Truly appreciate this well-organized and readable summary on what’s happening and where we go from here in terms of public administration, politics, and governance. Three questions that I’d ask Daniel:
1. In the midst of the dismantling of administrative capacity, democratic norms, and rule of law, questions of “policy” feel completely obsolete apart from the dim background of “will they cut entitlements or not?” Should opposition members of Congress still be talking about policy and pushing a policy agenda? Does it even matter to push for any kind of economically progressive position on, say, energy policy when the entire legislative branch is functioning without any real governing power?
2. What does history and political theory tell us about the possibility of dramatic reform following a constitutional breakdown? Do you see a feasible path to achieve anything like Lee Drutman’s (Undercurrent Events) proposals around proportional representation and expanding the House?
3. How seriously should we take Trump’s ousting of the Joint Chiefs? What does this *actually* mean, considering the Orwellian parallels highlighted here?
I have started and then paused writing a response to you several times, so please excuse what will be a quick and dirty effort to get something useful out for you.
1. Policy outcomes are determined by process and personnel even while driven by some kind of external need. So I think it is all entwined. One reason (among many) why we can't have good outcomes on entitlements or energy policy or pick-your-issue is because the (legislative) process by which we decide has been undermined over the decades and is now pushed aside. Instead, it's rule by presidential decree.
2. I think there's real value in fluid factions, which is a very different way of describing some of what Drutman is interested in. However, I think he's got some of it backwards, most notably the politics and how we make it work. The way you achieve multi-member districts in the states, for example, is making creating such a system so that it is in the interest of members of Congress who would have to create it. And the way you do that is by creating fluid factions within the House and showing members that they and their views will cease to exist when leadership in the chamber controls how they can express their views. You can do this through changes in the House and party rules. I've got a bunch of recs elsewhere on how to do that.
I am not a fan of increasing the size of the House at all. It's waaaay downstream of the real issues and likely would empower leadership to a greater extent, which is what we don't want to do at all.
3. Trump has shown he wants to rule by decree and push aside any independent sources of power and opposition. The Joint Chiefs are just an example of the broader trend of establishing himself as ruler.
The fairweather fidelity to the Constitution by Democrats is why we're here in the first place.
When FDR undermines the rule of law by threatening to pack the court in their eyes it's no big deal.
When Obama decides to seize farm land through the waters of the US rule hey that's cool.
And when Biden unconstitutionally stops evictions from happening it's all good.
Thus until Democrats come back to reality and embrace democratic norms, not just power grabs when it benefits them, then a too powerful executive branch is what we're stuck with.
Truly appreciate this well-organized and readable summary on what’s happening and where we go from here in terms of public administration, politics, and governance. Three questions that I’d ask Daniel:
1. In the midst of the dismantling of administrative capacity, democratic norms, and rule of law, questions of “policy” feel completely obsolete apart from the dim background of “will they cut entitlements or not?” Should opposition members of Congress still be talking about policy and pushing a policy agenda? Does it even matter to push for any kind of economically progressive position on, say, energy policy when the entire legislative branch is functioning without any real governing power?
2. What does history and political theory tell us about the possibility of dramatic reform following a constitutional breakdown? Do you see a feasible path to achieve anything like Lee Drutman’s (Undercurrent Events) proposals around proportional representation and expanding the House?
3. How seriously should we take Trump’s ousting of the Joint Chiefs? What does this *actually* mean, considering the Orwellian parallels highlighted here?
Marissa,
I have started and then paused writing a response to you several times, so please excuse what will be a quick and dirty effort to get something useful out for you.
1. Policy outcomes are determined by process and personnel even while driven by some kind of external need. So I think it is all entwined. One reason (among many) why we can't have good outcomes on entitlements or energy policy or pick-your-issue is because the (legislative) process by which we decide has been undermined over the decades and is now pushed aside. Instead, it's rule by presidential decree.
2. I think there's real value in fluid factions, which is a very different way of describing some of what Drutman is interested in. However, I think he's got some of it backwards, most notably the politics and how we make it work. The way you achieve multi-member districts in the states, for example, is making creating such a system so that it is in the interest of members of Congress who would have to create it. And the way you do that is by creating fluid factions within the House and showing members that they and their views will cease to exist when leadership in the chamber controls how they can express their views. You can do this through changes in the House and party rules. I've got a bunch of recs elsewhere on how to do that.
I am not a fan of increasing the size of the House at all. It's waaaay downstream of the real issues and likely would empower leadership to a greater extent, which is what we don't want to do at all.
3. Trump has shown he wants to rule by decree and push aside any independent sources of power and opposition. The Joint Chiefs are just an example of the broader trend of establishing himself as ruler.
The fairweather fidelity to the Constitution by Democrats is why we're here in the first place.
When FDR undermines the rule of law by threatening to pack the court in their eyes it's no big deal.
When Obama decides to seize farm land through the waters of the US rule hey that's cool.
And when Biden unconstitutionally stops evictions from happening it's all good.
Thus until Democrats come back to reality and embrace democratic norms, not just power grabs when it benefits them, then a too powerful executive branch is what we're stuck with.