A common complaint is how dysfunctional Congress is, unable to get things done. I was having a discussion about it the other day with a friend. (A real friend – not a Tom Friedman cab driver “friend”). He was marveling at how gridlocked Congress seemed to be. I didn’t disagree, but I figured this was just a cycle in the interlocking checks and balances of Congress.
Currently the balancing is as between Republicans and Democrats. But, this stalemate opens up a new avenue to exercise power. With Congress checking itself; the executive branch has free reign to a large extent. So, you see Bush II and Obama expanding the power of the executive branch. Power and Presidents being what they are, the executive will continue to expand its reach (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the individual occupying the office) until one of the other branches stops it. Congress has the power; it just has to develop the will to use it. I think we saw this during the end and after the Nixon presidency. Eventually, the executive branch will push into the sphere of the legislative branch just a little too far for the legislative branch to tolerate
At some point, and I don’t really know where that point is, the prerogatives of the institution will override the interests of partisanship; and we’ll see partisanship fade enough to allow the institution to push back.
On first blush, my inclination is to agree that Congressional gridlock is a cyclical phenomenon, and the notion of a grand old age of bipartisanship is nothing more than wishful thinking. But the problem is, the polisci data just doesn’t really back that up. On pretty much whatever point you measure, the current situation doesn’t have many (if any) precedents: filibusters or bills passed or polarization
Now, there’s plenty of room to criticize the methodology and metrics of political science here. But while incivility and bitter partisanship have always been part of our system, there’s not much evidence to show that the gridlock we’re currently seeing is normal.
I can’t think of any other period in our history where a sizable group went to Washington to destroy the government. In 1861 the South went to change it, or leave, and other interest groups, like the Populists, have gone to get something specific done.
But the Tea Party, in taking over the Republican party, very nearly have gotten the strength to just dismantle the government. As proof, I’ll say this: the Great Recession has not become another Great Depression because of the New Deal and Great Society reforms, i.e. Social Security, Food Stamps, and Medicare. So, why do you think the Tea Party is trying to dismantle them? Because they have kept us from a total collapse.
These people are not like you or me, or most people. And they don’t give a damn about check and balances. They really do want to end the government of the United States, and the poor have bought into it by voting as if the rich still don’t have enough money.
Back in the day (1990s), my Congressman was John Hostettler (look him up) down in the SW corner of IN. At a “debate” he was asked about representative government because so many of his views were in conflict with what most reasonable (my word) constituents would be for.
So, how would he reconcile his views with those of the majority of his constituents, he was asked? His answer was, this is where leadership kicks in — when what he, as the elected leader, believes is in conflict with what his “followers” believe, he must do what he, as elected, knows is best and therefore go against and hopefully correct their faulty viewpoints.
This is what I have always believed, too. But, we’re seeing how those ‘elected leaders’ of our own time don’t really care about their constituents or the country.
We all complain about the government, and everybody at one time or another has made disparaging remarks about it and our public servants, but I’ve never known a real leader who would actually vote that way, or just block actions by the Executive branch to do destroy it.
I’m no fan of Hostetler, but it’s not an indefensible view of representation to say you are obliged to ignore your constituents when you think you’re wrong. I think it’s an open question whether that’s the right view; but it’s certainly plausible.
Dan Carlin’s most recent podcast on the Spanish American War discusses the question a bit. The American public was apparently chomping at the bit for war with Spain. Some lawmakers would claim that they didn’t really want war; but who were they to stand against public opinion. Carlin is of the opinion that McKinley truly didn’t want war and worked pretty hard against it, but ultimately got swept away by public opinion. I’m still in the middle of that podcast, so I don’t know if he reaches any conclusions.
I think a representaive’s fealty is to his conscience, his constituents, and his caucus – in that order. While I would hope my representative takes into consideration the interests and opinions of those he was elected to represent, ultimately he is entrusted to use his best judgement in how he votes and in the bills he proposes. I’ll take a statesmen with integrity and intelligence, even when I may disagree with him or her, over a milquetoast weathervane who reflexively aligns himself with whatever the polls suggest his constituents think is in their best interests.
Of course, that may not be the blueprint for winning reelection, but it is the only way for our politicians to be the adults in the room and make difficult decisions. While listening to their constituents is a critical part of the job, it is equally important that a representative sometimes explain why what the majority thinks they want may not in fact be in their best interests or leads to unintended consequences that may not be readily apparent.
Also, I’m a huge Hardcore History fan. I almost ran out of gas on a trip to Florida this summer because I didn’t want to take a break from listening to ‘Wrath of the Khans.”
I think your hierarchy works within some wide parameters starting from the middle out to both sides right and left. And that’s the give and take that democracy is all about. It’s at the extreme on each side where I find it problematic.
You’re certainly the lawyer here, not me, but another way of looking at this is that the President, to actually get anything done when a Congress is only moving a small number of bills, HAS to expand his powers in order to keep the country functioning. He might use recess appointments, he might use his powers as commander-in-chief (I’m thinking of Teddy Roosevelt here, as in when he wanted to prove to the world that our Navy was among the best, and he sent the Great White Fleet on a world tour, against the budgetary wishes of Congress. Basically, he said that since he was the commander-in-chief, he could send ’em out of port, and it was Congress’ problem to appropriate enough money to get the fleet back home). I know you are probably thinking of the Obama drone strikes and domestic spying, and under Bush II the expansion of the military powers of the Presidency, but to me, this just seems a part of the game when a Congress refuses to govern. Mother Nature doesn’t like a vacuum, and where there is a vacuum of governance now, especially in the House of Reps, the end-run powers of the Presidency flows.
I’m not really disagreeing with you, but it just seems like a lot of “same old.”
By the way, don’t remember how I happened upon you, but I do really enjoy your thoughts.
As a practical matter, one branch of government has as much power as the other branches let it have.