Multi-party Congress could save U.S. system
The new American Parliament
Gordon L. Weil
American politics are broken.
As recently as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the two
parties found ways to compromise, constructively if not consistently. Partisanship existed, but without degenerating
into personal animosity or challenges to the patriotism of rivals.
Forget about that. It’s
gone.
The prime evidence is the competitive congressional redistricting
that looks to take place every other year, despite the Constitution’s
requirement that it occur once a decade.
The historical system, allowing voters to easily change their preference
between the parties, is being replaced by efforts to assure the long-term
political dominance of the Republican Party.
Throughout history, American politics have undergone deep
divisions. Obviously, the secession of
the Southern states is the leading example.
But the unique system of government devised by the Constitution and the
customs built around it have endured, always bringing the country back to commonly
shared commitments.
The system could recognize regional and ideological
differences, on the understanding that the nation was evolving and striving to
accommodate those differences. The three
branches of the government might develop at different rates, but they remained
in the roles assigned to them.
Recently, divisions, as deep as others in the past, seem to have
become more permanent. Recovery from
traditional disputes now is less likely to happen. The reasons are not that American politicians
are more hostile than ever, but that the system itself has undergone two major
structural changes that resist reversal.
Congress has become a parliament. The president has unchecked power.
American political parties have not traditionally been monoliths. Franklin D. Roosevelt led a divided Democratic
Party that included southern racists and northern Blacks. He might also get the support of defecting Republicans. Part of his success resulted from his ability
to produce congressional majorities out of this mix.
Then, the Democrats enjoyed a long-running House majority. Republican Newt Gingrich concluded that for
the GOP to forge its own majority, it should propose its own agenda
and require total commitment to it by its House members. Failure to remain in line could result in
party leadership denying them desirable committee assignments.
After the 1994 elections, it worked. Strict party discipline replaced the
independence of Republican representatives.
The party came to resemble
British or Canadian parliamentary parties more than the American political individualism. Not only did GOP party discipline work, but
it became ingrained in the party.
When the Republicans were able to work as a unit, the
Democrats, a much less disciplined party, were forced to respond by following
the path toward the parliamentary system.
Party lines hardened so that defections by even one or two members have become
national news. Passing bills became tougher.
The Supreme Court filled the congressional vacuum. It endorsed the concept of a unitary presidency
in which the chief executive would control all the levers of government. The president might govern by executive order
when Congress failed to legislate. Almost
no agencies would be independent of the president.
In practice, that meant the president could reinterpret or
reject the customs and understandings that had grown up around the Constitution. President Trump has carried that process to
extremes, having been left unchecked by a well-disciplined and submissive Republican
Congress that he could intimidate. He
has probably set precedents for his successors.
The country remains split by ideology and region. Democracy in a vast and divided nation seems
to come up short. Vermont and
Mississippi share few common concerns, but have deep political
differences. Some Republicans and
Democrats question each others’ patriotism.
A presidential election once every four years fails to produce a truly
national leader.
Is democracy in peril as Jefferson
thought it could be? Are issues so complex
that the U.S. is simply too large for representative democracy?
The U.S. has adopted a quasi-parliamentary system, but has retained
an increasingly powerful executive outside of Congress. If this system persists, it might evolve further
as needed to save popular government. A
first step should be the enlargement of the House, bringing representatives
close to the people.
Many parliamentary governments rely on legislative
coalitions or voting support from other parties. Legislation then reflects compromises reached
to form or maintain the coalition. The
executive faces an active rather than a passive legislature, which can better exercise
checks on the executive than can one-party government.
Talk has begun about a multi-party
American system based on ideology. It
might restore the art of compromise, now virtually dead in Washington.
A multi-party system will not emerge rapidly. New parties must be prepared to mature slowly
before having much power. That will
require committed leaders across the country and adequate finance. Still, splitting up politics is better than
splitting up the country.
The process depends on voters seeing the potential benefits
of having more than a choice between two parties that time has passed.
