign military affairs, has always, since George Washington, been disconnected from the political process. When Washington negotiated the Jay Treaty with Britain without consulting with Congress, he set the pattern for the future. Since then Congress has never been meaningfully involved in determining foreign policy, and that is the reason, in Basevich's terms, foreign and military policy has been able to proceed as it has without input from the people. Until the House of Representatives is more involved in foreign policy, the people will continue to have little input.
His book is an interesting read, but as with so many of these books, his conclusion is only that the people need to be more involved in government and making sure that their concerns are properly reflected in determining international policies. He does not deal with how this is going to happen.
He comes across as being almost an isolationist, saying that our influence in the world should be a function of our example as a democracy, rather than of our military power. I have rather more sympathy for the necessity of the expression of military power in our interactions with the world, and the obligations of being a world power, at least until we are no longer in that position.
From my admittedly biased position, the problems he is concerned about are the result of the structure of the government we have, which he does not address at all. In particular, the conduct of international relations, and by extension, foreign military affairs, has always, since George Washington, been disconnected from the political process. When Washington negotiated the Jay Treaty with Britain without consulting with Congress, he set the pattern for the future. Since then Congress has never been meaningfully involved in determining foreign policy, and that is the reason, in Basevich's terms, foreign and military policy has been able to proceed as it has without input from the people. Until the House of Representatives is more involved in foreign policy, the people will continue to have little input.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Republican tax cut plan
It is interesting to watch the progress of Obama's attempt to compromise with the Republicans by giving them the continuation of tax cuts for the rich. His argument is that without such a concession the tax cuts for the middle class would not survive. This may in fact be the case. What it reveals is that Obama is not willing to give up on the continuation of middle class tax cuts, so the Republicans have the upper hand. For them it is either all or nothing, and Obama is not willing to risk nothing.
Obama is operating as if the Bush tax cuts would not survive at all if they were not acted on before the end of the year. From the point of view of the present structure of our government, it is helpful to consider the different power relationships now and in the next Congress. Obama feels he needs to act now to prevent the disruption and uncertainty of pushing the issue into the next year. It is certainly more responsible to resolve an issue before it is able to disrupt the tax collecting process.
On the other hand, there are political advantages to forcing the new Congress, where the Republicans have much more power, to deal with this issue. Now the Democrats are nominally in control, and it is their responsibility to solve the problem. Next year it will be the Republicans who will be responsible for resolving the issue. For the Democrats, it is perhaps better to force the Republicans to deal with it. They are the ones who are most adamant, especially the Tea Party faction, about reducing the deficit. They will have to find a way to justify increasing the deficit when they advocate lowering taxes. Of course they will hypocritically find a way to do so, but then the Democrats, who have the majority in the Senate, can resist the Republicans, just as the Republicans have resisted the Democrats for the last two years. The Democrats will be on the side of conservative virtue.
Of course the economy might suffer as the politics gets worked out, but my suspicion is that the economy will not suffer as much as economists think, and the feeling that something real is being done about the deficit may compensate for the downside of higher taxes. The Republicans will also get the blame, if unemployment remains high, of making the unemployed suffer.
I realize that this is a complicated issue, and there are many other considerations, but these are my thoughts.
Obama is operating as if the Bush tax cuts would not survive at all if they were not acted on before the end of the year. From the point of view of the present structure of our government, it is helpful to consider the different power relationships now and in the next Congress. Obama feels he needs to act now to prevent the disruption and uncertainty of pushing the issue into the next year. It is certainly more responsible to resolve an issue before it is able to disrupt the tax collecting process.
On the other hand, there are political advantages to forcing the new Congress, where the Republicans have much more power, to deal with this issue. Now the Democrats are nominally in control, and it is their responsibility to solve the problem. Next year it will be the Republicans who will be responsible for resolving the issue. For the Democrats, it is perhaps better to force the Republicans to deal with it. They are the ones who are most adamant, especially the Tea Party faction, about reducing the deficit. They will have to find a way to justify increasing the deficit when they advocate lowering taxes. Of course they will hypocritically find a way to do so, but then the Democrats, who have the majority in the Senate, can resist the Republicans, just as the Republicans have resisted the Democrats for the last two years. The Democrats will be on the side of conservative virtue.
Of course the economy might suffer as the politics gets worked out, but my suspicion is that the economy will not suffer as much as economists think, and the feeling that something real is being done about the deficit may compensate for the downside of higher taxes. The Republicans will also get the blame, if unemployment remains high, of making the unemployed suffer.
I realize that this is a complicated issue, and there are many other considerations, but these are my thoughts.
Friday, December 3, 2010
parliamentary parties
Jack Balkin, in his blog, balkinization.blogspot.com, has posted a discussion of the problems in our government that touches on several of the issues I am concerned with. It is nice to know that I am not alone with these concerns. The direction of his discussion, however, ends up being rather defeatist in that he basically in the end supports the way things are, the status quo.
Balkin argues that our current problems have their source in his idea that the two parties, and especially the Republicans, have become parliamentary parties, parties that control the government through their control of the legislature. Such parties work well in a parliamentary system, he maintains, but they do not work well in a Presidential system, which is what the US has. Trying to be parliamentary in a presidential system is for him pathological. In particular he maintains that an opposition parliamentary party such as what the Republicans are now, is able to "attempt to force the wheels of government to grind to a halt," in order to embarrass and denigrate the majority party for not doing its job.
I agree that our present government is pathological in his terms. For me it has always been pathological. Balkin claims that our government has not been similarly pathological since the period just before the Civil War but this only ignores other expressions of pathology such as the corruption in the Senate in the late 1800s, the floundering when the Depression came, before FDR took over, the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, the Vietnam War, and on and on.
Balkin's solution to what he sees as pathology is no more than a stopgap measure while he waits for the world to change more toward his liking. He suggests that the Senate change its rules so that it eliminates the filibuster and holds on appointments. "This would allow government to function passably well until such time as the parties became more ideologically diverse."
To me this is wishful thinking, no more. What if the parties never become "ideologically diverse"? Then what? Successful parties, like any other organization, become successful by being more organized, more disciplined, more focused, not by being less organized, less disciplined, less focused. The future of parties in this country, as has already happened in most other countries, is toward more ideological focus, not less.
If this is true, then the solution to the pathology in the US government will have to be more drastic. If parties are becoming more parliamentary, then the government will have to change to accommodate the parliamentary form. It will not be enough to just change the rules of the Senate and hope for the best. For me the change necessary is to completely subordinate the Senate to the House by changing the rules of the House with regard to its interaction with the Senate.
Balkin argues that our current problems have their source in his idea that the two parties, and especially the Republicans, have become parliamentary parties, parties that control the government through their control of the legislature. Such parties work well in a parliamentary system, he maintains, but they do not work well in a Presidential system, which is what the US has. Trying to be parliamentary in a presidential system is for him pathological. In particular he maintains that an opposition parliamentary party such as what the Republicans are now, is able to "attempt to force the wheels of government to grind to a halt," in order to embarrass and denigrate the majority party for not doing its job.
I agree that our present government is pathological in his terms. For me it has always been pathological. Balkin claims that our government has not been similarly pathological since the period just before the Civil War but this only ignores other expressions of pathology such as the corruption in the Senate in the late 1800s, the floundering when the Depression came, before FDR took over, the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, the Vietnam War, and on and on.
Balkin's solution to what he sees as pathology is no more than a stopgap measure while he waits for the world to change more toward his liking. He suggests that the Senate change its rules so that it eliminates the filibuster and holds on appointments. "This would allow government to function passably well until such time as the parties became more ideologically diverse."
To me this is wishful thinking, no more. What if the parties never become "ideologically diverse"? Then what? Successful parties, like any other organization, become successful by being more organized, more disciplined, more focused, not by being less organized, less disciplined, less focused. The future of parties in this country, as has already happened in most other countries, is toward more ideological focus, not less.
If this is true, then the solution to the pathology in the US government will have to be more drastic. If parties are becoming more parliamentary, then the government will have to change to accommodate the parliamentary form. It will not be enough to just change the rules of the Senate and hope for the best. For me the change necessary is to completely subordinate the Senate to the House by changing the rules of the House with regard to its interaction with the Senate.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
misguided liberal positions
I am getting rather prolific with these posts.
Frank Rich has a column in the New York Times today in which he points out that after the recent election, the number of people in an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll who thought the US was "on the right track" improved a whopping one percentage point, from 31 to 32 percent, suggesting that the election did little to change people's view of the government. He gives passing notice to the problems of the filibuster in the Senate, but his primary explanation of this persistent dissatisfaction is the role of "big money that dominates our political system, regardless of who's in power." At this point he loses me. Money has been a factor in our political system forever, and attempts to erase its influence have been futile. We have tried over the last hundred years with little or no success. Perhaps it is time to consider that money as such is not the locus of the problem.
Rich's comparison of the Great Depression with the present "Great Recession" shows this. He claims that in the Depression there were "major reforms in American government and business", whereas this time there have not been changes. He forgets to mention that in the Great Depression what was different was not the presence or absence of big money; it was the presence of a temporarily effective government, by virtue of the overwhelming partisan Democratic majority.
This relates to the other liberal shibboleth expressed today in a column by David Broder in the Washington Post, the idea that if we only had bipartisan agreements we would be able to do the things we need to do. Unfortunately our President believes in the chimera of bipartisanship. I would suggest that the decline in his popularity is precisely because he has tried so hard to be bipartisan. The people want the government to govern, to get things done. Bipartisanship is at best only a means to that end, and in fact a counterproductive and illusory means.
Both of these liberal positions, that it is money that is at fault, and that we should all be bipartisan, constitute in reality the willful disregard of the real problem, the structure of our government itself. Rich alludes to it, only to ignore it. The structure of our government forces bipartisan politics and the resulting gridlock. We need to eliminate or subordinate the Senate.
Frank Rich has a column in the New York Times today in which he points out that after the recent election, the number of people in an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll who thought the US was "on the right track" improved a whopping one percentage point, from 31 to 32 percent, suggesting that the election did little to change people's view of the government. He gives passing notice to the problems of the filibuster in the Senate, but his primary explanation of this persistent dissatisfaction is the role of "big money that dominates our political system, regardless of who's in power." At this point he loses me. Money has been a factor in our political system forever, and attempts to erase its influence have been futile. We have tried over the last hundred years with little or no success. Perhaps it is time to consider that money as such is not the locus of the problem.
Rich's comparison of the Great Depression with the present "Great Recession" shows this. He claims that in the Depression there were "major reforms in American government and business", whereas this time there have not been changes. He forgets to mention that in the Great Depression what was different was not the presence or absence of big money; it was the presence of a temporarily effective government, by virtue of the overwhelming partisan Democratic majority.
This relates to the other liberal shibboleth expressed today in a column by David Broder in the Washington Post, the idea that if we only had bipartisan agreements we would be able to do the things we need to do. Unfortunately our President believes in the chimera of bipartisanship. I would suggest that the decline in his popularity is precisely because he has tried so hard to be bipartisan. The people want the government to govern, to get things done. Bipartisanship is at best only a means to that end, and in fact a counterproductive and illusory means.
Both of these liberal positions, that it is money that is at fault, and that we should all be bipartisan, constitute in reality the willful disregard of the real problem, the structure of our government itself. Rich alludes to it, only to ignore it. The structure of our government forces bipartisan politics and the resulting gridlock. We need to eliminate or subordinate the Senate.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Senate
As my thinking has developed, I have concluded that the essential change that needs to be made in the government is to subordinate the Senate to the House. This may sound like an impossible change, but I do not think so. In fact I find support for the change in the Constitution, of all places. The Constitution specifies, in Article I, Section 7, that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives: but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
I interpret this to mean that for the Founders the role of the Senate in the legislature was intended to be only to accept bills sent to it from the House, or to suggest amendments to the bills. In fact this was the way the Senate operated at the beginning of the government, until about 1809. It turned out that the Senate actually did not have much to do.
This changed, quite without any reference to the Constitution or the intent of the Founders, when the Senate asserted that it was the equal of the House, just as representative of the people, and just as able to initiate legislation. The Senate "reconstituted" itself between 1809 and 1829, and became the Senate we have today. This change occurred without any legislation, as a result of changes in the internal rules and procedures of the Senate, that the House accepted.
It is my position that the House can just as easily decide to no longer accept the changes the Senate claimed in 1809-1829. It could do so by making it a House rule that it will no longer accept legislation initiated by the Senate. Bills passed by the House would be sent to the Senate for their acceptance or proposed amendments, with a time limit for the response of the Senate.
If the Senate does nothing in that time limit, the House would assume that the Senate approves of the bill. If the Senate suggests amendments, the House would consider and accept or reject the amendments, and then would consider the bill passed as amended, and it would be sent to the President. The Senate would return to being the clearly subordinate part of the legislature, and the House would be in control.
The likelihood of the House making such a move at present is almost nil, but if it were to become a topic of serious discussion, its possibility might increase.
I interpret this to mean that for the Founders the role of the Senate in the legislature was intended to be only to accept bills sent to it from the House, or to suggest amendments to the bills. In fact this was the way the Senate operated at the beginning of the government, until about 1809. It turned out that the Senate actually did not have much to do.
This changed, quite without any reference to the Constitution or the intent of the Founders, when the Senate asserted that it was the equal of the House, just as representative of the people, and just as able to initiate legislation. The Senate "reconstituted" itself between 1809 and 1829, and became the Senate we have today. This change occurred without any legislation, as a result of changes in the internal rules and procedures of the Senate, that the House accepted.
It is my position that the House can just as easily decide to no longer accept the changes the Senate claimed in 1809-1829. It could do so by making it a House rule that it will no longer accept legislation initiated by the Senate. Bills passed by the House would be sent to the Senate for their acceptance or proposed amendments, with a time limit for the response of the Senate.
If the Senate does nothing in that time limit, the House would assume that the Senate approves of the bill. If the Senate suggests amendments, the House would consider and accept or reject the amendments, and then would consider the bill passed as amended, and it would be sent to the President. The Senate would return to being the clearly subordinate part of the legislature, and the House would be in control.
The likelihood of the House making such a move at present is almost nil, but if it were to become a topic of serious discussion, its possibility might increase.
Reforming campaign finance
In response to Phil, it is my feeling that trying to restrict individuals or entities such as business or labor from directing money to the party they support has been counterproductive and futile. The history of campaign finance laws shows that the result is only that lawyers find ways around the laws, just as they do with taxes, and the sources of money only become more opaque. I would get rid of the laws restricting corporate and union contributions to parties entirely. On the other hand I do support restrictions on contributions to individual candidates. I would make it a law that all contributions to political campaigns must be funneled through the party organizations. No individual candidate could solicit or accept direct contributions from anyone. This would be considered bribery. Besides making the laws simpler and easier to enforce, I would expect that the party organizations would be able to buffer the influence of individual contributions. Contributors are always going to want to influence the direction of legislation--this is appropriate and proper--but they should be able to do so only through a party, which has to coordinate the entire range of interests of all the contributors.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Raising the debt limit
Today Paul Krugman wrote a column commenting on former Senator Alan Simpson's comment that there will be blood in the streets next April when the federal debt limit will have to be raised again. Simpson, the co chair of the President's deficit commission, seems to believe that the Republicans will make a fuss over raising the debt, even threatening to shut down the government without concessions from Obama.
My position is that whoever has the majority in the House should be able to do what it wants. My hope is that when the Republicans get to that point in April, they will be responsible and do the right thing. If they are completely irresponsible and bring down the government, though, to me this is because with our present government structure they are allowed to be irresponsible, relying on the rest of the government to correct their childishness. If the majority in the House were clearly in charge, without the Senate and the President to correct their irresponsible behavior, they would not be so childish. It is not something inherent in the members of the House that makes them irresponsible: it is the way our government is set up. Our present structure encourages irresponsible behavior.
Of course I do not agree with the Republican programs, but they are in the majority, and should be able to realize their goals.
My position is that whoever has the majority in the House should be able to do what it wants. My hope is that when the Republicans get to that point in April, they will be responsible and do the right thing. If they are completely irresponsible and bring down the government, though, to me this is because with our present government structure they are allowed to be irresponsible, relying on the rest of the government to correct their childishness. If the majority in the House were clearly in charge, without the Senate and the President to correct their irresponsible behavior, they would not be so childish. It is not something inherent in the members of the House that makes them irresponsible: it is the way our government is set up. Our present structure encourages irresponsible behavior.
Of course I do not agree with the Republican programs, but they are in the majority, and should be able to realize their goals.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Gridlock
Ir is interesting to note that we have been complaining for the last two years about the filibuster or threat of filibuster that has thwarted and delayed legislation desired by the majority in the Senate and the House. With the election of a majority in the House of Republicans, but maintaining the majority in the Senate of Democrats, the situation changes. With the majority in the Senate, the Democrats are in a position to reject and prevent legislation passed by the majority in the House without using the threat of filibuster, and there is nothing the minority in the Senate can do about it. Thus it is likely that there will be much less use of the filibuster for at least the next two years--unless the Senate minority can gain enough votes from Democrats to force the majority to appeal to the filibuster as a way to prevent adoption of the minority position. But again even if the majority is forced to do so, there is little the minority can do to stop it.
This was the situation for much of the later 1800s, with the Republicans in the majority in the Senate, and thus able to prevent legislation coming from the House it did not like, whether it came from their own party or the opposition party. Political paralysis and gridlock does not entirely depend on the use of the filibuster.
This was the situation for much of the later 1800s, with the Republicans in the majority in the Senate, and thus able to prevent legislation coming from the House it did not like, whether it came from their own party or the opposition party. Political paralysis and gridlock does not entirely depend on the use of the filibuster.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Political Parties
If what Hacker and Pierson say in their book is true, then the problem with political parties is not that they are weak, as I had concluded: it is that the Democratic Party is weak. The Republicans are well organized, well disciplined, and have been able to accomplish their goals quite well even when the President is a Democrat. For them politics is a form of war. For the Democrats politics is a process of compromise and gaining consensus. This only allows the Republicans to manipulate the Democrats into doing their bidding. The Democrats have become, because of the demand for money to conduct campaigns, in effect Republican wannabees, trying to please the wealthy. Dick Armey is quoted as saying that his guiding principle in politics is to never offend your base. Unfortunately this is just what the Democrats have done, offend their base of middle class voters. Democrats need to get well enough organized, and make strong connections with their base, middle class voters, to stand on their own without needing to appeal to the enemy, the wealthy.
In the meantime, the structural change needed in the government is to eliminate the obstructive power of the Senate by reinstituting the parliamentary rule that allows members of the Senate to call for the question, thus stopping debate, and forcing a vote on the matter under discussion.
In the meantime, the structural change needed in the government is to eliminate the obstructive power of the Senate by reinstituting the parliamentary rule that allows members of the Senate to call for the question, thus stopping debate, and forcing a vote on the matter under discussion.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Inequality again
I have just finished reading Winner Take All Politics by Hacker and Pierson that I mentioned in a previous post. It is a devastating account of what has allowed the steep increase in inequality in our country. Their analysis is that the extent of inequality in our society is not just an economic phenomena: it is the direct result of the dominance of business, in particular the financial industry, over the government. Their dominance over the last thirty years has allowed business, through active legislation and passive drift, to enrich itself at the cost of stagnation and decline in the incomes of the middle class. I encourage everyone reading this post to immediately get the book and read it.
Unfortunately their account of these thirty years and the dynamics involved make efforts to change the system more difficult, and I am going to have to rethink the rather optimistic suggestions I made about changing the system. It is not just that the political parties in general need to get organized: the Republicans have been doing this quite well. It is rather that the Democratic party, or whatever successor there is to it, has to get organized so that it can function as a counterweight to business, and this will be very difficult, because business is where the money is.
Unfortunately their account of these thirty years and the dynamics involved make efforts to change the system more difficult, and I am going to have to rethink the rather optimistic suggestions I made about changing the system. It is not just that the political parties in general need to get organized: the Republicans have been doing this quite well. It is rather that the Democratic party, or whatever successor there is to it, has to get organized so that it can function as a counterweight to business, and this will be very difficult, because business is where the money is.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Bipartisanship
In this posting I want to respond to two columns and a comment by a listener-follower?-of the blog. I will try to be short and succinct.
The first column, by Jonathan Rauch in the New York Times, is one of those perennial attempts to say that we are better off with divided government, such as we now have after the recent election. His argument is that a unified government succeeds only in producing unhappiness and a loss of popularity for the majority party, whereas a divided government forces both sides to cooperate with each other, letting "meaningful laws stand a likelier chance of passage, because neither side can easily blame the other for whatever is wrong and because any major legislation needs support from both parties to pass." This argument ignores two things.
First, the unpopularity of the majority party in a unified government is not because it is unified, but because in our system the minority in the Senate can prevent the passage of major legislation desired by the majority. The health care reform bill is a good example. It finally got passed, but not until the minority in the Senate was able to force so many compromises and concessions that the end result was that even the majority was not happy with the bill, and the minority was able with some justification say that it is a bad bill. The unpopularity of the majority was because it was unable to do the job for which it was elected, not because of what it did, and the reason it could not accomplish its goals was the system which allows minority obstruction.
Second, in a divided government the likelihood of getting major, "meaningful" legislation passed at all is very small: the more likely prospect is that we will have gridlock where nothing major gets done. In both cases we make excuses by holding up the misguided notion that somehow we should have bipartisan decision making, a covert admission that nothing can get done without caving in to the minority, and allowing them to delay and distort the process and the result.
The second column, also in the New York Times, is by the noted historian David M Kennedy. He points out that the years from 1870 to 1900 were in many ways quite similar to our recent history in that there was divided government for many years, and major shifts in popular sentiment at elections. There were, as there are now, major issues to be dealt with at the time, "Yet the era's political system proved unable to grapple effectively with any of those matters." There was then, perhaps even more than there is now, "abject political paralysis."
Kennedy points out that the so-called Gilded Age ended with the appearance of the Progressive Movement and leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who were able to force the needed changes in our government. Unfortunately, Presidential leadership did not change Congress. It was instead rather like a deus ex machina that swooped in to rescue a floundering system without actually changing anything. The desperate cry for strong Presidential leadership has remained, over the more than 100 years since, the only apparent solution to a dysfunctional Congress, with Imperial Presidents growing stronger and stronger.
Finally, a reader of my blog sent me an email saying that for him and many others, the problem with government is the lack of accountability and effective management of the bureaucracy. He points to the US Postal Service, NASA, the environmental regulatory agencies that failed to prevent the BP oil spill, the overlapping and conflicting regulatory activities of the different agencies, such as those dealing with food production, and so on. First there has always been waste and mismanagement in bureaucracies around the world: it is to some extent just the nature of the beast.
In the case of the Federal bureaucracy, however, there is an additional consideration related to the above dysfunctional Congress. In our system the built in confusion as to who is in charge of the bureaucracy makes effective management very difficult. Is the bureaucracy responsible to the President, who is supposed to execute the laws, or to the House or to the Senate, who make the laws? The poor bureaucrat does not really know, and gets conflicting pressures from all three of these sources, even down to the staffs of individual Senators and Congressmen. It is little wonder that in this situation the bureaucrat, without any clear lines of authority or responsibility, ends up being in the pocket of the industry they are supposed to regulate, and able to get away with poor management. These are not issues separate from the above dysfunctional Congress.
The ultimate conclusion is that we need a new system. Enough.
The first column, by Jonathan Rauch in the New York Times, is one of those perennial attempts to say that we are better off with divided government, such as we now have after the recent election. His argument is that a unified government succeeds only in producing unhappiness and a loss of popularity for the majority party, whereas a divided government forces both sides to cooperate with each other, letting "meaningful laws stand a likelier chance of passage, because neither side can easily blame the other for whatever is wrong and because any major legislation needs support from both parties to pass." This argument ignores two things.
First, the unpopularity of the majority party in a unified government is not because it is unified, but because in our system the minority in the Senate can prevent the passage of major legislation desired by the majority. The health care reform bill is a good example. It finally got passed, but not until the minority in the Senate was able to force so many compromises and concessions that the end result was that even the majority was not happy with the bill, and the minority was able with some justification say that it is a bad bill. The unpopularity of the majority was because it was unable to do the job for which it was elected, not because of what it did, and the reason it could not accomplish its goals was the system which allows minority obstruction.
Second, in a divided government the likelihood of getting major, "meaningful" legislation passed at all is very small: the more likely prospect is that we will have gridlock where nothing major gets done. In both cases we make excuses by holding up the misguided notion that somehow we should have bipartisan decision making, a covert admission that nothing can get done without caving in to the minority, and allowing them to delay and distort the process and the result.
The second column, also in the New York Times, is by the noted historian David M Kennedy. He points out that the years from 1870 to 1900 were in many ways quite similar to our recent history in that there was divided government for many years, and major shifts in popular sentiment at elections. There were, as there are now, major issues to be dealt with at the time, "Yet the era's political system proved unable to grapple effectively with any of those matters." There was then, perhaps even more than there is now, "abject political paralysis."
Kennedy points out that the so-called Gilded Age ended with the appearance of the Progressive Movement and leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who were able to force the needed changes in our government. Unfortunately, Presidential leadership did not change Congress. It was instead rather like a deus ex machina that swooped in to rescue a floundering system without actually changing anything. The desperate cry for strong Presidential leadership has remained, over the more than 100 years since, the only apparent solution to a dysfunctional Congress, with Imperial Presidents growing stronger and stronger.
Finally, a reader of my blog sent me an email saying that for him and many others, the problem with government is the lack of accountability and effective management of the bureaucracy. He points to the US Postal Service, NASA, the environmental regulatory agencies that failed to prevent the BP oil spill, the overlapping and conflicting regulatory activities of the different agencies, such as those dealing with food production, and so on. First there has always been waste and mismanagement in bureaucracies around the world: it is to some extent just the nature of the beast.
In the case of the Federal bureaucracy, however, there is an additional consideration related to the above dysfunctional Congress. In our system the built in confusion as to who is in charge of the bureaucracy makes effective management very difficult. Is the bureaucracy responsible to the President, who is supposed to execute the laws, or to the House or to the Senate, who make the laws? The poor bureaucrat does not really know, and gets conflicting pressures from all three of these sources, even down to the staffs of individual Senators and Congressmen. It is little wonder that in this situation the bureaucrat, without any clear lines of authority or responsibility, ends up being in the pocket of the industry they are supposed to regulate, and able to get away with poor management. These are not issues separate from the above dysfunctional Congress.
The ultimate conclusion is that we need a new system. Enough.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Raising taxes
I do not intend to comment on ongoing political issues that basically accept the way things are now, but I cannot resist doing so in this instance. The Republicans complain loudly that the major issue at present is the deficit, and they intend to cut spending to deal with it. They threaten to slash discretionary spending, and decimate social programs such as education, public health, national parks, research, and what they call unnecessary regulation.
If it is indeed the case that the deficit is the major problem for this country, then Obama unilaterally should announce that he will veto any legislation intended to prevent the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, so that rates will automatically return to what they were under Clinton.
First of all, as President, Obama could get away with this move. It is unlikely that two thirds of both houses would be able to overcome such a veto. Second, Obama and his programs were repudiated in this election, so he owes nothing to the middle class. His goal has to be to do what is good for the entire country. The federal government needs the money to pay for its programs, even if the programs are slashed. If he cannot selectively fiddle with the expiration of the tax cuts, he can do so across the board, just as the Republicans talk about cutting spending across the board. He could argue that it is necessary for everyone to share in the suffering necessary to repair the country's credit. In the short term it may damage the recovery, but over the long term, it would prepare the way for a healthier economy. This may deny Obama a second term, but it is the sort of bold move that Obama needs to make to show that he is serious and able to act decisively. My guess is that the Republicans will find it difficult to argue convincingly against it, since doing so would only expose their hypocrisy. On the other hand, it may precipitate the kind of constitutional crisis that we need in this country.
If it is indeed the case that the deficit is the major problem for this country, then Obama unilaterally should announce that he will veto any legislation intended to prevent the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, so that rates will automatically return to what they were under Clinton.
First of all, as President, Obama could get away with this move. It is unlikely that two thirds of both houses would be able to overcome such a veto. Second, Obama and his programs were repudiated in this election, so he owes nothing to the middle class. His goal has to be to do what is good for the entire country. The federal government needs the money to pay for its programs, even if the programs are slashed. If he cannot selectively fiddle with the expiration of the tax cuts, he can do so across the board, just as the Republicans talk about cutting spending across the board. He could argue that it is necessary for everyone to share in the suffering necessary to repair the country's credit. In the short term it may damage the recovery, but over the long term, it would prepare the way for a healthier economy. This may deny Obama a second term, but it is the sort of bold move that Obama needs to make to show that he is serious and able to act decisively. My guess is that the Republicans will find it difficult to argue convincingly against it, since doing so would only expose their hypocrisy. On the other hand, it may precipitate the kind of constitutional crisis that we need in this country.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Inequality
Bob Herbert wrote a column in the New York Times about a new book that has just come out by Hacker and Pierson, two political scientists entitled, Winner Take All Politics. It is about the growth in inequality in this country over the last thirty years. Their explanation of this growth is that essentially big business has coopted government, and has relaxed and changed the regulations and rules by which business operates so that the rich have become very much richer, to the detriment of the rest of the people, especially the middle class.
To my way of thinking, this is something that the wealthy naturally try to do-it is in their nature to try to make themselves even richer. The problem has been that there is in our government no functioning counterweight to these efforts of the wealthy. For a short period after the depression labor was allowed to develop power and serve as a counterweight, but it has systematically lost power through the efforts of big business. At present there is effectively no counterweight to big business, and so banks get bailed out and the perpetrators of the financial collapse do not suffer, and in fact are making even more money. One can sympathize with the Tea Party movement on this, but why they should ally themselves with the Republicans, the party of big business is mystifying. Their solution, smaller government, would have the result of only letting big business have more freedom to gain more of the wealth. We need big government to be able to stand up effectively to big business.
What is missing in our government is the absence of strong, effective, competitive political parties who will have to respond to the people, not just business, to get elected. We, uniquely in the western world, have a weak party government, and that weakness is what allows business to control government. Business is able to use the "checks and balances", the constraints on majority rule, to prevent effective, party based control of the government in the interests of all the people, not just the wealthy.
Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post today has a column about the power of the US Chamber of Commerce in the election yesterday. She points out that the Chamber of Commerce is almost totally a tool of big business, not of commerce in general. "Only 249 of 7000 local chambers are now members." I am not going to argue that the US Chamber of Commerce should be stopped from spending its money, or that disclosure is somehow going to change its behavior. The issue for me is not that they spend so much money, but that there is no one else on the other side to compete with them. Given that today labor is weak and ineffective, there has to be some other organization, working perhaps with labor, to counteract the influence of the US Chamber of Commerce and other such organizations.
To have other such organizations, we have to recognize that business is not a monolithic force. Like any other area of life, within business there are differences about how and what to do. Heuvel points out in fact that one such organization, the American Sustainable Business Council, is in fact opposed to much of what the US Chamber of Commerce promotes. We need such organizations to become more active and outspoken about what needs to be done for this country, but without effective party organizations, such groups have nowhere to go.
Strong political parties, even if both represent only factions within the business community, would be better than what we have now, and would give the people a real choice when they vote. If this is class warfare, then so be it.
To my way of thinking, this is something that the wealthy naturally try to do-it is in their nature to try to make themselves even richer. The problem has been that there is in our government no functioning counterweight to these efforts of the wealthy. For a short period after the depression labor was allowed to develop power and serve as a counterweight, but it has systematically lost power through the efforts of big business. At present there is effectively no counterweight to big business, and so banks get bailed out and the perpetrators of the financial collapse do not suffer, and in fact are making even more money. One can sympathize with the Tea Party movement on this, but why they should ally themselves with the Republicans, the party of big business is mystifying. Their solution, smaller government, would have the result of only letting big business have more freedom to gain more of the wealth. We need big government to be able to stand up effectively to big business.
What is missing in our government is the absence of strong, effective, competitive political parties who will have to respond to the people, not just business, to get elected. We, uniquely in the western world, have a weak party government, and that weakness is what allows business to control government. Business is able to use the "checks and balances", the constraints on majority rule, to prevent effective, party based control of the government in the interests of all the people, not just the wealthy.
Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post today has a column about the power of the US Chamber of Commerce in the election yesterday. She points out that the Chamber of Commerce is almost totally a tool of big business, not of commerce in general. "Only 249 of 7000 local chambers are now members." I am not going to argue that the US Chamber of Commerce should be stopped from spending its money, or that disclosure is somehow going to change its behavior. The issue for me is not that they spend so much money, but that there is no one else on the other side to compete with them. Given that today labor is weak and ineffective, there has to be some other organization, working perhaps with labor, to counteract the influence of the US Chamber of Commerce and other such organizations.
To have other such organizations, we have to recognize that business is not a monolithic force. Like any other area of life, within business there are differences about how and what to do. Heuvel points out in fact that one such organization, the American Sustainable Business Council, is in fact opposed to much of what the US Chamber of Commerce promotes. We need such organizations to become more active and outspoken about what needs to be done for this country, but without effective party organizations, such groups have nowhere to go.
Strong political parties, even if both represent only factions within the business community, would be better than what we have now, and would give the people a real choice when they vote. If this is class warfare, then so be it.
Monday, October 25, 2010
politics: getting, keeping, using power
If politics is about getting, keeping, and using power, with a few or many sides competing with each other to control government, then it is curious that in the history of our country politics is not often expressed this way. Politics is not often described as a competition among centers of power in the country. The competition is more often expressed as going on between the federal government and the states, or as it is now, between big (federal) government, and big business--with small government being only a proxy for the dominance of big business.
Samuelson's column in today's Washington Post is an example of the failure to confront the basic nature of politics. Samuelson admits that for its practitioners politics is a matter of power, but then he shifts the argument by saying that "for the nation, the basic purpose of politics is to conciliate." He then goes on to say that politics achieves conciliation by working out a consensus on issues. His basic complaint is that politics especially in the present "has abdicated its central role," as he defines it. He ignores the alternative definition of politics as the exercise of power. For him politics is the process of achieving a bipartisan consensus.
Samuelson admits that there has never been a golden age of bipartisan harmony, but he finds that its present lack is especially troubling, with voter anger driven to just throw everybody out. But if there has never been a period of bipartisan harmony, maybe that is not the purpose of politics. His acceptance of bipartisan consensus then amount to no more than a wishful hope: politics should be bipartisan, even if it never has been. His political theory departs from an objective description of what is, into a fantasy of how things should be, equivalent to the idealism of having a benevolent dictatorship.
His description of a cycle of disillusionment about politics is probably accurate, with initial optimism, but then demoralization. The cause of this cycle, though, is not "that leaders cannot command broad support." in the form of bipartisan agreement. It is just the opposite; disillusionment is the result of the difficulties in making political decisions resulting from the necessity of having a bipartisan consensus.
Decision making by majority rule is the mathematically, morally, and politically the best way to make decisions. The problem with our government is that we do not have majority rule.We avoid confronting this issue by discussing politics as one of big government vs big business, and pretending that consensus is all.
Samuelson's column in today's Washington Post is an example of the failure to confront the basic nature of politics. Samuelson admits that for its practitioners politics is a matter of power, but then he shifts the argument by saying that "for the nation, the basic purpose of politics is to conciliate." He then goes on to say that politics achieves conciliation by working out a consensus on issues. His basic complaint is that politics especially in the present "has abdicated its central role," as he defines it. He ignores the alternative definition of politics as the exercise of power. For him politics is the process of achieving a bipartisan consensus.
Samuelson admits that there has never been a golden age of bipartisan harmony, but he finds that its present lack is especially troubling, with voter anger driven to just throw everybody out. But if there has never been a period of bipartisan harmony, maybe that is not the purpose of politics. His acceptance of bipartisan consensus then amount to no more than a wishful hope: politics should be bipartisan, even if it never has been. His political theory departs from an objective description of what is, into a fantasy of how things should be, equivalent to the idealism of having a benevolent dictatorship.
His description of a cycle of disillusionment about politics is probably accurate, with initial optimism, but then demoralization. The cause of this cycle, though, is not "that leaders cannot command broad support." in the form of bipartisan agreement. It is just the opposite; disillusionment is the result of the difficulties in making political decisions resulting from the necessity of having a bipartisan consensus.
Decision making by majority rule is the mathematically, morally, and politically the best way to make decisions. The problem with our government is that we do not have majority rule.We avoid confronting this issue by discussing politics as one of big government vs big business, and pretending that consensus is all.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
class warfare
E J Dionne in the Washington Post continues his discussion of campaign finance following the Citizens United decision. In his latest column he complains that "the 2010 election is turning into a class war." This strikes me as a totally naive statement. There has always been a class war: the US has tried again and again to deny and hide it, but it has always been there. It is to the benefit of the wealthy to deny it, and so they have. The Progressive Movement of the early 1900s gave the wealthy a way to obscure the issue, and this was the basis of most of the campaign reform legislation. Such legislation has served only to further hide the influence of the wealthy.
Typically Dionne himself tries to deny class war by presenting Obama as a supporter of the wealthy and the market system. Setting up Obama as a supporter of the wealthy leaves Dionne mystified as to why the wealthy would want to attack Democrats. Again, Dionne is being naive: Obama might say nice things about the free market, but the wealthy are not fooled. The wealthy want to control the government, and Obama and Democrats are an obstacle to this control.
Dionne then complains that the Supreme Court has peremptorily "swept away decades of restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections." I have mixed feelings about what the Supreme Court has done, preferring that the legislature make such decisions, but in fact what the Supreme Court did was possibly motivated by the reality that all of those restrictions on campaign finances has not been successful, and has instead distorted the political process.
Dionne talks in terms of corruption, but that term is a very slippery one, easily shading into simple political preferences rather than something criminal. Corruption is supposedly the use of undue or illegitimate influence, but who is to say what is undue? Corruption is buying influence, but if one has money, what else is one to do with it, how else is one to exert influence?
The counterweight to the use of money to gain influence in a democracy is the power of numbers at the voting booth. The wealthy will always have money, and will try to use it in elections. The only power able to counteract the influence of money is the power of numbers, and this is almost by definition the power of the poor, or the non-wealthy. The problem in elections, and in government more generally, is that the US government is not democratic, and thus is not able to counter the influence of wealth. Contrary to Dionne's claims, this country does not a class war; it is not irrational, it is basic.
Typically Dionne himself tries to deny class war by presenting Obama as a supporter of the wealthy and the market system. Setting up Obama as a supporter of the wealthy leaves Dionne mystified as to why the wealthy would want to attack Democrats. Again, Dionne is being naive: Obama might say nice things about the free market, but the wealthy are not fooled. The wealthy want to control the government, and Obama and Democrats are an obstacle to this control.
Dionne then complains that the Supreme Court has peremptorily "swept away decades of restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections." I have mixed feelings about what the Supreme Court has done, preferring that the legislature make such decisions, but in fact what the Supreme Court did was possibly motivated by the reality that all of those restrictions on campaign finances has not been successful, and has instead distorted the political process.
Dionne talks in terms of corruption, but that term is a very slippery one, easily shading into simple political preferences rather than something criminal. Corruption is supposedly the use of undue or illegitimate influence, but who is to say what is undue? Corruption is buying influence, but if one has money, what else is one to do with it, how else is one to exert influence?
The counterweight to the use of money to gain influence in a democracy is the power of numbers at the voting booth. The wealthy will always have money, and will try to use it in elections. The only power able to counteract the influence of money is the power of numbers, and this is almost by definition the power of the poor, or the non-wealthy. The problem in elections, and in government more generally, is that the US government is not democratic, and thus is not able to counter the influence of wealth. Contrary to Dionne's claims, this country does not a class war; it is not irrational, it is basic.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
campaign finance disclosure
It occurred to me this morning as I was reading Politico.com about the Sunday talk shows, where Axelrod again said all we need is to know who is making all these campaign ads. It struck me that the problem with this approach to improving our political discourse is that it allows the consumer of the ads to discount the argument itself by deflecting attention to the source of the argument. In effect for any campaign ad, it becomes possible to say "consider the source" and then to ignore the substance of the ad. This works both ways. If an ad is sponsored by a liberal group, the consumer is able to say that it is only the liberal point of view, and then ignore the argument. Conversely, if it is a conservative group that sponsors the ad, the consumer is able to say that it is only the conservative point of view, and ignore it. In either case the consumer is encouraged to ignore the substance of the argument, and in general to ignore the discourse itself. In effect we praise and promote political ignorance or non-involvement.
It seems to me that the consumer of political advertising should rather be encouraged to evaluate the substance of the argument, regardless of who is sponsoring the ad. To do so may in fact even require that the source of the argument not be known. In any case, the value of the argument should be more the focus of comment about the ad than its source. To pretend that knowing the source of the ad is going to somehow make the ads more fair and responsible is a stretch, and amounts to no more than saying don't trust the ads because we don't know where they are coming from. We can know whether the substance of the ad is valid and important or not without knowing where it came from.
It seems to me that the consumer of political advertising should rather be encouraged to evaluate the substance of the argument, regardless of who is sponsoring the ad. To do so may in fact even require that the source of the argument not be known. In any case, the value of the argument should be more the focus of comment about the ad than its source. To pretend that knowing the source of the ad is going to somehow make the ads more fair and responsible is a stretch, and amounts to no more than saying don't trust the ads because we don't know where they are coming from. We can know whether the substance of the ad is valid and important or not without knowing where it came from.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Restart
I have been away for the last two weeks, so I thought I would start over in trying to say what my book is about.
My book is about what is wrong with our government, and how we can change it. Its conclusion is that we should strengthen our political parties so that they have more discipline and control over their elected members in Congress. This could be done by changing campaign finance laws to require that all financial contributions to political campaigns be made only to political parties. Individual candidates would not be able to solicit or accept contributions from anyone other than their party. This would free the candidate from the burden of fund raising, and allow him or her to focus solely on the issues. More importantly, it would enable the party to discipline its members with the threat of withholding funding for campaigns.
I realize that this proposal is directly contrary to most of the discussions of campaign finance reform, where the focus is on reducing the influence of money and parties on the campaigns and on the candidates. Parties for most people are part of the problem of campaign finance, not its solution.
The effects of such a change in the political parties, however, would be to trigger changes in the dynamic relationships between the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, and eventually even the Supreme Court. These changes would result in a different kind of government, one more closely resembling the parliamentary government of Britain and most other European governments.
To understand my reasons for this conclusion, it is necessary to take a different look at our history, one that includes our government as a factor in our history, not just as part of the neutral background on which cultural and social forces play out their conflicts. Most of my book is in fact devoted to presenting this view of our history.
My book is about what is wrong with our government, and how we can change it. Its conclusion is that we should strengthen our political parties so that they have more discipline and control over their elected members in Congress. This could be done by changing campaign finance laws to require that all financial contributions to political campaigns be made only to political parties. Individual candidates would not be able to solicit or accept contributions from anyone other than their party. This would free the candidate from the burden of fund raising, and allow him or her to focus solely on the issues. More importantly, it would enable the party to discipline its members with the threat of withholding funding for campaigns.
I realize that this proposal is directly contrary to most of the discussions of campaign finance reform, where the focus is on reducing the influence of money and parties on the campaigns and on the candidates. Parties for most people are part of the problem of campaign finance, not its solution.
The effects of such a change in the political parties, however, would be to trigger changes in the dynamic relationships between the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, and eventually even the Supreme Court. These changes would result in a different kind of government, one more closely resembling the parliamentary government of Britain and most other European governments.
To understand my reasons for this conclusion, it is necessary to take a different look at our history, one that includes our government as a factor in our history, not just as part of the neutral background on which cultural and social forces play out their conflicts. Most of my book is in fact devoted to presenting this view of our history.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Campaign Finance
E J Dionne has a column in the Washington Post today decrying in apocalyptic tones the recent Supreme Court decision that no limitations can be placed on political speech by corporations. (Repairing Citizens United become a test for three GOP senators) His point is that now corporations can spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of an election in the way they want, and corporations have an almost unlimited amount of money to spend--certainly more than any other organization. He argues that if this is going to be the case, then everyone should be able to agree that such contributions should be disclosed.
Another article in the New York Times (Interest Group Spending Drives G.O.P. Lead in Ads, by Michael Luo) seems to confirm Dionne's worst fears. Not only are the Republicans, through outside interest groups, outspending the Democrats this year, but as it is now it is difficult to tell exactly who is funding these groups.
Two observations can be made about these articles. First, the Republicans and their supporters in business have always had more money than the Democrats, and attempts to restrict or publicize business spending have resulted only in the creation of more and more devious ways to get around such restrictions. Campaign spending is like taxes: no matter what the restrictions and rules on taxes or contributions, the rich have always been able to hire lawyers to find ways around them. This is a fact of life and should be accepted. The net result of all of the restrictions since 1907 have been only to complicate and fragment the parties the candidates supposedly represent.
The second observation is that business is not a monolithic, single minded entity. It is not automatic that a given business will support the Republican candidate. Both parties should be able to benefit from the absence of restrictions. The Democrats may not benefit as much, but on the other hand the Democrats largely have labor on their side. The more important point is that the competition for financial support is as much a part of the political process as is the competition for votes in an election, and should not be restricted.
For me the attempt to "reform" politics by restricting contributions to parties or candidates has been a failure, and should be abandoned. I would suggest that instead of trying to restrict who contributes to campaigns, it would be more effective to restrict who the contributors could contribute to. A more effective measure, one that has been in place in England for over a century, is to allow contributions only to parties. No one would be able to contribute anything to an individual candidate: such contributions would and should be considered bribery. Likewise, the candidate could accept or solicit contributions from no one except the party he represents. This would leave the candidate free to focus on the issues in his campaign, without pressure to please interested individuals or organizations outside of his party.
This, it seems to me, would be a more effective solution, and would make politics more honest.
Another article in the New York Times (Interest Group Spending Drives G.O.P. Lead in Ads, by Michael Luo) seems to confirm Dionne's worst fears. Not only are the Republicans, through outside interest groups, outspending the Democrats this year, but as it is now it is difficult to tell exactly who is funding these groups.
Two observations can be made about these articles. First, the Republicans and their supporters in business have always had more money than the Democrats, and attempts to restrict or publicize business spending have resulted only in the creation of more and more devious ways to get around such restrictions. Campaign spending is like taxes: no matter what the restrictions and rules on taxes or contributions, the rich have always been able to hire lawyers to find ways around them. This is a fact of life and should be accepted. The net result of all of the restrictions since 1907 have been only to complicate and fragment the parties the candidates supposedly represent.
The second observation is that business is not a monolithic, single minded entity. It is not automatic that a given business will support the Republican candidate. Both parties should be able to benefit from the absence of restrictions. The Democrats may not benefit as much, but on the other hand the Democrats largely have labor on their side. The more important point is that the competition for financial support is as much a part of the political process as is the competition for votes in an election, and should not be restricted.
For me the attempt to "reform" politics by restricting contributions to parties or candidates has been a failure, and should be abandoned. I would suggest that instead of trying to restrict who contributes to campaigns, it would be more effective to restrict who the contributors could contribute to. A more effective measure, one that has been in place in England for over a century, is to allow contributions only to parties. No one would be able to contribute anything to an individual candidate: such contributions would and should be considered bribery. Likewise, the candidate could accept or solicit contributions from no one except the party he represents. This would leave the candidate free to focus on the issues in his campaign, without pressure to please interested individuals or organizations outside of his party.
This, it seems to me, would be a more effective solution, and would make politics more honest.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Government shutdown
Republican Representative Westmoreland has suggested that if the Republicans gain control of the House, they could decide to confront the President and his programs by threatening to simply refuse to fund them, leading to a complete shutdown. Gingrich did this in 1995, but backed down fairly quickly. It would be interesting if this were done again, and more seriously. The issue becomes one of who is in charge, the House or the President and his executive branch. In this case the Senate would be powerless, since they would not have anything to obstruct. If the House were able to force the President to back down and follow the direction of the House, this would ultimately be good for the country. The House would acquire more authority. If it followed up by reorganizing itself to assert that authority consistently over time, it would produce a revolutionary change in the way the government operates, the kind of change I would like to see. The President would become subordinate to the House leadership. The Senate would still be a problem when the House gets around to positive legislation, rather than just opposing the President, but the Senate could be taken care of. It would be a step for which there would be no turning back, once it is done. It would be equivalent to the revolt of the British Parliament against Charles II in 1688, where the King was definitively subordinated to Parliament. The leader of the House majority would become effectively a Prime Minister.
Again, such an event would be very interesting.
Again, such an event would be very interesting.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A Future of Gridlock
President Obama has done a lot in his first two years in office, for good or ill, in changing American society: he passed health care reform, tightened the regulation of financial institutions, and attempted to stimulate the economy through government spending. None of this was done easily, even though he had a clear majority in both houses of Congress, and his majorities were in favor of the changes he wanted. The reason for the difficulty was not his own party: it was the minority party, with its ability to block in the Senate legislation it did not like, that made passing Democratic programs difficult. Although the above legislation did finally get passed, it was not without interminable delays and obstruction, requiring compromises and complications in each case that made even initial supporters of the legislation dislike it in the end. Although Republicans did not succeed in totally blocking the legislation, they did succeed in making good bills into bad bills.
Now we have new elections soon to take place, and most of the predictions are that the Republicans will gain seats, and may even be able to take over control of the House. For most governments around the world, if one party is able to take over from another party control of the House, that would mean that it will be able to enact its programs for the country. If in fact the Republicans are able to take control of the House, they should be able to enact their programs-whatever they are-and move the country in the direction they want. This should be what it means to have majority rule.
Unfortunately, in our system, this is not what is going to happen. The reality is that no matter how enthusiastic and energized the Republicans are, no matter how many seats they gain, the result will be more, and more intense, gridlock. Nothing will get done for the next two years. Of course some people, the rich, who can take care of themselves, who are able to use the government for their own ends, are glad to have the government doing nothing-other than what they want the government to do. For the rest of us, we want the government to serve the people- or at least the majority of the people as represented by the majority party, either Republicans or Democrats or the Tea Party, whichever has the majority. But this is not how our government works.
Is this any way to run a government? Are there no alternatives? Are we doomed to a slavish adherence to a sacred Constitution as interpreted by the high priests of Constitutional law? I believe there is an alternative, one that does not need to engage in disputes about the Constitution. This blog and the book I have written are an attempt to present an alternative to the present status quo. I have written a book because the changes I propose require first a change in how we think about our history.
Now we have new elections soon to take place, and most of the predictions are that the Republicans will gain seats, and may even be able to take over control of the House. For most governments around the world, if one party is able to take over from another party control of the House, that would mean that it will be able to enact its programs for the country. If in fact the Republicans are able to take control of the House, they should be able to enact their programs-whatever they are-and move the country in the direction they want. This should be what it means to have majority rule.
Unfortunately, in our system, this is not what is going to happen. The reality is that no matter how enthusiastic and energized the Republicans are, no matter how many seats they gain, the result will be more, and more intense, gridlock. Nothing will get done for the next two years. Of course some people, the rich, who can take care of themselves, who are able to use the government for their own ends, are glad to have the government doing nothing-other than what they want the government to do. For the rest of us, we want the government to serve the people- or at least the majority of the people as represented by the majority party, either Republicans or Democrats or the Tea Party, whichever has the majority. But this is not how our government works.
Is this any way to run a government? Are there no alternatives? Are we doomed to a slavish adherence to a sacred Constitution as interpreted by the high priests of Constitutional law? I believe there is an alternative, one that does not need to engage in disputes about the Constitution. This blog and the book I have written are an attempt to present an alternative to the present status quo. I have written a book because the changes I propose require first a change in how we think about our history.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Power to the President
The continuing tensions built into our government have weakened and distracted governance throughout our history, and have contributed to crises our country has endured, such as the Civil War and the Depression. A system in continual turmoil, as is the American government, tries to resolve the strain by clarifying and rationalizing the structure. It is natural to seek ways to reduce tension so governing can be more efficient and effective.
Among those who have written about these pressures and about how to develop better government, the predominant advice has been to “get politics out of government,” specifically to remove the influence of parties and special interests from government; they are seen as the sources of the failures of effective governance.[1] Removing such influences from government, however, gives more power to the President. Since 1900 giving more power to the President has been an explicit part of many recommendations for reform, starting with the Progressive movement in the early 1900s. These reform advocates have been successful: The President has become more powerful over the last century.
Giving the President more power has been the path of least resistance for the U.S. in resolving problems of effectiveness and efficiency. Corwin[2] demonstrated the “aggrandizement of power,” of the Presidency since Jefferson, and Schlesinger, in reaction to the Nixon era, updated this earlier account of the evolution of Presidential power in The Imperial Presidency. [3] With the G. W. Bush administration we saw just another ratchet in the growth of Presidential power.[4]
Increasing the influence of the President has a certain logic: The President is elected by all the people, and so represents all the people. He can be trusted to do what is best for the people. Besides, if he does not do a good job, he can be replaced after four years, or at most after eight years. For most people identify the really great Presidents--Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR--are great because they were strong and forceful leaders who got things done over the resistance of Congress.
[1] see Skowronek, Stephen Building a New American State: the Extension of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; La Raja, Raymond J. Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008
[2] Corwin, E.S. The President: Office and Powers New York University Press, New York, 1957
[4] Savage, Charlie Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2007
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The filibuster
Proposals to get rid of or mitigate the effects of the Senate filibuster seem to have increased lately. Daily Kos is circulating a petition to Congress to eliminate the filibuster, the New Yorker had a recent article on the inanity and ridiculousness of many Senate rules, not just the filibuster, and Norman Ornstein recently had an article in the New York Times about fixing the filibuster. It would be good to get rid of the filibuster. It would certainly improve the process of passing bills. The likelihood of getting any changes under the present circumstances is remote, however. Neither party is willing to give up a source of bargaining power in dealing with the other party. The supposed virtues of bipartisan decision making trumps the operation of simple majority rule. Without an underlying change in the dynamics of the relations among the President, the Senate, and the House, a direct attack on the filibuster will not be successful. A lot of other changes are necessary before pressure on the Senate will be strong enough to induce it to change its procedures. My book is an attempt to provide a deeper analysis of the problem, one that suggests how to make these other changes.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Gridlock
As an addendum to the previous post, I want to make it clear that my point is that although people may be strongly critical of what the government is or is not doing, the basic form of the government is not questioned. To continue...
The Senate has established itself, with unlimited debate and the filibuster, as the opposition to the House, and to national government action. It has been the source of Congressional gridlock; this gridlock is the primary cause of the people’s frustrations with Congress today. A common expression of this aggravation, dating back at least to the 1930s, is “What we need is a good dictatorship!”[1]
Gridlock has been a perennial characteristic of our government, and justified as the price we have to pay for democracy. We have accepted repeated gridlock, delay, and distortion of the will of the people. It is just the way politics work, we are told. These are the checks and balances we have been led to believe we need.
The ongoing battle between the President and Congress and between the House and the Senate has at least wasted time and effort. Today their stalemate evokes disrespect from the governed population. The conflict is basically one of power: who is in charge. The legislature wants control over how the legislation it enacts is implemented, and so has tried to exert influence over the executive officers in charge of carrying out the legislation. At every point, though, and with increasing animosity, the President has resisted these efforts, claiming only he controls the Executive. The courts have largely upheld the President--encouraging and institutionalizing the continuation of the conflicts.
With the beginning of the 20th century, the tension over who is in charge increased considerably as the role of the federal government became much more complex and influential to the country. As federal agencies were established to regulate national affairs, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Trade Commission, who is in charge of these agencies, the President, Congress or the judiciary became an issue within the national government. Fisher’s book on the politics of shared power[2] documents these continual conflicts between the President and Congress, and the mountain of time and effort spent in their quarrels.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Introductory
Most Americans automatically say the Constitution is a sacred document that sets forth the most perfect form of government on earth. In spite of all the criticism of what the government is doing or not doing, people believe the fundamental form given in the Constitution guarantees the best, most democratic government in the world; For conservatives, the problems of today are only the result of the deviation from the form of government given in our sacred Constitution. The proof of our excellence is that we have the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. Our power and prosperity are the result of our government. This is what we have been taught in school and by the media--and we have learned our lesson well. Most Americans would say other countries should be copying our form of government, given how powerful and prosperous we have become.
Much of the writing about the Constitution supports this view that our government is nearly perfect and does not need changing. The 2007 book by Lane and Oreskes[1], for example, is an unreservedly self-congratulatory account of the origins and development of the Constitution, replete with comments on how well written and insightful and nearly perfect the Constitution is, and how well it has done in surviving for 220 years without major changes.
Our government is not perfect, however. Much of the arguing and bickering characteristic of much of the daily news can be attributed not just to the particular issues, but to the structure within which it takes place. The U.S. government was set up with the assumption that the President and Congress are separate and independent, with the expectation that they will cooperate in running the government. There has always been the potential for conflict--and it did not take long for the conflict to appear. When Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton in 1790 tried to work too closely with Congress in developing the budget for the government, Congress rejected his efforts, fearing the President and his cabinet would have too much control over Congress. From then until the 20th Century, when coordinating the budget became too complex for Congress to handle by itself, Congress jealously guarded its budgeting authority from incursions by the Executive. Opposition between Congress and the President was just assumed, and has continued since. Thus tension between the President and Congress has existed from the beginning.
[1]Lane, Eric and Oreskes, Michael The Genius of American: How the Constitution Saved Our Country and Why It Can Again New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)