51 ms·

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

by 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.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > 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. The biggest difference is, the European Union has 500 million people spread under 29 different countries' national governments. The United States has 300 million people under 1 country's national government. The decisive action you're talking about would be more like the entire EU decisively getting something across than a particular nation. Things do happen faster on the state level.
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  europe is much more complex than you seem to think. the government in the netherlands has just fallen apart because consensus could not be reached over military intervention in afghanistan. and italy is very like the usa in some ways, with the lack of a central majority leading to an increasingly extreme right that relies on jingoistic, misinformed propaganda...
  - mtts 17y ago
    I'm Dutch ;-) The government in the Netherlands fell because it was a terribly mismatched coalition to begin with and the issue of military intervention in Afghanistan was the last in a series of internal conflicts that made it unworkable. (IMHO). Generally speaking, the Dutch form of government, where people vote once every four years for parties they think should be part of a coalition government which then, basically, gets to do whatever it wants until it's voted out, is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my original comment. Once a government is in place, there's hardly any checks and balances to speak of, but once in a while you get the chance to vote out parties that have really made a mess of things. () yes, I know that according to the constitution parliament has the last say in government. in practice, however, several parties commit to a coalition government and will defend it no matter what, even if said government does something they're absolutely against.
- barrkel 17y ago
  The US arguably has a more unbalanced system than parliamentary democracies. The US system places the head of state and the head of the executive in the same person, the president. This can lead to a kind of reverence around the president, where directly and harshly criticising them leads to accusations of unpatriotic behaviour. European governments, meanwhile, are not easily placed into a single bucket. For example, a government can fall over a vote of no confidence, which is much less involved than impeachment. Governments made up of coalitions - which are more likely with e.g. single transferable vote election systems - are often forced to be centrist to some degree, because they would fail a vote of no confidence should they anger one of the coalition parties too much.
andrewcooke 17y ago
checks and balances aren't unique to the usa, nor does calling them that change any of the analysis. your checks and balances have to be, well, balanced. and that balance is going to depend on context to some extent. so the right amount / kind of checks and balances might vary from one moment to the next.
barrkel 17y ago
The number of filibusters currently being invoked is unprecedented, though: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-clotu... http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/ http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-s...
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  So is the number of laws.
  - doty 17y ago
    Do you have a reference?
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      This is a tough search, looking for meta-information. Here's best I can find quickly: The number of pages in the Federal Register more than doubled during [Nixon's] administration, rising from roughly twenty thousand in 1969 to forty-five thousand in 1974, when he resigned, and sixty thousand the next year. The all-time peak, reached in 1980, was eighty-seven thousand. The number of pages declined sharply during the Reagan administration, then rose again under Presidents Bush and Clinton. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Consumer Product Safety Commission; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Endangered Species Act; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Legal Services Corporation; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration-all had their origin during the Nixon administration. In addition, affirmative action and wage and price control were introduced. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3540771.html http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3540771.html
- kscaldef 17y ago
  This is undoubtedly because filibustering isn't what it used to be. Once, you had to actually hold the floor of the senate to filibuster. It was difficult and disruptive and not something many were willing or able to pull off. Now one side or the other just declares their intent to filibuster and we act like it's the same thing.

by grellas 17y ago

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.

lionhearted 17y ago
> 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. The biggest difference is, the European Union has 500 million people spread under 29 different countries' national governments. The United States has 300 million people under 1 country's national government. The decisive action you're talking about would be more like the entire EU decisively getting something across than a particular nation. Things do happen faster on the state level.
andrewcooke 17y ago
europe is much more complex than you seem to think. the government in the netherlands has just fallen apart because consensus could not be reached over military intervention in afghanistan. and italy is very like the usa in some ways, with the lack of a central majority leading to an increasingly extreme right that relies on jingoistic, misinformed propaganda...
- mtts 17y ago
  I'm Dutch ;-) The government in the Netherlands fell because it was a terribly mismatched coalition to begin with and the issue of military intervention in Afghanistan was the last in a series of internal conflicts that made it unworkable. (IMHO). Generally speaking, the Dutch form of government, where people vote once every four years for parties they think should be part of a coalition government which then, basically, gets to do whatever it wants until it's voted out, is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my original comment. Once a government is in place, there's hardly any checks and balances to speak of, but once in a while you get the chance to vote out parties that have really made a mess of things. () yes, I know that according to the constitution parliament has the last say in government. in practice, however, several parties commit to a coalition government and will defend it no matter what, even if said government does something they're absolutely against.
barrkel 17y ago
The US arguably has a more unbalanced system than parliamentary democracies. The US system places the head of state and the head of the executive in the same person, the president. This can lead to a kind of reverence around the president, where directly and harshly criticising them leads to accusations of unpatriotic behaviour. European governments, meanwhile, are not easily placed into a single bucket. For example, a government can fall over a vote of no confidence, which is much less involved than impeachment. Governments made up of coalitions - which are more likely with e.g. single transferable vote election systems - are often forced to be centrist to some degree, because they would fail a vote of no confidence should they anger one of the coalition parties too much.

andrewcooke 17y ago

checks and balances aren't unique to the usa, nor does calling them that change any of the analysis. your checks and balances have to be, well, balanced. and that balance is going to depend on context to some extent. so the right amount / kind of checks and balances might vary from one moment to the next.

barrkel 17y ago

The number of filibusters currently being invoked is unprecedented, though: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-clotu... http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/ http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-s...

yummyfajitas 17y ago
So is the number of laws.
- doty 17y ago
  Do you have a reference?
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    This is a tough search, looking for meta-information. Here's best I can find quickly: The number of pages in the Federal Register more than doubled during [Nixon's] administration, rising from roughly twenty thousand in 1969 to forty-five thousand in 1974, when he resigned, and sixty thousand the next year. The all-time peak, reached in 1980, was eighty-seven thousand. The number of pages declined sharply during the Reagan administration, then rose again under Presidents Bush and Clinton. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the Consumer Product Safety Commission; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Endangered Species Act; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Legal Services Corporation; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration-all had their origin during the Nixon administration. In addition, affirmative action and wage and price control were introduced. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3540771.html http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3540771.html
kscaldef 17y ago
This is undoubtedly because filibustering isn't what it used to be. Once, you had to actually hold the floor of the senate to filibuster. It was difficult and disruptive and not something many were willing or able to pull off. Now one side or the other just declares their intent to filibuster and we act like it's the same thing.