What the article calls "ungovernable" is what the U.S. political founders called "checks and balances" - good or bad, the system has functioned as it has for a long time now and nothing has happened in recent times to call its viability into question.<p>As far back as the 1830s, de Tocqueville made a fascinating study of why a stable democracy had arisen in the wake of the American revolution of the 1770s while, in contrast, the French revolution of just a few years later had led to mass slaughter and the guillotine. In significant part, he found that the difference lay in the massing of power that in France had gone unchecked, leading the people to fall under the sway of their immediate, unchecked passions and causing disastrous results.<p>In politics, there are reasons to check unlimited power and the U.S. system of law and politics is fundamentally premised on this (that is why there are, among other things, three co-equal branches of government, a federal/state division of power, a bicameral legislature, and, ultimately, a constitution whose main function is to prevent the rise of an overweening central authority).<p>One can of course question this and advocate for a stronger central authority and for the abrogation of the various checks and balances (or even pure traditions, such as the filibuster) but it is a bit tendentious to say that a system has suddenly become "ungovernable" simply because you wish it did not stand in the way of your immediate agenda. It has, after all, been but a very few years since many of these same sources were touting the filibuster as the last, great bastion of liberty when it was being used by a then-minority party to block judicial appointments seen as unfavorable to their cause. One's arguments are always stronger if they are principled and not tied to the exigencies of the moment, as those advanced here appear to be.
For the first section of the article, I was rather annoyed. The entire premise of the argument is that healthcare "reform" is progress, it is our destiny, and that anything standing in its way is wrong by definition.<p>This is most certainly not the case, and reflects that as much as we have problems with our government, the foundations are still working. The compromises inherent in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college are there to protect from the problems that an unchecked majority might lead to. Our system is designed so that even popular ideas backed by a "mandate" (an invention of the media; who actually voted for the supposed underlying initiative?) can -- and should be -- blocked if it's so thoroughly repugnant to others.<p>At the risk of skirting up against Godwin's law, the idea that this "progress" is destined, part of the inexorable evolution to a higher social order, sounds decidedly Marxian. Frankly, I find such an attitude every bit as alarming as these "reforms" to which it refers.<p>That said, the article really does even out and put this all in perspective. If you can make it through the whole article, I think that the picture you wind up with is a pretty fair picture.<p>[Edit: fix bad phrasing in next-to-last para]
I've been pondering lately what it would mean for citizens to begin to formally reject government's authority. Unlike cheating on your taxes or speeding, this would be not be a self serving action and instead would be a philosophy. My main impetus for imagining this are the huge unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security. When I think of them, my first instinct is: "how can I opt out?"<p>The Declaration of Independence states that government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, but voter turnout is relatively low, voter approval is very low, and people don't seem to have a sense of partnership with the government.<p>I almost think it time for a movement with two tenants: 1) federal government has lost it's moral authority to govern. 2) We do not respect government authority, but only government power.<p>This movement would be phase one. Phase two could be either an American styled revolution or better, a non-violent Indian styled one, or something else, but preferably not decades of cynicism and decline.<p>I believe a major thing holding this country together right now is our strong sense of justice. I've heard it said of Colombia, that the biggest threat to their country is that when someone gets murdered, families don't except the government to be able to deliver justice. We do still have that expectation.
It seems like now, more than ever, politicians see their positions as a profession rather than a service. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, I believe that if their mindset was that as a servant of the people more so than a politician, things may be different. There's a social disconnect.<p>But there's also the way that politicians conduct themselves. It's more like a bunch of spoiled kids that feel entitled crying foul and bringing congress to a screeching halt. Everyone seems to be so engulfed in pride that they can't come to a compromise. Isn't the point to at least come to a compromise to please as many people as possible instead of bringing things to a complete standstill?
Interesting how memes repeat:<p><i>We have heard the America is ungovernable mantra before. In the fall of 1980, Lloyd Cutler, President Jimmy Carter's counsel, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine: "one might say that under the U.S. Constitution it is not now feasible to 'form a Government.' The separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, whatever its merits in 1793, has become a structure that almost guarantees stalemate today."</i><p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055714091835530.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870482090457505...</a>
From the same edition's opinion section:<p><i>American politics seems unusually bogged down at present. Blame Barack Obama more than the system</i><p><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15545983" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...</a>
No, but the Democrats whine about America being "ungovernable" whenever they fail to get their way. See the Carter years.<p>Checks and balances are always so <i>inconvenient</i> to the party in power, aren't they? I happen to like the limitations of power. Gridlock is good. Government should work slowly.