So Ms. Pelosi is excited to finally be able to get to work now that the "10 pound anvil" of Bush's presidency was removed from her head via Marine One.
Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.
A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.
When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.
I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.
**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.
Please check out what my fellow participants at www.timetokeepscore.com may have to say about this and other issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Perfect timing, Chris; I have some down time at work right now =)
I agree that it's a little frightening to see the Speaker so excited that a friendly Chief Exec is in office. Your argument is sound. Given an appeasing Congress, a strong exec of the same party, and crises galore, we could very well see overreactive governmental behavior. Good government certainly relies on the presence of adversarial (yet civil!) relationships. Currently, we only see that coming from the Supreme Court, which I hope serves as enough of a restraint to prevent wild runaway policies.
But it would be remiss to exclude from this conversation recognition of the role the electorate played. The electorate is more emotional than strategic, and the Founding Father's knew that. Hence we have six-year Senate terms and lifetime judicial appointments. These heightened barriers reduce the effect of irrationality by the electorate. Despite this, we find ourselves today with one-party government. A possible conclusion one could draw from this is that swift, strong, bold action is exactly what the electorate wants, and overreactive behavior is something they are willing to risk. Our nation is facing extremely dire, desperate crises right now. What else could one expect from an entity as emotional and irrational as the electorate?
Even if the electorate were strategic, should they prefer the Republican Party? Not only did current crises foment during 8 years of mostly Republican rule, but they now are also fractured ideologically and lacking clear direction. Such an entity would not make a prime adversary for the Democratic Party. The best we can hope for is that the Republican Party remakes themselves into something more relevant and effective (and perhaps a little less catty =). I genuinely look forward to that. (An interesting perspective of that: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler30-2008nov30,0,1009632.story )
Here here!
I second that Chris. I'm so freakin' tired of such a weak legislative branch as well. Arguably, I believe it stems from the ability for the politicians to be re-elected potentially indefinitely (whereas the President is forced out in 2 terms). Those congressmen end up working to protect themselves for the next election cycle and it shows: 1) earmarks to gain/keep large corporate donations, 2) voting along party lines to secure future party endorsement (money for election), 3) using the President as a scapegoat for any "failed" initiatives and then only voting on "resolutions" that don't really create any laws but just tell people where politicians stand on a particular issue.
I get a feeling that the Democrats are becoming just as corrupt as the Republican were simply to hold on to power.
Post a Comment