The Economist's Editorial on the assertion that the American system of government is broken, and thus, America is ungovernable, its arguments have the merit to be, at the very least, more credible than the ones of Dominique Moisi about the state of America:
It is simply not true to say that nothing can get through Congress. Look at the current financial crisis. The huge TARP bill, which set up a fund to save America’s banks, passed, even though it came at the end of George Bush’s presidency. The stimulus bill, a $787 billion two-year package, made it through within a month of Mr Obama taking office. The Democrats have also passed a long list of lesser bills, from investments in green technology to making it easier for women to sue for sex discrimination.
A criticism with more weight is that American government is good at solving acute problems (like averting a Depression) but less good at confronting chronic ones (like the burden of entitlements). Yet even this can be overstated.(...)America’s political structure was designed to make legislation at the federal level difficult, not easy. Its founders believed that a country the size of America is best governed locally, not nationally. True to this picture, several states have pushed forward with health-care reform. The Senate, much ridiculed for antique practices like the filibuster and the cloture vote, was expressly designed as a “cooling” chamber, where bills might indeed die unless they commanded broad support.
Broad support from the voters is something that both the health bill and the cap-and-trade bill clearly lack. Democrats could have a health bill tomorrow if the House passed the Senate version. Mr Obama could pass a lot of green regulation by executive order. It is not so much that America is ungovernable, as that Mr Obama has done a lousy job of winning over Republicans and independents to the causes he favours.
Recent experience has shown that leadership at the top matters especially when the POTUS knows where he is going and is sure footed ideologically. One can find many faults with Reagan and George W. Bush (and I do), but they knew who they were and what they believed ideologically. They had no hesitations about leading on subjects, which mattered to them and to take no prisoners when dealing with Congress. The Health care bill has shown that Obama isn't as sure footed ideologically for he was unwilling to lead on a subject that is so central that any politicians with unshakable convictions would not have allowed the bill, which can transform the US for generations, to become simply a piece of sausage that just had to be stuffed with anything as long as it was made. Washington follows the lead of the president and imitates his best attributes while munching on his weaknesses. The situation is uncertain, because Obama is yet to confront and to dismiss the idea that Obamamism is solely about Obama, and ensuring that he has a second term but not about America.
Comments