Government Dysfunction

For a long time I’ve viewed split government as good for the country.  With the Executive Branch controlled by one party and the Legislative Branch controlled by the other, it didn’t matter which was the Democrats and which was Republican, neither side could pass much of their agenda and thus not too much damage was done to the country and the people in “flyover country” that were attempting to make it work.  In general, I think this has worked reasonably well since Eisenhower, but I think the current animosity and partisanship in Congress has reached the level that it is time to change.  One party or the other should control both the Congress and the Presidency.

Kennedy’s time was inspirational, but too short to really judge if he would have been successful or not had he lived.  The Bay of Pigs was horrid, but the Cuban Missile affair was brilliantly handled. 

Lyndon Johnson, who in my opinion was the worst President of my lifetime, had the Viet Nam war and the Great Society to drag him down.  To his credit, he did have the Civil Rights legislation passed. 

Nixon, despite his moral failings, was reasonably successful.  Ford's time was short and relatively benign except that he healed the problems of the country left by Nixon. 

Carter, if not for Johnson, was a Presidency at its worst. 

Reagan, with an overwhelming Democrat Congress turned the country around for the better.  Bush the Elder was reasonably successful. 

Clinton only had a Democrat majority for two years, but his Presidency, by some measures, was a success although as a moral leader he was abysmal.  While it has nothing to do with the rest of this blog, I’m happily surprised that even the Democrats now seem to understand what a moral vacuum he was and still is.

George W. Bush is the first Republican President to have his party in power for an extended period but has become the most under appreciated President with a do nothing Congress that I can remember.  Was this due to the Republican majority that was used to being back benchers and didn’t know how to govern?  Was it his policies?  Was it the Democrats who raised the “stolen” election charade and refused to work with the Republicans no matter what the issue?  Before you say I’m picking on Democrats, remember both the Democrats and Republicans, along with 87% of the public, are in favor of English as the language of the US, but they can’t get together because it would make it look like the Democrats actually agreed with W. on something.

The children in Washington have proven they can’t play together.  Despite the absolute assurance that a left wing government would attempt to lead the country to economic ruin with their massive tax increases and universal health care policies, that is probably better than the division we see today.  As the absurdity of Carter’s Presidency led to Ronald Reagan’s revolution, I believe an Obama or Clinton Presidency with a Democrat controlled Congress would lead inevitably to another conservative revolution.  While it would take four years of misery for the country, I think the value of conservatism would again become apparent to all and we could start another 25 year period of prosperity and repair the damage.

It is a shame to even have to think this way, but with people like Reid and Pelosi in positions of power, there is no chance of the parties working together.  The Republicans had their chance, but once in power turned away from conservative ideals to become weak versions of Democrats and obviously failed.  Given a fairly clean sheet upon which the Democrats could bring their failed ideas to fruition for a short period may be the only way to again prove to the country that liberalism is morally, fiscally, and practically bankrupt.  Were it not for the potential appointment of some more members of the Supreme Court and the inconceivably painful thought of potentially eight years of liberalism, I would vote Democrat this year.

It would take another conservative revolution in four years to bring the country back to the freedom and opportunity for all citizens that we, and our children, deserve.  While I don’t see any of the current crop to lead the revolution, I’m certain someone would rise to the challenge.  Newt Gingrich perhaps?

Comments

[rukidding]

A trickle down conservative "everyone fend for themselves" revolution is the last thing this country needs, especially when lobbyists and corporate money does all the talking in Washington. The only ones who seem to benefit from conservatism are those who preach it.

Both parties are responsible for this mess. Traditional party politics and conservative or liberal agendas will not solve it. It will take a clear, unified national goal and vision, instead of politics as usual.

As they said in Star Trek 2; "Sometimes the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few... or the one."

[parrot]

of the top economies of the world, 49 are nations...51 are corporations, and your great Milton Friedman said, "so the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? and my answer to that is, no they do not" does that bother anyone else?

[Michael Motta]

I see what Timo is saying, stick the Democratic Party with Bush's mess during this year's elections, and by 2012 the short attention spans/memories of Americans will blame fallout from Dubya's massive failings on Democrats, thus paving the way for reinvigorated fascism in 2012!

[Timo Kokko]

Rukidding,
The problem of gasoline prices is not in traditional party politics, it is with the democrats steadfast refusal to allow increased exploration and plant structure. While most things in Congress share an equal opportunity blame factor, this one rests on the democrats mostly. The republicans have shown themselves to be lily livered and spinless, but they aren't actively blocking progress in the name of "protecting mother earth."

Parrot,
I see nothing wrong with Uncle Miltie's statement. It is the job of the CEOs to make as much money, legally, for their shareholders as they can. It is up to the Legislative branch to figure out what laws should be passed to help and protect the public. I submit the executives are doing a far better job than Congress.

Michael,
I think either a McCain win with a surprising republican majority or a democrat win with the existing majority would work. I am convinced the democrats, either Obama or Clinton, would screw up Washington and international relations far worse than W has. Why couldn't they nominate Joe Leiberman or Evan Bayh or one of the other bright lights of the party (I recognize Joe is an Independent now, but he should be the democrat standard bearer)? We will likely be at war with Iran within two years following a liberal democrat White House as they show their weakness to the world with the Presidency to enforce it.

I am fascinated by your comment "reinvigorated fascism." I assume you don't believe W. had a strong autocratic reign with severe economic and social regimentation? You must think he was too much of a nationalist as opposed to the liberal one-world viewpoint. I share his opinion that we should worry about the US before the rest of the world.

[MSUGeek]

What we need is a revolution to take us back to the true meaning of what the Constitution says about state rights and the enumerated powers of the federal government. States should again start refusing federal mandates on the basis of the 10th Amendement and the "Principles of '98". Jefferson and Madison understood that the federal government would continue to grow by simply handing down court decisions in its own favor, and the three branches could collaborate in an assault on the people's liberties. That is exactly what has happened over the past 200 years or so. The legislation along with executive and court decisions, especially relating to the "Commerce Clause", have stripped the states of their rightful authority and independence on most matters.

Excellent reading on this subject can be found in William J. Watkins Jr's "Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy".

[rukidding]

Increased oil exploration is not the solution, its at best a very short-term band-aid that does little to solve the larger problem.

A diversified energy policy distributed between solar; wind; nuclear; clean coal; biofuels; and oil and a diversified transportation policy distributed between rail; transit; roads (much less emphasis on roads); and air is the only rational and long-term solution.

[Michael Motta]

Timo,

Dubya has had a strong autocratic reign with corporations in bed with the government. Not that this is entirely new, but it has been intensified under the unitary exectutive theory and also with the general trend of corporate lobbies ruling Washington (even most Dems).

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power.

"The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living. Both lessons hit home. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
President Franklin Roosevelt
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759590,00.html

[Timo Kokko]

MSUGeek,
I believe you are 100% correct in that the States are afraid to take advantage of the key 10th Amendment. Those old dead guys were brilliant and the longer the country survives, the smarter they look.

Rukidding,
I certainly agree increased drilling by itself is not a long term solution. The problem right now though is that we don't have sufficient supply until a reasonable alternative sources or methods are devised. Without a bandaid, the economy will get infected and cause even more pain to the country. I totally agree we need nuclear and other sources of energy we haven't created yet, but need to with all due haste.

Michael,
I'm afraid I don't share your implication that W's "reign" has been any more or less autocratic or secretive than previous administrations, particularly if we look as far back as Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon.

[Michael Motta]

I'm not much of a numbers guy, but when they're overwhelming, they're difficult to ignore:

DUBYA ADMIN AND NSLs

"The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.

"Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366_pf.html

DUBYA ADMIN AND SIGNING STATEMENTS

"Signing statements can be merely ceremonial in nature, praising or criticizing the law or lawmakers, or remarking on the importance of the issue addressed by the law. Such signing statements are often called "rhetorical" signing statements. However, other signing statements may challenge Congress's authority to act or assert that that the president will not enforce the law as written. This type of signing statement is often called a "constitutional" signing statement: a president will object to a provision of law by citing a provision of the Constitution, or by citing a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Constitution, or by bare assertion (without citation to authority) that the law offends the Constitution or invades the power of the Executive."

"34% of President Reagan's signing statements raised constitutional objections

47% of President George H. W. Bush's signing statements raised constitutional objections

18% of President Clinton's signing statements raised constitutional objections

78% of President George W. Bush's signing statements raised constitutional objections"
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/FAQs.htm#1.%20%20What%20are%20presidential%20signing%20statements

[Timo Kokko]

Micheal,
The numbers you quote are indeed interesting, but, at the risk of defending someone with whom I share very few ideals, in this case I don't believe they tell the whole story.

The 30,000 NSLs are a huge jump, but under W is the first time the nation was hit hard by an organized terrorist group that created a new environment. It can be argued that the administration still over-reached, but I don't think the raw numbers in themselves prove that there is something amiss.

I also think the hatred the democrats have for W has caused them to complain about everything that he has done, including signing a statement in support of the Boy Scouts. While likely a true statement on the percentages, again I think they are misleading. I do think Clinton's low number had something to do with the fact that he didn't do anything, except raise taxes, assault women and girls, and pardon people like Mark Rich.

[EmersonsZen]

Numbers Guy--

Tsk tsk tsk.

*shakes head, rolls eyes*

As Timo said, it is obvious that NSL issuance is commensurate with the terrorist threat in today's world.

NSLs are incredibly narrow in scope, and violations are almost always the fault of the information provider (divulging too much), not the FBI.

"The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans."

Total sophistry.

The FBI could care less if you call your Aunt in Saudi Arabia. But if she's part of a known terrorist cell, and you transfer money to her, you'll be red flagged. I for one am glad it works that way.

I'm curious as to who "raised constitutional objections" to GWB's signing statements? The ABA? The ABA's "Blue Ribbon Panel"? Hardly a bastion of objectivity there, I'm certain.

And by the way, GWB only recently passed Bill Clinton in the number of signing statements. Clinton had 140, and Bush now has 147.

But I'm guessing the Washington Post didn't mention those numbers in its fair and balanced article, eh?

I'm thinking you're far above the cut-and-paste crowd Michael.

What gives?

[Michael Motta]

Emerson Zen, the "constitutional objections" are those of the presidents themselves! I didn't include the overall numbers of signing statements because it struck me that those raising "constitutional objections" were of the main import, and everyone already knows that Dubya has issued large numbers of signing statements anyway.

Now the problem with NSLs is that each time one is issued, along with it comes a gag order. So not only are citizens often ordered to violate their own ethical standards of privacy (and organization policy regarding privacy), but then on top of that they're gagged about it! Imagine going through what might be the most frightening moment of your career (a lot of these people are librarians and the like, not mercenaries) and/or life, and not being allowed to tell your spouse, pastor, therapist, best friend, nor even your boss apparently! One of the basic principles of mental health is being able to talk about your maladies, yet in this moment of crisis not even that solace is allowed!

I consider each issuing of a NSL a small act of terror in and of itself, so regardless of the specific nature of each NSL, 30,000 small acts of terror each year adds up to a lot of Kafkaesque terror and nightmarish existences.