Peter Aldhous has a nice article up at Medium about the persistence of polarization in American politics. I particularly recommend it because he begins with journalistic/reformist claim that gridlock has gotten out of control but ultimately draws on political science research to note that not only do most party reform efforts fail, but that: a) polarization is a persistent and endemic feature of our political system, and b) the U.S. Constitution was designed to encourage gridlock.
To some, the political scientists quoted in the piece (including me) will come off as a depressing lot, unable to address the main concern (polarization) expressed by so many political observers. But if political scientists are failing to answer the question, it may be because the wrong question is being asked. Polarization is not really something to be "fixed." Rather, it's a sign that people are debating important issues and coming to different points of view. And it's been the condition for much of American history. It's those rare moments of relatively weak parties (e.g.: the mid-20th century) that present problems, such as a political system that avoids debate on key problems (like civil rights) and elections that are substantively meaningless contests that produce no changes in public policy.
Relatedly, gridlock is part of the design of the U.S. Constitution. Separation of powers was intended to make it difficult for a faction, even a large one, to change the laws. There are other governing systems with fewer veto points, such as parliamentary systems, that allow for easier lawmaking, even in times of great party polarization. We just don't happen to live under such a system.
Posted with Blogsy
Two problems with this analysis.
ReplyDelete* Too much gridlock creates a constitutional crisis and imperils the long term survival of the country. The U.S. government will cease to function as a country unless it is possible, at a minimum, for its elected officials to (1) pass appropriations bills that keep the government open, (2) maintain sufficient revenues and borrowing to pay for governmental operations, (3) prevent default on the national debt while honoring the state's legislature and constitution established obligations, (4) appoint a sufficient group of senior appointees to carry out the executive branch function, and (5) pass legislation sufficient to avert catastrophe that would be inevitable given the status quo (think the Naboo Crisis in Star Wars I, or an act of war against the U.S.), In times of partisan division and gridlock that means bipartisan agreement must be reached to accomplish these ends, and there is no certainty that bipartisan agreement will always be forthcoming if the partisan gap is too great.
* A bad legislative culture can (and does) prevent agreement from being reached even on matters where bipartisan agreement does exist. Much of the criticism of excessive partisanship is ultimately really a criticism of a legislative culture in which strategic consideration prevent legislators from agreeing even on points where they genuinely agree, and a plea instead for legislators to engage legislation on the merits rather than entangling it in totally unrelated strategic partisan struggled. This has far more to do with the political culture that emerges amongst elected officials than it does with the formal rules of the game. These are societal gains that are sacrificed when civility and decorum and a sense of fair play and a willingness to address issues one by one in isolation on their merits is no longer a part of the political culture.
I love these articles that conclude that we have a problem for which there is no solution and that we are doomed to live with the problems. If we start with the assumption that the constitution is the very embodiment of democracy--that it defines democracy--and that nothing else is conceivable, then that is the inevitable conclusion. A government is merely a reflection of the system that produced it, and it can be no better than it allows. The problem is not the government, but the system--fundamentally. Democracies worldwide, which are modeled after the US system, are widely regarded as train wrecks. And some actually believe the Chinese system is better.
ReplyDelete"If we start with the assumption that the constitution is the very embodiment of democracy--that it defines democracy--and that nothing else is conceivable, then that is the inevitable conclusion. A government is merely a reflection of the system that produced it, and it can be no better than it allows."
ReplyDeleteThe notion that constitutional language foreordains a particular system of government doesn't hold up all that well empirically. For example, much of Latin America at one time or another has had constitutions almost identical to the U.S. with very different end products.