3 ms·
> "...but rather to note that it's the system of checks and balances that encourages that partisanship." i'd argue 'encourage' too strongly leans into intent h
by clairity 6y ago
> "...but rather to note that it's the system of checks and balances that encourages that partisanship."
i'd argue 'encourage' too strongly leans into intent here, and that 'permit' seems closer to what's going on. any multi-party, adversarial system is prone to partisanship. 'checks and balances' may be more explicitly adversarial, but making that explicit isn't necessary for people to line up against each other in a political context and create gridlock. plus, 4 factions aren't really better than 2 at creating gridlock (because they often devolve into 2 opposing factions anyway).
- jfengel 6y agoAbsolutely. I just have a slightly hard time believing the Supreme Court when it throws up its tidy hands and says, "Well, this is a problem for the legislature", knowing full well that the legislature won't. Especially what it's done along partisan lines, though it isn't the case with this one. The Supreme Court is dominated by fans of the status quo, who then set the rules to further encourage the status quo. It's very hard not to read it as "Everything is fine with me, and if it's not fine with you, go get the House and the Senate and the President to agree with you (snicker). Then come back and I'll have a look at it."