6 ms·

Is America ungovernable?

28 points by darshan 17y ago

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
if you limit your idea of governance to the narrow field of what the public finds aesthetically pleasing then yes. democracy is retarded.
- mtts 17y ago
  Luckily, with the exception of some Swiss cantons that put issues to a plebiscite once in a while, democracy usually is governance as usual with the chance for the public to intervene once in a while when things get really out of hand.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    thought provoking response. obviously true in a general sense, but there's lots of argument to be had over the specifics. I suppose the short response is that I dislike dishonest government. if a government isn't really a democracy but rather something else then the power should not be allowed to go cloaked. the illusion of control by the common citizen causes wasteful misdirection of resources.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
euroclydon 17y ago
I've been pondering lately what it would mean for citizens to begin to formally reject government's authority. Unlike cheating on your taxes or speeding, this would be not be a self serving action and instead would be a philosophy. My main impetus for imagining this are the huge unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security. When I think of them, my first instinct is: "how can I opt out?" The Declaration of Independence states that government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, but voter turnout is relatively low, voter approval is very low, and people don't seem to have a sense of partnership with the government. I almost think it time for a movement with two tenants: 1) federal government has lost it's moral authority to govern. 2) We do not respect government authority, but only government power. This movement would be phase one. Phase two could be either an American styled revolution or better, a non-violent Indian styled one, or something else, but preferably not decades of cynicism and decline. I believe a major thing holding this country together right now is our strong sense of justice. I've heard it said of Colombia, that the biggest threat to their country is that when someone gets murdered, families don't except the government to be able to deliver justice. We do still have that expectation.
- _delirium 17y ago
  A more likely phase two, I think, would be violent chaos amidst a grab for land and resources, unless some sort of alternate leadership emerges (and if that alternate leadership were broadly popular, why couldn't it just take over the existing government?). The primary immediate effect of a loss of government authority would be the dissolution of government-enforced contract and property rights. For the general concept of what it would mean for citizens to opt out of a government in the American context, though, Thoreau wrote quite a bit on the subject: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html Anti-war groups have typically also debated some version of "how can I opt out?", though I'd say with with mixed success. They can generally find ways to avoid actually serving in the military, but avoiding paying for it or having wars be waged in your name is a lot harder.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  how would you place yourself relative to the article? in particular, do you feel that you are reacting to the sense that america is becoming ungovernable, or do you think that you are part of the reason that america is becoming ungovernable?
  - euroclydon 17y ago
    What totally blows me away is that the health care bill, though it will surely reduce the number of unemployed, provides for no way to pay for it. I am generally against entitlement programs, but I am greatly in favor of laws or speech or rhetoric that make sense. Single payer made sense! It would have provided a means to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and had the ability to lower costs. All these articles, like the Economist's, are just looking at passing the health care bill as a binary decision, where passing it equals progress, and holding it up equals lack of progress. Every bill these days, after it goes through the congressional meat grinder, comes out as a spineless piece of pork, and unless a magazine like the Economist (who ironically refuses to compute the economics of health care in this article), can point this out, then they, in my opinion, have lost the authority to report.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
glymor 17y ago
From the same edition's opinion section: American politics seems unusually bogged down at present. Blame Barack Obama more than the system http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15545983 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - replicatorblog 17y ago
    It isn't that hard to imagine. GOP presidential front runner launched "universal" health care in Massachusetts. The GOP likely would have come on board for solutions that gave money to state programs. At the national level there could have been consensus on coverage for pre-existing conditions, kicking patients out, etc. They probably would have gone even further if they got thrown a bone on malpractice cases. In the end the idea of creating a massive federal program in a time of financial uncertainty didn't sit well with a majority of Americans or a useful majority of senators.
    - barrkel 17y ago
      Of course, giving money to state programs would have suffered from adverse selection problems, especially if cross-state purchase was allowed.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      The GOP wouldn't have come on board for anything. A few weeks ago the GOP filibustered the routine raising of the debt cap that has to be passed every so often while the gov't's running a deficit. Ok, fine, they didn't have a problem with deficits for the last 8 years but whatever. The next vote? PAYGO rules. The GOP filibustered THAT too. Wtf? And a week later they filibustered the appointment of a deficit reduction commission, which had been originally proposed by republicans. The current state of congress is that the GOP will try to filibuster every single thing that's proposed by a democrat, even if they agree with it.
grellas 17y ago
What the article calls "ungovernable" is what the U.S. political founders called "checks and balances" - good or bad, the system has functioned as it has for a long time now and nothing has happened in recent times to call its viability into question. As far back as the 1830s, de Tocqueville made a fascinating study of why a stable democracy had arisen in the wake of the American revolution of the 1770s while, in contrast, the French revolution of just a few years later had led to mass slaughter and the guillotine. In significant part, he found that the difference lay in the massing of power that in France had gone unchecked, leading the people to fall under the sway of their immediate, unchecked passions and causing disastrous results. In politics, there are reasons to check unlimited power and the U.S. system of law and politics is fundamentally premised on this (that is why there are, among other things, three co-equal branches of government, a federal/state division of power, a bicameral legislature, and, ultimately, a constitution whose main function is to prevent the rise of an overweening central authority). One can of course question this and advocate for a stronger central authority and for the abrogation of the various checks and balances (or even pure traditions, such as the filibuster) but it is a bit tendentious to say that a system has suddenly become "ungovernable" simply because you wish it did not stand in the way of your immediate agenda. It has, after all, been but a very few years since many of these same sources were touting the filibuster as the last, great bastion of liberty when it was being used by a then-minority party to block judicial appointments seen as unfavorable to their cause. One's arguments are always stronger if they are principled and not tied to the exigencies of the moment, as those advanced here appear to be.
- mtts 17y ago
  While I agree with you, I can also see where the accusations come from. The system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when decisive action needs to be taken. It's up to debate, of course, but if you think health care in the US is a mess that needs to be cleared up decisively, all those checks and balances are making it extraordinarily difficult to achieve that. It would be a lot easier to achieve in less balanced democratic systems such as the ones that exist in mainland Europe, where once a government is elected it can pretty much do what it wants to do without having to worry about partisan issues at least until the next elections come around. Such a system can and does, of course, lead to legislation being enacted that most people don't actually want, but at least it's, usually, clear and workable, unlike the outcomes of the American political process which often (to me, as an outsider, at least) seem hopelessly convoluted and kludgy, which is a result of their having passed through a lengthy process of deliberation among wildly incompatible political interests.
razerbeans 17y ago
It seems like now, more than ever, politicians see their positions as a profession rather than a service. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, I believe that if their mindset was that as a servant of the people more so than a politician, things may be different. There's a social disconnect. But there's also the way that politicians conduct themselves. It's more like a bunch of spoiled kids that feel entitled crying foul and bringing congress to a screeching halt. Everyone seems to be so engulfed in pride that they can't come to a compromise. Isn't the point to at least come to a compromise to please as many people as possible instead of bringing things to a complete standstill?
CWuestefeld 17y ago
For the first section of the article, I was rather annoyed. The entire premise of the argument is that healthcare "reform" is progress, it is our destiny, and that anything standing in its way is wrong by definition. This is most certainly not the case, and reflects that as much as we have problems with our government, the foundations are still working. The compromises inherent in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college are there to protect from the problems that an unchecked majority might lead to. Our system is designed so that even popular ideas backed by a "mandate" (an invention of the media; who actually voted for the supposed underlying initiative?) can -- and should be -- blocked if it's so thoroughly repugnant to others. At the risk of skirting up against Godwin's law, the idea that this "progress" is destined, part of the inexorable evolution to a higher social order, sounds decidedly Marxian. Frankly, I find such an attitude every bit as alarming as these "reforms" to which it refers. That said, the article really does even out and put this all in perspective. If you can make it through the whole article, I think that the picture you wind up with is a pretty fair picture. [Edit: fix bad phrasing in next-to-last para]
- cschneid 17y ago
  It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes. Many states have been taken over by handcuffs of strict tax limitations (which is why california is screwed, and my own colorado is screwed to a lesser degree). Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I'd say that the super-limited federal government only worked when states had a counterbalancing ability to get things done. I'm not sure why states power has fallen to so low a level (popularly elected senate, ability for citizens to push through restrictive state constitution amendments, massing of federal money that forces policy decisions [like highways & drinking age].... etc).
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before attempting something federally would be far superior. But I disagree that States can't do so now. Certainly where I live now (New Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare (certainly not a strict tax limitation!!). Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct one, and thus everyone must be forced to "benefit" from it. I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone else.
pragmatic 17y ago
Interesting how memes repeat: We have heard the America is ungovernable mantra before. In the fall of 1980, Lloyd Cutler, President Jimmy Carter's counsel, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine: "one might say that under the U.S. Constitution it is not now feasible to 'form a Government.' The separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, whatever its merits in 1793, has become a structure that almost guarantees stalemate today." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055714091835530.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870482090457505...
1010011010 17y ago
No, but the Democrats whine about America being "ungovernable" whenever they fail to get their way. See the Carter years. Checks and balances are always so inconvenient to the party in power, aren't they? I happen to like the limitations of power. Gridlock is good. Government should work slowly.

28 points by darshan 17y ago

if you limit your idea of governance to the narrow field of what the public finds aesthetically pleasing then yes. democracy is retarded.

mtts 17y ago
Luckily, with the exception of some Swiss cantons that put issues to a plebiscite once in a while, democracy usually is governance as usual with the chance for the public to intervene once in a while when things get really out of hand.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  thought provoking response. obviously true in a general sense, but there's lots of argument to be had over the specifics. I suppose the short response is that I dislike dishonest government. if a government isn't really a democracy but rather something else then the power should not be allowed to go cloaked. the illusion of control by the common citizen causes wasteful misdirection of resources.
lionhearted 17y ago
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken

euroclydon 17y ago

I've been pondering lately what it would mean for citizens to begin to formally reject government's authority. Unlike cheating on your taxes or speeding, this would be not be a self serving action and instead would be a philosophy. My main impetus for imagining this are the huge unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security. When I think of them, my first instinct is: "how can I opt out?" The Declaration of Independence states that government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, but voter turnout is relatively low, voter approval is very low, and people don't seem to have a sense of partnership with the government. I almost think it time for a movement with two tenants: 1) federal government has lost it's moral authority to govern. 2) We do not respect government authority, but only government power. This movement would be phase one. Phase two could be either an American styled revolution or better, a non-violent Indian styled one, or something else, but preferably not decades of cynicism and decline. I believe a major thing holding this country together right now is our strong sense of justice. I've heard it said of Colombia, that the biggest threat to their country is that when someone gets murdered, families don't except the government to be able to deliver justice. We do still have that expectation.

_delirium 17y ago
A more likely phase two, I think, would be violent chaos amidst a grab for land and resources, unless some sort of alternate leadership emerges (and if that alternate leadership were broadly popular, why couldn't it just take over the existing government?). The primary immediate effect of a loss of government authority would be the dissolution of government-enforced contract and property rights. For the general concept of what it would mean for citizens to opt out of a government in the American context, though, Thoreau wrote quite a bit on the subject: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html Anti-war groups have typically also debated some version of "how can I opt out?", though I'd say with with mixed success. They can generally find ways to avoid actually serving in the military, but avoiding paying for it or having wars be waged in your name is a lot harder.
andrewcooke 17y ago
how would you place yourself relative to the article? in particular, do you feel that you are reacting to the sense that america is becoming ungovernable, or do you think that you are part of the reason that america is becoming ungovernable?
- euroclydon 17y ago
  What totally blows me away is that the health care bill, though it will surely reduce the number of unemployed, provides for no way to pay for it. I am generally against entitlement programs, but I am greatly in favor of laws or speech or rhetoric that make sense. Single payer made sense! It would have provided a means to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and had the ability to lower costs. All these articles, like the Economist's, are just looking at passing the health care bill as a binary decision, where passing it equals progress, and holding it up equals lack of progress. Every bill these days, after it goes through the congressional meat grinder, comes out as a spineless piece of pork, and unless a magazine like the Economist (who ironically refuses to compute the economics of health care in this article), can point this out, then they, in my opinion, have lost the authority to report.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

glymor 17y ago

From the same edition's opinion section: American politics seems unusually bogged down at present. Blame Barack Obama more than the system http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15545983 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- replicatorblog 17y ago
  It isn't that hard to imagine. GOP presidential front runner launched "universal" health care in Massachusetts. The GOP likely would have come on board for solutions that gave money to state programs. At the national level there could have been consensus on coverage for pre-existing conditions, kicking patients out, etc. They probably would have gone even further if they got thrown a bone on malpractice cases. In the end the idea of creating a massive federal program in a time of financial uncertainty didn't sit well with a majority of Americans or a useful majority of senators.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    Of course, giving money to state programs would have suffered from adverse selection problems, especially if cross-state purchase was allowed.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    The GOP wouldn't have come on board for anything. A few weeks ago the GOP filibustered the routine raising of the debt cap that has to be passed every so often while the gov't's running a deficit. Ok, fine, they didn't have a problem with deficits for the last 8 years but whatever. The next vote? PAYGO rules. The GOP filibustered THAT too. Wtf? And a week later they filibustered the appointment of a deficit reduction commission, which had been originally proposed by republicans. The current state of congress is that the GOP will try to filibuster every single thing that's proposed by a democrat, even if they agree with it.

grellas 17y ago

What the article calls "ungovernable" is what the U.S. political founders called "checks and balances" - good or bad, the system has functioned as it has for a long time now and nothing has happened in recent times to call its viability into question. As far back as the 1830s, de Tocqueville made a fascinating study of why a stable democracy had arisen in the wake of the American revolution of the 1770s while, in contrast, the French revolution of just a few years later had led to mass slaughter and the guillotine. In significant part, he found that the difference lay in the massing of power that in France had gone unchecked, leading the people to fall under the sway of their immediate, unchecked passions and causing disastrous results. In politics, there are reasons to check unlimited power and the U.S. system of law and politics is fundamentally premised on this (that is why there are, among other things, three co-equal branches of government, a federal/state division of power, a bicameral legislature, and, ultimately, a constitution whose main function is to prevent the rise of an overweening central authority). One can of course question this and advocate for a stronger central authority and for the abrogation of the various checks and balances (or even pure traditions, such as the filibuster) but it is a bit tendentious to say that a system has suddenly become "ungovernable" simply because you wish it did not stand in the way of your immediate agenda. It has, after all, been but a very few years since many of these same sources were touting the filibuster as the last, great bastion of liberty when it was being used by a then-minority party to block judicial appointments seen as unfavorable to their cause. One's arguments are always stronger if they are principled and not tied to the exigencies of the moment, as those advanced here appear to be.

mtts 17y ago
While I agree with you, I can also see where the accusations come from. The system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when decisive action needs to be taken. It's up to debate, of course, but if you think health care in the US is a mess that needs to be cleared up decisively, all those checks and balances are making it extraordinarily difficult to achieve that. It would be a lot easier to achieve in less balanced democratic systems such as the ones that exist in mainland Europe, where once a government is elected it can pretty much do what it wants to do without having to worry about partisan issues at least until the next elections come around. Such a system can and does, of course, lead to legislation being enacted that most people don't actually want, but at least it's, usually, clear and workable, unlike the outcomes of the American political process which often (to me, as an outsider, at least) seem hopelessly convoluted and kludgy, which is a result of their having passed through a lengthy process of deliberation among wildly incompatible political interests.

razerbeans 17y ago

It seems like now, more than ever, politicians see their positions as a profession rather than a service. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, I believe that if their mindset was that as a servant of the people more so than a politician, things may be different. There's a social disconnect. But there's also the way that politicians conduct themselves. It's more like a bunch of spoiled kids that feel entitled crying foul and bringing congress to a screeching halt. Everyone seems to be so engulfed in pride that they can't come to a compromise. Isn't the point to at least come to a compromise to please as many people as possible instead of bringing things to a complete standstill?

CWuestefeld 17y ago

For the first section of the article, I was rather annoyed. The entire premise of the argument is that healthcare "reform" is progress, it is our destiny, and that anything standing in its way is wrong by definition. This is most certainly not the case, and reflects that as much as we have problems with our government, the foundations are still working. The compromises inherent in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college are there to protect from the problems that an unchecked majority might lead to. Our system is designed so that even popular ideas backed by a "mandate" (an invention of the media; who actually voted for the supposed underlying initiative?) can -- and should be -- blocked if it's so thoroughly repugnant to others. At the risk of skirting up against Godwin's law, the idea that this "progress" is destined, part of the inexorable evolution to a higher social order, sounds decidedly Marxian. Frankly, I find such an attitude every bit as alarming as these "reforms" to which it refers. That said, the article really does even out and put this all in perspective. If you can make it through the whole article, I think that the picture you wind up with is a pretty fair picture. [Edit: fix bad phrasing in next-to-last para]

cschneid 17y ago
It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes. Many states have been taken over by handcuffs of strict tax limitations (which is why california is screwed, and my own colorado is screwed to a lesser degree). Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I'd say that the super-limited federal government only worked when states had a counterbalancing ability to get things done. I'm not sure why states power has fallen to so low a level (popularly elected senate, ability for citizens to push through restrictive state constitution amendments, massing of federal money that forces policy decisions [like highways & drinking age].... etc).
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before attempting something federally would be far superior. But I disagree that States can't do so now. Certainly where I live now (New Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare (certainly not a strict tax limitation!!). Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct one, and thus everyone must be forced to "benefit" from it. I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone else.

pragmatic 17y ago

Interesting how memes repeat: We have heard the America is ungovernable mantra before. In the fall of 1980, Lloyd Cutler, President Jimmy Carter's counsel, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine: "one might say that under the U.S. Constitution it is not now feasible to 'form a Government.' The separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, whatever its merits in 1793, has become a structure that almost guarantees stalemate today." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055714091835530.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870482090457505...

1010011010 17y ago

No, but the Democrats whine about America being "ungovernable" whenever they fail to get their way. See the Carter years. Checks and balances are always so inconvenient to the party in power, aren't they? I happen to like the limitations of power. Gridlock is good. Government should work slowly.