First, what we agree on: minority parties, mostly Republicans, are increasingly resorting to extraordinary measures, such as recall elections, filibusters, and, now, the government shutdown along with a threat of a debt limit breach. As opposed to either just waiting to contest the next election, or to normal attempts to influence outcomes by logrolling, bargaining, and more, realizing that they won't be able to win by doing those things but they would have the capacity to moderate their policy losses. All of that is definitely true.
Seth says that it's the effect of polarization: since the parties are so far apart, losing is an objectively bigger deal (the policy differences are larger). What's more, since far more things are party-line, losing happens more often to the out-party.
It's plausible, but I don't really think that's it, or at least it's only a relatively small portion of it.
What I think is going on is that the dysfunctional strand of the GOP -- what Norm Ornstein calls "radicals" today, as opposed to conservatives -- has, for a variety of reasons come to dominate the party. Basically, it's not that the Rockefeller wing is long gone; it's that the the legacy of McCarthy, Nixon, and Newt has overwhelmed the legacy of Taft, Reagan, and Dole within the conservative movement.* Essentially, what I'd say is that McCarthy, Nixon, and Newt all proved capable of crashing the system in one way or another, even with a lot less polarization and (in the first two cases) with weaker parties than we have now.
Seth says, cleverly, that if we know that there are people who are going to want to do this sort of thing, we should:
take away the dangerous toys. We don't have to have the filibuster, the recall, or a separate vote to raise the debt ceiling to pay for things Congress has already voted to pay for. None of these things were written into the US Constitution, no less the Bible. If we don't like the way they're being used, we can choose to abolish them.I'm very skeptical of this solution. I have a lot more confidence in the capacity of various Newtlets to figure out how to construct new dangerous toys, MacGyver-like, out of whatever happens to be lying around.
Moreover, while I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of recalls and some other legacies of the Progressive era, as long as we have a system of separated institutions sharing powers, the Newtlets and Tail Gunner Teds are going to be able to exploit the basic structure of the government. Indeed, in the wake of the shutdown we've had a number of calls for getting rid of that basic structure (and I'm hoping to write a response soon; regular readers know I disagree). But in the real world we're pretty much stuck with it, for better or worse. I much better like the idea of figuring out incentives to fix the broken Republican Party than the idea of rearranging the system to limit the damage that some mulyaks can cause.
*I realize as I write this: I don't actually know as much as I should about Taft. I know about his failed campaigns for the GOP presidential nomination, but really not all that much about how he actually conducted himself in the Senate. Put it on the list of things I should learn more about...
I guess I'm trying to figure out why now after 225 years of constitutional rule is it only now that the whole system breaking down. Is the presses unwillingness to take side, the lack of any true liberal press or is this simply a fox news effect?
ReplyDeleteHow do parliamentary systems which would seem to have fewer checks and balances than the US government maintain the parties following established rules rather than careening out of control when their equivalent of the current GOP comes into power?
Also how extreme can the republicans get before they start to pay a price at the polls?
Here's a vote for the impact of the Second Reconstruction wrought by the post-WW II civil rights movement.
DeleteFirst, the "whole system" broke down twice before: first in the 1780s when the Articles of Confederation were replaced (in a maneuver of dubious legality) by the Constitution, second in the 1850s when a new political party emerged (the Republicans) and the victory of its presidential candidate in 1860 precipitated the attempted secession of 11 states.
Second, the polarization of American political parties over the past two generations came about largely because 1) Democrats (slowly, painfully) kicked the segregationists out of their party, and 2) Republicans gave them a political home.
With regard to the question about parliamentary systems, we need to say first of all that they are not all alike, certainly not in function and often not even in theory. As to how they deal with dysfunction -- well, often they don't. That was the doom of Weimar, to choose just one obvious example. Those that do manage to function over the long term have a variety of mechanisms that differ from country to country. Some political cultures feature strong top-down parties that can cull troublemakers before they upset the system. Some have very strong social institutions of various kinds that act as stabilizing forces. Many have very strong executives and quasi-independent bureaucracies that can push back against rogue parties. And many simply rely on the military as a political policeman of last resort.
DeleteOne might differentiate here between parties in countries that are largely homogenous, like Iceland, and those that are at heart diverse, like India.
DeleteNot that Indian politics should be a model for anyone, but I think they are the closest to the US in terms of being a country full of groups that are inherently antagonistic.
In Israel if the Government cannot agree on a budget then their Constitution mandates that elections for Parliament be held. Genius !
DeleteI guess I'm trying to figure out why now after 225 years of constitutional rule is it only now that the whole system breaking down. Is the presses unwillingness to take side, the lack of any true liberal press or is this simply a fox news effect?
ReplyDeleteHow do parliamentary systems which would seem to have fewer checks and balances than the US government maintain the parties following established rules rather than careening out of control when their equivalent of the current GOP comes into power?
Also how extreme can the republicans get before they start to pay a price at the polls?
I think you're both right about the causes of the current dysfunction. The demagogues today can better justify the use of their drastic tactics because the parties are so polarized and it is easier for them to paint the opposition as nefarious. McCarthy, Nixon, and Newt all decried the Democrats as being unAmerican or worse. It's easier to do that when the two parties agree on nothing and fewer people on your "side" disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteAnd the lame puppet media makes it all even worse.
DeleteThis morning Dana Bash played Tealoban anarchist puppet girl by chiding Harry Reid for not falling for the cheap Right Wing ploy of funding some small high profile groups while still screwing hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans. Nice move Dana. Are you angling for a spot on Faux and puppets ?
What next Dana ? Are you going to accuse the Democrats of not loving babies and bunny rabbits ?
DeleteTV news at it's lowest. I know coon and friends is bought and paid for but you are supposed to be neutral.
All good points, Jon. But it's not obvious to me how to fix what you call the "broken" Republican Party, especially since the bulk of Republicans probably do not see their party as broken, and I really doubt a fix can be imposed from the outside. For the Gingrich/McCarthy/Nixon wing to go down, the GOP will have to suffer a serious loss, and they'll have to perceive that wing as the cause of it. Now maybe that will be the interpretation of the events going on this week, but that same wing was behind the shutdown in '95-'96. That was widely (even among Republicans) perceived to be a disaster for the GOP, yet the same faction is ascendant today.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe it's a cop-out, but it seems to me that getting rid of the dangerous toys is easier than fixing the GOP. Now, doing that carries some costs of its own, of course. You could make a good argument that the recall, properly applied, is an important democratic safeguard. I see much less justification for allowing the filibuster to continue (pace Koger), and I see no justification for allowing the debt ceiling vote to exist.
Yes, Newt-types will always find a way to do something destructive with whatever's lying around, but that shouldn't be an excuse to leave stuff lying around. Just because they can build a bomb with brake fluid and chlorine doesn't mean we should leave a loaded bazooka on the table.
But, Seth, to keep with your analogy: the crazy people aren't stupid, and will fight our attempts to take away the bazooka.
DeleteHow dangerous are recalls, really? The highest profile recall recently failed because a substantial chunk of the opposition to Walker voted for him because they didn't believe the higher standard for recall had been met.
DeleteWell, perhaps a large part of the issue goes beyond the realm of politics, at least as it is normally thought of. If we allow that 1) the GOP is crazy in its behavior, and 2) such behavior is very popular with what is now called the GOP "base," then we have to face the unfortunate fact that the political dysfunction is actually a social dysfunction. That is, to carry the reasoning through to its logical conclusion, there is simply a poisonous segment of society that is at the root of the damage we are seeing, and said damage will continue building up until the poisonous segment of society is effectively excluded from the political process. I tend to agree with all sides in this issue in that 1) the system is broken, and 2) the GOP is broken, largely because society is, not really broken, but deeply troubled.
DeleteI suspect the answers will come. But the will take a long time, and be very painful for a whole lot of people.
It seems to me this current constitutional crisis specifically is caused by one thing: the ability of the Speaker of the House to control what comes to the floor. Of course any change or fix may mean somebody figures out a different way to game the system. But this needs to be fixed now. There has to be any easier way for bills to get to the floor where members of congress can vote.
ReplyDeleteTonight in the news I almost became ill as I watched an old nasty Republican Congressman stage a recorded confrontation with a female Park Ranger at the Veterans Memorial. This disgusting vile dung bag who is getting paid six hundred dollars a day had the gall to yell at and verbally assault this poor lady who was on the job and not even getting paid. God I hate Congress !!!!
ReplyDeleteSaid scum bag Congressman is Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas. Check his Facecook page to see the reaction his revolting behavior has generated.
DeleteYes the USA is the greatest nation in the world. However our totally useless Congress has made it abundantly clear that there needs to be changes. In Europe most nations have limits on campaign spending and campaign funding. This protects Democracies from being bought and owned by special interest power brokers. Term limits are also needed. And in Israel if a budget cannot be passed then elections for Parliament ( Congress ) are held. Result is that Israel 'always' passes a budget. These are the kind of fixes that truly need to happen . Tragically with the foxes running the hen house we cannot do what needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteAs a registered Republican I had hoped that Rand Paul might be different and offer a ray of hope for the GOP. But after hearing him whisper in the ear of Touche Turtle Mitch McConnell supporting the continuance of this Congressional debacle. I now see that Rand Paul is the wacko that Gov. Christie said he is. Just another tealoban anarchist out to destroy America.
ReplyDelete