Tweet
IS THE US PERPETUALLY RUDDERLESS? AN ENDURING GIFT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
David Kerans (USA)
en.fondsk.ru
16.02.2010
Recent revelations concerning the shakiness of the finances of Greece,
Portugal, Ireland, and Spain have sent shock waves far beyond the
financial community, and alerted wide sections of the world public to
the reality that the financial crisis begun in 2008 is far from over,
and could be entering a new phase. Wherever they may begin, defaults
on sovereign debt would rock ships of state, and send losses spiraling
out beyond their borders to the many sources of their funding. State
services and public order might suffer on a broad scale, with cascading
consequences for economies and for citizens' quality of life.
Alas, discerning analysts have spotted these cascading consequences
already in motion across much of the US, as state and municipal
governments begin to struggle with epic and seemingly intractable
budget shortfalls (1). By one count, at least seven large US states
(holding 35% of the population) are in more financial peril than any
of the aforementioned European nations (2). Little noticed amid the
headlines regarding Greece and the EU, the investment community has
even begun placing bets on a US federal government debt default down
the road. The implication of this sentiment is clear. It suspects
not merely that the US faces daunting economic problems, but that
the country is incapable of solving them.
Whatever the future may hold regarding the US government steering
an economic course and meeting its debt obligations, the financial
crisis that began in 2008 raised the appetite of the population for
far-reaching reform to levels not seen since the Vietnam War era, or
even the Great Depression. Fundamental issues such as the structure of
health care, the financial system, energy networks and global warming,
transport infrastructure, and unemployment insurance are all under
debate in Washington (the sacred defense sector is almost completely
excluded from consideration for reform, however). Surely, it would
seem, the government will now remedy at least some of the nation's
most pressing problems, and point the country towards environmentally
sustainable wealth creation for all? Such was the broad-based
expectation upon President Obama's ascension to power, at any rate.
The impotence of Washington to accomplish meaningful reforms over
the last year and the dimming prospects for substantive measures in
the foreseeable future have forced politicians, the White House, and
current affairs analysts to offer at least some rhetoric in the guise
of explanation (Democrats blame cynical Republican obstructionism,
Republicans blame Democratic so-called "radicalism" or "socialism",
etc.). Only a small minority of progressive columnists and Congressmen
(Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich coming first to mind) has done
better, and unabashedly identified the proximate cause of gridlock:
namely, that lawmakers and the White House are to a significant
degree bought off by corporate campaign fund donors who pressure
the necessary authorities to stymie or dilute reforms. A deeper and
complimentary explanation, however, has gone more or less undiscussed:
the idea that the US Constitution itself has paralyzed the country,
and left no realistic hope of decisive measures on serious issues.
As Daniel Lazare argued forcefully in The Frozen Republic (3) a
decade and a half ago, the anti-majoritarian and anti-government
rationalization ethos of the US Constitution made it an obsolete
document already upon its composition. The executive, legislative,
and judicial branches are designed to inhibit each other. Within
the Congress, the Senate is designed to inhibit potential democratic
impulses from the House of Representatives, and, indeed, to stymie
majority opinion nationwide: each state, no matter how meagerly
populated, is guaranteed two votes in the Senate, which allows rural
interests ample opportunity to thwart reforms (for example, the 18
Senators from the 9 most populous states represent 22 times as many
people as the 18 Senators from the 9 least populous states). Further,
the division of authority within each chamber of Congress into myriad
committees and subcommittees leads to a profusion of corruption,
as each entity demands some form of tribute before it will allow
a bill to proceed (4) Meanwhile, procedural rules of the Senate
allow even a single member to stall confirmation of Presidential
appointments for long periods, a trick prominently in play right now
(5). In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the government
is so inefficacious despite facing a full menu of challenges.
Given the chronic, long-term absence of leadership from the legislative
branch, the burden of reform has been falling heavily on the judiciary
over the last few decades, a development the founding fathers did not
anticipate. The Supreme Court's recent decision to relieve business
corporations of previously enacted restrictions on funding political
election campaigns is a glaring example of the trend (6). Supreme
Court rulings can do much to shape the country, but of course the
Court cannot substitute for the Congress and propel the many needed
reforms, even if it were so inclined.
And so government in the US is condemned to rudderlessness. Bad
regulations remain on the books; the public struggles to pin down which
authorities are responsible for bad laws; political gridlock frustrates
anyone trying to pursue reforms; serious discussion of how to deal with
modernity is hamstrung; Congress dodges issues in favor of demagogy.
So, what is to be done? The logical step would be to reform the
Constitution itself, in the interests of legislative efficacy and
majority rule. Proposals for alternative constitutions abound in the
literature of political theory, and many large countries successfully
revamped their constitutions when they appeared to have outlived
their usefulness (7). Indeed, in the late 1780s the US scrapped its
own original constitution, The Articles of Convention, in favor of
the current Constitution. Unfortunately, however, reverence for the
Constitution pervades the US so thoroughly that no discussion of
reforming it can even commence. Constitution idolatry amounts to a
striking "form of national thoughtlessness", as Lazare so poignantly
described it (8). Even if awareness of the poisonous nature of
the Constitution does eventually arise, the procedural barriers to
amending the document are towering: proposals must pass both chambers
of Congress by two-thirds majorities, then be approved in at least
three-fourths of all state legislatures (9).
Barring some sort of staggering national emergency that forces
reform, therefore, America will for the time being remain shackled
to a political system that effectively enshrines the right of elites
(through the Senate, first of all) to stifle any reforms they dislike.
It is no coincidence that the US population has steadily anaesthetized
itself, retreated from engagement in politics, and left the field clear
for business interests to steamroller the working and middle classes
and compete only against each other for the fealty of Congress and the
President (10). Absent some form of catastrophe, salvation from this
predicament might never come. Indeed, the previously indefatigable,
crusading liberal economist Paul Krugman was recently moved to declare
"We're doomed" (11).
As bleak as the picture of US politics may look, however, rays of
hope might emerge. Americans might soon come to understand just
how corrosive the country's enormous disparities in income are
to their social health, and mobilize at various levels to redress
inequality, step by step. A definitive international overview of
income inequality has now demonstrated the damage it does to the
physical and psychological health of people, at almost all rungs on
the income ladder, and regardless of a society's GDP per capita
(12). This revelation could become a lightning rod to revive
progressive politics. We shall return to the theme shortly.
References:
1. For just one of myriad examples, from Los Angeles, see David
Zahniser and Phil Willon, "L.A. Council Delays Decision on Cutting
1,000 Jobs, www.latimes.com, February 4, 2010.
2. Gregor MacDonald, "Seven States of Energy Debt", http://gregor.us,
February 5th, 2010.
3. Daniel Lazare, The Frozen Republic, New York, 1996.
4. The first prominent treatment of this feature of the US system
came from future President Woodrow Wilson, interestingly enough, in
his Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics (Boston
and New York, 1885). The Congress has about 300 separate legislative
committees now, which is three of four times what it had in Wilson's
day. Over 100 of them are involved in the defense budget, e.g.
5. For the latest exasperated editorial on the matter, see Paul
Krugman, "America is Not Yet Lost", New York Times, February 8th,
2010, p. A21.
6. Even with the old restrictions in place, spending on federal level
political campaigns reached $5.3 billion in 2008. The lifting of the
restrictions will leave political candidates even more dependent on
securing resources from corporate campaign donors, obviously. Figures
on election campaign spending at the national and state level in
2008 appear in Robert Weissman, "A Disadvantaged Class? The Corporate
Speech Index", CommonDreams.org, February 12th, 2010.
7. Examples include and the 1832 Reform Bill in Britain, Denmark's
abolition of the upper house of parliament and adoption of a new
constitution in 1953, a similar reform in The Netherlands in 1972,
Sweden's adoption of a new constitution lodging the source of all
power in the people in 1976, France's new constitution in 1958,
and Portugal's in 1976 (list from Lazare, op. cit., p.179).
8. Lazare, op. cit., p.3. Some are at least getting on to the scent of
the argument for constitutional reform. Reviewing only lead columnists
from The New York Times, Bob Herbert notes a spreading dismay at
"chronic dysfunction and hyperpartisanship in much of the government"
("Time is Running Out", New York Times, February 6th, 2010, p. A19).
Thomas Friedman offers similar sentiments in "Never Heard that Before"
(New York Times, January 31 st, 2010, p. WK10). And Paul Krugman's
editorial "America is Not Yet Lost" (New York Times, February 8th,
2010, p. A21) pinpoints the obstructionism inherent in certain
Senate procedures, and calls for their adjustment. Many others are
at least asking "Is the system broken?" The notion of overhauling
the constitution has not surfaced, however.
9. Between 1911 and 1929 progressive members of Congress made 18
proposals to make the process of amending the Constitution easier.
Alas, all failed to pass.
10. For a typical lament, regarding a specific set of unrealized
reforms, see former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's "Who is Killing
Financial Reform?"
(http://robertreich.org/post/371113 369/whos-killing-financial-reform).
The year 2009 is now known to have been the biggest year ever for
the political lobbying industry: Arthur Delaney, "It's official: 2009
was Record Year, for Lobbying, Despite Recession", Huffington Post,
February 12th, 2010.
11. Paul Krugman, "Clueless", February 10th, 2010,
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/ clueless/.
12. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater
Equality Makes Societies Stronger, New York-Berlin-London, 2009.
David Kerans (USA)
en.fondsk.ru
16.02.2010
Recent revelations concerning the shakiness of the finances of Greece,
Portugal, Ireland, and Spain have sent shock waves far beyond the
financial community, and alerted wide sections of the world public to
the reality that the financial crisis begun in 2008 is far from over,
and could be entering a new phase. Wherever they may begin, defaults
on sovereign debt would rock ships of state, and send losses spiraling
out beyond their borders to the many sources of their funding. State
services and public order might suffer on a broad scale, with cascading
consequences for economies and for citizens' quality of life.
Alas, discerning analysts have spotted these cascading consequences
already in motion across much of the US, as state and municipal
governments begin to struggle with epic and seemingly intractable
budget shortfalls (1). By one count, at least seven large US states
(holding 35% of the population) are in more financial peril than any
of the aforementioned European nations (2). Little noticed amid the
headlines regarding Greece and the EU, the investment community has
even begun placing bets on a US federal government debt default down
the road. The implication of this sentiment is clear. It suspects
not merely that the US faces daunting economic problems, but that
the country is incapable of solving them.
Whatever the future may hold regarding the US government steering
an economic course and meeting its debt obligations, the financial
crisis that began in 2008 raised the appetite of the population for
far-reaching reform to levels not seen since the Vietnam War era, or
even the Great Depression. Fundamental issues such as the structure of
health care, the financial system, energy networks and global warming,
transport infrastructure, and unemployment insurance are all under
debate in Washington (the sacred defense sector is almost completely
excluded from consideration for reform, however). Surely, it would
seem, the government will now remedy at least some of the nation's
most pressing problems, and point the country towards environmentally
sustainable wealth creation for all? Such was the broad-based
expectation upon President Obama's ascension to power, at any rate.
The impotence of Washington to accomplish meaningful reforms over
the last year and the dimming prospects for substantive measures in
the foreseeable future have forced politicians, the White House, and
current affairs analysts to offer at least some rhetoric in the guise
of explanation (Democrats blame cynical Republican obstructionism,
Republicans blame Democratic so-called "radicalism" or "socialism",
etc.). Only a small minority of progressive columnists and Congressmen
(Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich coming first to mind) has done
better, and unabashedly identified the proximate cause of gridlock:
namely, that lawmakers and the White House are to a significant
degree bought off by corporate campaign fund donors who pressure
the necessary authorities to stymie or dilute reforms. A deeper and
complimentary explanation, however, has gone more or less undiscussed:
the idea that the US Constitution itself has paralyzed the country,
and left no realistic hope of decisive measures on serious issues.
As Daniel Lazare argued forcefully in The Frozen Republic (3) a
decade and a half ago, the anti-majoritarian and anti-government
rationalization ethos of the US Constitution made it an obsolete
document already upon its composition. The executive, legislative,
and judicial branches are designed to inhibit each other. Within
the Congress, the Senate is designed to inhibit potential democratic
impulses from the House of Representatives, and, indeed, to stymie
majority opinion nationwide: each state, no matter how meagerly
populated, is guaranteed two votes in the Senate, which allows rural
interests ample opportunity to thwart reforms (for example, the 18
Senators from the 9 most populous states represent 22 times as many
people as the 18 Senators from the 9 least populous states). Further,
the division of authority within each chamber of Congress into myriad
committees and subcommittees leads to a profusion of corruption,
as each entity demands some form of tribute before it will allow
a bill to proceed (4) Meanwhile, procedural rules of the Senate
allow even a single member to stall confirmation of Presidential
appointments for long periods, a trick prominently in play right now
(5). In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the government
is so inefficacious despite facing a full menu of challenges.
Given the chronic, long-term absence of leadership from the legislative
branch, the burden of reform has been falling heavily on the judiciary
over the last few decades, a development the founding fathers did not
anticipate. The Supreme Court's recent decision to relieve business
corporations of previously enacted restrictions on funding political
election campaigns is a glaring example of the trend (6). Supreme
Court rulings can do much to shape the country, but of course the
Court cannot substitute for the Congress and propel the many needed
reforms, even if it were so inclined.
And so government in the US is condemned to rudderlessness. Bad
regulations remain on the books; the public struggles to pin down which
authorities are responsible for bad laws; political gridlock frustrates
anyone trying to pursue reforms; serious discussion of how to deal with
modernity is hamstrung; Congress dodges issues in favor of demagogy.
So, what is to be done? The logical step would be to reform the
Constitution itself, in the interests of legislative efficacy and
majority rule. Proposals for alternative constitutions abound in the
literature of political theory, and many large countries successfully
revamped their constitutions when they appeared to have outlived
their usefulness (7). Indeed, in the late 1780s the US scrapped its
own original constitution, The Articles of Convention, in favor of
the current Constitution. Unfortunately, however, reverence for the
Constitution pervades the US so thoroughly that no discussion of
reforming it can even commence. Constitution idolatry amounts to a
striking "form of national thoughtlessness", as Lazare so poignantly
described it (8). Even if awareness of the poisonous nature of
the Constitution does eventually arise, the procedural barriers to
amending the document are towering: proposals must pass both chambers
of Congress by two-thirds majorities, then be approved in at least
three-fourths of all state legislatures (9).
Barring some sort of staggering national emergency that forces
reform, therefore, America will for the time being remain shackled
to a political system that effectively enshrines the right of elites
(through the Senate, first of all) to stifle any reforms they dislike.
It is no coincidence that the US population has steadily anaesthetized
itself, retreated from engagement in politics, and left the field clear
for business interests to steamroller the working and middle classes
and compete only against each other for the fealty of Congress and the
President (10). Absent some form of catastrophe, salvation from this
predicament might never come. Indeed, the previously indefatigable,
crusading liberal economist Paul Krugman was recently moved to declare
"We're doomed" (11).
As bleak as the picture of US politics may look, however, rays of
hope might emerge. Americans might soon come to understand just
how corrosive the country's enormous disparities in income are
to their social health, and mobilize at various levels to redress
inequality, step by step. A definitive international overview of
income inequality has now demonstrated the damage it does to the
physical and psychological health of people, at almost all rungs on
the income ladder, and regardless of a society's GDP per capita
(12). This revelation could become a lightning rod to revive
progressive politics. We shall return to the theme shortly.
References:
1. For just one of myriad examples, from Los Angeles, see David
Zahniser and Phil Willon, "L.A. Council Delays Decision on Cutting
1,000 Jobs, www.latimes.com, February 4, 2010.
2. Gregor MacDonald, "Seven States of Energy Debt", http://gregor.us,
February 5th, 2010.
3. Daniel Lazare, The Frozen Republic, New York, 1996.
4. The first prominent treatment of this feature of the US system
came from future President Woodrow Wilson, interestingly enough, in
his Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics (Boston
and New York, 1885). The Congress has about 300 separate legislative
committees now, which is three of four times what it had in Wilson's
day. Over 100 of them are involved in the defense budget, e.g.
5. For the latest exasperated editorial on the matter, see Paul
Krugman, "America is Not Yet Lost", New York Times, February 8th,
2010, p. A21.
6. Even with the old restrictions in place, spending on federal level
political campaigns reached $5.3 billion in 2008. The lifting of the
restrictions will leave political candidates even more dependent on
securing resources from corporate campaign donors, obviously. Figures
on election campaign spending at the national and state level in
2008 appear in Robert Weissman, "A Disadvantaged Class? The Corporate
Speech Index", CommonDreams.org, February 12th, 2010.
7. Examples include and the 1832 Reform Bill in Britain, Denmark's
abolition of the upper house of parliament and adoption of a new
constitution in 1953, a similar reform in The Netherlands in 1972,
Sweden's adoption of a new constitution lodging the source of all
power in the people in 1976, France's new constitution in 1958,
and Portugal's in 1976 (list from Lazare, op. cit., p.179).
8. Lazare, op. cit., p.3. Some are at least getting on to the scent of
the argument for constitutional reform. Reviewing only lead columnists
from The New York Times, Bob Herbert notes a spreading dismay at
"chronic dysfunction and hyperpartisanship in much of the government"
("Time is Running Out", New York Times, February 6th, 2010, p. A19).
Thomas Friedman offers similar sentiments in "Never Heard that Before"
(New York Times, January 31 st, 2010, p. WK10). And Paul Krugman's
editorial "America is Not Yet Lost" (New York Times, February 8th,
2010, p. A21) pinpoints the obstructionism inherent in certain
Senate procedures, and calls for their adjustment. Many others are
at least asking "Is the system broken?" The notion of overhauling
the constitution has not surfaced, however.
9. Between 1911 and 1929 progressive members of Congress made 18
proposals to make the process of amending the Constitution easier.
Alas, all failed to pass.
10. For a typical lament, regarding a specific set of unrealized
reforms, see former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's "Who is Killing
Financial Reform?"
(http://robertreich.org/post/371113 369/whos-killing-financial-reform).
The year 2009 is now known to have been the biggest year ever for
the political lobbying industry: Arthur Delaney, "It's official: 2009
was Record Year, for Lobbying, Despite Recession", Huffington Post,
February 12th, 2010.
11. Paul Krugman, "Clueless", February 10th, 2010,
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/ clueless/.
12. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater
Equality Makes Societies Stronger, New York-Berlin-London, 2009.