

Is America ungovernable? - darshan
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15544118

======
grellas
What the article calls "ungovernable" is what the U.S. political founders
called "checks and balances" - good or bad, the system has functioned as it
has for a long time now and nothing has happened in recent times to call its
viability into question.

As far back as the 1830s, de Tocqueville made a fascinating study of why a
stable democracy had arisen in the wake of the American revolution of the
1770s while, in contrast, the French revolution of just a few years later had
led to mass slaughter and the guillotine. In significant part, he found that
the difference lay in the massing of power that in France had gone unchecked,
leading the people to fall under the sway of their immediate, unchecked
passions and causing disastrous results.

In politics, there are reasons to check unlimited power and the U.S. system of
law and politics is fundamentally premised on this (that is why there are,
among other things, three co-equal branches of government, a federal/state
division of power, a bicameral legislature, and, ultimately, a constitution
whose main function is to prevent the rise of an overweening central
authority).

One can of course question this and advocate for a stronger central authority
and for the abrogation of the various checks and balances (or even pure
traditions, such as the filibuster) but it is a bit tendentious to say that a
system has suddenly become "ungovernable" simply because you wish it did not
stand in the way of your immediate agenda. It has, after all, been but a very
few years since many of these same sources were touting the filibuster as the
last, great bastion of liberty when it was being used by a then-minority party
to block judicial appointments seen as unfavorable to their cause. One's
arguments are always stronger if they are principled and not tied to the
exigencies of the moment, as those advanced here appear to be.

~~~
mtts
While I agree with you, I can also see where the accusations come from. The
system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when
decisive action needs to be taken. It's up to debate, of course, but if you
think health care in the US is a mess that needs to be cleared up decisively,
all those checks and balances are making it extraordinarily difficult to
achieve that.

It would be a lot easier to achieve in less balanced democratic systems such
as the ones that exist in mainland Europe, where once a government is elected
it can pretty much do what it wants to do without having to worry about
partisan issues at least until the next elections come around.

Such a system can and does, of course, lead to legislation being enacted that
most people don't actually want, but at least it's, usually, clear and
workable, unlike the outcomes of the American political process which often
(to me, as an outsider, at least) seem hopelessly convoluted and kludgy, which
is a result of their having passed through a lengthy process of deliberation
among wildly incompatible political interests.

~~~
yummyfajitas
We seemed to act quite decisively in real emergencies: financial collapse,
wars, terrorist attacks. In most cases, we act badly, but we do act
decisively.

Health care isn't something you want to rush. Getting it right is more
important than getting it now.

The main reason Obama was trying to push it through quickly was so to prevent
the opposition from reading it and publicizing the bad parts. I.e., to prevent
a public debate.

~~~
jbooth
It was initially proposed in early summer with a goal of passing something by
the fall, that's not exactly a rush.

If the opposition were interested in good policy, they'd be well-served to
point out bad things that are actually in the bill, (of which there are
plenty), rather than wild-eyed slogans about death panels and sidetracking
about abortion.

------
CWuestefeld
For the first section of the article, I was rather annoyed. The entire premise
of the argument is that healthcare "reform" is progress, it is our destiny,
and that anything standing in its way is wrong by definition.

This is most certainly not the case, and reflects that as much as we have
problems with our government, the foundations are still working. The
compromises inherent in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college
are there to protect from the problems that an unchecked majority might lead
to. Our system is designed so that even popular ideas backed by a "mandate"
(an invention of the media; who actually voted for the supposed underlying
initiative?) can -- and should be -- blocked if it's so thoroughly repugnant
to others.

At the risk of skirting up against Godwin's law, the idea that this "progress"
is destined, part of the inexorable evolution to a higher social order, sounds
decidedly Marxian. Frankly, I find such an attitude every bit as alarming as
these "reforms" to which it refers.

That said, the article really does even out and put this all in perspective.
If you can make it through the whole article, I think that the picture you
wind up with is a pretty fair picture.

[Edit: fix bad phrasing in next-to-last para]

~~~
cschneid
It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low
level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes.

Many states have been taken over by handcuffs of strict tax limitations (which
is why california is screwed, and my own colorado is screwed to a lesser
degree).

Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced
into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good
method to go with. But states can't do that now.

I'd say that the super-limited federal government only worked when states had
a counterbalancing ability to get things done. I'm not sure why states power
has fallen to so low a level (popularly elected senate, ability for citizens
to push through restrictive state constitution amendments, massing of federal
money that forces policy decisions [like highways & drinking age].... etc).

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced
into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good
method to go with. But states can't do that now._

I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before
attempting something federally would be far superior.

But I disagree that States _can't_ do so now. Certainly where I live now (New
Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare
(certainly not a strict tax limitation!!).

Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand
to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their
righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct
one, and thus _everyone_ must be forced to "benefit" from it.

I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the
kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone
else.

~~~
cschneid
The kind of laws I'm referring to are like
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights>

Basically, it limits the ability to tax, so a new program (say, single payer
health care for the state), that would require a tax, requires massive public
approval. Which stops progress as much as the federal government gridlock.

Your last line betrays some of your political leanings. In my view there are
two major competing ideals of government. There's your "live & let live"
ideal, and there's the "we're in this together" ideal. Neither is wrong, and
both have a pretty strong argument behind them. But it leads to totally
different policy decisions that are at odds. So yeah, that's what happened to
it, there's a competing ideal.

~~~
CWuestefeld
OK, I'll accept that criticism. It's clear that we have different outlooks,
and while I disagree strongly with yours, I understand that there is a
legitimate philosophy that leads to it.

Best, then, to take our heads out of the sand and address the divide directly.
Otherwise we will have the same conflicts over every issue, arguing over
surface details without ever really resolving anything, all the while building
more and more acrimony.

------
euroclydon
I've been pondering lately what it would mean for citizens to begin to
formally reject government's authority. Unlike cheating on your taxes or
speeding, this would be not be a self serving action and instead would be a
philosophy. My main impetus for imagining this are the huge unfunded
liabilities of medicare and social security. When I think of them, my first
instinct is: "how can I opt out?"

The Declaration of Independence states that government derives it's authority
from the consent of the governed, but voter turnout is relatively low, voter
approval is very low, and people don't seem to have a sense of partnership
with the government.

I almost think it time for a movement with two tenants: 1) federal government
has lost it's moral authority to govern. 2) We do not respect government
authority, but only government power.

This movement would be phase one. Phase two could be either an American styled
revolution or better, a non-violent Indian styled one, or something else, but
preferably not decades of cynicism and decline.

I believe a major thing holding this country together right now is our strong
sense of justice. I've heard it said of Colombia, that the biggest threat to
their country is that when someone gets murdered, families don't except the
government to be able to deliver justice. We do still have that expectation.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
nonviolent revolution? whuh? there's never been such a thing. _Salt Satyagraha
produced scant progress toward dominion status or independence for India, and
did not win any major concessions from the British._

in the ensuing chaos

 _Communal violence killed an estimated one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs_

not to be a jerk, I just get sick of the dominant paradigm which holds that
action without the threat of force has ever, in any way, significantly shaped
the power structures of human civilization. you've been brought up on docility
propaganda.

~~~
euroclydon
Honest question here: So you're saying that Ghandi's movement was just a
overemphasized size-show to a more violent revolution?

What I am talking about it an idea; perhaps phase two is violent, but without
phase one, it's violence without a purpose.

P.S. Where are your italicized phrases sourced from?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
source is wikipedia.

yes, that is what I'm saying. I don't view a religious civil war between
hindus and muslims over pakistani independence to be violence with a purpose.
I see all violence as purposeless. the product of ignorance that could have
been avoided. I say this not as a high minded ideal, but as simple rational
appraisal. violent action is rarely economical _unless_ the aggressors are
able to externalize the costs of their aggression onto some other group.
support for war is often drummed up through appeals to ignorance on the part
of the populace supporting the aggressors.

------
razerbeans
It seems like now, more than ever, politicians see their positions as a
profession rather than a service. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, I
believe that if their mindset was that as a servant of the people more so than
a politician, things may be different. There's a social disconnect.

But there's also the way that politicians conduct themselves. It's more like a
bunch of spoiled kids that feel entitled crying foul and bringing congress to
a screeching halt. Everyone seems to be so engulfed in pride that they can't
come to a compromise. Isn't the point to at least come to a compromise to
please as many people as possible instead of bringing things to a complete
standstill?

------
pragmatic
Interesting how memes repeat:

 _We have heard the America is ungovernable mantra before. In the fall of
1980, Lloyd Cutler, President Jimmy Carter's counsel, wrote in Foreign Affairs
magazine: "one might say that under the U.S. Constitution it is not now
feasible to 'form a Government.' The separation of powers between the
legislative and executive branches, whatever its merits in 1793, has become a
structure that almost guarantees stalemate today."_

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870482090457505...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055714091835530.html)

------
glymor
From the same edition's opinion section:

 _American politics seems unusually bogged down at present. Blame Barack Obama
more than the system_

[http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...](http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15545983)

------
nazgulnarsil
if you limit your idea of governance to the narrow field of what the public
finds aesthetically pleasing then yes. democracy is retarded.

~~~
mtts
Luckily, with the exception of some Swiss cantons that put issues to a
plebiscite once in a while, democracy usually is governance as usual with the
chance for the public to intervene once in a while when things get really out
of hand.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
thought provoking response. obviously true in a general sense, but there's
lots of argument to be had over the specifics. I suppose the short response is
that I dislike dishonest government. if a government isn't really a democracy
but rather something else then the power should not be allowed to go cloaked.
the illusion of control by the common citizen causes wasteful misdirection of
resources.

------
1010011010
No, but the Democrats whine about America being "ungovernable" whenever they
fail to get their way. See the Carter years.

Checks and balances are always so _inconvenient_ to the party in power, aren't
they? I happen to like the limitations of power. Gridlock is good. Government
should work slowly.

