Political scientist predicted that the American system of government was unstable and would collapse

[Cali_Democrat]

The Shutdown Prophet
Washington couldn’t have gone dark without a radicalized Republican Party. Or maybe it was destined to all along.
By Jonathan Chait

In a merciful twist of fate, Juan Linz did not quite live to see his prophecy of the demise of American democracy borne out. Linz, the Spanish political scientist who died last week, argued that the presidential system, with its separate elections for legislature and chief executive, was inherently unstable. In a famous 1990 essay, Linz observed, “All such systems are based on dual democratic legitimacy: No democratic principle exists to resolve disputes between the executive and the legislature about which of the two actually represents the will of the people.” Presidential systems veered ultimately toward collapse everywhere they were tried, as legislators and executives vied for supremacy. There was only one notable exception: the United States of America.

<...>

Instead, to the slowly unfolding horror of the Obama administration and even some segments of the Republican Party, the GOP decided that the alternative to finding common ground with the president did not have to be mere gridlock. It could force the president to enact its agenda. In January, Boehner told his colleagues he’d abandon all policy negotiations with the White House. Later that spring, House Republicans extended the freeze-out to the Democratic-­majority Senate, which has since issued (as of press time) eighteen futile pleas for budget negotiations. Their plan has been to carry out their agenda by using what they call “leverage” or “forcing events” to threaten economic and social harm and thereby extract concessions from President Obama without needing to make any policy concessions in return. Paul Ryan offered the most candid admission of his party’s determined use of non-electoral power: “The reason this debt-limit fight is different is we don’t have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves,” he said at the end of September. “We are stuck with this government another three years.”

<..>


How to settle this dispute? Here is where Linz’s analysis rings chillingly true: “There is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved, and the mechanisms the Constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.” This is a fight with no rules. The power struggle will be resolved as a pure contest of willpower.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/government-shutdown-2013-10/

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Thank you. I was unaware of Linz, and this

seems to be a deeply insightful analysis.

[cantbeserious]

2. When Reason And Politics Fail - Terrorism Prevails

eom

[riderinthestorm]

3. Wow. K&R nt

[bhikkhu]

4. One good reform would be a national standard for redistricting

which countered the tendency to gerrymandering, and (more importantly) countered the tendency to strong party polarization within districts. That's one thing that was actually written into the constitution that hasn't worked out well, and has gotten worse over time.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

5. Nah, it would actually be S A D

...Singly Assured Destruction.
You could pull that only once. Next time, you'd be a goner at the polls. You destroy your own legitimacy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. Smart people have been known to be ridiculously wrong

When trying to predict the future.

http://www.businessinsider.com/false-predictons-2012-5?op=1

Yeah, the European Parliamentary system has no flaws .

[Cali_Democrat]

8. The parliamentary system has one huge advantage

When there are huge disputes, parliament can be dissolved and new elections held.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. True, but that can also be a disadvantage

[JDPriestly]

20. Yes. It can be very unstable -- as in Greece.

[Kaleva]

11. Which doesn't help much if no one party wins a majority

The French Fourth Republic was plagued by this.

"The Fourth Republic suffered from a lack of political consensus, a weak executive, and governments forming and falling in quick succession since the Second World War. With no party or coalition able to sustain a parliamentary majority, Prime Ministers found themselves unable to risk their political position with unpopular reforms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fifth_Republic

[starroute]

14. Parliamentary systems have minor flaws compared to presidential systems

I remember reading decades ago that every other country that attempted to model its system on ours had fallen into dictatorship or failed in some other way. Whoever was making the observation seemed to be suggesting that we were favored in some way by American exceptionalism -- that we were somehow more innately democratic and that this enabled us to thrive in a system that everybody else was doomed to screw up.

That may actually have been true at the time. Certainly there was a period when Americans seemed to actively believe in democracy in a way that nobody else did. But that belief started to waver when it became clear that democratic elections in other countries might produce governments that were unfavorable to US corporate interests -- and from the sphere of foreign policy a willingness to apply non-democratic methods to ensure a desired outcome crept into domestic politics round about the time of the Nixon administration.

We're now living in a society where a significant minority of the population no longer believes in democratic institutions -- no longer believes that elections should be won fairly, that the will of the people is the source of legitimate authority, and that the best policies are those that serve the common welfare.

And under those circumstances, our current system becomes a deathtrap.

[JDPriestly]

21. Sad but true.

[starroute]

26. Rereading my own post, I think the question of legitimate authority explains a lot

It explains why Democrats -- who still believe that government is based on the consent of the governed -- are so careful to remain within and keep propping up the existing system, even when their opponents no longer give a damn.

It explains why evangelicals are so prominent among conservative Republicans, since they believe that authority comes from God and not from the human community. It also explains why they keep freaking out about abortion and same-sex marriage, since in their worldview a government becomes illegitimate when it goes against divine edict.

And it explains why libertarians are the other major group in the Republican right, since they believe in survival of the fittest and think that only the needs and desires of the highest achievers should count.

[Laelth]

31. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[tavalon]

27. I like your sig bumper sticker

Alas, in this environment, she wouldn't make it through the primaries. I'm not saying she isn't good enough. She's way too good, way to populist. But as my ex says, she doesn't have to be JFK, she can be the lion of the Senate. I agree.

[Kaleva]

40. For a long period of our nation's history, a minority ruled this nation.

Well off white men decided who we could vote for and sometimes determined the winner long before the election was even held.

[Barack_America]

7. This is why Obama must stand strong...

..and ignore the debt ceiling if he has to. It's a pissing contest, but one of immeasurable consequence.

[AAO]

16. If they balk on the debt limit

It should really be called "forcing us to cross the default line", but if they do that, I think all the suffering involved would be worth it if we could stop the future suffering that will occur at the hands of the Reptilian Party. The Teabag idiots are the closest thing to Nazis we've ever had in our government. Their demise is our only hope.

[randome]

9. I agree with the characterization of the Constitution.

Old and outmoded. We can still have rights and protections with a new system of government. Unfortunately, that will never happen as too many worship a piece of 18th century paper.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Chaco Dundee]

15. somebody had to say it

Democracy is great,but it is the pits when it is the excuse by descirption for any totalitarian system.our grandfathers warned us.

[Octafish]

34. I couldn't disagree more.

9. I agree with the characterization of the Constitution.
Old and outmoded. We can still have rights and protections with a new system of government. Unfortunately, that will never happen as too many worship a piece of 18th century paper.

The problem isn't the Constitution; it's the traitors who undermine it and those who fail to defend and protect it.

Smedley Butler named them, they tried to stop FDR, they killed JFK, and they foisted Nixon, Rehnquist, Reagan, Scalia, Bushes, Roberts, and who knows whom else on us -- We the People -- to preserve and expand their power, wealth and privilege.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. No it has terminal functional problems.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing the republicans in the house are doing that is unconstitutional, so for starters, this is an example of yet another unforeseen outcome. The original constitution institutionalized slavery, regionalism, property rights over human rights, restricted full civil rights to property owning white men, wasn't clear about the role of the Supreme Court, and defined an upper legislative chamber that quickly became an institution of open corruption.

The whole mess disolved in less than 100 years in a bloody civil war, and was reconstituted in republic 2.0, a new and different corrupt mess that carried on for another 70 years until it too reached a crisis in the form of the Great Depression. The current version, republic 3.0, is also at a crisis point. The original constitution is more or less irrelevant, claims to be the true standard bearers for that piece of parchment are absurd.

[Octafish]

41. No. You're wrong.

38. No it has terminal functional problems.
View profile
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing the republicans in the house are doing that is unconstitutional, so for starters, this is an example of yet another unforeseen outcome. The original constitution institutionalized slavery, regionalism, property rights over human rights, restricted full civil rights to property owning white men, wasn't clear about the role of the Supreme Court, and defined an upper legislative chamber that quickly became an institution of open corruption.

The whole mess disolved in less than 100 years in a bloody civil war, and was reconstituted in republic 2.0, a new and different corrupt mess that carried on for another 70 years until it too reached a crisis in the form of the Great Depression. The current version, republic 3.0, is also at a crisis point. The original constitution is more or less irrelevant, claims to be the true standard bearers for that piece of parchment are absurd.

The problem isn't with the Constitution, it's with the people who think they're above it. A Department of Justice that enforces the Constitution and the nation's laws equally for all will go a long way toward solving the nation's problems as well as taking out the corrupt Congress, federal agencies and conservative neo-NAZI courts.

As for your example of the current budget crisis, President Obama has kept his ace up his sleave. The 14th Amendment enables him to protect the good faith and credit of the USA, if he wants to use it.

[FarCenter]

12. Stable governments alternate between an oligarchy and an emperor

In societies that enjoy large epochs of relative peace, oligarchies of the barons form for most of the time. Occasionally, one baron usurps power and becomes an emperor for a time, usually with the support of the masses. Then power slips away to the oligarchy again.

Democracies are highly unusual, and are feasible only in small countries or in countries with large natural resources per capita with fast growing economies.

[tavalon]

28. As we once were

a small (population wise) country with massive natural resources and as of the industrial age, we had a fast growing economy, fucked with frequently by an oligarchy and their gerrymandering of the financial system.

Welcome to the new age, the fall of empire. Not the best era to be in, but it is the one we are in. I hope when the split comes, My state and the two states below it go to Canada. I'd love to be an absorbed Canadian. And in the area I live, Vancouver is highly progressive, much as my side of the state, the coastal side of Oregon and of course, much of California. Orange County can feel free to relocate to New Texas. It was, after all, switched at birth with Travis County (Austin).

[Laelth]

32. Agreed, in principle.

I would simply suggest that Republics tend to be oligarchies.

That's what history suggests:

The Roman Republic
The Republic of Venice (the longest-lasting republic in the planet's history)
The Republic of Ragusa (a very cool little republic that lasted for over 500 years and was an early ally of the fledgling United States)

These are all oligarchies. Take a look at this picture and tell me we're not looking at a good number of our nation's early oligarchs:



We may not like oligarchy, in principle, but we may be fooling ourselves if we believe that the U.S. hasn't always been one. And every oligarchy, it seems, wants an empire.



-Laelth

[Rebellious Republican]

13. Fuck that, its basic greed on behalf of the GOP!

[Cha]

17. thank you, Cali

[JDPriestly]

18. Moderate Republicans in the House can change this situation right away.

They can leave the Republican Party and declare themselves Independents, then caucus with Democrats. That will give John Boehner a serious warning. Moderate Republicans are the only ones with the power to change this.

There are now 232 Republicans and 200 Democrats in the House. (3 vacancies).

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/cong.aspx

If 17 Republicans become Independent and caucus with Democrats, you have 217 in the Democratic and Independent caucus and 215 in the Republican caucus. The Democrats and Independents could pick the speaker they want, say Nancy Pelosi or some compromise candidate.

Et voila. Problem solved.

It would take 17 (18 would be better) courageous Republicans anxious to save our country.

Otherwise, who knows how long this impasse could last.

Any patriots among those moderate Republicans? Anyone willing to sacrifice party affiliation to save the day?

[Laelth]

35. My answer to your question.

Any patriots among those moderate Republicans? Anyone willing to sacrifice party affiliation to save the day?

No.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Patriots they may be, but they're not suicidal. So, no.

-Laelth

[cui bono]

43. This would work until the mid-terms I would guess.

Since at that time all those moderates will get primaried by Tea Partiers, and since they're getting backed by Koch money they have a good chance of winning.

It would depend on which Republicans did it and how their district leans I suppose.

I wonder if there's any chance that it would shake things up enough for people to reconsider the extreme right wing radicalism going on now and put their money behind less cringeworthy people.

[riderinthestorm]

19. Powerful read. K&R nt

[defacto7]

22. And this is no small country...

315+ million population used to the easy life, at least easy relative to the rest of humanity, with the convenience of a seemingly and mistakenly untouchable religious culture.

The OP's premise is all well and good under logical, reasonable conditions. The democracy of the US has been successful, could have been more so, and may still be, under logical and reasonable conditions. What is happening to undercut our democracy is not the weakness of the constitution or the weakness of the administrative powers or the incapable disjointed congress, it's the weakness of it's people both in government and the general population to have been duped by a scheme to destroy it. How do you destroy a government? a democracy? You look for the human weaknesses and accentuate them slowly over time.

Our weaknesses? Our weaknesses are our strongest points turned inside-out:

Our advantage as human beings has been our ability to think... degrade that till we are a nation of dumb. Another advantage has been our ability to adapt.... accentuate greed and we become a nation incapable of reasonable compromise, empathy and civility. An advantage? Our ability to imagine and create.... twist that into impassable, unchangeable dogma that demands the world to see their imaginary vision as fact, indeed the demand to accept their belief or die, and you foster the inability to learn, to be incapable of learning. This is what has happened to us as a nation. We have become dumb and numb. We have become unable to see each others needs, joys, hopes, pain. We have become a nation burdened and drugged by the irrational.

We are not following the good natures of humanity, we have succumbed to our ancient nature which has made our government, our democracy, and ourselves as humans vulnerable. We are becoming incapable of expanding on our greatest advantages.

[young_at_heart]

23. Powerful final sentences!!

"The tea-party insurgents turn out to be right that the Obama era has seen a fundamental challenge to the constitutional order of American government. They were wrong about who was waging it."

[Laelth]

36. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Jim Warren]

24. "The power struggle will be resolved as a pure contest of willpower."

A sobering statement. A close read of the history of the 1930's and the political battles FDR fought and won implementing the New Deal, particularly with the judicial branch of government, attest to the veracity of that statement. FDR prevailed through sheer force of will and these days I often ponder the question: Does Obama have it in him?

[tavalon]

25. And public shaming

New media allows for extensive public shaming and that's a good start. Later, we are going to have to have a Constitutional Convention or a Revolution, but for now, pointing and laughing may be enough. If not, the revolution will be tweeted.

[ThoughtCriminal]

29. If we fail, it won't be due to a power struggle between branches

In one word: Corruption.

When money=speech and campaign donations become a form of legalized bribery
When laws are passed to obstruct voting
When vote counting become opaque and unverifiable
When corporate interests buy up media an control the message.
When Supreme Court decisions become based on ideology rather than law.
When the legislative branches deliberately establishes rules that can be misused to subvert democracy (Filibusters, Hassart rule)
When legislative boundaries are created to give one party an almost insurmountable advantage and the courts do nothing.

[Laelth]

30. Interesting. Thanks for posting. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[bahrbearian]

33. He might have been right if the US had a democracy, we don't.

We have the MIC , Wall Street, Multi National Corporations, Health Care for Profit... I think we have a Fascist Empire.

[indepat]

45. One that might do Mussolini proud except for the trains and planes that do no run/fly

on time.

[magical thyme]

37. the 14th amendment. Obama can pull that out, can he not?

Yes, they can try to impeach him if he does. And so what if they do? It will likely fail in the senate, and even if it does not, so what?

His legacy will be that he sacrificed his career in order to save the country. Not a bad legacy, imho.

[Progressive dog]

39. How many parliamentary systems were actually stable?

I can't think of a lot, in spite of the fact that there have been many more of them than systems modeled on ours.

[oxymoron]

42. K&R

[indepat]

44. May the President exert such forceful willpower that Rethuglicans go crawling back to their states/

congressional districts whimpering with shrouds of their tails dragging in political tatters. And with the sand flies of a thousand camels nesting in each of their pubic hair for good measure.