Sunday, December 13, 2009

A Yank reflects on the differences between Our Republic and the British Parlimental form of government....

Don't blame Obama:
The US political system is broken

America's founders were keen to create a system that moved slowly.
Yet now we have a system that barely moves at all.

Michael Tomasky http://www.guardian.co.uk/,

A recent political development in your country has me reflecting again on my country's political situation and wondering what on earth we Americans are going to do about a system that is irrefutably and almost irredeemably stuck in a state of paralysis.

I read about Alistair Darling's proposal for a bank bonus tax with great interest. I'm no expert on British politics, but from what I've read over the past week I've gathered that the City is upset and that the pre-budget report as a whole hasn't done especially well. And yet Guardian colleagues assure me there is no question the House of Commons will pass the budget. It's a party discipline vote, and Labour has the majority. End of story. That the Tories have signalled support is just icing on the cake.

Sigh. If you've been watching the Washington healthcare debate, you know what that sigh was about. We Americans have always been proud of our constitution and the principle of separation of powers. The system has always ensured that the minority party has certain rights and that the executive branch cannot just muscle through Congress any old thing that it wants. Our founders wanted a system that moved slowly.

Do they ever have it. In fact, we now have a system that barely moves at all. Watching American politics through British eyes, you must be utterly mystified as to why Barack Obama hasn't gotten this healthcare bill passed yet. Many Americans are too. The instinctive reflex is to blame Obama. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe he is doing a thing or two wrong. But the main thing is that America's political system is broken.

How did this happen? Two main factors made it so. The first is the super-majority requirement to end debate in the Senate. The second is the near-unanimous obstinacy of the Republican opposition. They have made important legislative work all but impossible.

The super-majority requirement – 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate, to end debate and move to a vote on final passage – has been around since the 19th century. But it's only in the last 10 to 15 years that it has been invoked routinely. Back in Lyndon Johnson's day – a meaningful comparison since American liberals are always wondering why Obama can't be "tough" like Johnson – the requirement was reserved for only the most hot-button issues (usually having to do with race). Everything else needed only 51 votes to pass, a regular majority.

Both parties have contributed to this problem. But guess which has contributed more? In 2007, when they became the minority party for the first time in five years, the Republicans invoked the super-majority measure 60 times, an all-time record for a single year.

And Obama's problems are not limited to Republicans, of course. Think of it this way: in a 100-seat body, getting 51 votes is hard but not impossible. But getting those 57th, 58th, 59th and 60th votes to end debate … Well, the situation gives those senators incredible bargaining power. They can basically dictate terms in exchange for their votes. Which is exactly what senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska), Joe Lieberman (independent of Connecticut), Olympia Snowe (Republican of Maine) and others have been doing publicly for weeks. A sharp friend has mordantly taken to referring to them as "President Nelson", "President Lieberman" and "President Snowe" in emails. My friend is not exaggerating. With regard to the final content of the Senate bill, each has more power than Obama.

Then we have the nature of the GOP opposition. Once upon a time, there were a number of Republican moderates in Congress. Today, out of 217 legislators, the number of genuine moderates is under 10. Maybe even under five.

I do not embellish. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a set of financial industry reforms and regulations. It's scarcely a radical package of measures. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to make several compromises to get enough votes out of moderate Democrats for the thing to pass. So how many Republicans backed it? Yep. Again: zero.

To see David Cameron offer support for the bonus tax is mind-boggling to an American. There is no way a Republican in Congress would ever endorse such a thought. He or she would be destroyed by the conservative agitprop network.

So this is where we are. We now have a distended nightmarish version of what the founders wanted. We've got a Congress that can not only stand up to the executive branch but can (at least on domestic matters) dictate terms to it. And we have a minority that has the power to stop the majority from doing much of anything.

These are the two basic reasons the great progressive dawn of the Obama era has ground to a near halt. And yet even most Americans are dimly aware of all this. It requires a lot of dot connecting. What's needed is a broad public education campaign – and here, Obama should start playing a role – about how broken this system is, bringing a new level of pressure to bear on the legislators who are the problem. But for now, people on the left would rather engage in juvenile carping about how let down they are.

1 comment:

Mrs_H said...

Well, our household is in agreement on this issue for certain! Thanks for this one -- I hadn't seen it before.