I think the obstructionist viewpoint here is represented by posters who fear government. I disagree that slowing down all change is the best way to stop bad change. Major decisions need to be examined and discussed, but hamstringing legislation further is inefficient. No matter how much longer the pols talk we still won’t know whether a program will work until we try it.
Unfortunately we do not have a system that produces consensus. We have demagogues. We have a system where everybody has someone to blame. The House can blame the Senate. The Senate can blame the President who in turn blames Congress and nothing gets done.
Needless to say I blame it all on the Constitution.
I also disagree ( respectfully ) with SuaSponte concerning the FF expectation’s about political parties. My understanding is that the FF distrusted factions and hence did not include them in the government which they were creating. Not being fools, they soon realized the advisability of permanent power bases and promptly formed parties.
I suppose that’s true, but you’d best cogitate on this: it’s just as true for the positions you despise as it is for the ones you love. If you are going to advocate letting the next president have his way on everything (which is what I assume you’re doing) you need to understand that president may not be the one you want…and even if he is, the next one may not. It works in all directions.
So figure out what you think would work better and try to get it changed. Or at least present it here (in GD) so we can all mull it over. All change starts somewhere, you know, and that somewhere doesn’t have to be in Washington.
The Constitution line was a joke. It did establish the system which I think could be improved, but I was refering ( perhaps not too humorously ) to my diatribes against it.
I think that the legislature and the executive branch should be run by the same party. I don’t think of it as letting 1 person ( the chief executive ) making decisions so much as the elected representatives of a party pursuing an agenda. But yes, bad decisions have consequences that must be faced. The advantage of a responsive government is that actions to deal with these consequences could also be more prompt.
I suppose that’s true, if you don’t mind the idea of the Democrats/Republicans (pick the one you like the leasthere) having a clear shot for four years. My problem, perhaps, is that I like neither particularly–I prefer them locked up in mortal combat to the point they can’t get what I regard as overt stupidity through. That’s my concept of how “checks and balances” are supposed to work.
Like the Crittendon Compromise? (Sorry…I just had to say that.)
You apparently have more faith in politicians and parties than I do. Those who pass bad policy can’t afford to admit it by correcting their mistake–it would be like handing the opposition a loaded gun and saying “shoot me.” Any correction would have to wait until the bastards were thrown out and replaced by a new set of bastards. And so on, and so on, forever and ever, amen.
I’m still kinda new here and I probably don’t know as much about politics as I should, but wouldn’t a third party with enough seats make a diffrence?
I mean that you have a donkey and a elephant squared off yelling that THEY are the ones who know what should be done, niether wanting to give an inch. Enter a penguin that says “I see good and bad in both so why not try this which is middle of the road for to both”
Seems to me that more good would come from that than endless mud slinging and name calling. Sorry if I missed the thrust of the argument but I gotta wonder.
A 3rd party would change the dynamics certainly. If they had enough seats then no party could control the legislature without a coalition.
But the system isn’t set up to accomodate any parties so perhaps a 3rd would just lead to more yelling.
Welcome aBoard
SirEcks,
I would not be comfortable with single party control for 4 year periods. I prefer that politicians face election early and often.
I must respectfully disagree with the rest of your post.
I do not want to see government that is combating itself. Different viewpoints are valuable and seeing them as the enemy doesn’t allow for consideration of ideas nor does it lead to consensus.
It seems odd to discuss the Crittenden Compromise in relation to flexible government since that is the very thing which the compromise set out to supress; however, I am glad you brought it up. I believe it was an idea past its time. If it had been adopted instead of the Missouri Compromise then when war came the Republicans might have been able to shed their faith in the Constitution which they were shredding. I find it an interesting hypothetical.
I share your cynical opinion of politicians but I remember that if you build a maze then you shouldn’t be surprised to find it inhabited by rats. A better system would lead to better political leadership. Not that they should be completely trusted either. Coveryerbuttitis seems endemic to bureaucracies.
As 2sense already noted, it would indeed change the dynamics if there was a true third party–or even a spread of third party members and independents that did not ordinarily vote in lockstep with either the Ds or Rs. But that hasn’t happened, and I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Pity, but there it is.
2sense said:
I likethat. Maybe I should change my screen name.
Uh…I don’t really disagree with you, but the president has a four-year term. Unless you’re advocating changing that, the four-year increments are the minimum. (We’re talking about the presidency and Congress being controlled by the same party, after all.)
Hell, you alwaysdisagree with me. It’s becoming something of a tradition.
I think consensus is exactly what you won’tget, regardless. You don’t have a whole lot of consensus in American politics except during wartime, and even that doesn’t always do it.
Doesn’t it, though? I was joking…though apparently not very successfully.
Perhaps, though I doubt I’d place any bets on it. At any rate, this begs the question of what would be a better system, which would belong in another thread. One of these days I may start that thread, just to see what gets thrown up. (Is “thrown up” a pun? I haven’t decided.)
I don’t believe a 3rd party has affected the control of any body of Congress since 1849, when enough members of the Free Soil Party got elected to the House. This forced the House to go through several ballots before electing a speaker, who ended up being a Democrat, while the President was a Whig. I believe the Senate was controlled by the Whigs.
It wasn’t easy to get legislation passed at that time, but since the country was starting to come apart because of slavery, a big legislative agenda wasn’t in the cards.
I dunno. The People’s Party (the Populists) won a few seats in the late 19th century. I’m not sure if it was ever enough to make them the swing votes on legislation. I’ll try to find out.
My handy dandy World Almanaconly has political divisions of Congress after 1901, so I don’t know for sure. But I will note that Nathaniel P. Banks served as Speaker of the House from 1856-1857 as a member of the American Party (also known as the “Know Nothing Party”). It’s also worth remembering that the Republicans were themselves a third party at first, essentially displacing the Whig Party as the Democrats’ main opposition.
I suppose 1901 is a relevant time for the House to start keeping track of party breakdowns. It’s a lot harder to figure out party affiliations in the 19th century, especially before the Civil War. Democrats from the North and Democrats from the South didn’t really have much in common or vote together often.
I would think that Banks got chosen as Speaker in 1856 because the House was already at the boiling point regarding slavery and it was easier to choose a third party than a Democrat or one of them newfangled Republicans.