16 ms·
> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court
by war1025 6y ago
> because of the massive failure that congress is
This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished.
They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. In some ways we're probably fortunate that the other two branches have picked up the slack, as much as we (myself included) like to complain about it.
- hinkley 6y agoAbdicating some responsibilities and becoming positively petty on the ones they've decided to focus on. It's like the old joke about Academia: the political infighting is so intense because the stakes are so low.
- airstrike 6y agoOr as Mark Manson put it, people give so many fucks about petty things because they have nothing more important to give a fuck about. https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitive/dp/0062457713 https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv...
- hvs 6y agoUnfortunately, that precisely the opinion that the Romans came to as well.
- iheartblocks 6y agoCan you expand on this?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI believe the claim is that the Roman emperors came about because the Roman senate became so mired in infighting that it was incapable of governing. I'm not a historian, but from what I understand, there is at least an element of truth in the claim.
- microtherion 6y agoFor a detailed version of this argument, I recommend Edward J. Watts' Mortal Republic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39088591-mortal-republic https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39088591-mortal-republic
- eropple 6y agoThere is a school of thought (with some validity, though I think it lacks nuance) that points out that the early Roman Empire, the Principate of Augustus until the Dominate of Diocletian, tried to empower the Senate. The Senate had its set of provinces, the emperor his. The cursus honorum was still used to track and groom administrators and leaders and the senate's support (balanced against the army and the people of the city of Rome generally) still legitimized the emperor. But over time, goes this line of thinking, senatorial attention and interest fell away somewhat from administrative and managerial responsibilities and turned more into a social/politicking club, and the emperor "naturally" picked up the slack. There is an element of bias to this, and it often reveals a political preference of the author, but it's not without some merit.
- hvs 6y agoI was being a bit glib, and others have expanded better than I can on the theory (plus Roman politics is complicated) but here's an example of the theory: https://www.history.com/news/rome-republic-augustus-dictator https://www.history.com/news/rome-republic-augustus-dictator
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoWhy is Rome important here? I can see the symmetry between Rome and what USA currently has - different rich powerful groups arguing and ignoring half the people, for example; rife corruption and nepotism - but how is Rome a model for a democracy, and one that seeks (in theory) not to divide the people into ruling and subservient classes at that?
- hvs 6y agoBecause the U.S. isn't a democracy it's one that was explicitly founded on the model of the Roman Republic, albeit one with a written constitution.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoThe rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for all (per Tho.Jefferson) seems pretty democratic? Was the founders intention to have a super-class who had political determination? Could you expand a little on your point?
- Nasrudith 6y agoI think part of the point is that aspects beyond democracy are taken for granted. The US citizenship and model of "being Roman" is pretty imperial in many ways. It has undersung virtues of tolerance. It doesn't matter if you were Greek, Gaul, Barbarian, or even Carthigian - once a citizen you are fundamentally Roman. Viewing nationality as not an immutable accident of birth is pretty damn "Roman". Many "modern" issues like Political Correctness and Multiculturalism are millenia old and can really be better described as "Imperial" Issues. They are encountered due to past and present expansionism and and broad interactions. Despite the negative connotations not everything classified as Imperialism is bad - just as it is a mistake to ignore the travesties of empires so is it a mistake to ignore its virtues. Rome had many periods and the dynamics have played out before and provided disturbingly apt precedents even with the alien trappings and values.
- rndmize 6y agoI'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-nail fighting over healthcare makes me think that an effective system just can't be done federally; there's too much disagreement between states. Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?
- calvinmorrison 6y agoBalkanization is the fastest way to find out what works and doesn't and allow for local control and decision making, it also makes nice for frequent wars and nutty leaders.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoBut if Arizona implements a different healthcare system than New York, even if each hates the other system, they don't get to have a war, because neither of them has a military. (OK, they each have their own National Guard elements...)
- rndmize 6y agoNuttier leaders than what we currently have, you mean? As far as I can tell, the US did pretty well with less federal power for several hundred years; I don't really see how rolling back 50 years of federal policy would lead to balkanization.
- wnoise 6y agoSeveral hundred? Two or even three is not usually not considered to be several.
- jordanpg 6y agoOr alternatively, that the federal government, as it currently operates, is simply no longer up to the task of modern governance. Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons.
- krapp 6y ago>They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. That's what many Americans wanted, and voted for. A government that governs least governs best, after all.
- Sharlin 6y agoI… find it rather difficult to believe that a sufficient number of Americans coordinated and voted strategically over decades in order to intentionally bring to existence the current two-party deadlock situation.
- nemothekid 6y agoIt's working as designed. The same system that prevents Congress from properly voting on PPP Loans is the same system that prevents Trump from banning all muslims from the country overnight. I'm not smart enough to know if there is a better solution for America.
- krapp 6y agoWhat is a political party if not a means of mass coordination and strategic voting? American politics has become less about policy and more about ideology and party loyalty over time, and that ideology has become more entrenched and unwilling to compromise with opponents.
- lukifer 6y agoRobin Hanson argues [0] that most of politics is not about outcomes; it's about in-group signaling. [0] http://elephantinthebrain.com/ http://elephantinthebrain.com/
- cgriswald 6y agoUsually those of us who have voted for less government have voted for candidates that haven’t even gotten elected. People instead are voting for-or-against abortion, for-or-against gun control, or whatever other never-been-solved issues and then letting their voted-for representatives run rampant on nearly every other issue. (Never mind the role of the two party system, the anti democratic shenanigans in those parties, and the only real choice being the lesser of two evils.) Those politicians have given us more and more government in the form of regulatory bodies, enforcement bodies under the umbrella of the executive, and bureaucracy. You may or may not like those things but to lay them at the feet of people who want less government is absurd.
- ISL 6y agoWhile in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision. There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement. When Congress reaches approximate agreement on an issue, particularly an emerging one, it can move fast. See the passage of the PATRIOT Act or the recent move to spend more than $1,000,000,000,000 on COVID-19 economic relief.
- conception 6y agoI think there are perceived deep divides but those are mostly fictional. e.g. a number of conservatives like the ACA but hate Obamamcare. Propaganda is doing its job of keeping the electorate divided, even if a large number of our aims are actually aligned.
- busterarm 6y agoExcept this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.
- rhizome 6y agoHow much activity do you expect from a party whose organizing principle is to shrink government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub?
- bluGill 6y agoMaybe shrink government? You might not agree with the principle, but given they haven't done much shrinking you cannot call it their principle.
- krapp 6y agoIt is their principle, they just prefer to shrink the parts of government they disagree with ideologically. Which is why we have the biggest, most powerful and most expensive military in human history but our healthcare and education systems are a joke.
- ColanR 6y ago> They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. They were always intended to be both. Since there had to be such a powerful entity within the government (the power exists, so it has to be put somewhere), the best course of action to prevent any whim of politics doing irreparable damage is to pit congress against itself so that any actions it takes are generally too slow for transient whims to affect it. Better that the powerful are inefficient.
- tmountain 6y agoThe filibuster doesn't help the situation and seems like a mechanism designed to encourage obstruction. Until we do away with it, I fear we'll be stuck with the status quo.
- jki275 6y agoThe filibuster forces consensus. It's hard to get a ten vote majority if you're arguing strictly along party lines.
- mcv 6y agoThe real problem is that there are just two parties that hate each other to the core. In a multi-party system, parties would be forced to compromise and find agreement with other parties, and this would become normal. So get rid of congressional districts and instead fill the House according to proportional representation.
- webmaven 6y agoYou don't need to go that far, just getting rid of gerrymandering (and thus, "safe" seats) would accomplish much the same in terms of forcing candidates to appeal to a broader constituency.
- mcv 6y agoAny kind of district system will still result in a two-party system. You need to get rid of the district system. A district system only represents the majority opinion in each district, so a very large minority of Americans will effectively not be represented. It also pushes people to vote for the "lesser evil" instead of voting their conscience. The US needs more than two parties.
- seehafer 6y agoMadison thought it highly unlikely that people who held immense power would not choose to use it. The Framers' model (and fear) was Rome, and much of our Constitutional design is intended to prevent an American Caesar. (One of the reasons Washington was universally revered was because he acted so contrary to what everyone thought was human nature.) "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" he tells us in Federalist 10. The idea of a legislator who would derive self-worth not from actually doing things (good or bad) but rather by approbation from their faction solely for making the other side mad was not something they thought possible.
- tempestn 6y agoIronic, given that these same tendencies were very present around the fall of the Roman republic. Rome had a similar gridlock of opposing positions of power, and similarly fell into a state where little could be accomplished due to the regular undermining and vetoing. Edit: Since most replies are talking about the empire, I just want to reiterate that my comment was regarding the end of the Republic, which imo is a more analogous situation to modern USA. (Not to say it's identical, of course!)
- jrumbut 6y agoI wanted to provide a little near-contenporary source material to back up this answer which ought to be read by everyone. From Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars: "The violent death of Caligula [the previous emperor] afforded the Romans a fresh opportunity to have asserted the liberty of their country; but the conspirators had concerted no plan, by which they should proceed upon the assassination of that tyrant; and the indecision of the senate, in a debate of two days, on so sudden an emergency, gave time to the caprice of the soldiers to interpose in the settlement of the government. By an accident the most fortuitous, a man devoid of all pretensions to personal merit, so weak in understanding as to be the common sport of the emperor’s household, and an object of contempt even to his own kindred; this man, in the hour of military insolence, was nominated by the soldiers as successor to the Roman throne."
- 6y ago
- Vysero 6y agoIt's a feature not a bug. The entire system was designed s/t it is incredibly hard for anyone in Washington to do anything. There are good reasons for that.
- tiles 6y agoWeirdly, Mazars actually shrinks what I believed was the scope of Congressional power, where in the one instance the House actually attempted to exert equal balance, there now exists a four-part test for validity of presidential subpeonas. Congressional power is squeezed from all sides whenever exerted.
- jorblumesea 6y agoCongress merely reflects the candidates that we elect and the underlying political sentiments of their constituents. Since they serve shorter terms than judges and are more localized than the President, it's hardly surprising that they are more impacted by the political divide. If Americans cannot agree on anything, therefore, congress cannot either. People blame congress, but it's the American people who are ultimately responsible.
- SubiculumCode 6y agoIt may be that the 17th Amendment changing the appointment of Senators to a popular vote from elections by state legislators was a mistake, as "anti-democratic" as that may sound, it may be a good principal in a Republic. The house weighs the popular opinion, the Senate, the will of States.
- paulmd 6y agothe senate itself existing was a mistake. It only is fair in the context of some kind of relative equality of states, letting low-population states grind policy to a halt is inherently antidemocratic. (by design! the point was to give smaller states a say and that itself is the problem, it is a bad idea to let a minority be able to grind all action to a halt. You say "but what if they do something I don't like" and the answer is vote them out next time, elections should have consequences and winning an election should result in a government that is able to accomplish policy. Setting it up deliberately to deadlock just because they might do something you don't like is a terrible idea and needs to stop being viewed as some kind of virtue of the design of the American system. Just because the founders did it, doesn't mean that it is a good design, they had lots of bad decisions... like slavery, and setting up the government to allow slave states to have equal control to the free states.) if you assume some kind of relative equality of states, then on the whole the senate should approximate the house, and you can easily come to the conclusion that we really don't need the senate itself at all. abolish it and go to a unicameral system. Similarly the parliamentary system where the executive is chosen by the majority of the legislature is a much better idea - again because it results in a government that is actually able to accomplish policy. there is very much a reason that none of the other countries whose constitutions we wrote over the years (Japan, Germany, etc) use the American system. Everyone in power realizes that the American system is terrible and doesn't produce a mandate to govern.
- triceratops 6y agoIt was a necessary compromise to get 3/4 of the first thirteen states to ratify the constitution. I'm not saying it's great now, just pointing out why it exists.
- Symmetry 6y agoOur system of government really, really wasn't designed to handle politically polarized parties. We've had partisanship forever but mostly it was about competing for patronage rather than ideology. Then after the Progressive reforms of the turn of the 20th century we had a long period where each party had their liberal and their conservative wings that meant low polarization.
- ameister14 6y ago>Our system of government really, really wasn't designed to handle politically polarized parties. We've had partisanship forever but mostly it was about competing for patronage rather than ideology. The first hundred years of the US tend to disagree with that statement
- Symmetry 6y agoReally? What issues of principle would have the Democratic Republicans or the Federalists not been willing to abandon for the sake of the pork barrel, at least after Andrew Jackson? I will grant that the Republicans and Democrats initially had substantial ideological differences they weren't willing to compromise on but that immediately resulted in a civil war and then we were back to the normal state of affairs.
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago> they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness Are you talking about Congress or the country as a whole?
- huffmsa 6y agoThat's exactly the problem. Congress is supposed to do the majority of the work. Not the executive, and not he judicial (it's not even well defined in the Constitution). The elected body of representatives is supposed to be where the action is. They've gradually been failing more and more
- Nasrudith 6y agoWhile congress is idle and obstructionist in a way of refusing to allow votes as opposed to "most bills get a failing vote even after ammendments" I wonder how much of the dysfunction is a matter of failing to scale governance.
- dguaraglia 6y ago> They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. If Congressional lockdown was useless, it would've been fixed. Clearly, there's plenty of interests that favor a Congress/Senate that isn't able to move legislation forward.