Michael Wolraich's picture

    American Democracy - Not Dead Yet

    Thanks to Michael M. for highlighting Matthew Yglesias's Cassandra prophesy at Vox: "American Democracy is Doomed." In the piece, Yglesias warns that political polarization will sooner or later trigger "a collapse of the legal and political order" in the United States. "If we're lucky," he adds gloomily, "it won't be violent."

    You don't have to be a seer to see that the federal government is in crisis. We have been reading about congressional paralysis for five years straight. The immediate cause is no mystery--the American checks-and-balances system does not handle polarization well. The founding fathers, in their zeal to prevent totalitarianism, designed a system that empowers its various branches to sabotage one another for political gain.

    If Yglesias had limited his conclusions to these observations, the result would have been an interesting if prosaic political commentary. But where's the fun in that? Headline-grabbing doom prophesies trend much better than humdrum political commentary. Fortunately for the health of American democracy, they are invariably specious, and this one is no exception.

    To his credit, Yglesias knows enough history to recognize that partisan polarization is nothing new. Inter-party hostilty has plagued federal government for most of American history. But he argues that this time is different because the polarization is ideological, in contrast to the spoils system that divided the parties in the Gilded Age.

    That characterization is not completely accurate, but the real flaw in Yglesias's argument is another confusion.The political system he portrays is a rigid thing, shackled in place by ancient Constitutional chains. In fact, our government is perpetually evolving to deal with political crises like the one we face today.

    For example, Yglesias cites the filibuster crisis as one threat to the Republic. To be precise, we should call it the Senate filibuster crisis, for there is also such a thing as a House filibuster--or at least there used to be. In the late 1800s, congressmen from the minority party used to "vanish" whenever the clerk called roll for a bill they opposed. They remained in their seats, but by pretending to be absent, they denied the Speaker his quorum, and the vote could not proceed. Such obstructive tactics would tie up the House for weeks, effectively killing the legislation.

    Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed solved that problem in 1890 by pushing through a new set of rules that abolished the disappearing quorum trick and granted additional power to the Speaker. Democratic congressmen reacted with a fury that easily outclasses any modern examples of partisan polarization:

    A hundred of them “were on their feet howling for recognition,” wrote a reporter. "Fighting Joe" Wheeler, the diminutive former Confederate cavalry general, unable to reach the front because of the crowded aisles, came down from the rear “leaping from desk to desk as an ibex leaps from crag to crag.” As the excitement grew wilder, the only Democrat not on his feet was a huge representative from Texas who sat in his seat significantly whetting a bowie knife on his boot.

    -- Barbara Tuchman, The Proud Tower

    Eat your heart out, Ted Cruz!

    What worked in the House 125 years ago can work in the Senate today. If the effectiveness of the Senate continues to deteriorate, some future Senate Majority Leader will follow Speaker Reed's lead and eliminate the filibuster by invoking the so-called nuclear option. Perhaps journalists of the 22nd century worrying about some future political crisis will forget that the filibuster ever existed.

    Yglesias also points to the conflict between modern presidents and Congress, remarking on the overheated charges of "dictator" leveled against both George W. Bush and Barak Obama. Yet, long-dead legislators have routinely hurled the same epithets against every assertive president in American history, though they used to say "monarch" instead of "dictator."

    In fact, the expansion of presidential power is another example of how our government has evolved to overcome Constitutional constraints. Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory. Andrew Jackson wielded the presidential veto. Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves. Theodore Roosevelt prosecuted the trusts. FDR packed the courts. Bitter legislators warned of despotism just like they do in response to Obama's executive actionsbut their doom prophesies were quickly forgotten. Today, the same presidents are lionized for decisive leadership, and the powers they assumed are taken for granted.

    So don't fret too much. Yes, American democracy is in crisis, but it has survived worse.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Excellent points.

    President Polk (1844-48) was also accused of tyranny, violation of the Constitution, war mongering, chicanery, duplicity and had a huge challenge with vehement Congressional factions to add Texas and California regions to the US, after the Mexican war ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    Some in Congress wanted to take all of Mexico, some not one square yard of territory at all, and the slave/free status of the new regions also created deadlocks.

    Both regions were predominantly populated by Americans, and if ruled at all, by Mexican appointed despots who routinely seized shiploads of goods, imprisoned, executed or held for ransom US nationals and/or their property. Yet, the territorial expansion was anything but a slam dunk.


    Thanks, NCD. Great example! I didn't know this before, but in 1847, Congressman Abraham Lincoln accused Polk of appropriating king-like powers. Oh the irony.


    Thanks, Michael, I actually feel a little bit reassured, which is no small thing!


    Thanks for a look at history.  We will get through this and the out of control spending of the wealthy on politics will be reeled in.  I think Justice Roberts knows he has made a mistake giving them what they wanted.  All they have done with it is put stupid nutty people in office with that power of person hood and money speech.  I look to see that quickly get reversed in the next decade along with gerrymandering and voter suppresson abuses in the form of constitutional amendments.  


    It seems that our modern democracy is being defined by the judicial branch more often than ever before - the branch of government with unelected members. Perhaps it's my ignorance and/or imagination, but if we're looking into a crystal ball that might be worth a glance.


    I agree with you.  It seems that way.  They could also end up term limited with an constitutional amendment. 

    Roberts took a big hit among law scholars.  


    I think that's been going on for a while. The Warren Court is famous/notorious for judicial activism. If anything, the Roberts Court is closer to the Progressive Era courts that repeatedly overturned labor laws and other progressive legislation.


    In fact, the expansion of presidential power is another example of how our government has evolved to overcome Constitutional constraints. Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory. Andrew Jackson wielded the presidential veto. Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves. Theodore Roosevelt prosecuted the trusts. FDR packed the courts. Bitter legislators warned of despotism just like they do in response to Obama's executive actions, but their doom prophesies were quickly forgotten. Today, the same presidents are lionized for decisive leadership, and the powers they assumed are taken for granted.

    This, I think, is a much bigger deal.  Our system will remain but the executive will grow ever stronger because, frankly, it's effective.  For the most part, people won't pay much notice to it. For all the talk of checks and balances, Congress seems to like to collectively abdicate its responsibilities for the sake of safety and convenience.


    This hits me right now, in the middle of the night.

    When  I was born there were 2.7 billion folks on the entire planet.

    Now we have over 7 billion.

    We live in a different universe right now.

    I think that when I was born there were 150,000,000 folks in this nation.

    There was no real good tech back then of course. How were all those figures, figured out?

    Compared to nowadays.

    THIS IS A WHOLE NEW WORLD.

    Between tech and population explosion, our new populations, including the population of this nation changes.

    Now things are looking good. I mean 'they' are assuming only a globe of 9 billion at the end of this century. which makes no sense to me.

    Birth control may be our biggest issue?

    Food production and distribution may be our biggest issue?

    Pollution may be our biggest issue, since we all need to breath the air and drink the water before we ever get to the issue of food.

    And how are we to 'solve' all these issues?

    Well we must cut the population explosion.

    We have to increase food distribution.

    And WE HAVE TO HAVE WATER THAT IS NOT TOXIC AND AIR THAT WE CAN BREATHE.

    Besides all the political crapola, in the end the South and the North and the East and the West of this country, will figure it out.

    This statement makes no sense.

    And yet, I think we will and I think China will and I think India will.

    Or, all of us shall reduce our populations through pestilence.

    THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OUT OF THIS.

    I, of course, will be long dead. hahahahahah

    I have been thinking about all this lately.

    WHAT THE HELL WAS THE QUESTION?

    Otherwise we just sing?

    Boy, I have to go to bed.

     

     


    This is an issue that will force change and it will happen a lot sooner then we expect. 


    I am your age and will also be dead. I too, am very happy about that but I feel sorry for those who will remain. You should have picked "Wooden Ships."


    Yeah, I will buy that:

     

     


    7 billion +  and counting

    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

    With ever- increasing population growth, can we provide enough food for everyone?

    Are restrictive regulations going to lead to starvation in America?

    http://www.agweb.com/

    In the Upper right hand corner   “Search our site”    Type in EPA


    I get lazy.

    Great link on the population/Malthus calculations and history.

    No, regs are needed to avoid pestilence.

    I need money, I need oil, I need profits regardless of 'run off' or friendly fire.

    But that is my opinion.

    At any rate, this is a great, great link.


    Not Lazy  you peaked my curiosity and I wanted to share my findings.


    True. The presidency as designed by the founding fathers wasn't really workable--especially in the modern era as DD eloquently points out--so we've been improving it in fits and starts over 2+ centuries. I would say that legislators are jealous of their prerogatives but only within a narrow historical horizon. Once the line moves, they forget that they once held more territory.


    Another comparison would be the long history of Congress postponing action on divisive or comfortable issues for years or decades.  The spoils system and tariff reform are two example of 19th century issues that for their times were as prominent as health care or campaign reform in ours.  Each was endlessly debated without action until a final galvanizing crisis -- often perceived rather than real -- forced action.  Factionalism, gridlock, and procrastination have deep roots in our political system.


    Even more prominent, I would say. Some historians argue that the civil war was really fought over tariff policy. I don't buy that, but it was certainly an incredibly divisive issue. The reform of the spoils system was similarly divisive but less partisan. Both parties had reform factions. I can't think of similar examples today that are so divisive within the parties.



    AMERICAN DEMOCRACY - NOT DEAD ……..YET

    So don't fret too much. Yes, American democracy is in crisis, but it has survived worse.

    We failed to heed the warning signs and have gone too far off of the path.  

     "I'm afraid we're all going to have to drink Kool-Aid."  As said by George Stephonopolous in the 1993 film, "The War Room

    MULTIPLE WARNING SIGNS IGNORED 

    1.3 Political parties

    1.6 Credit and government borrowing


    The Yglesias argument devotes all of its energy toward processes of legislation but doesn't give even the smallest nod toward the general agreement that money is made the way it is made.

    The previous arguments about tariffs directly involved the question about who got some money or not.

    Against that background, the Yglesias argument works against itself. Claiming the ideological, as such, is a new frontier not explored by other people ignores why all the previous ideologies had so much to do with who got what.


    It's an interesting point, and I've been mulling it over. I think the relationship between money and ideology was more straightforward in the old days. Northerners championed tariffs because high tariffs benefited northern industry. Southerners defended slavery because they had a slave economy. Big city bosses fought civil service reform because their patronage machines depended on the spoils system. There were exceptions of course, e.g. pro-slavery white sharecroppers, but I think in general, people had a better sense of which side of their bread was buttered, and they attached more importance to the buttering. 

    Now it's not always so clear. Who gains financially by banning abortion or same-sex marriage? Even the economic ideological differences are sometimes topsy-turvy with low-income states calling for tax reductions and benefit cuts. And then there are weird internal factions, such as when the Chamber of Commerce battled Heritage over the debt ceiling.


    Well said. I wonder how the lack of clarity about self interest will involve the matter of parties sticking to a principle as discussed in the latter part of your interview with Blackmon.

    La Follette surely knew which end of the butter knife to grab.



    Latest Comments