7/14/2023 0 Comments Gridlock in congressĮvangelical leader: Congregations are ‘either divided or tense’ over Trump. GOP senators: Trump’s legal problems won’t stop him from winning. How Florida became a conservative bastion Mexican ambassador lashes out at Kennedy for ‘racist and xenophobic insults’ Jeffries says work requirements are a ‘non-starter’ in debt ceiling fight Student loan forgiveness: What to know as the Supreme Court mulls case Schwarzenegger: Newsom White House bid ‘a no-brainer’ Obama says leaving White House helped his marriageĭurham report slams FBI’s Trump-Russia probeįox News, Dominion deny Tucker Carlson ouster a condition of settlement McCarthy says work requirements a ‘red line’ in debt ceiling talksīipartisan group calls for investigation into Comer’s remarks about missing. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. It wasn’t designed to.īill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of “ Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable” ( Simon & Schuster). Without a crisis to generate a sense of public urgency, it doesn’t work well at all. President Biden’s considerable legislative achievements were driven by public urgency over the pandemic (the American Rescue Plan), prescription drug prices (the Inflation Reduction Act), gun violence (the first federal gun safety measure in 30 years), infrastructure deterioration (the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), shortages of computer chips (the CHIPS and Science Act) and the Ukraine crisis (the Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act).Īmerican government works wonderfully well in a crisis. The Supreme Court’s recusal process is its next ethical conundrum Good intentions alone won’t solve the country’s opioid crisis A crisis provides a powerful force of public urgency that lubricates the system and overwhelms blockages. The miracle is that things do get done, often with impressive speed and efficiency. And it often can’t - to the consternation of many voters. There is no constitutional necessity for the government to rule decisively. A core principle of the British constitution is, “His majesty’s government must be carried on.” If the government is gridlocked and cannot act, it falls - and new elections are held until the people elect a government that can act decisively. In a parliamentary system like that of Britain, gridlock is unconstitutional. And how difficult it was for another Democratic Congress to pass Obamacare in 2010.ĭeep polarization between Republicans and Democrats usually results in gridlock. Look at what happened to President Clinton’s health care plan in 1994, when the president’s party controlled Congress. It’s a plan for weak government and limited power, which is what the Founders wanted (and most Americans still do).Īs president after president has discovered, there are innumerable ways opponents can stop things from passing, even if the president’s party holds a majority in Congress. Which is to say, it doesn’t usually work very well at all. The result is a constitutional system that works exactly as intended. The Constitution replaced an earlier document, the Articles of Confederation, which had created a government that was so weak it was unworkable. To them, strong government meant despotism. The framers of the Constitution had just waged a revolution against a king. system was designed to make it difficult to govern. (The filibuster, a Senate rule that is not mentioned in the Constitution, is also a point of blockage.) It’s easy to block legislation in a complex and ungainly system, with two houses of Congress, three branches of government and competing centers of power in the federal government and the states. Moreover, the U.S constitutional system makes it difficult to get anything passed. Few members of Congress are willing to take the risk of collaboration with the other party (“the enemy” to hard-core partisans). For incumbents, the threat of defeat usually comes from more extreme candidates - right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats. In districts and states dominated by one party, the only real competition is in primaries. The number of “battleground” states and districts has declined. That’s because more and more states and districts are dominated by one party, owing to geographic polarization of the voters and, in the House of Representatives, redistricting to protect incumbents. More likely, we will see even greater polarization in Congress, with conservatives wielding greater influence among Republicans and a more assertive progressive left in the Democratic Party. With Democrats holding the narrowest possible majority in the Senate (one seat) and Republicans holding a slim majority in the House of Representatives (nine seats out of 435), you would expect to see the two parties working together.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |