-
Screwtape’s Little Sermon
April 13, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Screwtape Gets Real
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Screwtape Talks Tactics
February 7, 2013 | 18 comments
-
James Buchanan, 1919-2013
January 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Waiting for the Gods
December 7, 2012 | 67 comments
Feature
Going North
In a parliamentary system, we would easily solve our debt crisis.
AFTER THE STANDARD & POOR’S downgrade in early August, it didn’t take long for the blame game to begin. Predictably, the mainstream media blamed the Republicans. The problem began with the November 2010 election, when a group of Tea Party “terrorists” were elected to Congress. Those who take a longer view blamed it on George W. Bush (who else?).
I go back even earlier. To September 6, 1787, to be precise. That’s when the Founders in Philadelphia abandoned their plans for parliamentary governance in favor of a presidential system.
The presidential system, with its separation of powers between the different branches of government, is at the core of the Constitution, and questioning its worth seems almost unpatriotic. And yet we very nearly adopted a system not unlike the parliamentary regimes of Great Britain and Canada, which lack a separation of powers.
It was a near-run thing, decided only on day 105 of a 116-day Convention. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson remarked, “This subject has greatly divided the House, and will also divide people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we had to decide.”
The Convention had begun with a discussion of James Madison’s “Virginia Plan,” which featured a president appointed by Congress. That’s how governors were appointed in all but two of the states at the time, and it wasn’t thought particularly exceptional. It also had the great advantage of appealing to the strong anti-democratic sentiments of the delegates.
Under the Virginia Plan, the House of Representatives would have been our House of Commons, as George Mason noted. The members of the Senate would have been appointed by the lower house, and the presidential veto would have been greatly circumscribed. Before reversing themselves, the delegates also voted for a broad impeachment standard, where a president might be removed for “malpractice or neglect of duty.” On that standard, Andrew Johnson might plausibly have been removed in 1868, and Bill Clinton in 1999. And, just maybe, Barack Obama this year.
The president would have a fixed term but in other respects he’d resemble a prime minister who is chosen by his supporters in the House of Commons.
So how would that have prevented the loss of our AAA credit rating?
In announcing the downgrade, Standard & Poor’s said that the budget deal to which Republicans and Democrats had agreed wasn’t sufficient to resolve the public debt problem. The two political parties had agreed to raise the debt ceiling, but that simply didn’t do the job. In addition, the rating agency didn’t hold up much hope for future cures, given the gridlock in government which the negotiations revealed. The problem was the separation of powers between branches of government in the U.S. Constitution.
Had the delegates to the Philadelphia Conventionadhered to their initial plans for a parliamentary system, without a separation of powers, we wouldn’t have seen the gridlock, and very likely would have had a budget that satisfied all of the rating agencies.
CANADA’S RECENT EXPERIENCE in solving a debt crisis offers an illustrative example of how a parliamentary system can more easily reverse course. In 1994, Canada’s debt crisis was as bad as that of America today, and prompted the Wall Street Journal to label it an honorary member of the Third World. However, the country quickly turned itself around. Prime Minister Chrétien and his minister of finance forced spending cuts that Paul Ryan could only dream of on a reluctant Liberal Party. Over the next 16 years, Canada’s federal debt fell 67 percent to 29 percent of GDP, and in every year between 1997 and 2008 the federal government had a budget surplus. The Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a budgetary trick employed in the U.S. budget deal last August. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms.
What made the turnaround easier was the difference between the structure of political parties in parliamentary and presidential systems. Under the latter, where power is divided between different branches of government, a national party is weaker than in a parliamentary system. A Speaker of the House such as Nancy Pelosi is politically independent of President Obama. By contrast, a member of parliament is dependent on his national party, which generally is run out of the prime minister’s office. In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau famously described his backbench MPs as “nobodies.” When Prime Minister Chrétien decided to cut the budget, then, there was no one to oppose him.
That’s not the American way. After the debt deal was signed (and before the downgrade), Senator Harry Reid offered a moving account of American constitutional government. The Founders didn’t adopt the separation of powers to make things easier for politicians. Just the opposite. They wanted to make it harder because they thought this was a way to prevent bad laws from being enacted.
Reversing course is always harder than staring afresh. It’s easier to start a new program than close an existing one; it’s easier to hire a public servant than fire him. Every time a new program is begun, interest groups coalesce around it. Businesses and groups that profit from it will fight tooth and nail to prevent its repeal. This will happen in both presidential and parliamentary systems, but there are special reasons why reversibility is particularly difficult in the former case.
The Constitution’s separation of powers was designed to produce deadlock. Passing a bill is like waiting for three cherries to line up in a Las Vegas slot machine. Unless the president and both houses of Congress sign on, nothing gets enacted. In a parliamentary system, it’s just one cherry, which the prime minister can produce whenever he wants.
About the Author
F.H. Buckley is Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (64) | Leave a comment
More Articles by F.H. Buckley
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/13/going-north
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stuart Koehl| 10.13.11 @ 6:46AM
So, parliamentary democracy would allow us to solve our debt problem? You mean the way it has worked so well in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Great Britain? OK, then . . .
JimP| 10.13.11 @ 7:19AM
Touche, Stuart. It's as if you read my mind. People who advocate a parliamentary system always view it out of context/in total. With a parliamentary system, the Dems could run even more wild than they already did and we could be even worse off and it doesn't necessarily follow that reversing course will "be easier".
Harry the Horrible| 10.13.11 @ 9:48AM
With a parliamentary system, you have build a coalition - which means handing even MORE goodies to various minority parties. This tends to increase the spending, rather than decrease it.
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:22PM
Not neccessarily- it is hard to imagine 3rd parties gaining any sustainable success in America, when the 2-party system is so entrenched. It is electoral systems, rather than systems of constitution, that determine whether there are minority or majority governments.
Indeed, the current system is almost like a minority government- Democrat in the White House, Republicans controlling the HoR.
Tony Warren| 10.13.11 @ 5:37PM
Nope, no need for consensus, just a majority in parliament. The party Whip makes sure that any discord is heard only in Caucus. The party votes as one.
CopyKatnj| 10.13.11 @ 9:51AM
Stuart, my thoughts exactly, well stated by you.
Paul Windels| 10.13.11 @ 10:08AM
Exactly right, Stuart. And so long as we're playing "what if?", if we had a parliamentary system, Abraham Lincoln probably would not have become President in 1860 and the US would likely have disintegrated even if a Bell or a Crittenden had managed to patch together a temporary parliamentary coalition. Let's also remember that the parliamentary system put Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain in as Prime Minister -- it took a war to elect Churchill and he got resoundingly fired as soon as the war was over.
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:24PM
It is near impossible to run with such "what-ifs", as American history would have been so decisively different from the very beginning had a parliamentary system been adopted.
Quartermaster| 10.13.11 @ 6:08PM
Under a Parliamentary system it is unlikely that the conditions that led the South to secede in the first place would ever have existed. Lincoln inspired secession because his office had the power to run roughshod over the South on behalf of the crony capitalists on the northeast. It is very likely the tariff of abominations and other protectionist schemes would have made it through a parliament.
Paul Windels| 10.14.11 @ 12:54PM
Exactly my point -- this whole article is a "what if?"! Cheers!
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:27PM
And Churchill could never have become Prime Minister under a presidential system. Chamberlain would have been PM for as long as his term lasted, unless impeached, and impeachment would have led to the succession of the VP. Churchill, as a mere backbench MP at the time, would have been nowhere in the line of succession.
This shows an advantage of parliamentary systems: flexibility. Chamberlain was overthrown because he lost the confidence of Parliament and had to resign. Meanwhile, Labour decided to join a coalition led by Churchill, but not by Halifax. Without this element of coalition, Halifax might well have become PM.
Paul Windels| 10.14.11 @ 1:02PM
Actually, under our electoral system, the stronger and/or more colorful candidate almost always wins. Go through the history of American Presidential elections since 1896 and you'll find it to be the case. For the most part, the parliamentary system helps those who are good at the "get-along-go-along" game, with obvious exceptions like Thatcher.
In terms of flexibility, Lincoln would have been pitched out any number of times (he almost was in the 1864 election) and Reagan would have been out in 1982.
mames| 10.13.11 @ 10:33AM
F. H. Buckley is Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law.
Scary. Not only is he wrong from a real world practice perspective his "book learnin'" aint too good either! How did he get to be in the role he now occupies? Even our "conservative" scholars are losing their minds.
A. C. Santore| 10.13.11 @ 10:58AM
Precisely.
Furthermore, it is not the political "system" that will save or defeat us - it's the people we elect who will do that.
BD57| 10.13.11 @ 3:57PM
Well, that's going to be a problem - - - the nature of man isn't likely to improve any time soon. Nor is there any real, substantive program (whatever) which we could adopt to make it more likely.
The Founders had no illusions about this. They created the government we have with mankind in all its glory in mind - it's not a system which only works if we're blessed with a happy choir of angels as elected representatives & Senators.
This system overcomes bad ideas ... it just does so "eventually" - - - and is probably going to require a train wreck this time.
Ed| 10.13.11 @ 11:49AM
Madison's Constitutional system has its problems, but it is out last, best hope for fighting the Proggie agenda. If we had a parliamentary system, we would have been stuck with a European-style socialist state a long time ago. The democRATs could have run the table in the FDR, LBJ, Carter, or early Clinton Administrations).
Occam's Tool| 10.13.11 @ 1:29PM
Yes, anything that would have allowed the Dems to keep their power and extend it is a good thing. Yup, sure and begorrah.
In New Zealand, the MPs aren't accountable to the people they serve directly---they are responsible to their party leadership, which then is responsible. It works very very badly at times.
Paul Clare| 10.13.11 @ 6:56AM
Very good article, but one important part of Canada's success is the huge income and jobs (read taxes) from the opening up of the oil in the west of Canada. If we seriously opened our potential we would a) have a huge jobs growth and b) have a major revenue increase to the government. Of course, this also needs serious spending cuts or the "takers" will take all the increased revenue.
mames| 10.13.11 @ 10:34AM
They are still socialists any way you cut it.
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:39PM
What is socialism?
Tony Warren| 10.13.11 @ 5:39PM
I assure you that our Conservative majority is not socialist.
Quartermaster| 10.13.11 @ 6:11PM
If by "our" you mean Canuckistani conservative majority, I beg to differ.
Frank Tavos| 10.14.11 @ 6:45PM
As a Canadian, QM, I have to agree with you and disagree with Tony Warren (who I assume is also Canadian). I wish to God the lefties' ridiculous accusations of PM Harper's "hidden agenda" were true. Now that he has a majority, he has done nothing to convince me he's not further to the left than the US Democrat Party. Like all reformers who come out of Western Canada, as soon as he got into power he caved to Central Canadian interests, which are invariably left of center. He and his Conservative Party are sell-outs.
Appleby| 10.13.11 @ 7:16AM
And another is the confiscatory tax rates, the skyrocketing grocery and gas prices, the home heating prices promised to rise 46% in the next 4 years (the government sent us a booklet explaining this) and the general apathy of the Canadian voters.
If America had a chance to vote No Confidence on the government, there would be a new government every two weeks.
martin j smith| 10.13.11 @ 7:57AM
I prefer representative government . It is a cop out not to recognize the tyranny coming from the LEFT
in the is country. I prefer our system thank you very much Europe and Canada has its own problems.
A Parliamentary System would create an Elite ruling class even worse than what we now have,.
I think it is less our system than our media and our educational failure.
hardcard| 10.13.11 @ 8:20AM
mr. Buckley you are wrong !
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:39PM
An eloquent rebuttal there.
DaveD| 10.13.11 @ 8:32AM
The biggest argument in favor of a parliamentary system is its efficiency. The winning party gets to do pretty much what it wants to do until the next election. We had that for two years - how well did that work?
Mike Hawk| 10.13.11 @ 8:42AM
We don't need or want a parliamentary gummint. The Representative Republic we have is just fine, warts and all. Asking for a parlimentary structure would bring in problems yoou can't even think of now. No thanks, Mr Buckley.
DaveD| 10.13.11 @ 4:28PM
While I, like you, am no fan of the parliamentary system, a parliamentary system is not necessarily the opposite of a "Representative Republic." Both systems- Presidential and Parliamentary - can be and are republics, and both systems can be and are representative. the difference is whether the executive is a wholly separate branch of government, or if the executive is a privileged member of the legislative branch. That does not imply that the government is not representative nor does it imply that the government is not a republic.
Paul Windels| 10.13.11 @ 10:14AM
Except when there is no majority and you have to put together a coalition. Often the coalition is held together only by political patronage and subject to being torn apart if you can bribe away enough members of the ruling coalition. A good example is the paralysis of the British government at the beginning of the 20th Century, when the ruling liberals had to rely on the Irish Nationalists for their majority, but the only reason they had the support of the Nationalists was because they had promised to let Ireland go, which they did everything possible to avoid fulfilling as it would have left them in a very deep minority.
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:32PM
An interesting interpretation of history, to say the least.
Since Gladstone, the Liberals had always wanted home rule (not independence!) for Ireland. This split the party, with Joseph Chamberlain (Neville's dad) forming the Liberal Unionists, who eventually shacked up with the Tories. The main Irish party at the time, the IPP, was not nationalist, but instead support Home Rule like the Liberals. Liberal support for HR came years before the growth of nationalism in Ireland, and in the early C20th the Liberals did not rely on the IPP for their majority. In 1906 they won a majority of about 100 over all other parties, including the IPP.
Paul Windels| 10.14.11 @ 1:05PM
And as you clearly know but don't bother to acknowledge, they lost that majority around 1910 and couldn't govern without the nationalists, leading to a state of near paralysis up to the outset of the First World War. With Home Rule, the Liberals would not have had the Irish members in Parliament and, except for the 1906 total majority, would not have had the ability to form a government.
Will| 10.14.11 @ 2:02PM
Except that they weren't nationalists, they had the same political beliefs re ireland as the liberals. And with Home Rule, Irish members would have sat in the UK parliament, just as Scots MPs sit today, despite the existence of the Scottish Parliament.
oldfart| 10.13.11 @ 8:58AM
The people who crafted the present Constitution had a good healthy respect for an EDUCATED electorate. The current Department of Public Education (DOPE) has made sure we have the most people with a formal education who cannot think, reason, solve problems and the most self-indulgent citizens in our history. Also, if memory serves me, you had to own land to be qualified to vote. Other qualifications imposed by the society of the time, men and no slaves rightly were eliminated. There is a reason for only allowing land owners to vote – just like in poker – you have to have some ‘skin’ on the table – that is a vested interest in the outcome – to participate. As anyone knows – no ante poker draws people looking for the free lunch. Much like we have today.
At the same time they wanted the centers of power to remain at the individual states – as evidenced by the States appointing the Senators. Decentralization of power is the key to individual freedom – not centralization. If you don’t like the laws in say New York then you have the freedom to move to Vermont.
There were some problems with the States not appointing Senators in a timely fashion which caused a shortfall of a quorum, but the cure – direct election, in the long run, has caused the States to be on the begging end of the fiscal pipe rather than the Federal Government.
The ‘big brother’ government we have today is exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid. I would sooner make changes through amendment, to existing framework than open the can of worms to a change in the form of government.
Stefan Stackhouse| 10.13.11 @ 9:06AM
No, I can't endorse a wholesale replacement of our present constitutional system with a parliamentary one. I do think that a couple of minor mid-course corrections could make a very big positive difference, however.
First, we need a constitutional amendment to vest the House of Representatives with sole authority for all fiscal policy matters - budgets, appropriations, taxes, and debt. We already vest the Senate with sole authority in the areas of treaty ratification and confirmation of judicial and other senior appointed offices, so there is a precedent for having some matters that do not require the consent of both chambers. The fact of the matter is that fiscal policy issues are among the most difficult and complicated matters that Congress deals with, and having both chambers deal with them multiplies the complexity enormously. When it comes to the actual passage of domestic non-fiscal laws, then we should continue to require passage by both chambers, as this part of the constitutional system works reasonably well and as the founders intended. Fiscal policy, by universal acknowledgement, is an utter mess and totally dysfunctional, and something radical must be done.
Second, we also need a constitutional amendment increasing the terms in the House of Representative from two years to four, with elections to be held concurrently with the Presidential election. This would accomplish a couple of things. First, it would increase the probability that the Presidency and the House would be held by the same party, and remain so throughout the President's term. If you want to move us to something closer to a parliamentary style of government, this is a feasible way to do that, yet without eliminating the separation of powers that were built into our constitution for good reason. This also has the advantage of getting us a little bit away from perpetual electioneering, and allowing congresscritters a little bit of time to actually focus on something besides just getting re-elected.
(There is a chance, of course, that the candidate of one party might capture a majority of electoral votes while the other party wins control of the House. That actually has happened quite a few times within living memory. I don't know if there is a way that you can devise a system with a separate election for President (to maintain separation of powers) that totally eliminates this possibility. There are ways we could tinker with the electoral college that would reduce the risk, mainly by eliminating the two electoral votes that each state gets for their Senate seats (and only giving them votes for their House seats), and then awarding electoral votes by district instead of state-wide winner-takes-all. Obviously, people from the less populated states in general, and Republicans in particular, would scream bloody murder. I'm not sure there is a way to reduce the structural tendency toward gridlock without such a radical restructuring, however.)
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.13.11 @ 9:49AM
This article reminds me of the Flip Side, of the old 45 Records. It's hardly ever, any good. It's just something to fill in the other side.
Mike 3/505| 10.13.11 @ 12:14PM
Tim!
Coffee on keyboard...again!
Regards,
Mike
Occam's Tool| 10.13.11 @ 1:32PM
Yup. Correct Tim P. I like our system.
POST American| 10.13.11 @ 10:03AM
"Understand folks, the police
on the US Canadian border are just
ceremonial. Your sovereignty has been
dissolved. It's all interchangeable and
standardized --and all 'on board' for
the same police state and EUGENICS
agendas under the UN. ---NOW, were
you ever consulted about this? --EVER?"
-ALAN WATT
(essential coverage days ago)
Well, were you?
------------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012--------
Tim the Enchanter| 10.13.11 @ 1:48PM
Huh?
Mike Hawk| 10.14.11 @ 6:05AM
Full moon on 10/12.
JP| 10.13.11 @ 11:01AM
Afte litterally risking thier lives and properties, the last thing the Founders wanted was a political system that allowed for a centralized authority built upon coalitions of interests. They intuitively mistrusted any centralized control. But, after witnessing the weakness of the Confederation, the compromised and created a Federal systems with a Bill of Rights and seperations of powers. Orginally, all of the legislative "action" occured at the state levels. Ultimately a voter could vote with his feet. The Founders consciously sacrificed administrative efficiency in order to keep the various "powers" at bay.
For almost 80 years we've seen the rise of Federal powers at the expense of individual and state liberties. The defecits, the 2008 Recession, and inflation are all the results of Progressive legislation and litigation that served the Federal Government. Slowly things are changing.
George S| 10.13.11 @ 11:05AM
If we had not rejected the Constitution starting in 1913 with the 16th and 17th Amendments, or in 1936 with the Social Security Act, or in 1965 with the Great Society, we would not be in a position to say that a parliamentary system would be the answer to a faulty democratic republic's Constitution.
Kent Lyon| 10.13.11 @ 12:25PM
The presumptions of this post are that 1) American politicians are competent and 2)They care about the country. They aren't and they don't. 3) The American electorate is sensible, altruistic, educated, and discerning of their broadest and best interest. That is preposterously untrue.
If we had a parliamentary system, we would long since have surpassed Greece in insolvency and Venezuela in loss of liberty. We would be in no better shape than Argentina in the best case scenario. We're unfortunately aspiring to be all three at once even with the limitations on government that we have. How the Spectator can countenance nonsense like this, or George Mason Law has any credibility, is incomprehensible.
PattyMor| 10.13.11 @ 2:40PM
The problems we face today is bacause we changed the Constitution to create the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Law. All the other problems are the unConstitutional changes we made which started out under FDR and continue on to this day.
So what do we do? Throw up our hands and pine for parlemtary government? No the solution is to throw out the big government types in BOTH parties. We the Tea Party have begun the long, slow process back to Constitutional Government and freedom from the smothering by the federalies.
Alan Brooks| 10.13.11 @ 3:53PM
"We the Tea Party have begun the long, slow process back to Constitutional Government and freedom from the smothering by the federalies."
And get your own people on the gravy train in the bargain.
Good deal--
for them.
Will| 10.13.11 @ 4:38PM
Obviously this is all hypothetical, as to introduce a parliamentary system would involve the revision of about half the constitution.
I think Parliamentary systems work well, but an American version should retain the power of the supreme court. The trouble with some parliamentary systems (the UK in particular) is that parliament is sovereign, and so can completely change the constitution by a simple majority vote. There is no constitutional safeguard to prevent a power-crazed government doing whatever it liked. So, the Bill of Rights, supremacy of the constitution and supreme court would have to be kept.
Bob From District 9| 10.13.11 @ 5:18PM
"AFTER THE STANDARD & POOR'S downgrade in early August, it didn't take long for the blame game to begin. Predictably, the mainstream media blamed the Republicans. The problem began with the November 2010 election, when a group of Tea Party "terrorists" were elected to Congress. Those who take a longer view blamed it on George W. Bush (who else?)."
They can share the blame, but I just blame Bush and the republicans of his time for putting us into this situation in the first place. OK, give John Boehner a share also.
"Before reversing themselves, the delegates also voted for a broad impeachment standard, where a president might be removed for "malpractice or neglect of duty." On that standard, Andrew Johnson might plausibly have been removed in 1868, and Bill Clinton in 1999. And, just maybe, Barack Obama this year."
No, not Obama, since he didn't actually do anything that qualifies. Now GW Bush would have been gone long ago.
Reagan could have been impeached also, that would have solved a lot of problems.
"In announcing the downgrade, Standard & Poor's said that the budget deal to which Republicans and Democrats had agreed wasn't sufficient to resolve the public debt problem. The two political parties had agreed to raise the debt ceiling, but that simply didn't do the job. In addition, the rating agency didn't hold up much hope for future cures, given the gridlock in government which the negotiations revealed. "
Nice how you leave out so much of the republican obstructionism and absurdity that S&P cited.
"The Canadian government didn't just cut the growth rate of spending, a budgetary trick employed in the U.S. budget deal last August. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms."
The last US president to do that in any meaningful sense was Bill Clinton. Do you want him back?
"Moreover, not a few good laws have been blocked, such as the serious attempts to reduce the debt crisis proposed by Republicans this year."
There was no *serious* attempt by the republicans to reduce the debt crisis. Any plan that automatically excludes increased revenue is not serous.
"Between 1960 and 1998, presidential systems with their separation of powers were associated with smaller governments and smaller deficits. That period was the high tide of Keynesianism, an illness to which parliamentary systems succumbed more quickly than presidential ones. "
1960-1198 a period of smaller deficits? Well, maybe most of it, but from 1981 till 1993 they managed to quadruple the national debt, and increased the debt to GDP ration from 33% to 67%. How did they do that with smaller deficits?
Think ahead to November 2012. There's a good chance that Republicans will win the presidency and the House. In the Senate they have a good shot at 55 members. They'll ride into town and try to repeal Obamacare. And that's when they'll run into the Senate filibuster."
Thank God for that filibuster. There is little that will do more damage to this country than the repeal of ObamaCare/RomneyCare.
"That is why, if the 2012 election turns out as I expect, the first order of business for then-Senate Majority Leader McConnell should be a return to simple majoritarian rule and the elimination of the filibuster."
It's funny that the right wing wants a supermajority to pass any tax increase, but a simple majority to inflict whatever they want on the country.
Tony Warren| 10.13.11 @ 5:35PM
As a Canadian I can point to several dangers of our system. One in particular is a majority government does whatever it feels like doing. Thus our debt crisis that was caused by the Liberal Party of Canada using its majority to spend, well like drunken Liberals.
Will| 10.13.11 @ 5:36PM
You mean the debt crisis solved by, err, the liberal party?
Tony Warren| 10.13.11 @ 5:44PM
Yep, but more credit should be given to the ability to hide inflation while printing money. That said, I loath Jean Chretien but admire Paul Martin the finance minister who did indeed reduce some of the profligate spending of the Liberal era (which by the way includes nearly two majorities of the old Progressive Conservative Party).
By the way, the Liberals have zero resemblance to liberals. Think the Marxist left of the Democratic Party for a more accurate description.
cdeeley| 10.13.11 @ 7:05PM
I would submit we should not blame the founding fathers. The democratization of senate and presidential elections was our fault.
The rise of a political class with almost all corporations attending the "kings court" to request extra-legal privileges has brought us to this mess: A Government for sale.
POST American| 10.13.11 @ 11:26PM
----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------
--Forget these chicken feed 'issues'.
Keep ALLLL EYES on the unfolding, Globalist
RED China sellout, TREASON and EUGENICS
OP.
And remember, NAFTA's a 'done deal'
-----'A--MAL---GAME----ation' -----is here.
Dale R.| 10.14.11 @ 1:24AM
>In a parliamentary system, we would easily solve
>our debt crisis.
To solve easily must mean a lot of power over us.
How would sinful men use that much power?
I suspect boots and spurs would be involved.
Franco| 10.14.11 @ 12:39PM
Both systems, perhaps, stink. The sclerosis of our democracy began with the introduction of cablevison in congress (which now plays to the cameras instead of actually working on things) and foolish policy choices rather than particular mechanisms for governing (going off the gold standard, etc.)
Steve| 10.14.11 @ 8:01PM
Ignoring of limited government, the doctrine of subsidiarity, and federalism (read the 10th amendment) is where we went wrong. I'd take a true constitutional federation of states over a parliamentary system any day. Wish we had one.
J. Mondamin| 10.14.11 @ 10:48PM
Check your calendar, Professor; this is not April 1. But I will pretend you're serious for the moment. Consider who cast the deciding votes for the current president. We've given the franchise to women, to teenagers, to those indebted to their eyeballs, to those who earn so little that they pay no income tax under our enlightened progressive arrangement. There are no literacy tests; ballots must be printed in more than a score of foreign languages for those who cannot speak English, and therefore cannot understand the speech of our politicians. In many states, no proof of citizenship is needed to cast your vote. That's what our system has come to, Professor. And a parliamentary system would not change a damn thing, insofar as preventing Marxists or morons from taking office.
J. Mondamin| 10.14.11 @ 10:58PM
Oh, sorry. In my haste I didn't mention felons and the dead. In many precincts they can vote as well.
Angus| 10.15.11 @ 7:27PM
So to summarize, Buckley wants us to fundamentally change our system of government. But he only wants to do so after the 2012 elections (not before), and then only if Republicans capture the Senate. Presumably he'd then want to change it back to the old (current) system again if Democrats controlled Congress in the future.
Essentially, he would transform our entire system of government to gain a temporary power advantage for his political party. How embarrassing for him to actually publish this absurdity for the world to see, and how humiliating for George Mason University to have their name associated with it.
Sam| 10.19.11 @ 4:57PM
I was struck by this as well. Either the filibuster is a good idea, or it is not. If it is not a good idea, why did the author not call for its abolition two, three, or five years ago?
Let's leave the practice of changing the rules of the game for your own political advantage to Putin and Chavez, shall we?
Jeremy Putley| 10.17.11 @ 12:36PM
Early commentators - Woodrow Wilson in 1908, followed by like-minded critics throughout the twentieth century, and now most recently by writers such as Fareed Zakaria in “The Debt Deal’s Failure”, in Time magazine - have deplored the paralysis, the dysfunctions, the ineffectiveness of the American way of governing. Washington’s inability to do the basic, necessary work of governing was of great concern to Woodrow Wilson, for whom the “separation of powers was the central defect of American politics” according to Jeffrey K Tulis in a 1987 book. Another respected writer, Theodore C Sorenson, in his 1984 book, wrote: “Almost no one in Washington ... doubts the urgent need to reduce sharply the $200 billion annual budget deficit. But how?" That which is needed is left undone.
According to a very recent Gallup poll, “a record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years.”
The system is broken. There is at present no will to change the system. Predictably, America will become an increasingly unattractive country in which to live as a result.
B-Rob| 10.19.11 @ 10:34PM
The good professor said " That is why, if the 2012 election turns out as I expect, the first order of business for then-Senate Majority Leader McConnell should be a return to simple majoritarian rule and the elimination of the filibuster."
I have a proposition: if the professor truly believes the filibuster is an inherently bad thing (and given GOPer usage of it, I doubt he does), he should be arguing that the GOP should lock step foreswear the filibuster and do so NOW. Waiting for an anticipated positive outcome in 2012 simply shows the utter mendacity of the conservative side. You either oppose the filibuster on principal, and you oppose it all the time, or you are a partisan hack and are only against it when it stalls your agenda.
faxmatter| 10.27.11 @ 5:56PM
I think Mr. Buckley makes a number of good points. His overall point does not seem to be that we should adopt the parliamentary system, but that we should get rid of the filibuster. Perhaps. But for sure any rule that the Democrats altered we should use to our advantage. There is no point for Republicans to strictly follow the old rules that Democrats have reinterpreted. As liberals, they will not exercise any self restraint when they regain power.