Liberal democracy retreats as politics take a right turn

 

Gordon L. Weil

The world is taking a right turn.

Even when parties clash on policy, their shared values can yield practical results through compromise. But now, conservatives increasingly reject compromise, jeopardizing shared values.

Liberal democracy may be retreating. It emerged from the adoption of social welfare policies and the defeat of fascism by American and European democracies. Once widely accepted, it is now openly challenged.

Listen to Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister idolized by some American conservatives. His country has lived under a monarchy, Nazism and Communism, and he now proclaims, “We have replaced a shipwrecked liberal democracy.” He labels his new form of government “illiberal democracy,” which amounts to an elected dictatorship with no need to compromise.

Orban’s views are extreme, but many conservatives favor smaller and more authoritarian government, lower taxes, and fewer foreign commitments. They believe that only by being uncompromising, contrary to the practices of liberal democracy, can they gain control.

Even in Maine, this way of thinking is appearing.

Unless two-thirds of the Legislature agrees on a state budget, a version adopted by a simple majority and signed by the governor must be delayed for 90 days. That’s what happened this year with the basic budget. But hopes remained for a supermajority to adopt the supplemental budget.

The minority Republicans and the majority Democrats had conflicting legislative goals. They reached a compromise with some GOP gains, but the majority unsurprisingly dominated the result. The 13-member bipartisan Appropriations Committee sent the agreed budget to the House and Senate with the opposition of only one Republican.

The compromise budget, enjoying the support of Republican leaders, was expected to get the required supermajority. Then, GOP House members rebelled against a budget that had been negotiated by their own picked representatives. The House GOP leader had to abandon them.

Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham said that efforts had been made at compromise. “But at the end of the day, I listen to my caucus, and I answer to them.” With remarkable honesty, he reported that he had accepted its refusal to agree. The GOP required even more concessions to add to their major win on highway funding, which should reduce taxes.

In the final tally, the compromise budget received only three GOP votes. Two came from members of the Committee, veterans of political compromise politics who stuck by their position and the third was by the Senate GOP leader.

Maine Republicans in the Legislature had openly shed the shared values of compromise for partisan conflict. Their backs may have stiffened when the Democrats led in adopting liberal legislation on abortion and gender.

This situation revealed much about the Republican Party. While there may be more degrees of conservatism at the national level, the split between party factions was revealed by the Maine budget switch.

Nationally, the GOP is composed of four elements: Trump loyalists, the hard or extreme right, strong conservatives and moderate or economic conservatives.

The Trump loyalists are attached to Donald Trump (and possibly to any successor named Trump). They can be understood as an ultra-loyal cult or at least an ardent fan club. Wherever he leads on policy, they follow. If he is found legally guilty of anything, they would see him as the victim of a plot.

The hard right places partisanship above political responsibility. They not only disagree with Democrats; they want to destroy Democrats. This leads to conspiracy theories and endless attempts to discredit their opponents. Social media lies are their weapons. Autocratic government is their goal. They are the Orban people.

Strong conservatives will fight on wedge issues like abortion, gender identity and gun control, and also support voter suppression and more emphasis on religious rights. They demand smaller government and lower taxes. They want to reduce government aid programs for the poor and disadvantaged.

Traditional conservatives want lower taxes and reduced regulation, which they see as standing in the way of economic growth. The business wing of the party, they are less concerned about social issues than other conservatives. They are willing to seek compromises with Democrats. Among Republicans, they are fading out. The Maine budget vote showed that happening.

The growth of the hard right and strong conservatism is not limited to the U.S. The right turn has been seen in the end of U.K. membership in the EU. Italy, Israel, Sweden and France have all seen a surge of parties on the right.

In the U.S., the split between strongly conservative states and other states following more traditional politics is becoming increasingly obvious, shown by contrasting red and blue states.

Conservative Republicans want to give voters a clear choice, undiluted by compromise. They believe that’s the way to win. The 2024 elections, with or without Trump, may provide the key test for the powerful Republican right.

Supreme Court reactions: Too much heat, too little light

Gordon L. Weil

More has been said about what’s wrong with recent Supreme Court decisions than about what the decisions said.  Snap analyses have amounted to spreading half-true and often biased explanations to people who don’t read the opinions.

On one side are liberals, including justices, who give the clear impression that the Court is political, acting like a legislature, and under the control of conservative zealots.  On the other side are conservatives, who like the decisions and claim victory.

Beyond question, the Court’s majority on some major issues is composed of conservative justices. They show that there is no objective law, but rather that the Constitution and laws are subject to their mindset.  Recent controversial cases reveal how justices look at the same facts, but reach conflicting conclusions. That’s normal, and the criticism may go too far.

In one case, a cake maker who designs special sweets for customers sought to refuse any client who wanted a cake decorated for a same-sex wedding.  The designer’s religious beliefs oppose such marriages, and they wanted to conform to these teachings.  But Colorado state law bans discriminating among customers.

The Court ruled that requiring the designer to prepare such a custom cake violated their freedom of speech because the government would make them express themselves over their objection. The decision only affected design work, and did not overrule the Colorado law requiring the designer to sell any standard cake to any customer no matter its ultimate use.

The criticism of this decision was that it allowed a person’s religious belief to displace the Fourteenth Amendment requirement for equal protection of the law. The Court majority effectively decided that a First Amendment free speech right should be given more weight than that Fourteenth Amendment right.

While about a religious objection, the decision was not about religion. Suppose the designer was the descendant of a Holocaust victim and refused to place a swastika on a cake for a fascist customer.  Would opponents of the cake case decision feel the same?

In another controversial decision, the majority ruled against affirmative action in college admissions. Race by itself could not be used simply to increase the diversity of the student body.

The conservative majority noted that the universities in the case had offered no evidence that diversity produced superior academic results.  The advocates of affirmative action may believe that diversity in itself has an obvious educational value. 

The Court ruled that the relevance of a person’s race to their own life could be taken into account, but that admitting people to achieve racial balance should not be allowed.  That could amount to illegal discrimination negatively affecting applicants denied admission.  Colleges could neither deny nor offer admission based on race

After this decision, colleges could still end up with similar diversity through their individual admissions selections.  And the Court’s decision will affect only a handful of the nation’s thousands of colleges.

Another case focused on President Biden’s attempt to wipe out $430 billion in student loans using a law passed after 9/11, giving the president extra emergency powers. He had suspended loan payments during the Covid pandemic and proposed to use the terrorism law to make the suspension permanent.

The Court majority said the president could not undertake such massive spending, even for a worthy purpose, without express congressional approval.  The minority claimed that the majority had invented a new rule to reach this conclusion. That’s a legal question open to debate.

What would have been the reaction if President Trump had chosen to use his emergency authority under this law to build the wall along the Mexican border?  Wouldn’t there have been objections that he lacked such authority and could not use the 9/11 law to cover his favored spending?

In all these cases, it’s worth remembering there may be a difference between what you see as right and what is legal. 

The Court’s conservatism seems increasingly political, especially given Justice Samuel Alito’s public speeches.   In recent years, justices on both sides have become highly and rudely critical of one another.  That increases the appearance of partisanship and not judicial neutrality.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, is making some effort to close the gap.  He is putting space between himself and the extreme conservatives. But he resists a code of ethics for the Court and tolerates the political activism of some justices.

The Court’s controversial opinions reveal the false assurances by judicial nominees who tell Congress they will stick to the law. What’s the law?  Elect a conservative president and their appointees will probably produce conservative interpretations of the law.

When people are polled about major issues, they often cite the economy or immigration in determining who they support for president.  If they fail to focus on the Court, they may get decisions they don’t like.

 

Major events dominate historic June: From Putin to Supreme Court

 

Gordon L. Weil

June may turn out to have been an especially historic month.

Unusually, at least five events took place that are changing the U.S. and the world.  Amazingly, only one of them was related to a current armed conflict and, in that case, not a single member of the American military was under fire.  The historic almost became so routine as to almost miss being noticed.

The event related to war that drew worldwide notice was the uprising against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his fumbling military.  Despite his efforts to restore its former role as a world power, Russia was finally revealed as the second-rate dependency of China that it has become.

Putin had parlayed his mistakes into an epic loss.  He believed Ukraine would collapse with only a small push, that the West would not support Ukraine and that he had tamed Europe by making it dependent on Russia’s energy.  Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Suddenly, a Russian election may mean something.  Next year, a presidential election there may find Putin open to challenge.  While he can still try to throttle the opposition, ranging from repressive to reform, his success is no longer assured. 

This month, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinkin delivered to China an American message placing clear limits on what would be tolerated.  While acknowledging that the two huge economies both benefit from a good relationship, the U.S. stressed that it would not sell out its vital interests for the sake of that linkage.

He told the Chinese leadership that its shipments of the raw materials of fentanyl to Mexican drug cartels were seen as an attempt to undermine American society by promoting drug dependency.  Such exports to criminal elements were hostile acts undermining hopes for improved relations.  Arrests followed.

Despite China’s attempts to scare off American naval and air forces from the China Sea, the U.S. made clear that it would not recognize Chinese claims that the Sea was its internal waters.  Much of world trade passes through this international sea, and the U.S. and its Asian allies would keep it that way.  It’s now up to China to decide on further confrontation.

In both the U.S. and the U.K., the mighty were in the process of falling.  The British Parliament made history when it forced out Boris Johnson, a former prime minister, who had arrived with a strong electoral mandate but left in disgrace. He even lost his special pass into the building.

The action, which included his own party, was an impressive example of the strength of democracy.  The government continued to function without facing either a Capitol-style insurrection or mutiny à la Russe.   The prevailing calm almost obscured the political history.

Donald Trump, who tried too hard to hold onto the presidency and its powers, could not miss that justice was beginning to close in on him.  The public could listen to the tape of him describing papers he held on Iran policy options as laid out by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He admitted that he was no longer president and the papers were classified.

He had led “Lock her up” chants about Hilary Clinton, his 2016 presidential rival and the missing emails on her private computer.  How could he distinguish between the two of them?  His presidential campaign coffers became the source of funding for his legal defense, revealing that the legal case was his true campaign.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s conservative solidarity began to show cracks.  Finding itself increasingly at odds with the public and with its members subject to ethics challenges, the Court began to show some signs of change.

The Court turned a corner in congressional redistricting cases.  Alabama had laid out districts that distributed African Americans so they could win no more than one House seat.  The state argued that, no matter its effect, discrimination had not been the intent of the districting law.

Previously, the justices had insisted on openly racist intent before they would overrule state districting.  That was virtually impossible to prove.  Now the Court majority has found that the Voting Rights Act allowed them to look into effect, so long as it did not impose strict proportionality.  Alabama was sent back for a redo.

But there was more.  After allowing Louisiana to create only one Black district in 2022, the Court opened the way for two such districts in 2024.  Finally, it rejected conservative claims that state legislatures could ignore state court rulings that block political gerrymandering.

Any of these June events was big news.  Together that made major history that almost got lost as one story piled on the other and other events, from abortion to immigration, captured public and political attention.

But, to paraphrase a long ago television comedy show: “That was the month that was.”

 

A tale of two political “witch hunts”: Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

It looks like the same thing is happening on both sides of the Atlantic.  Or maybe not.

In the U.K., the country’s political leader has been forced from office for lying about his own lawbreaking.  In the U.S., the country’s once and possibly future political leader faces criminal charges for lying about his own lawbreaking.

As similar as the situations may seem, there are a couple of major differences.  In the comparison, the U.S. seems to come in second to the Brits.

When he was prime minister, Boris Johnson laid out strict rules for responding to the Covid pandemic.  They prohibited large gatherings and required social distancing.  The result was that when Covid killed a parent, the children could be banned from holding a funeral.

While the public obeyed, the prime minister and his government staged parties and ignored the rules. When their partying was revealed, for the first time ever, a prime minister faced police punishment and paid fines for attending.  But he repeatedly assured Parliament that, despite his behavior, no rules had been broken.

Strong evidence revealed that his statements were dubious.  A neutral government review official found he had broken his own rules, and he was forced to step down as prime minister.  He remained a Member of Parliament, primed to make a comeback when, as he expected, his successor faltered.

A special parliamentary committee then looked into whether he had lied to the House of Commons. The committee included a majority of his fellow Conservatives and was chaired by a member from the opposition Labor Party.

In its unanimous report, the committee found that he had lied to Parliament and recommended he lose his seat. He promptly resigned from the House, while attacking what he called the committee’s “witch hunt.”  In an overwhelming House vote to approve the report, many in his party joined the opposition parties in condemning him.  Only seven opposed the report.

Most Conservatives did not vote.  While not formally opposing Johnson, the nonvoters also declined to support him.

The Conservatives who voted placed loyalty to Parliament ahead of support for their former leader.  They acknowledged that he had lied, even though he had led them to an overwhelming victory in the last elections.  His own party probably killed any chance for his comeback.

The decision to protect the integrity of the House was made by the House itself.  The political system could restore itself, when it set aside partisan politics.  Johnson’s few supporters vented, because they knew they could not win.

In the U.S., President Trump was twice impeached by the House of Representatives, but not convicted by the Senate.  In the second case, focusing on Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol insurrection, for the first time in history any senator of an impeached president’s own party voted to convict him.  Otherwise, pure partisanship prevailed.

Out of office, Trump has been criminally charged with taking with him after his term highly classified documents and falsely claiming that he had returned them all.  He has attacked the Special Prosecutor handling the case, calling it a “witch hunt.”  He may face additional charges of having caused the insurrection and using illegal methods to overturn his election defeat.

Like Johnson, Trump has taken no responsibility for his actions and repeatedly was misleading about them.  Unlike Johnson’s Conservatives, Trump’s Republicans will not put aside partisan support for their celebrity leader and accept the political risk, even if such action would protect the integrity of Congress and the presidency. 

In Britain, Parliament provided a political solution to a political problem, but partisanship makes that impossible in the U.S.  Now, facing charges in court, Trump and his allies seek to politicize the independent judicial system by falsely accusing President Biden of directing the Justice Department to prosecute the former president.

In short, Trump’s Republicans block political solutions made by political institutions while trying to discredit the judiciary by claiming the legal process is itself political, though without any evidence.  If they can succeed, they could undermine trust in government.

The three branches of government are meant to keep a check on one another.  That process is supposed to promote public confidence in the constitutional system.  If government is now boiling down to control by the supporters of a single person with authoritarian views, public confidence will erode.

Public opinion seems to have lost respect for Congress and is losing respect for the courts. The American system was intended to prevent the domination of an unquestioned leader through a system that would protect a broad and diverse public interest.  Yet Trump asserts his right to almost unlimited power.

In Britain, the target of the American Revolution, Parliament appears to have accepted the idea of government accountability found in the U.S. Constitution.  Americans risk losing it.

Trump in trouble: undeniable facts and unanswered questions

Gordon L. Weil

Paradise for pundits and partisan politicians.  That’s the federal case charging former President Donald Trump with keeping classified documents.

His indictment has also launched attacks by Trump’s supporters against anybody they believe seeks to disrupt their leader’s way back to the White House.

The Republican Right, which now dominates the GOP, and the former president go after the prosecutor and President Biden, who they say is the power behind the indictment.   For them, the best defense is counterattack.  The Democrats, fearful of offending anybody, have done little to defend themselves, letting the case speak for itself.

Despite the counterattacks, some facts are beyond doubt.  Despite the fervor of the GOP Right and the hasty analyses of the armies of pundits, many questions remain to be answered.  Here are some known facts and open questions.

Trump took classified documents with him to Mar-a-Lago, the Florida resort he calls home, when he left the White House.  These documents, listed in the indictment, contain sensitive intelligence.  That makes his actions and the pursuit of the documents more than a mere paper chase.

Evidence that Trump knowingly kept sensitive documents and tried to keep them from the National Archives has come from his own aides, people helping him in these efforts, not from his opponents.

Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor, has proceeded in a systematic manner.  He has sought the indictment in the federal District Court closest to Mar-a-Lago, even accepting the risk that he would draw the judge who has previously been blatantly favorable to Trump.  Smith is a professional prosecutor not a political appointee.

There is no evidence that either Biden or Attorney-General Merrick Garland gave instructions to Smith.  As Special Prosecutor, he was meant to be insulated from political pressure.  It may seem logical to the right-wing GOP that Biden is behind the indictment, but partisan logic is not enough.  Evidence is needed.

Possibly to minimize the problem, Trump has suggested that he could declassify documents merely by thinking they were declassified.  Otherwise, why would he do that?  Also there is a formal declassification procedure, because the documents would have become public.  But if only he knew, how would people learn they were now open?

His reasons for keeping the documents remain unclear.  He kept them for many months after his term ended and did nothing with them during all that time. Why risk indictment if there is no good reason for holding the documents?

Trump claims that the charges are a Democratic effort to undermine his reelection campaign.  Should the Justice Department never bring a criminal case against a person who has announced their candidacy for public office?  Or just for president?  Or just Trump?  Exempting candidates could mean a person could avoid criminal prosecution by continually running for public office. 

Assuming the indictment is politically motivated, does that mean the serious charges should not be pursued?  Unlike Smith, some prosecutors are elected and may act out of partisan or personal bias. The same is true for some judges, whether appointed by politicians or elected.  That’s one reason the judicial system includes juries, composed of average people who don’t make a career of it.

In the current situation, Trump has tried to expand the bounds of the judicial process by making personal attacks.  At the outset, he questioned whether Jack Smith was the prosecutor’s real name.  What was he implying?  He has resorted to labeling Smith a “thug,” perhaps because Trump thinks he’s too tough.  It’s doubtful he’ll be that critical of his friendly judge.

The main argument used by Trump and his supporters is that the Justice Department and the FBI discriminate against him and let Democrats off.  The message is that Democrats get away with illegal acts, so Republicans ought to be allowed to do the same.  There’s no point in trying to distinguish the facts of each case; the generalization is as far as we need to go.

This reaction to being criticized or charged has come to be called “what-about-ism.”  In fact, it is based on the belief that “two wrongs make a right.”  That’s contrary to much traditional religious and family teaching.  It is also the way to completely destroy the judicial system.  If crimes must go unpunished because somebody else got away with them, where does this end?

In case after case, Trump stirs conflict by using political and personal attacks to minimize the charges.   He and his supporters resort to lying, mob action, or what-about-ism.  Possible criminal action should be judged according to law.  Period. That’s the case the Democrats could be making a lot more forcefully.

This case and its opponents place the judicial system itself in grave danger. It may not be perfect, but mob rule isn’t better and, despite its claims, it isn’t democracy.

  

Biden, Trump too old to lead the U.S.

 

Gordon L. Weil

I like old people. I am one.

But I believe that we should not run the government.

Do seniors have the ability to govern?   From meeting the job’s formal requirements to helping constituents to raising campaign funds to political travels, the work is demanding and requires both physical strength and mental resilience.  No matter who you are, you lose some of that over time.

The two leading candidates for president raise legitimate concerns about aging and its effect in their possible next term.  Neither seems worried, having the outsized egos required of presidential candidates and the misplaced belief that they won’t decline further in the next few years, let alone die.  Both are in denial about all they have so obviously lost.

For people who would lead a great power like the U.S. in facing incredible challenges, their self-delusion is impressive. Still, no voter should accept the assurances of geriatric candidates, when such assurances fly in the face of the obvious deterioration common among our age group.

Sometimes, seniors in government can be both worrisome and dangerous.  California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein, 89, has a solid legislative record.  Her term runs through 2024, but she recently spent months ill at home and not at the Senate.  Her absence affected the urgent consideration of judicial appointments.  Yet she still clings to office.

Her actions recall Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Though an historic member of the Court, she remained on the bench as her health failed when she could have given President Obama the opportunity of replacing her with a jurist sharing her philosophy.  Instead, she held on until her death, allowing President Trump to name a conservative successor.

As these cases show, geriatric control of the levers of government extends far beyond the presidency.  Senior Senate leaders are aging.  Maine Sen. Angus King, 79 and seventh oldest senator, is thinking about a third six-year term.  Sen. Susan Collins, 70 and 34^th oldest, is in her fifth Senate term.

The choice of running mates has become more critical for the two leading presidential candidates as their ages raise the risk they might not live out their terms.  

In 1944, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt looked unlikely to last four more years, Democratic leaders picked Harry Truman, not one of FDR’s favorites, as his running mate.  Biden and Trump will handpick the vice presidential backups for their parties and the country.  They’re not likely to let the parties’ convention delegates choose rather than acting as though they are immortal.

But there is another concern about leaving control to the oldest generation.  The pace of social and political change in the U.S. speeds up.  Listen to popular music.  Compare the ballads and rock of Biden’s youth with today’s hard-edged rap.  Or look at currently acceptable language or concepts of morality.  Old politicians are probably out of touch with much cultural change.

Politicians often talk about trying to improve life for the coming generations of children and grandchildren.  They may fail to recognize that these generations are now adults.  They are not only capable of making decisions for their futures, but they really should take on that responsibility. 

Obviously, experience matters, but it can also hamper imagination and experimentation.  Younger people with new ideas should have greater influence on their country and their futures.  While politicians exert much energy on current battles, that short-term focus draws attention away from looking long-term at future needs and desires.

Senior control is undemocratic.  Only about 16.5 percent of Americans are 65 and older. About half the Senate is at least 65.  Biden and Trump top that age by far.  The country is more gerontocracy than democracy. 

Voters won’t make the adjustment themselves.  Candidates need to regard office as a public trust, exercised for a limited period, not as a job to be held until death or senility.  A little modesty would help.  Term limits make sense to discourage senility in office, if for no other reason.  People can keep contributing to their country without holding public office.

For the moment, the age question comes down to Biden and Trump.  Each is almost certainly too old to assure us they could satisfactorily serve another term.  The lack of alternatives is one more sign the political system is broken.

They could walk away from the campaign, which might well enhance their place in history.  Or they could be challenged by primary candidates whose key issue is the need to limit the age of our leaders.   Or they could throw the choice of their running mates, each a potential president, to the primaries or the national conventions. 

As an old guy, I’d bet on one thing.  Based on our experience, a great many of us in the Biden-Trump age group think that neither of them should run.

Please consider subscribing on Substack.  Free, direct to your mailbox.  Go to Substack and enter Gordon Weil. Thanks.

Debt ceiling crisis is political theater

 

Gordon L. Weil

America, hope you enjoyed the political theater.

Because that’s what all the anguish over the debt ceiling amounted to.  In the real world, relatively little has happened.

Congress had voted for public spending, but the outlays could only be covered by new borrowing, because tax revenues wouldn’t be sufficient.  That would boost the national debt.  But there is also a ceiling on public debt that Congress mostly ignored.

Then, last November, the Republicans won a slim majority in the House of Representatives.  The GOP right-wing hoped to use the debt ceiling as a way of reversing spending they had opposed and even some they had supported.

The GOP would take control of the House in January.  Before then, President Biden and the lame-duck Democrats could have put through a bill increasing the ceiling.  He might have been forced to make some concessions to conservative Democrats, but that would have been easier than dealing later with the Republican House majority.  He did not take the opportunity.

Or he could have ignored the debt ceiling on the grounds that it is banned by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  But Biden was worried that the matter would end up being resolved by the courts.  Then, the House GOP passed their own budget-slashing version of a debt limit bill, and forced him to negotiate.

Failure to raise the debt limit supposedly meant that the federal government would not have enough money from taxes for its debt payments.  It would default, the pundits warned.  Interest rates would rise, their effect rippling through the economy.  Government spending cutbacks would kill growth.  Jobs would be lost and the stock market would fall sharply.

Possibly the greatest harm would be to the role of the American dollar, the reserve currency widely used to finance world trade and investment.  As other counties lost confidence in it, U.S. influence would decline.

The Treasury Department said federal income would no longer cover all the bills on June 5.    Panic, hyped by the media, gradually appeared.  Default loomed.

Only it didn’t.  The Treasury receives enough tax money to pay debt service, though some government spending would have to be cut or even halted.  Social Security and Medicare have sufficient reserves to cover many more months of outlays.

Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy engaged in desperate negotiations to avoid default.  Each tried to attach blame for a possible default on the other.  That was the essence of the negotiations.  If there were a deal, each would need to declare victory.

They reached a deal to send to Congress, so both must have won.  McCarthy got mostly symbolic caps and reductions from slightly lowering planned spending over the next two years, and Biden saved his major initiatives.  Sensibly, unspent Covid relief dollars were recovered.  The debt ceiling was lifted until after the 2024 elections. 

Here’s an example of why not much happened.  Biden and the Democratic Congress had passed $80 billion for the IRS over an eight-year period to collect unpaid taxes from the wealthiest taxpayers.  The GOP falsely claimed that taxes would be raised on average people. 

The two-year debt ceiling deal appears to cut this amount by $10 billion.  The IRS has its plans in place.  If necessary, it can shift money forward from future years and keep pursuing improved collection limited to people with incomes over $400,000.  Nothing in the deal prevents Congress from restoring the full spending three or more years from now.

As for the dollar’s world role, it’s already waning and with it American prestige.  “America First” policies, previous debt ceiling crises and the rise of China’s yuan have been reducing U.S. economic power.

Strong House GOP conservatives and many progressive Democrats dislike the deal.  The conservatives think McCarthy got too little and oppose it, knowing that passage does not need their votes. The progressives think Biden should have made no concessions.  Few want responsibility for a default.  In the end, both sides will enjoy the illusion of a political victory.

Can this situation be avoided in the future?  The House once had a rule that whenever it passed a bill requiring debt to pay the cost, the debt ceiling would be automatically increased.  The losers would not get a second bite of the apple through a later battle over the debt ceiling.  That rule should be revived.

Congress should never spend money without deciding where it will come from. That principle is rarely observed, because it’s a lot easier simply to spend, while shielding voters from the cost.

Not all future spending has to come from driving the country deeper into debt, making new debt ceiling clashes and default a real possibility.  When Congress increases spending, from adding military hardware to boosting renewable energy, it should exercise greater leadership and cover the costs by combining debt increases with tax increases. 

Otherwise, it’s political theater.