The American dilemma

From a non-American perspective, President Barack Obama seems to have done well in his first year and a half in the White House. He has managed to push through Congress three huge measures: an economic stimulus package, major healthcare reform, and a restructuring of the financial sector.

And yet, and yet, his poll ratings are so low. Some Democrats think that he has not been radical enough, while many Republicans think that he is dangerously Left-wing.

This is well-described in this article.

The problem is that Obama can do little without Congress and Congress is a legislative quagmire with Republicans refusing to support presidential initiatives and even many Democrats demanding amendments that weaken the proposals. There are two main reasons for this.

Reason one is the constitution. The Founding Fathers designed this so that power is distributed between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. This may have made sense two centuries ago when the fear was an all-powerful centre like the King in Britain whose tyranny the Americans had just overthrown.  It makes no sense in the 21st century when the USA is a superpower and political problems demand speedy and radical solutions.

Reason two is money. It is virtually impossible for anyone to be elected to office in the USA without spending sums of money that would be considered obscene in most democracies. And this money come from the vested interests – financial institutions, energy companies, private health companies – that are opposed to any change that would challenge their profits and benefit the majority of Americans.

To change the rules on political funding would mean electing more independent-minded Congress men and women but they can’t get elected without a ton of money from the companies that like to be able to buy power and block change. Catch 22. Ah yes, that famous American novel.


3 Comments

  • Michael Grace

    Interesting observation on American politics from an astute “non-American.”
    On passage of legislation: Democrats already have enough votes in both Houses of Congress to pass Obama’s legislative agenda–indeed the House of Representatives already has. The problem is in the Senate where an archaic parlimentarian rule allows 41 Senators to block any action by using a filibuster. In other words, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, not 51. As a party with more discipline than Dems, Senate Republicans have implemented a “block” anything strategy. Hence, every bill becomes a battle in the Senate with House Democrats forced to swallow compromises made by Senate Dems to get legislation passed. Without the Senate’s “filibuster” rule (not in the Constitution), Obama could easily pass all of is agenda.
    On campaign finance: There is too much money in US political campaigns. But we have a pesky right in America called The First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech. Contributing to political candidates has been determined by our courts as a form of free speech. Putting limits on individual and corporate political contributions in federal elections (not state or local elections) can and has been allowed by the courts but only up to a point. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently overturned portions of one of our campaign finance laws as too restrictive of “freedom of speech.” In other words, money will never–and can never–be completely limited in political campaigns in the US, unlike European elections.
    P.S. The reason elections in the US are so expensive is because of tv/cable political advertising. In a country as big as the US (4 time zones), the only way to effectively reach voters with your message is through tv advertising which is very expensive. (It’s difficult to force tv broaddcasters/cable operators to offer “free” air time to candidates since all they have to sell is time which is limited to 24 hours in a day.)
    PSS I predict the American people will come to their senses by November. Dems will lose seats (the party in power always does in a President’s second year in office), but will retain control of the House and Senate. Remember, you heard it here first.

  • Russ

    Hey Roger,

    Some interesting observations, but I think you are a bit too pessimistic about the US system. I would add the following:

    + Whether the total amount of money spent on elections is obscene is a matter of perspective. I recall in Freakonomics the comparison was made with the amount Americans spend on chewing gum each year. There is a lot at stake in elections. And I suppose it goes without saying that in a nation of 300 million relatively affluent people (and many elected offices), the money spent will be quite large.

    + I’m personally not bothered by money spent on elections and donated to candidates, provided: (i) no one is compelled to donate and (ii) the donations are fully disclosed.

    + I do believe it is freedom of speech to donate your money, your resources, support or time to a political candidate, political party or political movement. Why would we ever want to restrict civic participation? I say let everyone organise, have their say (as many political adverts as they want), donate, get involved, etc.

    + I’m surprised you omitted unions as political donors. Check here: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

    + Regarding the “speedy” issue:

    — The health care law enacted by Obama was introduced (as various measures) in Congress in July 2009 and was enacted in late March 2010. I actually think that is quite speedy for such major economic and social legislation. How much faster would you want the process to go? Isn’t it better to consult all stakeholders, make compromises and have full transparency than to aim for a speedy result?

    — There are many areas of US policy work that — by agreement — do not work through the legislative process. One important example: the control of the money supply and the setting of interest rates by the Federal Reserve. So I think it is clear that, where speed matters, the US system is quite flexible.

    Overall, I would argue that the US system is one that seeks to allocate a massive amount of resources through compromise amongst a vast array of competing stakeholders. We cannot expect it to be inexpensive or speedy… (smile)…

  • Russ

    Michael Grace wrote: “The problem is in the Senate where an archaic parlimentarian rule allows 41 Senators to block any action by using a filibuster. In other words, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, not 51.”

    That is not entirely true. The cloture rule is about limiting debate, not about the number of votes to pass legislation. 60 senators can agree to limit debate on a particular item (ie, move it to a vote) and then only 51 senators can later vote to pass it.

    Case in point: the recent confirmation of Ben Bernake. 77 senators voted to limit debate, but only 70 senators voted to confirm the Fed Chair. It basically means some portion of senators opposed the confirmation on the merits, but nevertheless wanted to see an up-or-down vote take place and move on to other senate business.

    And a final point — I don’t think it diminishes the legitimacy of the filibuster because it is not specified in the constitution. The constitution says the Senate (and House) can make its own rules of proceeding. The cloture rule is just such a rule.

 




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>