As the clock ticks down towards a possible government shutdown, or another continuing resolution to put a band-aid on a gaping fiscal hole, our country needs its elected leaders to put aside their intellectual differences and perform the duty that they were elected for. Yet the logjam that has beset the federal government is not a new phenomenon; our very political institutional framework often restrains policy-makers from taking such swift, far-reaching action, even in times of need.
American democracy has layers of power and responsibility, which James Madison rationalized in Federalist, no. 51 as a check against possible tyrannical rule. Our Founding Fathers saw fit to divide power between two strata -- state and federal. Then, within the federal structure, they codified a trifurcation of power to ensure that no single branch came to dominate government; and while power has ebbed and flowed between branches, the system of checks and balances has provided stability, and kept tyrannical rule at bay.
Now, however, in the midst of the transformative change of globalization and this third economic revolution, those layers have become an impediment to making the changes necessary to keep America competitive in the world economy. Today, America crawls along at a snail's pace.
In Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government, Johnathan Rauch described this problem. Scott London observed, in reviewing Demosclerosis, that "Rauch defines "demosclerosis" as "government's progressive loss of the ability to adapt",credited as a side-effect of the postwar pluralist political system. The dramatic rise of interest-groups, coupled with the public's increasing demands on government have produced "an escalating game of beggar-thy-neighbor that damages the economy and chokes the government."
Rauch's principal argument is based on the work of economist Mancur Olson. Elaborating on classic political economy game theory, Olson showed that rational individuals acting in their own best interests fail to achieve their common or group interests. (emphasis added) Rather than a strength, Olson argued that pluralism was a weakness of American democracy. The sum of all the group interests in a pluralist system, he argued, does not equal the general interest. Rather than allowing for dynamic development, pluralism has institutionalized individual, and group greed.
The current tax reform debate exemplifies this dynamic. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's official report to President Obama specifically addressed the need to reform the corporate tax code with three recommendations, arguing that doing so was paramount in increasing the competitiveness of American businesses and creating more jobs for Americans. President Obama, in his speech to the Chamber of Commerce on February 7, 2011, spoke of the need for reform, but did not advocate the Commissions' recommendations. Translation: President Obama agrees broadly with corporate tax reform, but does not endorse the specific recommendations of his appointed Commission.
Tom Collamore, writing the Chamber's official response to the President's remarks, articulated that while the members of the Chamber agree on the need for restructuring, they want a "comprehensive conversation on tax reform." Translation: we have reforms and loopholes we care about, but we want small business included. Similarly, Representative Dave Camp (MI), in his official response to the State of the Union, agreed with the President's call for tax reform, but stated that "[t]ax reform should address the entire tax code." Translation: tax reform must be all or nothing. Ron Phipps, President of the National Association of Realtors, articulated that "...any changes to the MID [Mortgage Industry Deduction]...could critically erode... the value of homes." Translation: touching our tax break will undermine any improvement in the housing market.
Mark Rosenman, director of Caring to Change, argued that placing a cap on, or reducing tax exemptions for, charitable donations would "hamper [nonprofits] and their ability to provide the social services [the government] cannot." Translation: no breaks equals fewer services. Steven Comstock, manager of tax policy for the American Petroleum Institute, stressed that oil companies will focus primarily on how tax reform will impact cost recovery. Translation: don't touch our tax break.
While everyone seems to understand that our corporate tax system needs an overhaul to increase efficiency and make America more competitive, one person's reform is another's paycheck. The second best choice of interest groups if they don't get change their way is the status quo. Voilà: demosclerosis.
Our democracy is frozen, calcified like arteries beset by arteriosclerosis. Everyone acting on their own behalf, protecting their own interests, has stopped up the flow of democracy, and as a result, America is falling behind.
Team USA, the world economic champion, is finding it nearly impossible to make the changes necessary to compete in a global economy. It seems we can only act decisively towards the common good when our backs are to the wall.
To cure this condition, we must recommit ourselves to both the common good, and common sense, rather than self-interest. Elected officials must place the next generations' interests ahead of their next elections'. The same sense of mission and spirit of adventure that built this great nation needs to be updated to fit the contours of a new worldwide economic revolution.
Human innovation has long been motivated when we find ourselves on the precipice. We have reached that cliff, and what we need now is to work together to build a bridge to the future.
Matt Kessler-Cleary, a master's candidate in Georgetown's Global, International, and Comparative History program, co-authored this article.
Follow Andy Stern on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndyStern_DC
Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld: Aharon Friedman Withholding Get: Should Congressman Dave Camp Care?
Rev. Anne Howard: The Government Shutdown: We're All In This Together
From Ronald Reagan on, we've witnessed a backlash; counter revolution from conservatives to undo the social programs, regulations and fiscal policies of the previous 80 years. The most radical of these conservtives want to establish corporatist governance: corporations taking over roles (for profit) Americans usually think of as government's responsibility, like education, social welfare, infrastructure, prisons, etc. The only regulations corporations would face would come from the "free market" if they behaved badly.
Liberals, Democrats and unions have failed, so far, to grasp the nature of the conflict they're in. They think they're in a contest of different ideas on how to improve what government does. The other side is actually trying to replace government with corporations. They believe anything government does could be done better by corporations, in an absolutely free market, operating without government regulation, union resistance or citizen interference.
The 90 plus percent on the bottom are getting accustomed to living in third world conditions. They are beginning to accept the idea that they are not the equal of that elite group that is running America. They are accepting the fact that there will be the very rich and then there will be the rest and the rest will be poor. There is a reason people do not bother to vote in American Elections and it is because it makes no difference if they vote or not. The person they voted for has already been bought and paid for. Americans may be many things, but they can spot a fix when they see one. They don't vote because they are powerless to do anything about the fix.
The elites have won this game hands down. The only thing remains to be seen is, will they overplay their hand and cause the people to rise in armed revolt against them.
We must do something about our debt, but what? Social security needs reforming: how about cutting benefits? No, no--I draw S.S.! How about cutting Medicare: no, because I use Medicare. How about raising taxes: no, I have to pay taxes.
All this boils-down to is what's good for me may be bad for you. I want mine so you have to give-up yours.
This is what's known as "grid lock".
We are looking at the end of our once great country.
Simple as that.
How can you say such things, when voter turnout has reached nearly 41%?
Health Care: 72% of Americans supported "a government-administered insurance plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—that would compete for customers with private insurers." Obama and the Democrats with majorities in the House and Senate rejected what the voters wanted. The American people didnt want it and will not defend it. The non-reform will justifiably be dismantled or declared unconstitutional. A loss for the Democratic process and the common welfare.
TARP & Financial Bailout: Over 70% of the American people opposed the bailout. Obama and the Democrats with majorities in the House and Senate rejected what the voters wanted.Today, un- and under-employment exceed 18%; financial institutions are making record profits. A loss for the Democratic process and the common welfare. Home values continue to fall; IRAs & 401Ks continue to fall; pensions are reduced; real wages continue to decline; work hours increase; etc. All with nominally Democratic majorities in the House & Senate.
Afghanistan: 64% of the American people opposed expanding the war in Afghanistan and wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’ policies. Today, over 60% of Americans oppose the war. The war continues, though the vast majority of Americans oppose it.
Obama and the nominal Democrats will lose more in 2012, because electing them has proven to be inconsequential and contrary to our own well-being. Republican 'rule' will simply validate that neither party represents the voters. Democracy?
Let's also fault the media who are not covering the most important aspect of the Wisconsin law- allowing the governor to set prices and sell state property to his pals.
"compete in a global economy" is just corporate speak for lower wages and longer hours, what has happened to you Andy Stern.
The US would do better with a Prime Minister system where national legislators become the cabinet. It would be more difficult for corporations to buy a dept of government like finance capital buys the Treasury dept and the Fed with campaign contributions.
Democratizing the current system would be a great improvement. If the US was as democratic as Australia it would have 2152 House members and 600 senators. A congress too big to bride.
Another thing that is great about the Parliamentary sytem is that the President ( Prime Minister) has to stand before parliament and answer questions every day during question period. George Bush and Ronald Reagan could never survive in such a system. If you want to see why, just check in with the BBC when it is showing question period in the House of Commons in the UK. If you can't think on your feet and have a good command of the language the opposition will eat you alive.