“How American Politics Went Insane”

Jonathan Rauch for The Atlantic.  A great piece on why we need to stop vilifying the parties and candidates and actually take a hard look at the incentives that motivate their behavior.  The political incentives you build into the system shape the results you get out of the system.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

I don’t agree with all of the diagnoses (or prescriptions) in this article, but it’s a helpful reminder on the law of unintended consequences (and a warning for reformers to act with care).  You can’t simply prohibit the darker angels of human nature; you have to design a system that encourages our best instincts and channels our worst instincts so that both are made to be productive and advance the common good.  This instrumentalist approach was central to the design of the Constitution:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public.

James Madison, Federalist No. 51.

 

“Inside the Conservative Push for States to Amend the Constitution”

Michael Wines for the NYT.

Personally, I’m not opposed to a general convention for constitutional amendments.  The focus of the article is on the substance of which amendments might come up and whether the convention would be a “run-away” convention that would threaten the Constitution itself.  Perhaps the more interesting question, however, is who ends up attending?

As for the balanced budget amendment itself, I’m not a fan.  Not because of the substance of the amendment, but because it strikes me as somewhat outside the wheelhouse of the Constitution.  The Constitution should generally focus on big-picture rights, principles, and procedures for governing, with the governing itself occurring within that framework.  (Think, 18th Amendment (prohibition) and 21st Amendment (repealing prohibition) – was that really a proper subject for a Constitution?)  A balanced budget requirement seems to straddle the line between a statutory and constitutional issue.

A better vehicle might be a “precept.”  More on this later.

 

Welcome to Modern Democracy

This blog is about the U.S. political system and the law, politics, and ideas surrounding its reform.  Modern Democracy will follow and discuss developments regarding the usual suspects (such as gerrymandering, campaign finance, and lobbying reform), but it will also search out, propose, and analyze more novel and fundamental changes for our democracy.

Americans of all political stripes seem to agree on one thing: the system is broken.  The political process seems incapable of meeting the demands of the 21st century and handling the most basic of governmental functions.  We are not faced with a need for new leaders or new policies; rather, we are faced with the more foundational need to rebuild a fair, free, and effective system of representation.  This blog will follow the litigation, legislation, and changes to the Constitution necessary to make that vision a reality.

(more…)