tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3985804764130936707..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: The Saturday Night Massacre and the PresidencyJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79763648763594449392013-10-21T19:52:18.493-05:002013-10-21T19:52:18.493-05:00I don't think "switch to a parliamentary ...I don't think "switch to a parliamentary system" is the likely result of systemic collapse. It will never be presented as that kind of choice. What's more likely is some sort of package of reforms, probably not happening all at once but maybe within a relatively short time, that massively changed the actual functioning of the system even while it looked more or less the same to outward appearances. These sorts of changes of basic "regime" have happened before in US history -- probably three or four times, depending on which political theorist you follow -- and I think another one becomes not only possible, but inevitable, if the system keeps seizing up the way we just saw it do, and/or if there's a major dislocation like the '08 crash (and particularly if the seizing-up and the crash seem related). As to the timetable, yeah, ten years goes by fast, usually with little change -- but then again, it would have been hard in 1928 to predict (a) the Crash of '29 and (b) the basically different regime that was in place by 1938. And I think the particular kinds of reforms we're due for next, if not creating anything formally called a "parliament," would indeed involve some trimming back on the veto points, the minority prerogatives and the status-quo bias that make our current system as unwieldy as it is.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-65063985817599711132013-10-21T19:29:05.861-05:002013-10-21T19:29:05.861-05:00I am willing to bet whatever sum you name that the...I am willing to bet whatever sum you name that the U.S. government will not switch to a parliamentary system ten years from now.Jim Linzernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-51089474818515026132013-10-21T18:52:13.049-05:002013-10-21T18:52:13.049-05:00After October 20, it was soon not only impeachment...After October 20, it was soon not only impeachment but resignation that began to be openly discussed. I'm thinking in particular of the Time editorial "The President Should Resign" (November 12 issue, but likely on newsstands a week earlier). Searching on that phrase takes you to the Nixon Library's PDF of the two-page spread in Time.gottacooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38373925498939709692013-10-21T17:48:19.962-05:002013-10-21T17:48:19.962-05:00I, for one, do not think there is any such possibi...I, for one, do not think there is any such possibility in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, if you want to accurately understand and diagnose what's going on, you need to account for the possibility of basic flaws in the design of the system. They may be there whether anything is done about them in the near term or not.<br /><br />And, as far as eventual changes, well... things can last a long time, but nothing lasts forever -- nothing, including the U.S. Constitution as we know it. And when a flawed system finally crashes, it can crash in a hurry. Stable systems are stable, until suddenly one day they're not. Will that day be ten years from now, or a hundred? There's literally no way to know.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-82830727703596722722013-10-21T17:40:21.769-05:002013-10-21T17:40:21.769-05:00@longwalk: Right, I think we're agreed that ou...@longwalk: Right, I think we're agreed that our model should not be the Hungarian system (!!).<br /><br />@MyName: "You also seem to be focusing on the single difference of the executive while ignoring the fixed versus flexible terms of elections that is also a huge difference between the systems." Not ignoring this, it just didn't come up in this round. But I would agree that fixed-term elections are another cross that American for some reason have pointlessly chosen to bear.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28056249302677944802013-10-21T17:23:15.153-05:002013-10-21T17:23:15.153-05:00The Westminster system may make it easier to get r...The Westminster system may make it easier to get rid of the leadership, but it still isn't cost-free as sending a leader to the curb can end up making the governing party look like they're either infighting or incompetent. Which can then lead to a huge loss in standing for the entire party. One reason why it isn't done every other year or so.<br /><br />In the case of Nixon's hypothetical path to election, he would probably have not been able to gain a majority on his own and would have ended up in a coalition of the GOP and whatever third party the Southern Dems were made up of. He could have been stuck in there awhile longer than he should have because kicking him out would cause the coalition to break up and trigger elections (which the GOP coalition would likely lose).<br /><br />You also seem to be focusing on the single difference of the executive while ignoring the fixed versus flexible terms of elections that is also a huge difference between the systems. The US system makes it difficult to remove people from office because power is divided between branches and elections are going to remove them sooner or later so the damage they can do is limited. With the Westminster system, a party that is out of touch can still cling to power much longer than they normally would in the US. It's the issue of one bad apple versus an entire party of them running things.<br /><br />Although, under a Westminster system, the entire budget/debt ceiling craziness would have had no chance to actually occur. So that's something in its favor.MyNamenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-45984495013813693242013-10-21T17:17:01.163-05:002013-10-21T17:17:01.163-05:00I get the distinct impression, reading the comment...I get the distinct impression, reading the comments not only here but at several other blogs, that the people who post at these blogs believe that there is a real possibility of the U.S. switching to a parliamentary system, and that this will be decided not by popular vote or legislative action or judicial command but by debate.<br /><br />Have I been missing something? Because I have seen nothing in the news about this.Jim Linzernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14636329890300388262013-10-21T17:01:18.577-05:002013-10-21T17:01:18.577-05:00"But the president being "dead in the wa..."But the president being "dead in the water" is exactly the problem. What kind of system keeps a leader around for months at a time after he's dead in the water? What's the point?"<br /><br />Well if having a president "dead in the water" is a kind of problem then so is a system that has an election which produces a parliament where after months of bargaining you still can't form a government. What kids of system does that? What's the point with that?<br /><br />You can argue that the American system has problems that are unique to it, but it's not really clear that those problems are objectively worse than the problems inherent in other systems. Compare what happened with Nixon to what's been happening in Hungary in the last few years and I'd argue our system shows some major advantages.longwalkdownlyndalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173899547449318257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-23090230718606843102013-10-21T15:59:01.871-05:002013-10-21T15:59:01.871-05:00But the president being "dead in the water&qu...But the president being "dead in the water" is exactly the problem. What kind of system keeps a leader around for months at a time after he's dead in the water? What's the point?<br /><br />As to the Blair analogy, what you had there was a policy question (Iraq) that provoked significant -- though hardly universal -- dissent within his own party, but also, ironically, lined up the larger opposition party on his side. Many also objected to Blair's imperious or "presidential" style, but there was no significant question of personal corruption, nothing remotely like taped conversations about paying off burglars. In a perfect world, maybe lies about great issues of war and peace would loom larger than tawdry lies about wiretaps and hush money, and in the long run perhaps they already do even in our world. But, bottom line -- and however much we might disagree with Blair on the substance -- in terms of the various parties' and factions' positions and the state of play in the Commons in 2003-07, Blair was on the right side of the big questions. Recall that he won re-election in 2005 with a majority that in any other era would have been a landslide, but looked small only by comparison with his earlier even bigger landslides.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-10023475460940156572013-10-21T14:08:20.420-05:002013-10-21T14:08:20.420-05:00I pretty skeptical of this whole argument. If a ma...I pretty skeptical of this whole argument. If a majority party in the Westminster system decides to keep a leader around for their own reasons they are able to do it for quite a while, regardless of what that person has done. Just look at Tony Blair, I think you could make a case that by 2004 his own party didn't like him anymore and that he was deeply involved in, well lying to his country to get it into an unpopular war. But because Labour leaders, especially Gordon Brown, decided that getting rid of him might be more trouble than it's worth, Blair was able to survive for quite a while. It's true that it's easy for a party to depose their leadership in the Westminster system, but it's easy for a Speaker to be deposed if they get unpopular with their party in our system too. Removing a President from office might be harder than removing a Prime Minister, but a President without allies in Congress is basically dead in the water anyway. longwalkdownlyndalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173899547449318257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-25261053104850259912013-10-21T13:29:35.485-05:002013-10-21T13:29:35.485-05:00While we're looking for political science less...While we're looking for political science lessons in all this, here's another one: the whole affair really pointed up the status-quo bias in the US system. Recall that even after this blatant act of obstruction, Nixon hung on for nearly another full year. I don't think even Margaret Thatcher at the height of her powers would have made it through the week. (In fact it was a high-profile but much less dramatic Cabinet resignation that triggered the events that brought her down.) A party whose leader isn't separately elected and can be replaced mid-term has very little reason to put up with one who's already as damaged as Nixon was by this point.<br /><br />Also, and relatedly, to finally force him out, the whole skein of events had to be intensely judicialized. It wasn't enough just to say, well, something went badly wrong here, let's start over with a new leader. No, there had to be Senate hearings that were distinctly inquisitorial (for a good cause, I think, but still), special prosecutors, court orders, further congressional hearings where backbenchers made solemn speeches about The Fate of the Nation, and <i>even then</i> we weren't at the formal impeachment trial yet, but that too would have been needed if one tape hadn't been a "smoking gun" and/or if Nixon had hung on any longer. The last event before he resigned, recall, was a visit from three elders of the legislative party telling him the party couldn't prop him up any longer. Under other systems, that visit would have happened probably either in April or (at the latest) October 1973.<br /><br />That's an amazingly strong bias toward the status quo. Is it good? Well, it's probably good that Bill Clinton's opponents, trying though they might to reprise Watergate as comedy improv, couldn't trump up an "Arkansas Project" civil suit into a scandal capable of bringing him down. But -- and even though Watergate came out "right" -- I wonder how many neutral observers would point to America's 1973 and '74 as worthy models of how a great nation should be governed.1973noreply@blogger.com