The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Constitution

Parliamentary Politics in a non Parliamentary System

Yglesias begins to get it:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.

I’ve been explaining this for going on five years.  The first time I tried to explain parliamentary politics to Americans was after the 2004 election (sadly, gone with BOP’s archives).  The most recent was in July, where I pointed out that without the possibility of snap elections, the US form is particularly virulent:

Now in parliamentary systems a majority government just does what it likes, and the opposition reflexively opposes but can’t stop anything.  In a minority government, the opposition can’t just stop everything because if it defeats the government on the wrong vote it’ll cause an election and you don’t want one of those till you’re sure you’ll win and the governing party won’t get a majority.  So the government can still get through a fair bit of its agenda, even if it doesn’t have a parliamentary majority.

In the US there’s no threat of a snap election, and the opposition can often hold up significant legislation, especially in a case like the current one where the governing party has unreliable members (something that’s very rare in most parliamentary systems).

So the Republicans have taken parliamentary opposition one step further.  Instead of just opposing everything but letting it pass, then running against it, they figure why not oppose everything in the hopes of weakening policy to the point where it doesn’t work?  The stimulus bill was compromised to the point where it didn’t do the necessary job.  The global warming bill likewise, and the health care bill appears headed for the same fate.

Lousy policy leads to lousy outcomes. Lousy outcomes make the population unhappy, and less likely to vote the incumbents back in.

What the Republicans are doing makes perfect sense from an electoral point of view.  Voters are not going to primarily blame Republicans for Democrats failing to govern effectively.

This is something that many Democrats, especially older ones who came from a more genteel era, or those who some sort of strange genetic disposition to compromise (Obama) don’t seem to get.  But Republicans get it in their limbic system.

Learn it.  Live it.

Meet the New Boss

Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions.

I assume, by this point, no one expected anything else?

If not, forgive me, but you’re the living definition of denial.

The fundamental truth about the Obama administration is that it is the Bush administration run by slightly less incompetent, marginally less evil people:

  • The Iraq occupation will end when Bush wanted it to.
  • The Bush administration’s campaign of eradication of fundamental civil liberties, including the gutting of the 4th amendment and holding people without trial, continues.
  • The Afghan war continues, and is even being escalated.
  • The signature issue of “health care reform” is a scheme which will force citizens to buy private insurance which, because of lack of effective controls, will increase in price faster than wages or inflation.
  • Obama and Geithner have followed the Bush/Paulson financial policies, virtually to the letter, spending trillions bailing out Wall Street and creating a financial sector which has fewer, larger actors with more political power than before.
  • Obama continues to exert pressure primarily on Progressives rather than on Blue Dogs in order to obtain relatively more conservative rather than liberal bills. (This is not an accident.)  The most liberal bill always comes from the House, the conference committee bill is inevitably closer to the more conservative Senate bill.  (This is not an accident.)
  • Unlike Bush Jr, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Reagan, Obama has not replaced the prior administration’s district attorneys wholesale, instead leaving in place the majority of the Bush administration DA’s who had survived Rove’s purges intended to make sure they were loyal Republican apparatchiks.
  • Obama has not cleaned out the administration in general of Bush-era appointees and plants; indeed he has filled less spots than either Clinton or Bush II had by this point in their terms—and no, it’s not because the Senate won’t confirm them.
  • Obama appointees will be forced to resign if the right wing (aka Beck) goes after them hard, but if progressives don’t like them, tough luck.
  • Obama’s economic team is filled with people who created the framework which allowed the financial meltdown to occur, who didn’t see it coming, and whose solution to it is to give money to their friends and colleagues and try and get another bubble started.
  • Etc.

In most meaningful ways, Obama is running a slightly kinder, gentler and very moderately less-stupid version of the Bush constitutional framework.

Plus ça change plus c’est la meme chose.

A Republic if you can keep it

US Constitution by KJD

US Constitution by KJD

On this Independence Day, let us not just remember those who died that America might have its freedom, but also what they died for.  The truest respect for sacrifice is not to hold a parade, to speak of gratitude or to say fond words; no, the truest respect is to value that which the dead fought for and to continue their fight.

America’s founders fought for freedom, we’re told, and there’s a lot of truth to that, though it wasn’t, then, freedom for all.  In the context of the 18th century freedom meant some of what it means today: all men equal before the law, no taxation without representation, freedom to worship as you chose, and so on, but it also meant freedom from the aristocracy, and freedom from inherited power.  “All men equal before the law” was a strike, not against slavery, but against the nobility.  No man should have more rights than another; no man should have power because of who his father was.

America is the land of opportunity, it was said.  Some still say this, and perhaps it’s still true.  But the deeper truth is dying.  Inherited wealth and inherited power are on the rise.  For centuries, indeed until somewhere between 10 and 20 years ago, America, amongst all the nations in the entire world, had the most inter-generational mobility.  To put it another way, no matter who your father was, or who your mother was, you could make it in America.  More than in any other nation, in America you had a fair shot.

Now no one would say you can’t still make it in America.  No one would say that opportunity isn’t still available in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  But the fact, the sad fact, is that amongst Western nations the US now has the most income inequality and the least inter-generational mobility (along with Britain, the nation which follows American policies most closely).   In America it now matters more who your father is, who your mother is, how much money your family has and how many connections it has, than in any other Western nation.  The old European nations are now the land of opportunity, the land where who your parents were matters least.

The reasons are simple enough.  Inheritance taxes have been weakened and progressive taxation has been slashed.  The primary education system, funded by local tax dollars, systemically favors people who live in wealthy neighbourhoods, while university tuition has grown far faster than inflation at the same time as student aid has been slashed to the bone.  The extremely rich have bought the government and use it to arrogate money to themselves, either through preferential laws—for example, Medicare Part D or the Bush tax cuts; or directly—for example, the 15 trillion spent on the financial crisis, the vast majority of which went in effect to the rich.

Power is passed from father and mother to daughter and son, with Congressional seats being passed on like some sort of inheritance and major network spots likewise going to the children of the influential.  Perhaps there are no titles, but when, for example, Luke Russert, a man with no meaningful accomplishments of his own save being the offspring of late NBC news anchor Tim Russert, is hired as a national news commentator at age 22 over others who have worked harder, who have done more, and are vastly better qualified, it’s hard to see his inheritance as all that different from a Baron passing his rights, lands and chattel to his son.

All men are created equal. But, as Orwell noted in Animal Farm, some are more equal.

For example, if you were to kidnap a man and torture him for years on end, you’d be tried in a court of law and sent to jail.  But if you were at the highest level of government in the United States and did so in violation of the law, your successor might well say that the US needs to look forward, not backwards.

Nothing strikes at the heart of the revolution, at the heart of the struggle for independence than this, that America has become not a nation of laws, but a nation of men, where some men are more equal than others.  To be sure it has always been true that the rich and powerful have been more apt to escape Justice’s blind grasp.  Yet at the same time, there can be no question that in the last eight years the greatest lawbreakers, the greatest mass murder in the country was also the highest official in the country.  And that he and his accomplices will get away with their crimes, not because we don’t all know they’re crimes, but because the idea of accountability, of equality before the law, for the highest government officials is now dead.

There are certainly those who cry out for justice.  But, let’s be frank: they don’t matter, because the people in power—in Congress and the executive branch, and quite probably on the Supreme Court (though we can’t be sure about that)—don’t believe that the laws apply to them in the same way they apply to ordinary people.

All men, in the land of the free, in the land of the brave, are no longer equal before the law.

The rallying cry of the revolution was No Taxation Without Representation, and that too is dead.  The Treasury and the Federal Reserve, between them have spent, loaned, guaranteed and issued about 15 trillion dollars.  With the exception of about 700 billion or so of that money, they didn’t get Congress’s permission for it, and when Congress asked how they were spending the money, they refused to answer.

That’s taxation without representation, and it has continued as much under the current administration as the previous one.  Moreover, faced with the greatest failure of regulation in the post-war period, most notably by the Federal Reserve, the government has proposed to give that self-same Federal Reserve even more power.  It is notable that of all the agencies which could be given more power, the Federal Reserve is the most removed from Congressional control, the most opaque, and the least democratic.

One suspects that for the executive branch all of these things aren’t bugs, they’re features.

And so, 233 years since 1776, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, aristocracy is on the rise, opportunity is taking a swan dive, taxation without representation rules the day and for the most powerful men and women, America has become a nation of men, not laws.

“A Republic, if you can keep it” – Ben Franklin

Can you?  Have you?

My wish for America, then, this Independence day, is that you keep your Republic.  Or, if perhaps you’ve lost it, that you regain it.


Cross-posted at FDL

American Experiment RIP

I’m having the argument about whether it’s worth prosecuting war criminals in the US for torture.  A friend pointed out that we all know that investigations will lead inexorably to Cheney, and probably to George Bush, and suggested that such prosecutions would rip the country apart.

My response is:

If you’re not willing to fight that fight, what separates you from Germans after WWII?

Note that Germans who were in no way involved with the concentration camps were hung for the crime of pre-emptive war.

Bush is a war criminal even if he didn’t know anything about torture.

The US is a rogue state, and until America faces that fact, a lot of people outside the US isn’t going to trust it.

Does that matter?

Maybe.  Maybe not.

But America is still a nation that’s harboring war criminals and refusing to deal with it.  Whether or not war crime prosecutions will rip America apart, the dead and the tortured cry out for justice.

Are the US a nation of men or of laws?

We all know the answer.  America has made its decision.  Not just in the case of the war crimes, but in the steadfast refusal to investigate and prosecute the widespread fraud that lead to the currently economic crisis.

America is a nation of men.

And the American experiment is dead.  It was a grand one, and there was much to love about it. But it’s done.

Bush put a bullet in it, Obama decided to bury it, and the fact that most Americans don’t care is what signs the death certificate.

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén