Democracy in America

American politics

American exceptionalism

Political fury, paralysis and other people's solutions

Sep 12th 2011, 13:47 by M.S.

TO WHAT extent are international solutions applicable to American problems? Not so much, thinks James Fallows. Mr Fallows has been getting letters from readers on what he describes as a "mood of revolt" among many people in the United States. One says he moved to Germany a few years ago, where the mood is less rancorous, and his friends when they visit say they're considering leaving America as well. Another says the people he knows who want to revolt are small-business owners, and a lot of it has to do with health-care reform:

They're people I work with in church and Scouts and neighborhood activities who own and run businesses of three to thirty some fulltime employees, and they talk about how hard it has become to have fulltime employees, to manage their businesses, and to navigate local, state, and federal regulation. Any entrepreneur over 25 talks constantly about the upsweep of the curve, and in my opinion, especially the three or four I know most personally, how challenged they are by the whole health insurance situation along with all that.

My sense is that they WANT to do right by their employees, and they want to be above, but not ridiculously above, the average wage rate for our area, but the gamesmanship of finding a plan for their twelve or twenty employees is sucking huge amounts of their time, and only to end up paying dramatically more for what they then have to tell their employees is less coverage, both in their contributions and co-pays, and in what gets covered. I am president of a non-profit with twenty to thirty employees over these last eight years I've been in the saddle, and every two years we go thru exactly that, so I know what they're talking about.

Mr Fallows shares all these concerns, but responds to the German-residing reader with a general point:

One thing I have learned from seeing the U.S. from outside is that what works in Germany, or Sweden, or Japan, etc, will not necessarily work in the United States. My friend Tom Geoghegan's book about contemporary Europe, Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?, is a great piece of writing; but we have a different history, culture, and political tradition to work with here. That was the point of the book I wrote after living for several years in Japan, More Like Us—that we need American ways to accomplish the same goals.

True enough. Countries are different from each other. America is different from Germany, which is different from France. "What works" in these countries will hence also be different. But this raises a follow-on question: is Germany more like France than it is like America? To put it another way, is Germany more like France than Canada is like America? Is France more like Japan than Canada is like America? I would say the answer is no. So if we're talking about the connection between political rage and health-care reform, why is it that Germany, France, Japan and Canada all implemented national universal health-insurance systems decades ago, while the United States finally got around to enacting a sort-of-universal national health-insurance system last year that will finally be implemented between 2014 and 2020, assuming its passage hasn't plunged the country into a constitutional crisis or civil war by that time?

My sense is that it's a mistake to rely too much on culture, history, and political "tradition" (as opposed to political institutions) to explain these differences. Culture, history and political tradition are all important, but I think the clearest line of delineation separating America from these other countries is the structure of its political institutions. None of these countries has adopted the American combination of a separately-elected president with fixed terms who usually serves at least part of his term hamstrung by an opposition-controlled legislature; a bicameral legislature where both houses have co-equal power; and first-past-the-post elections guaranteeing a polarised two-party national political field. This combination promises frequent situations in which presidents are unable to enact their agendas, infuriating their own partisans (George W. Bush post-2006, Barack Obama post-2010), unlike Westminster systems where governing leaders always have legislative majorities. Those infuriated partisans then lack any "exit" option because alternative parties are not viable in first-past-the-post systems, unlike proportional-representation systems, where Israeli leftists unhappy with Labour can shift their votes to Kadima. To the extent that political parties can maintain ideological unity and aren't split by crosscutting issues (racial issues until the 1970s, or rich-person political patronage now), this structure also bakes the Republican-style "deny the president any legislative achievements" strategy into the cake. Paralysis! Fury! Welcome to America!

Voter anger is rising all over the world, and the bitterness in America isn't entirely unique. But to the extent America is going particularly sour, I think that has a lot to do with situations in which voters cannot see their political agendas enacted when they do achieve majorities, and cannot shift their support to other voices to express their dissatisfaction. A lot of that is built into the structure of America's constitution. If we could change the constitution, we'd probably be better able to implement solutions to policy issues, including those that have worked well in other countries. But we can't. Oh well!

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

Steven Spadijer

@ Somedude

“Frankly, I am glad that it cannot easily be changed in an ad-hoc manner”

Oh, if only! I am pretty sure it changes every few years, depending on what the judicial oligarchies “feel” is the “right” answer. Sometimes we are going to protect state rights, sometimes we are not. Sometimes we are going to protect partial birth abortion, sometimes we are not. Sometimes we are going to allow tobacco advertising in front of school playgrounds, sometimes we are not. Sometimes we are going to allow affirmative action, sometimes we are not. Sometimes we are going to allow sodomy, sometimes we are not.

@ Hank Moody
“The constitution should be a living document, but try explaining that to the tea-partiers that have become even more resolute in its literal interpretation”

Putting aside why judges should tell us how the constitution morphs, when it morphs or what way it morphs (as opposed to the right of the Swiss people to declare what the law is), if we accept most tea partiers support Antonin Scalia, then I am sure they actually do support a living document: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (Scalia writing in the majority, holding he use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat violated the fourth amendment). There is a difference between emerging or new phenomenon (projecting constitutional principles onto NEW realities) and ex ante phenomena (taking old realities and suddenly claiming they are “new”).

@ Typing monkey

Noting what I said about federalism (minorities should have the right to create their own state), give me an example of “minority rights”. You need to stop speaking in abstractions and give us specific examples. Is same-sex marriage a "right"? One, for example, might argue:

One may note:

* Love knows no bounds: equality, not hate, brings people together.

One may reply:

* Nothing in natural law shows gay marriage is a "right", if anything marriage is an obligation for the purposes of child rearing. Opposite-sex couples once their genetilla is brought together into union have a creative byproduct (children) where both their legacy is registered it, this requires special obligations and an interest fulfilled by your own flesh and blood. Most children are born in marriages. Exceptions do not make rules. Therefore, the point of marriage is a social good, and not merely something which is purely instrumental in nature, a form of instant self-gratification,whose doctrines allow us to fall into the
abyss of nihilism for the mere pretext of equality.

You tend to find "majority" versus "minority" groups tend to operate on deep philosophical debate - and there is no reason to assume you conception of tyranny is 'correct'.

Steven Spadijer

The Economist will never ever acknowledge the fact that all the problems it raises with America can only be fixed it they had the Swiss system of government: direct democracy. Although it is worth looking into by looking into deeper cultural problems of the United States: their entire culture, unlike those of Germany and France, is cabined in hyper-individualistic rhetoric – the “right” to “property”, the “right” to “[insert X, Y and Z]”. Europeans are the children of Rousseau. Americans the children of Locke. You rarely hear American’s discuss “community”, “unity”, “hospitality” or anything about “social rights”. But such is life under judicial oligarchy, forcing the nation to speak legalese.

Interestingly, the author does raise the point “what works in these countries will hence also be different”. So when this magazine relentlessly tells us direct democracy does not work in California (a premise I rejected – one only needs to look at the benefits of banning affirmative action; fixing issues relating to gerrymandering or the environment to know that), we should not expect it to work in Germany? Oh, but wait a minute: Germany does have direct democracy in 12 of its states, some of which have a budget surplus and they are too busy running initiatives on public health, safety and education. Fancy that.

And to cap all this off the author here notes: “A lot of that is built into the structure of America's constitution. If we could change the constitution, we'd probably be better able to implement solutions to policy issues, including those that have worked well in other countries. But we can't. Oh well!”

Why not? Because America has no direct democracy federally!

Can the American people limit federal taxation and make their tax rate more competitive to boost foreign investment? NO! But the Swiss can and have, capping the income tax to 11 percent and the corporation tax to 7!

Can the American people stop corporations from spending unlimited sums of money in election campaigns? NO! (In fact, all 14 attempts to limit corporate expenditure via initiative on the state level have been invalidated by the courts).

Can the American people enact compulsory health insurance where a certain percentage of your pay packet goes to private health insurance? NO! Not a chance.

Can the American people or minorities create new states – along racial, linguistic and religious divides – to allow for real self-government? NO!

Having said that, I am of the view the US Constitution can be amended via the initiative process federally: please see this paper Akhil-Reed Amar, ‘The Central Meaning of Republican Government’ (1994) 65 University Colorado Law Review 749-786; ‘The Consent of the Governed: Constitutional Amendment Outside Article V’ 94 Columbia Law Review 457-488 (arguing a national referendum could amend the US constitution if the voters petition for it).

I’d like to see the US adopt a policy of neutrality; a policy where taxation is given to the states with and one where new states can be created via referendums... I can only dream.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

Doesn't explain how one party has managed to shift so far to the right and paid absolutely no price for it at the polls. As I read in another article, American people are opinion followers, not opinion leaders. So when Fox News and Republican figures are the ones projecting an air of absolute confidence and certainty, voters gravitate toward them.

SomeDude

You can't change the Constitution? Funny I guess my 7th grade civics teacher from many years ago wasn't teaching the correct lesson that day. Been changed more than just a couple of times.

Frankly, I am glad that it can not easily be changed in an ad-hoc manner. One of the best features of the document. It generally has served the US well and prevented nonsense like Prohibition from being passed.

Numerous procedural rules in the Senate that were introduced in the late 18th century and early 19th century and continually added to during the 20th century especially after the direct representation of Senators which allow a number of procedural delays, obfuscations, and often require 60 or more votes to pass is where the primary paralysis lies in regards to policy making at the legislative level.

Can the Economist please get a blogger who knows at least a modicum about US history especially in regards to politics, civics, and economics?

Hank Moody

The constitution should be a living document, but try explaining that to the tea-partiers that have become even more resolute in its literal interpretation.

Did the founding fathers anticipate the average lifespan would increase by a solid 40 years, leaving us with supreme court justices that spend decades on the bench making some of the nations most important decisions while wearing adult diapers?

Did the founding fathers anticipate that populations of the top 4 states would dwarf the populations of the bottom 10 to such an extent that rural parts of the country have greater political representation despite the fact that most of the country's wealth comes from its more urbanized (and largely more liberal) cities?

typingmonkey

@ S. Morris

I take your point. But I would characterize the tradeoff as one between majority and minority rights. The majority has some right to see its positions enacted, but the minority has some right to see some things protected. There will never be a perfect balance.

But the problem in America today is that we have partisan warfare rather than reasoned debate. That widens the gap between majority and minority positions, makes integrative collaborative solutions less likely, and results in poorer policy for everyone. Good government isn't a prize to be won through trench warfare. It is a structure made stronger by contributions from both sides.

@ Heimdall

I share your views, and would add this: basic government healthcare would relieve you of one of the biggest worries of starting a business in the first place. Entrepreneurs should not be dissuaded from their ventures by the worry that should they fail, they and their families would be left without reasonable access to healthcare.

Honestly, I don't know why the business community itself does not see the light. They can pay 15% in taxes and 15% for healthcare, or they can pay 25% in taxes and 0% for healthcare. Even if they have some "cultural" preference for inserting themselves and insurance companies into the private lives of their employees, their German competitors do not. Guess who gets the competitive advantage?

JGradus

@bampbs

Actually, many European countries has something very similar to the American South, marked by more religion (but maybe not MUCH religion), more xenophobia, more conservative values and also some booming urban areas. To strong examples would be Bavaria in Germany and Skåne + Småland in Sweden

shubrook

bamps,

Lol, true, but remember, if they had it their way, America wouldn't have anything like the American South either.

Stephen Morris

Reading the articles here, I am frequently reminded of the metaphor from General Relativity that imagines ants crawling around the surface of a balloon.

The ants conceive of themselves living in a rather bewildering two dimensional world.

Some ants just remain bewildered. Other ants – presumably the ones that imagine themselves a cut above the hoi polloi – may devise some theology to “explain” why walking in a straight line brings them back to the place they started from. But their explanations will be arbitrary and possibly even logically incoherent.

What the ants cannot understand is that they are actually moving on the surface of a three dimensional surface. The insects cannot understand their predicament because they are not able to make the cognitive leap to comprehending an extra dimension.

The dilemma MS describes has been discussed on these pages many times before.

For a monopoly government – as with any monopoly - there is no perfect solution to the problem of institutional design. For a monopoly government, there will always be a trade-off between optimising internal efficiency and optimising allocative efficiency. Exchanging separation of powers for elective dictatorship would simply exchange one set of problems for another.

The extra “dimension” in this case is the monopolistic nature of government – as discussed here, here and here.

jouris

I see two difficulties with your thesis:

First, if the polarization problem is built into the American Constitution, why has it gotten so much more toxic in the last couple of decades? There havem't been major constitutional changes which would account for today's more toxic environment.

Second, contra your view of ideological purity, from what I can see the amount of "purity" demanded is massively greater in the current Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. Even after getting shut of the Southern Democrats, the Decomratic Party (like the Republican Party before the last couple of decades) has a fair amount of ideological variety, and very few litmus tests that all candidates must pass to have a prayer of a nomination. The Republican Party today has much less variety, and a long list of such tests (on taxes, on abortion, etc., etc.).

Heimdall

"Another says the people he knows who want to revolt are small-business owners, and a lot of it has to do with health-care reform..."

So here's what I don't get:

As a small business owner, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE for the government to provide basic medical coverage for every US citizen, which they could then upgrade at will on the private market.

* It would level the playing field between me and other US companies that are better capitalized, making my business more competitive.

* It would level the playing field between US companies and companies anywhere else in the developed world, making US business more competitive.

* It would allow employees to move to jobs that better suit their talents without being frozen in place by "benefits", improving the efficiency of the US labor market and thus making the US more competitive globally.

* Businesses could focus on their business rather than externalities like health care. Can you imagine if businesses had the responsibility to educate not only their employees, but their employees families as well? Or build the roads to their facilities? Or the roads to their vendors?

* National basic health insurance would be tremendously more efficient and thus more fiscally conservative that the hodge-podge private market that we now "enjoy".

Yet I never heard other businesses cry out to be liberated from this burden during the health insurance debate. Not once! It was all "socialism"-this and "un-American"-that and "government takover" BS.

Surely I'm not the only business owner who would like to compete based on business capability and not on side issues like health insurance?

bampbs

What those other countries lack is anything like the American South. My understanding of why Truman was unable to proceed with government provided healthcare was because of the fear in the South that it would lead to sharing medical facilities with Blacks.

hankjw

Dear M.S., I should appreciate a post from you on what aspect(s) of American culture, history and political tradition then accounts for what has worked well, since our political institutions have only functioned to hinder progress?

To also take exception with your view that frustrated partisans have no place to go in our two-party system, I believe the Tea Party is a fairly convincing recent example of insurgent partisanship making its mark not only on one of the major parties but the nation as a whole.

Morani ya Simba

@RestrainedRadical, the Maasai have certainly upheld their culture well but they too are slowly changing. At least what I heard was that polygamy is slowly disappearing, they have a harder time grazing their cattle in drier environments and, since lions are now a "vulnerable" species and not too common anymore outside national parks (where Maasai are not allowed to roam, w the exception of Ngorongoro which isn't administratively a "national park"), their famous spear hunts for lion are also on the decrease. But a very interesting, and tough, culture. I greatly admire the courage of their warriors but not the way some of them treated their women, with beatings and forced sexual relations. Lame to say perhaps, but most cultures have good and bad sides.

speckledhen

Lafayette,

YOU are missing the point. If all those other countries would just pillage their health care funding to increase their military, it would seriously hurt the quality of health care there.

Then the enormously wasteful and inefficient U.S. health care system would be the best in the world.

It's all relative.

Falling Rock

"There he goes again. Espousing grand theories based on the last two years. The problem is that it's so easily demolished. Ask a Belgian or Japanese how his government is so effective and free from paralysis and he'll laugh in your face. Ask a South Korean or Taiwanese how her country's political parties are so civil and cooperative and she'll look at you like you're insane."

But if you ask all those same people if their - well pick any really large corporation - handles customer service well, you'll find that they all agree that it does?

There are some things that are worthy of universal abuse and ridicule that there's really no escaping. Bureaucracy and referees seem to be two of them. The fact that people complain doesn't seem like proof of anything.

Lafayette

@rewt66, I think you missed the point. It seems to me Handworn is claiming that the US cannot afford universal healthcare because it has to spend so much on defence to carry NATO. Given that the US currently spends more on BOTH, that argument doesn't make any sense. The problem with US healthcare isn't that there isn't enough money around, it's that there are monstrous inefficiencies built-in to the system that lead to enormous waste and misallocation of funds.

As a side note, I would agree that most European countries underspend on defence, but that isn't really germane to this conversation.

About Democracy in America

In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events