Below is an excerpt from my latest Pajamas Media piece:
Matt Yglesias of Think Progress took a lot of heat from the right last month for stating that America has become ungovernable. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey said Yglesias wasn’t making these complaints when the Democrats were in the minority and obstructing judges and social security reform. Kim Priestap of Wizbang suggested that Yglesias was trying to make excuses for Obama’s flailing agenda.
Yes, Yglesias was being hypocritical. Yes, Yglesias was making excuses. Nonetheless, Yglesias was essentially right. America is ungovernable. It has been for the better part of its history.
Regarding the U.S. Senate, Yglesias complained: “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.”
Yglesias hit on the left’s problem, but he stopped short. Yglesias and the left complain about the bind in which they find themselves. They can spare 40 votes on any House vote, and they have a Senate majority, but they can’t get anything done. It’s as if a genius schemed against them to thwart their efforts and require impossibly large majorities to accomplish something.
A genius did conspire against the left, but their foe isn’t Karl Rove. In fact, he’s been dead for 173 years.
By fingering the system as the problem, Yglesias identified the system’s creators as the enemy and James Madison in particular. But our founders didn’t set out to frustrate any specific people. They were concerned with one big question: how does one prevent a republic from degenerating into tyranny, as all historical republics had?
While Yglesias worries about the minority ruining a Democratic stampede, Madison worried about something else entirely. In Federalist 51 he writes:
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. …. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
Madison’s solution was simple.
Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
Read the rest here:
January 28th, 2010 at 9:02 am
I think America is ungovernable, but not because of the filibuster (which both parties complain about when they are in the majority).
America is ungovernable because swing voters demand mutually exclusive ends. They demand taxes be cut, entitlements be protected, special interest spending in whatever happens to be important to them, and the deficits eliminated. They are like young boys who want to think that eating Twinkies and playing video games is somehow going to make them muscular. Most everyone professes deep concern about the debt (as they should) but very few are willing to make the personal sacrifices it will take to control it.
Don’t you dare cut my Social Security.
Don’t you dare cut funding for my streets and parks.
Don’t you dare cut my favorite tax deduction.
Don’t you dare ask me to retire later.
Don’t you dare increase my Medicare premiums.
Don’t you dare cut funding to my kids’ school.
Don’t you dare cut subsidies to crops grown in my region.
Don’t you dare increase my taxes.
Now, within those guidelines, eliminate mydebt.!!!!!
Since we can’t agree on which group of THEY (with the exception of smokers) should bear all the burden of OUR collective gluttony, we compromise by exempting each other from any sacrifice, and our country careens ever faster towards complete insolvency.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Fascinating analysis in the post and a great comment, MWS. I wish your points would be discussed more openly among politicians. In fact, I’d love to see them take your comment, add the question, “What specific steps would you take?” and pose it in one of the debates.
Alternatively, all candidates could be required to write a more lengthy piece in response so that the voters (and pundits of course) could understand who they’re voting for.
Wishful thinking on my part.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:34 am
I am starting to believe that we may need to make some major adjustments to our system….the founders created a system that was the best ever devised. That doesn’t mean it was the best possible.
We are stuck at a point where it is becoming too hard to govern the country – which is desperately in need of governing. Things have to change before the country fractures.
Yes, we should probably look to eliminate the filibuster, and simply make it so that you don’t have laws which you can’t repeal. Institute something, if it goes wrong, or if the other party gains power, the law can be adjusted or repealed.
Lets start with four year terms for Reps.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:50 am
“We are stuck at a point where it is becoming too hard to govern the country – which is desperately in need of governing.”
Libertarian-minded people may have a different perspective on that.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
The Founders of our Country knew what they were doing in setting up our Government. If you want efficiency, let’s get a tyrant. I’m sure he or she would be extremely efficient in taking away inalienable rights, squashing the people, and being a threat to the country’s neighbors.
The Founders had seen almost as much history as we have. They didn’t want (nor do I want) an efficient government. Congress isn’t supposed to “get a lot done.” They are supposed to get the essentials done. Any government more efficient would pose a serious threat to those inalienable rights we’re all so fond of.
Congress isn’t supposed to get much done, and that’s just the way I want it.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I’m not looking for Congrss to get involved in every little detail of life on this planet, but pick a major issue – debt, healthcare, etc. – and we can probably all agree that there are things government COULD do to make it better.
The fact that are stuck at the point where very little can get done, even to make the problem better, even things that could only be done by the government….that is concerning.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
#1, yes, this is true. The country wants everything, but is completely unwilling to make any sacrifrices.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Your claim that the current de facto supermajority requirement in the Senate is part of an intentionally ungovernable structure set up by the Founding Fathers is absolute historical revisionism.
The filibuster is not a part of the Constitution, and when initially established, required unanimity. Did Madison believe a unanimous vote was required to pass legislation? Certainly not.
The regular use of the filibuster to obstruct all legislation is an extremely recent phenomenon. See the chart below:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/filibuster-chart.php
Moreover, the notion that James Madison = the founders glosses over the ideological differences amongst the Founders.
Jefferson had rather different notions about this than Madison, and while both were vigilant in attempting to determine how to prevent a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the minority faction would be considered far worse.
Thomas Jefferson himself envisioned that a new Constitution Convention would be needed every generation or so to adapt and modify the Constitution to suit the needs of the time.
Also, every time Yglesias talks about the filibuster people like Ed Morrissey whine “well you’re a hypocrite because you didn’t complain about it when the Dems were in the minority!” without realizing that he did! He argued unsuccessfully that Democrats should have seized the opportunity presented by the threat to invoke the “nuclear option” to do away with the filibuster.
April 12, 2005, Yglesias wrote “The filibuster helps conservatives more than liberals. It’s time to get rid of it.”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9483
Certainly conservatives can respond to his argument by saying “I agree. The filibuster DOES help conservatives more than liberals, so let’s keep it.” But that’s different than arguing this new creation of a supermajority requirement is part of the founders plan. That is false. There are many features of our Constitution and government designed to protect against runaway majorities, including the separation of powers, bicameral legislature, veto power, etc. The filibuster isn’t one of them.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“Don’t you dare cut my favorite tax deduction.”
Yes — I’m against tax breaks for special interests, except for the deduction for mortgage interest.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
1.
Now that should have been the Republican Response!