Actually, I do want that. I want the budget passed every year on time. I want bills passed to improve the law. I want governments to consider best options. And I want a government that has to face the people every few years and defend its position, without being able to blame the opposition for what the government chose not to do.
I am, of course, describing a parliamentary system of government.
Even if the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, and the US economy crashes?
Especially then. It may prompt results, but probably not. Whatever our government does, it will be the wrong thing, done for political purposes rather than what is good for the country. Therefor I would prefer no solution originated by Congress.
My desired result.
There is an election campaign. Those wishing to gain power present their agenda/platforms. The populace, in its entirety, cast their vote. The democratic majority rule. Now just get on and bloody well do it. No winging about how predecessors queered the pitch. You wanted the job. I saw all the posters festooning the public places. In every case your eyes were open. Deal with the other inevitable curveballs and interruptions which occur during your term. Then. if we are broadly happy with what you’ve done we’ll give you another term. Elsewise we’ll turf you out. Generally unforgotten except for your failure.
You seem to have assumed that the OP wanted “efficient law production” as his measure of merit for “working well”. That’s not at all what they asked for.
They wanted government that delivered happiness and prosperity to all the people. That’s his measure of “working well”. A system where that was the guaranteed outcome and that movement towards that outcome would be steady, continuous, and deliberate. Without being hijackable.
That’s not far from my own definition of working well.
Current US partisan gridlock is totally a fail at that definition of “works well”.
It is only when one starts from the naively cynical assumption that government can never be better than awful such that the least bad solution becomes “Put so much sand in its gears that it fails completely at absolutely everything”.
Which is really pretty silly if you think about it.
Next!
What a privileged nihilist you are.
When my party is out of power is when it’s most important that government works well. You know all that complaining the Republicans do about the “deep state”? The deep state is just what Republicans call it when the government works well. Which they hate.
Modnote: Attack the post and not the poster. Your post is attacking the poster. Please refrain in the future.
The phrase “a government that works well” is interesting in itself. Not everyone will agree with what this means or rate the same government equally. In my opinion, a good government gives, supports or provides (in random order):
and much more. People will always disagree on allotments and priorities. Many governments have worked well. Not indefinitely. Some much better than others.
Can this be created in the US now? Yes. Will a majority agree?
Different people will define “government that works well” differently.
My view: America is great at many things, and I love this country and many things about it. But having an efficient government that quickly gets big things done isn’t one of them. The people themselves are a diverse group, and they tend not to want one-size-fits-all anything. Next, we have all the states, which have certain powers that naturally leads to divergent laws & regs across the country. Then, even with our federal government, checks and balances are designed to make nothing easy. So, being slow and inefficient was a purposeful thing.
Having said all the above, our government would work much better if we had two parties that would operate in good faith. Political parties are imperfect, because they’re comprised of humans who are trying to amass power. But our Democratic party is a fairly normal party that wants to govern constructively to help people. Are they always right? No. But any group of humans will be wrong here and there. OTOH, the Republican Party is crazy. They’ve gone stark-raving mad. And it’s made the dysfunction in our government grow.
So, until we can get the Republicans back to being a normal party - again not perfect, but within the bounds of reasonable - we’re not going to have a government that works well. We’ll have a government that is sick and our Democracy itself is at risk. And how do we get a normal GOP? I’m not sure how that happens. At this point, I don’t think it can happen. I used to be one of them, and finally completely fell out over Trump. And based on what I’m seeing going into 2024, they’re even worse now than they were in 2015/2016.
What would be your best example in today’s world of a good non-democracy? If you’re anti-democracy, give an example of a country that’s a non-democracy that’s doing it right.
The alternatives to democracy also often do not lead to effective government. The average despot is unlikely to be enlightened.
Consider the Russian military. It appears that one reason they’re so awful is because no one in that country has been willing to speak truth to Putin about the military and how unprepared they are for a real land war. They certainly were afraid to tell him that invading Ukraine was a bad idea. I think you had a similar situation with China and Covid, with the leadership of that country not being told the truth out of fear.
In democracies, leaders do bad things and make mistakes all the time. But part of a real democracy is having opposing views and being made aware of the pitfalls of your bad ideas. And if you don’t adjust, you can be voted out of power.
Simplest fix is making all potential senatorial/congressional/presidential candidates go through the same clearance vetting process that all other government workers and contractors go through (those that will be handling sensitive material). If I can’t get a clearance because I’m shown to have multiple bankruptcies or carry a huge debt, etc, then neither should a candidate for senator/congressman/president.
Also we need to officially shorten the election campaign time frame. At a maximum it ought to be one year from the target election. And no double dipping jobs; the geniuses in Florida took away the rule that you had to give up your current elected position to run for another position. I guess the original mindset was that you can’t possibly pay enough attention to your current job while out campaigning for another. Sounded too logical for them.
If the current set of pols would concentrate on their jobs rather than be concerned about being re-elected they might actually get more done.