Back in 2011, I posted:
I had a high school history teacher who, periodically, would draw three circles on the chalkboard representing the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. Depending on what era in history we were looking at, the respective circles would be bigger or smaller. Possibly there was a better visual representation to be had, but the basic notion was that, where one branch refused or declined to act, the other ones would expand into the vacuum.
Speaking of three rings, Congress has largely looked like a circus for the past generation or so. And that, as much as anything else I believe, is why we have seen the Presidency and the Supreme Court looming larger in our lives. This might also be why “limited government” is mostly a fantasy — at least if its proponents seek to achieve it through gridlock and inaction. The branches would have to affirmatively limit themselves and the other branches. Inaction simply leads to one of the other branches stepping into the breach.
President Obama’s executive order on immigration, and Gov. Pence’s executive action in opposition – joining a lawsuit by various pieces of various state governments – made me think of that post from a couple of years ago.
Simply stopping one branch of government is not, by itself, enough to stop the other branches. They can and probably will expand their reach until affirmatively checked by one of the other branches. In fact, I think Obama is, to some extent, trolling Congress here – baiting it into action. The political calculation is probably that regardless of which way Congress jumps, you’ll get some mix of better immigration policy and/or his Republican opposition making themselves less popular with Latinos. Additionally, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, I don’t get the feeling that President Obama is actually a big fan of a strong executive — at least not as much as his recent predecessors. So, rhetoric and action pushing back on a stronger executive might be welcome. (That last sentiment is more speculative than the former.)
Dog, historically, the president has become more powerful, almost since the founding of the Republic. The Supreme Court has risen a few time, i.e. Marbary v. Madisson, Dred Scott, and the Lochner court. And more recent court iterations.
Congress has moved beyond dysfunction. The circus analogy holds up well.
I tend to agree with you that Obama does not aspire to the dominancy that his predecessors craved. He is just more hated by the disloyal opposition and American racists. But he is smarter than most and as you suggest, Congress will present the theatre of lawsuits while Obama games them or forces them into some immigration action.
Congress reasserts itself from time to time — after Lincoln, during the Johnson administration; after FDR to some extent; during and after Nixon.
I think Congress ultimately has more power, but also a much more difficult time wielding that power. So the President has to be almost ostentatious in wielding his power before Congress can be sufficiently roused to assert its authority.
Dog, I would agree with all periods, after the 1946 elections, post FDR, and more so in 1948 after the Truman election. I think now that we have moved into a permanent election mode, Congress has weakened itself as the many candidates manuver with an eye upon the next presidential election. And perhaps as more governors join the permanent election cycle, state legislators may assert more power.
For several years now, I’ve been thinking that what the Congress was created to be is just an accident of history. Although coming from the evolutionary development and tradition of English Parliament, it was flawed at its creation because it was planned and compromised into being.
If there is one thing I’d support over all, it would be the imposition of a parliamentary system, and rather quickly.
A strong and governing House led by the leader of the party that won the election, with a studious, advisory Senate which would be pretty well emasculated from having any real power seems a lot better than what we have.
Let the President be a head of state for 10 years or so, or even go to a faux type of monarchy and have Prince Harry come over and lead us. (Or, even see if the Queen would take us back and make him Governor General!!)
But, my point is, we cannot long survive when one party has taken the power to govern away from the party chosen by the people to do so. We’re on a disaster course, and if Republican tactics are accepted as legitimate, we’re set for failure — and it may come quicker than anyone foresees.
Steve, I agree, that the current model of government seems inadequate for the times. Madison designed a government that is incredibly weak. Coming out of an English monarchy, it may not have been a bad idea at the time. I read over and over, that our consitutional system is not longer adequate. But try to get Americans, who will not even eliminate the penny, use dollar coins, or adopt a National Anthem that does not span three octaves, to change it, would be nigh impossible.
Yes, you are right on every point!! Change comes slowly, but it can happen, but only when we all think it’s too late!
>Madison designed a government that is incredibly weak.
I am not sure I would want a strong government — either at a federal or state level. Looking around the world at countries that do have a strong leader (often “for life”) shows places that I would not want to live in. OK, a benevolent dictator is always a fun idea — build infrastructure! make the trains run on time! — but it seems so often that the idea turns into an ugly fantasy as the benevolence turns into “do it my way”. As creaky and inefficient as our government it the back-and-forth does tend to shed light on the dark nooks of the government … eventually.
Rick, the US government cannot move into the 21st century. Your analogies are sad places, but are not in the range of what the US government could ever approach. I simply accept the fact that this government is designed to undertax, over spend, and allow domestic terrorist “wannabees” to win congressional, state and local office. Only an idiot or a disproptionate contributor to congressional races would ever expect effective government. The smartest among us either donate millions or stay far below the radar. I guess my more illucid response would be F**K the USA.
I agree with your disgust about the financial well-being of the federal government — undertax & overspend is easy for a government controlling its own money supply while catering to populace to fall into doing. Probably in many peoples’ minds this signifies a lack of decision making. The states are, as far as I know, are suppose to stay financially balanced; certainly Indiana seems to, more-or-less, be so. Going back to the idea of a “strong” government — which I took to mean one that makes strong unilateral decisions usually by force of will from a leader — it seems to me that a strong government is no better nor worse in keeping its budget in balance than a separated government. A strong government can easily spend beyond its means.
As for “domestic terrorist wannabees”, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to [tea-party?] but my disgust with the current system is how easy it is to gerrymander thus providing no real competition between viewpoints. This seems to cause the people with the loudest or most radical views to win and keep winning — “domestic terrorists” if you will. Fortunately or not, depending on if you like a single leader government, the federal presidential election can not be gerrymandered (although due to the electoral college it has a skew built into it.)
The problem with defining “effective government” is defining “effective”. Does “effective” mean making everything run smoothly? Or does it mean taking multiple viewpoints into account with consequent sand in the gears of efficiency? I know how *I* would rule the land if I were King but I am fairly sure that is not how you would want the government to behave.
As to if the USA could ever get to some of my “sad examples” (of which there have been and continue to exist in the world), perhaps not immediately. Perhaps never. But freedoms can be eroded slowly to the point where people accept them as the new normal. The slide from the Roman republic to the Roman empire is, ahem, a classic example. Apropos for today? Maybe not with all of the information we have. It is hard to see the erosion while it occurs. I suspect that a (rich, male) Roman citizen from 100 BC would have been aghast at the state of government in 100 AD if he had been time-teleported directly from 100 BC to 100 AD but would have accepted it if had [impossibly] lived during that time period. That potential for a slide is something that we need to guard against even if it often means that our government does not work effectively.
Anyway, enough rambling from me.
Your points are well taken, Rick. I do believe that the US will overtaken economically by China, Europe and perhaps BRI, Countries like the US, or England in the 1910s, that are more powerful miliarily than economically, are a little unpredictable.
And when governments fall, from rotting within, they fall fast. And I believe a government that is efficient is transparent and economically efficient (to the extent they can be) and are capable of stable democratic transfers of power. If the US stops being this kind of a country, then it is not a place where I would wish to live.
The government is coming to take your copper/zinc pennies.
P.S. don’t tell the NRA, or the ex confederate states.
No way! Only out from my cold dead fingers! It’s God, guts and my copper/zinc pennies against those godless Commies who want to destroy and undermine my freedom! Glad you warned me.
No problem, Stuart. Always vigilent, seldom accurate.