The big news across America this morning is that Nancy Pelosi appears to have pulled off the cancellation of the State of the Union - by refusing the President an invite to "the people's house". I have mixed feelings about this, as longtime readers will know - first, because ersatz monarchism does not become a republic:
Strange how the monarchical urge persists even in a republic two-and-a-third centuries old. Many commentators have pointed out that the modern State of the Union is in fairly obvious mimicry of the Speech from the Throne that precedes a new legislative session in British Commonwealth countries and continental monarchies, but this is to miss the key difference. When the Queen or her viceroy reads a Throne Speech in Westminster, Ottawa, or Canberra, it's usually the work of a government with a parliamentary majority: In other words, the stuff she's announcing is actually going to happen. That's why, lest any enthusiasm for this or that legislative proposal be detected, the apolitical monarch overcompensates by reading everything in as flat and unexpressive a monotone as possible. Such excitement as can be found in the event lies elsewhere — the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod getting the door of the House of Commons slammed in his face three times. After the ancient rituals, the speech itself is actually a very workmanlike affair.
The State of the Union is the opposite. The president gives a performance, extremely animatedly, head swiveling from left-side prompter to right-side prompter, continually urging action now: 'Let's start right away. We can get this done. . . . We can fix this. . . . Now is the time to do it. Now is the time to get it done.' And at the end of the speech, nothing gets done, and nothing gets fixed, and, after a few days' shadowboxing between admirers and detractors willing to pretend it's some sort of serious legislative agenda, every single word of it is forgotten until the next one.
In that sense, like Beyoncé lip-synching the National Anthem at the inauguration, the State of the Union embodies the decay of America's political institutions into a simulacrum of responsible government rather than the real thing, and a simulacrum ever more divorced from the real issues facing the country.
If all that sounds familiar, it's because I wrote it six years ago, and recycled it exactly a year later. A third-rate hack such as yours truly should be able to file his State of the Union column a month early and confidently go to the Bahamas and work on his tan. But five years ago the alleged citizen-representative in the Oval Office managed to make things even worse:
The monarchical fripperies are no longer mere appurtenances but embody the cold, corrupt reality of Obama's governing philosophy. If you believe, as Republican House members purport to, that the President does not have the legal authority to perform his one-man rewrite of America's immigration laws, why offer him the people's legislature as a dais for his throne? His amnesty-by-memo is not a small thing: ultimately it strikes at the integrity of American citizenship, and thus at the very heart of the nation.
Democrat House members now feel just as strongly (albeit with less constitutional authority) about President Trump, but unlike milksop pantywaist Congressional Republicans they're willing to do something about it. So Nancy has now acted and nixed the photo-op. I wouldn't like to claim I gave her the idea or anything, but I did propose something similar a couple of weeks after the 2014 midterms:
It has been suggested that Boehner should tell America's new ConLawProf-in-Chief to go give his State of the Union somewhere else. It would be a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important. In a contemporary North American context, it is not unknown for parliament to assert itself against the head of state: the chippy separatists of Quebec's "National Assembly", as part of their make-believe nation-building, have denied the Queen's viceroy the customary right to give the Speech from the Throne (the Westminster equivalent to the State of the Union) for four decades now. Down the road in Ottawa, in a particularly petulant outburst, Jean Chrétien, the Canadian Prime Minister, denied the Queen herself the opportunity to give the 2002 Speech from the Throne in the federal parliament for no other reason than that he felt she hadn't given him a good enough seat at her mother's funeral earlier that year. In actual monarchies, the subjects flip the finger at the sovereign all the time. Yet in a supposed republic of citizen-legislators for the people's house to assert its authority to the head of state by telling him to take a hike on the State of the Union would be an act of lèse-majesté too appalling even to consider.
Obviously it would be too much to expect American Republicans to have the cojones of Canadian Liberals or Quebec socialists, wouldn't it? Also from my November 2014 post-mortem:
Obama has made a bet that in the end a Republican Congress will have no more get-up-and-go than a chronic invalid dependent on armies of undocumented bedpan-cleaners.
And, as usual, that bet paid off. Thanks to John Boehner, the President got to bury his lawlessness in an orgy of the usual gladhanding and schmoozing. Just to rub Republican faces in it, he invited along "undocumented immigrants" so he could give 'em a shout-out from the throne ...because America's ruling class prefers undocumented subjects to freeborn citizens. Last year, Democrat legislators brought along more illegal immigrants to sit in the people's house and cock a snook at a chief magistrate who thinks a government's principal duty is to its own citizenry.
As he demonstrated at his first appearance in Congress, President Trump has an ease in this format that many Republicans do not. But I retain my queasiness about the whole ghastly ritual, and I have a general preference for the non-house-trained Trump - the Trump that demolished Jeb! & co by not playing by their rules, or the media's, or the Democrats'.
Last year, I renewed the suggestion I first made with respect to the inauguration: hold it at the southern border, deliver a brisk, business-like, fact-packed speech, and then ceremonially lay the first brick in the wall. The state of the Union begins at the border. Indeed, the state of the border is the state of the Union a generation hence: no border, no union.
What's at stake is real: Don't let the third-rate Beltway dinner theatre get in the way.
~Members of The Mark Steyn Club are welcome to deliver their own formal responses to Steyn's State of the State of the Union in the comments section. For more on The Mark Steyn Club, please click here - and anybody looking for the perfect State of the Union Day gift is reminded to check out our special Steyn Club Gift Membership. Or, for an even nicer gift, how about two on the aisle for the first ever Dennis Miller/Mark Steyn tour? Next month they're hitting Reading, Pennsylvania and Syracuse, New York, followed by Rochester and Wilkes-Barre. And, with VIP tickets, you get to meet Dennis and Mark after the show, which is surely competitive with meeting Nancy and Mitch after the SOTU.
Steyn will see you on the telly with Tucker, live across America tonight, Thursday, at 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific - with a rerun at midnight Eastern.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
67 Member Comments
Well President Trump would be better off to give a State of the Republican party address.Without him the Republican Party would be addressing President Hilary Clinton. Despite President Trump having Republican control of the Congress and Senate he was stymied in getting the southern border secured and Obama Care replaced by the Republicans. The Republican Party has disgraced itself and failed to deliver on the platform President Trump told the electorate. This is what happens without term limits. Those long term turkeys that have lined their pockets with money from whom ever would offer it care not about delivering promises of change only about their position of power and about more money to buy another term.
As a wise man has said repeatedly, when R's win, they're in office, but when D's win, they are in power.
That has changed a little with Trump, but not nearly enough.
I've very disappointed that Trump caved on the SOTU, I would have preferred he simply deliver the address elsewhere - the Senate, the Oval Office, the border, wherever.
Having said that, I'll defer to others' political instincts over my own, which are admittedly limited.
Socialists in the left are freaking out over Venezuela's new president. Love that Trump has acknowledged him and now they can't hide on the turmoil that's happening there. Their naive belief that Denmark and Sweden are socialist needs to be openly criticized by actual people who are from there to shut them up. Hope to hear you discuss Mark.
A lot of heavyweight intellectual comments here. I'm going to restrict my comment to one change that I'd like to see for the State of the Union. I think there should be a strictly enforced rule that all applause must be held until the end of the speech. The spectacle of those in the President's party jumping up for a standing ovation after practically every line while those in the opposition party sit stone faced is silly and ridiculous.
Yes, applause should be banned during the speech. Wait until the end to give the President the clap.
What's the point of a State of the Union anyway? We know what's going on already and whatever Trump says will be "fact checked" and we're back to hating each other anyway. State of the Union was nothing more than touting your country's successes and challenges and they end with encouraging Americans to stay the course for a better America. As far as I'm concerned, Trump sent his message already on numerous occasions and it's pointless to deliver it again.
Latest news Jared Kushner the son in law of Trump not only expert on Israel Palestinian relation but also became an expert on immigration advised against declaring national emergency .If this is the case I believe that impeachment of Trump is justified showing total incompetence in selecting advisers Trump is collapsing under the pressure and seems to me that he is losing it. As with withdrawal from Syria Trump goes back and forth making ad hoc decision with out having a plan what will be next step. No wonder that Matis resigned. Pitty he could have been a good president if they would let him. If family members will advise him to resign they will do him and USA a favor.
It seems to me that in regards shutdown and border protection I rushed to judgment there is chance that there will be some compromise found because it is political and economic problem unlike the Israel Palestinian issue that no peaceful solution ever be found because it is not political or economic it is religious conflict it should be renamed from Israeli Palestinian conflict to Jewish Moslem conflict that started in Meccah at 610 AD
Something I have learned from Mexicans living in California is that they are good masons and know how to build first-rate walls at private residences. Why don't we just use private donations and hire Mexicans in Mexico to - working from the US side - build a wall where it's needed? What are the Democrats going to do, arrest them?
You didn't like the Made in America Steel slats for a barrier, the very one that Jim Acosta stood beside when he confirmed that it worked and all was calm at the border? Nance should be satisfied, too, because we'll be able to see through the slats and spot the illegals coming without having to mow the grass. Why is this so hard to get done? People in DC are ignorant of what is happening along our southern line, willfully, I guess.
And the Steel to make them will be sourced in coal country
The SOTU speech was not a pressing issue in my mind until I read Mark's article or detailed autopsy on the subject. By agreeing to delay the speech so it could be uttered in the corrupted House does hint at least that Trump is becoming "house trained." The 2016 campaigning Trump would likely have agreed with Mark's suggestions to do it at the border with the occasional pause while snippets of live video are shown of illegal aliens crossing the border in real time or drug cartel laborers are hauling bales of cocaine across the Rio Grande in boats. (like the ending of Netflix's Narcos series)
However, if it is not held in the House, Nancy Pelosi will not have to sit uncomfortably and belligerently behind PDJT, for all the nation to see, as he utters political messages that she abhors. It would be entertaining to watch her countenance change and her nervous ticks worsen as the speech lingers on. There would also be no opportunity to pressure the Dems into applauding some popular proposals or visibly rejecting them for all the viewers to see. The Dem temper tantrums, where the party's best stage actors scurry angrily up the aisle and out the exit door during the speech, would also be missed.
Love the idea of quick comments at the border, and then lay the first brick. Or Covington.
I haven't forgotten what Mr. Obama did to the Supreme Court justices during his first state of union address.
And why give the current congress fodder on their own turf when the rowdy freshmen and others are likely to heckle the entire thing anyway...they have no respect for anyone but themselves.
Although Trump could probably pull that off.
Otherwise the word "fractured" comes to mind? I hope not.
Right on, Elizabeth! You said it quite succinctly. (That's a skill I intend to hone this year).
What comes next? It clearly can not continue much longer. In my view Trump should turn the table on the Dems and their Media blood hounds. Declare emergency, order building the barrier and do all what he asked for and lift the partial shutdown. Not give any additional concession to the DACA and reject any further negotiation with the Dems. Let them try to impeach him. I believe it it a gamble that will succeed. Since the partial shutdown was lifted they can not refuse him to give the state of the (dis) union speech.
That speech to Congress ain't in the constitution. After Washington and Adams made such an appearance customary, the introverted Jefferson sent his written report instead. And so it was until maybe Wilson (not sure on this point) resurrected a forgotten custom.
Trump ought to mail his in, or maybe go tell it on the mountain -- i.e., give it via a campaign rally in a red state, where it would be appreciated.
This is a non-Capitol idea. With all the tar and feathers flying and the endarkenment descended upon the land, there's an opportunity to stand out from the crowd with humor, optimism; and if the contagion spreads to a big enough crowd that gets really ambitious and inspired; a new version of the post-War of 1812 Era of Good Feelings. Just notice how quickly inspiring it is when Rush engages in optimism on the radio. Rush has taught that President Reagan led by inspiring people to feel good about themselves; confident that they could achieve great things as Americans. That's America.
Trump should invite the Covington School kids to the White House ....................
That couldn't happen soon enough for me - great idea! The Trumpster is the only Republican leader since Reagan with the stones to pull off something of that nature.
As far as I know, Trump has invited the HS boys to the White House. The only question is, what's on the menu. I sure hope it is Chick-fil-a.
Maybe Orange Man Bad should put on his crown and do the full Westminster bit, i.e., pound on the door of the House of Representatives.
Clever. Here's your MAGA hat for winning troll of the day. Chuck and Nancy would be proud.
Good comment Christie, but MCF's comment is not clever. It instead reflects a lack of knowledge and attention to detail.
The Queen (as in "put on his crown") does not pound on the door of the HOC. It is,as Mark helpfully explained, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod who does this. The Queen meanwhile is on the Throne in the House of Lords graciously awaiting the arrival of the members of 'another place'!
Good point, but there's no good replacement for the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in the US system. Hmmm, who to nominate? The VP? Cocaine Mitch? Kelly-Anne? Sarah? My personal choice would be The Gentleman Moustache of the Orange Skin Order, John Bolton.
Having said all that, I think the analogy fails in the sense that Orange Man Bad would definitely want to do the job himself.
The world is a dangerous place. I am reading a fascinating historical series, Chivalry, by Christian Cameron. Fourteenth century Europe was a battlefield, with bands of unemployed soldiers ravaging the countryside of France. The true leaders who emerged put their people first, ensured their safety, and supported them as best he could. Other leaders lived for the benefits and perks of their position. It seems to me that Trump, rough around the edges, does work for Americans, their safety, and their well-being. The other crowd lives off what spoils they can reap. I have explained this poorly, but Teddy Roosevelt got it right: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
― Theodore Roosevelt
Thanks for capturing the zeitgeist so well, Christie, and topping it off with a cherry of a quote. Who knew Teddy could wax so Shakespearean?
Of course, the modern-day equivalent of his sentiment is reflected in participation trophies, where one is deemed a champ just for showing up. "... Victory nor defeat" is literally incomprehensible to the modern socialist on the level at which Teddy is thinking, and I agree with your evaluation that Trump is trying to accomplish good things at this same level, which is that appropriate to the Presidency of the United States.
The "progressives" are operating at a very primitive, tribal level where victory and defeat are understood in the realm of a zero-sum environment, and every conflict is perceived as at least symbolically mortal.
Many Marxists became disillusioned when the idiot proletariat of the West failed to revolt after the debacle of the Great War. Trotsky's divide-and-conquer strategy (wherein people who identify with disparate groups are easier to pit against each other) was an attempt to "continue the Revolution by other means". This idea, rejected by Stalin with extreme prejudice, has lived on. So "Identity Politics" is an artefact of Trotskyism; its doppelganger "Political Correctness" is an artefact of Maoism (the Great Helmsman literally coined the phrase); both Trotskyism and Maoism are artefacts of Marxism. Interestingly, both Identity Politics and Political Correctness are vital weapons in the armory of the Dems and their ilk.
The Berlin Wall may have fallen, but the Ivory Tower stands intact, well supplied with taxpayer dollars and garrisoned by sinecured loudmouths immune to the slings and arrows of outrageous reality. Now, where did I put my trebuchet?
Very fine pint-sized analysis of the Left's MO, raison d'ĂŞtre and historic background. That pulled all the pieces together for me nicely, Larry. I would like one of those gizmos the NFL quarterbacks have on their wrists and I would start inputting some of these great bite-sized explanations of where we're at, where we've been and where we might be headed in the words of our illustrious host and his eponymous club members.
Trump should hold the State of the Union Address but hold it at one of these venues,
1, In front of the Lincoln Memorial
2. In Covington, Kentucky
3. In Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco
4. On the steps outside of Congress
5. In front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia
6. On the flight deck of name-your-favorite-aircraft-carrier
7. At Gettysburg
8. At Yorktown
Just a few suggestions. I believe that we all agree that the SOTU is a pointless exercise however there's no reason it can't be treated as theater. The Dems have no trouble doing this with a whole host of issues.
John,
I appreciate all of your suggestions. Giving the speech outside of Washington D.C. would be fantastic! He should give the speech in Flyover Country. Covington, Kentucky is my favorite suggestion. If President Trump showed support and solidarity with the Covington kids, his supporters would appreciate it - especially all of the supporters who have been beaten up by ANTIFA and likeminded groups. He should bring all of them together to show them he appreciates their bravery. The State of the Union is that we have patriots who are willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
John - I vote for option #1 but the Covington school kids have to be there. I doubt the leaders at that school would allow it however. They seem to be running for cover although those terrific kids did nothing wrong and displayed admirable restraint in the face of obscene hostility. That great kid that stood toe to toe with Nathan Phillips should be named 'Kid of the year'. If there is no such award then we should create one for this brave boy. If that phony creep was really a peacemaker he would have marched into those black activists while beating his drum. Instead he harassed the victims. He's not only a phony but a coward as well.
An upvote option would be really good.
'He's not only a phony but a coward as well.'
Great comment!
With today's fast-speed technology and ease of transportation, Trump could do segments of the SOTU from each of those and really make an impact like never before. It could be taped up until the last segment which could be live from the WH. Why couldn't that happen? It absolutely could. I still would love to see Trump deliver from the border crossing at Antelope Wells, NM where hundreds walked across the unprotected crossing the day after our new Governor Grisham said, "there's no problem at our New Mexico borders." That just a couple or few weeks after one of the children who died had just crossed.
Mark writes:
"The State of the Union embodies the decay of America's political institutions into a simulacrum of responsible government rather than the real thing...".
That's true. At the same time, there is another layer of truth behind that statement which Mark alludes to (and one which hardly anyone wants to hear)...
...and that is that the United States does not have, and never has, a "government" in anything like the way a nation with a parliamentary system has a government. So it is not just that the State of the Union represents a simulacrum of "responsible government"; it's that it represents a simulacrum of *government*, period.
To explain:
When we say an entity "governs" something, we rightly presuppose - we take for granted - that the governing entity is, itself, a unitary entity.
After all, we would never say that three or four different co-equal but rival entities, each concerned primarily with its own interests, each in a battle for supremacy over the other entities, each able to veto the wishes of any other entity, each viewing the others with suspicion or even hatred, together "govern" anything at all. No - they are at best mere competitors, and at worst, fervently warring parties.
Yet the paragraph above describes what the presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court amount to. These four entities don't comprise a "government" in any meaningful sense of that word. Even in the rare cases where a presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court are all of the same general ideological bent or party affiliation, they still rarely get on all that well. The last two years of Republican saboteurs like Ryan, Flake, McCain and Romney - and still no wall - are testament enough to that.
By contrast, in a standard parliamentary system, a party winning a majority of seats forms a "government". That is...they actually govern. They get a chance to run the show. There is an official opposition party, but that opposition party - having a minority of seats - cannot stop the government from governing. (They can only expose what they see as flaws, make the counterarguments, etc.)
The question always arises: Well, what stops a parliamentary government from passing lousy legislation?
The answer is: full transparency plus elections. When a parliamentary government passes an unpopular law, everyone knows who's responsible, and that government gets voted out next time. Or if there's enough uproar prior to the election, the governing party (to avoid electoral suicide) quickly amends or drops the unpopular law. And if the prime minister proves unpopular, the governing party (while still in power) will remove the prime minister and put in someone new.
But if that doesn't happen, voters simply eject the government in the next election. The new governing party then amends or repeals the law, and on it goes.
At any rate, my point is that slapping the label "government" on to four distinct, co-equal, often-warring entities who can't even agree on whether, or when, to even *hold* a State of the Union address, let alone agree on anything of great import for the 330 million they're supposed to be serving, no more makes those four an actual "government" than changing a pronoun magically turns a man into a woman.
That these four distinct entities do not comprise a "government" is why, as Mark says, usually nothing gets done...or at least, those things which *should* be done, do not get done; while those things which should *not* be done, *do* get done, and usually by the wrong people altogether, and in the wrongest of ways.
This lamentable result is perfectly predictable. Imagine starting your own business and trying to serve your customers...but then finding out that you can't make any decisions without the consent of three business rivals who dislike you and want you to fail. Everyone knows what would ensue: animosity, ill will, chaos, unpredictability, sabotage, inability to perform important tasks, rogue activities, lying, backstabbing, maybe physical altercation...it would just be total madness. In the end, the whole thing would collapse.
So, where does this all leave us?
Here: The truth is that there is a compelling conservative case to be made for a new and improved "national operating system" (read: Constitution), perhaps in combination with a partition between the sane sections of the country, and the insane parts.
Just one man's heretical, yet true, two cents.
Amen.
Impressive, Tal.
Reflecting this is a jarring thought in a column by Bill Buckley some time into the Iraq War, when he said that in a parliamentary system, Dubya would have been long gone, for the way he conducted it.
Tal,
Your thoughtful piece requires a thoughtful response. In the first instance, as I'm sure you're aware, there are three co-equal branches in the U.S. Federal Government as the House and Senate together comprise the Legislative. There is also the Executive and the Judiciary. One could make the argument, particularly now that the two chambers of the Legislature are divided, that the Legislative actually represents two branches of Government making it four. In fact, this is suggested in Federalist No. 51.
"In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit." Federalist 51.
One could also argue that the Administrative State, although formally party of the Executive branch, acts as its own fourth branch of Government. But, a robust Administrative State was not envisioned by the Founders when they drafted the U.S. Constitution.
I agree that there is a large amount of dysfunction in how the U.S. Federal Government operates, but whether this is a fault in the design of the Government or in its operation is an open question.
You may argue that faulty operation of the Government is proof positive of faulty design, but I would argue that this is not the case. Thus, I am choosing to defend the U.S. Federal Government as envisioned and designed, not as it is currently constituted. I'll also take a few swipes at the dysfunctions inherent in a Parliamentary system later on, but for now let me make that argument with one word; "France."
First off, as designed the failure of the Federal Government to accomplish big things is a feature not a bug. The rivalry between the three branches of Government was anticipated and indeed planned on by the Founders. Referring again to Federalist No. 51.
"To what expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places." Federalist 51.
The ability of the Executive to thwart the Legislative is also a feature, although granted with some reservation.
"As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient." Federalist 51
Quoting Montesquieu, Federalist 47 lays out the necessity of separation of powers in the Federal Government.
"'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he, 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner.' Again: 'Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.'" Federalist 47
Keep in mind that at the time of the framing of the Constitution the Founders were well familiar with Parliamentary forms of Government and chose not to arrange the U.S. Federal Government in that manner. Also keep in mind that at the time of the framing the British Government functioned differently than it does now. At that time the King was the Executive power and the Parliament the Legislative.
This is no longer the case in Parliamentary governments. The King or Queen is a mere figurehead and has no real authority to frame legislation. As a result the Prime Minister acts as the Executive, leaving both the Legislative and Executive power in the same hands. This might be great for getting things done, but it does little to nothing to protect the rights and interests of the minority party. You may say that the regular ebb and flow of election cycles will counter balance this since the minority party of today might be the majority party of tomorrow. But, if the Parliament acting as both Legislative and Executive gets to reverse course on any policy it sees fit every time power changes hands then the result will be a constant shifting of policies with none ever having a fair chance at taking hold. See Italy as an example.
In the U.S. system it is very difficult to get things done. At the same time, as we have seen, it is very difficult to undo them once they are done. For good or ill the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches act as brakes on each other to prevent an ever-shifting policy landscape. Recall that the Republican Congress and rightward leaning Judges were fairly effective at stymieing President Obama in his second term. Much of what he did accomplish unilaterally has been slowly undone by Trump, which is another feature of the U.S. Federal system. Failure to follow proper procedures results in a flimsy legacy. The one thing Obama did do by the books is, again for good or ill, still in force. I am speaking of course of Obamacare.
The U.S. system is built for stability, not responsiveness. This was an appropriate design at the time of the framing of the Constitution because it was recognized that the Federal Government was one of limited and circumscribed powers. The various State Governments at that time were the primary means for the everyday governing of the people, not the Federal Government. It was recognized that the people of the various States had varying interests and customs. Therefore it was necessary to make it difficult for a majority faction to impose its own views via the central Government.
On the subject of stability, I would argue that the U.S. Federal system with its de facto two party system is not only much safer, but more stable than the Parliamentary systems around the World. One phrase you will never hear in the American political lexicon is "Minority Government" or alternatively "Coalition Government." Either you have the Presidency or you don't. Likewise with control of the House and Senate. We don't spend weeks trying to figure out if a Government can actually be formed. By the way, how long did the Belgians go without a Government in 2010-11?
Parliamentary systems are either fractious by nature, or the electoral systems by which they are populated are designed to keep certain, ahem, troublesome groups from gaining meaningful representation. In France the party of M. Macron wields out-sized power in the National Assembly, but garnered many fewer votes in the first round election when the people of France were given more choices. How is that representative Government?
In contrast, the U.S. two party system requires each of the major parties to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters Nationwide. This is true of Statewide elections for Senator and particularly for the Presidency. Certain boutique interest groups may be able to elect a member to the House, but they are generally constrained by the more numerous mainstream portions of their party. Keep in mind, even with a large majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate Democrats barely shoved through Obamacare and dared not attempt amnesty for illegal immigrants. Further, we saw the electoral results of their overreach.
Having said all of the above, there is a great amount of dysfunction in the U.S. Federal Government. But this dysfunction is not the result of bad design, but rather the result of straying from the design set down by the Founders. I'll lay out a few of what I think are the major causes of the dysfunction.
- The 17th Amendment essentially Nationalized the Senate. Originally Senators were appointed by the State legislatures to counterbalance the Representatives in the House, who were elected by popular vote of the people. The Senate no longer serves its original purpose of being a regulator on the passions of the people.
- The politicization of the Judiciary, which is a direct result of the Nationalization of the Senate. The Judiciary, the weakest of the branches, was not originally given the role of being the final word on the Constitutionality of acts of Congress or the Executive, but generally practiced the role in a reasonable way for about 130 years, until FDR showed up. Nowadays the Judiciary acts as super-Executive and Legislature in one.
- The growth of the Administrative State as a fourth branch of Government embodies everything that the Framers sought to avoid in designing the Federal Government. That is, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches are all rolled into one in the Administrative State, with tyrannical results. This has also allowed the Legislative to slough off many of its duties, while at the same time supercharging the power of the Executive.
- The Nationalization of State and Local issues. This to me is also an outgrowth of the Nationalization of the Senate. With the Judiciary politicized and Senate elections essentially Nationalized there is no one left to safeguard the powers of the States. You can complain about the alphabet soup of Government agencies or the growth of entitlements, but I believe that all of this was enabled by permitting popular election of Senators. I believe that had Senators remained beholden to their State Governments much of the bad legislation passed in the last 100 years would not have seen the light of day.
I doubt that changing to a Parliamentary system would correct any of the problems with the current system. On the contrary, with the current fractious nature of American politics I think it would make things worse, much worse. Either we would perpetually be under fragile coalition Governments or one party would claim a consistent majority of say 55 to 60% and thereafter completely disregard the rights of the remaining 40 to 45% of Americans.
Just my thoughts.
I have been pondering this for nearly 20 years. The fatal flaw of our current system is that no one is accountable because no "one" is ever truly in charge. The disconnect between cause and effect is too great for the electorate to reliably give credit or place blame. Either the responsible party retains enough plausible deniability to shift blame to the other party, or the other party involves itself enough to take credit for things it had historically blocked.
The entire construct of American government was intended to prevent the government from gaining too much power. But what happens once that government gains power despite the best efforts of the Constitution to constrain it?
I think the short answer to that question is that the administrative state runs the show regardless of election outcomes. So we are effectively ruled by a bureaucratic Leviathan than has no master. Making matters worse is that nobody even realizes what has happened.
Regardless of its specific design flaws, any given system of government will only work as well as the people it governs can work. I think the easiest argument to make now is that the American electorate is rapidly losing the ability to self govern. And as a result it will ultimately be ruled no matter what form of self government is in place at the time of the transition.
Parliamentary systems may be better equipped than republican systems to walk an electorate back from the precipice or at least delay the time of jumping into the abyss, but no matter. Once the electorate loses the ability to truly self govern, then tyranny in some form is inevitable.
John Adams the second US President foresaw the problems and he stated:• We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other..
If he would show up he would not be surprised by what is going on
Wayne,
Replying to both of your comments, I think you are absolutely right on both counts. But keep in mind, the framers were as suspicious of the people as they were of the Government they were forming. Hence Senators appointed by the State Governments and limited suffrage in elections.
In a sense, the people have been granted too much power by the changes we have made the original system of Government put in place by the framers. Election of Senators by popular vote is not even half of it. At the risk of taking significant heat, I'll add that universal suffrage for those 18 and over is a hideously bad idea. It will never change though, so perhaps we are sunk.
As stated in my original post, the Administrative State is the embodiment of everything the Founders feared about Government.
Matthew:
I'm sitting in a Chicago hotel room about to leave for soundcheck, so I just have a few minutes to respond. For the moment, I want to address a few sentences in a key passage of yours:
You write:
"As a result the Prime Minister acts as the Executive, leaving both the Legislative and Executive power in the same hands. This might be great for getting things done, but it does little to nothing to protect the rights and interests of the minority party."
This is the standard response from anyone living in a presidential system. The problem with it is that it relies on theoretical calculation instead of observation of how traditional parliamentary systems actually operate *in the real world*.
It also minimizes or ignores the severity of real-world abuses to minorities (slavery, legal racial discrimination, etc.) perpetrated by the very presidential systems reputed to be so much better in this regard.
Once we leave the theoretical figurings behind (and our own emotional attachments to our own nations) and look dispassionately at real world outcomes, we find that parliamentary systems do better overall than presidential systems in protecting the rights of minorities (as well as in many other respects).
You write:
"You may say that the regular ebb and flow of election cycles will counter balance this since the minority party of today might be the majority party of tomorrow. But, if the Parliament acting as both Legislative and Executive gets to reverse course on any policy it sees fit every time power changes hands then the result will be a constant shifting of policies with none ever having a fair chance at taking hold. See Italy as an example."
In a traditional parliamentary system, the "constant shifting of policies with none taking hold" does not occur as you imagine. As enough real world examples indicate (Great Britain or Canada will do as first examples), traditional parliamentary systems retain a good deal of stability.
Crucially, however, they are flexible enough so as to permit needed tinkering (or more) to laws whose consequences were not - and could not have been - foreseen before passage. (Compare the arguments from Ted Kennedy and his pals in favour of the 1965 Immigration Act with that law's actual consequences...and now recall *that it's still on the books over half a century later*.)
And by the way, this enhanced flexibility to amend laws which prove to have unintended consequences is just one feature of traditional parliamentary systems amongst many supported by traditional conservatism. (After all, it is traditional conservatism which emphasizes the necessity of recognizing the limits of human knowledge (and certainly, foreknowledge).
Lastly for now, Italy is not a counter-example to my points here because in adopting, decades ago, a proportional representation voting system, it ceased to be a traditional parliamentary system at all. Proportional representation is a giant monkey wrench in any political engine. It's *that* that turned Italy into a basketcase nation - not parliamentarism.
Anyway, gotta run. I'll respond with more later.
P.S. Even the Italians finally acknowledged the idiocy of proportional representation, and a year or so ago, took a step back toward a first-past-the-post voting system (which I would argue is mandatory for functional government).
Okay ttys. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I agree with you 100%. But can you now unscramble the egg?
Trump and Truman have more in common that the four letters of their Surname, Both were businessmen, both election win was a surprise and both believed that the Buck stops at their desk.
The socialist want reduce the voting age to 16. I believe it is not enough it should be reduced to the time when they become toilet trained
I understand that it becomes too confusing but this was supposed to be a stand alone comment when I was under the impression that Trumps does something that is justified and he believes in but it seems that he is crawling back until he will get approval for one portable toilet at the border. That happens when he consults with too many lawyers
Hi Tal,
Hope the sound check went well. I look forward to your additional response, but in the meantime let me address some of what you have replied.
With respect to the treatment of minorities I would venture that the U.S. has a much better record on the whole than many other systems. After all, a number of the early settlers in America were religious minorities fleeing persecution in Parliamentary England.
As an issue slavery is the one that is always brought up as the main argument against the U.S. form of Government. But here again, this institution was not invented by the Americans, but was begun while the colonies were still under the rule of Parliamentary England and was very well tolerated during that time. Yes, it took the U.S. longer to abolish the practice. It is not an excuse for this, but as I said previously the U.S. form of Government is built for stability, not responsiveness. In that respect, the U.S. Federal form of Government maintained relative stability of the Nation for 80 years before the issue finally came to a necessary head.
I would also add that Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, including France, came to the U.S. and flourished under its system.
On what you may call a more theoretical note, which I do not believe it is, the very idea of a Senate, where each State is granted two representatives regardless of population, and the related Electoral College system are the very definition of protecting minority rights. The real world practical results of these two institutions should be obvious.
With respect to your examples of the UK and Canada as demonstrating stability, I would agree that those are probably the two best examples of Parliamentary Government. But I would emphasize the point that they are the two best examples, not the only examples. I would also point out that they have both been relatively homogeneous societies throughout most of their history. The exception being Quebec in Canada. They are only now beginning to deal with the issues of racial, ethnic and religious diversity the U.S. has dealt with for most of its history. As I'm sure Mark can attest to, they haven't dealt with them very well in Canada, notwithstanding the repeal of Section 13. Australia hasn't dealt well with the issues either.
On a semi-theoretical note, let us assume that the U.S. was a Parliamentary system in the past mid-term election and that there was no effective Presidency and no Senate. Then the House of Representatives would be the Assembly with its 435 members and instead of a Speaker it would elect a Primer Minister. In this case Paul Ryan and his predecessor John Boehner would be replaced by Nancy Pelosi, whom Boehner had previously replaced? Do you seriously think that there would not be major shifts in Government policy with respect to foreign relations, trade, taxes, the border with Mexico, etc.?
Perhaps it is a peculiarity of the U.S. as a Nation, but the political clout of the Democratic party is drawn from a very small geographical area in a handful of States, the most notable being California, New York and Illinois. However, the political views in these limited regions are as nearly antithetical as you can get to those in the areas where the Republican party draws most of its political clout.
I am interested to hear what you have to say on the issue. I'm sure we could go on for hours without reaching a conclusion though and I'm sure you've also got a lot of other things to do.
Sir. Your input is an example of why I became a member of the Mark Steyn Club. Excellent post that made your well thought out points make sense and educated me as well. Thank you.
Matthew:
Just got back.
There's a lot going on here. Let me address just one comment here before I pass out. I'll add more tomorrow if I get the chance.
You say "The US system was built for stability".
The odd truth is that parliamentary systems have proven far more stable than presidential systems over the past two centuries.
Of all the nations which have adopted presidential systems, only the United States has a long history of constitutional continuity. Let's hope that continues...but if world political history is any guide, one shouldn't take that for granted.
Moreover, America's success in constitutional continuity is true only by a whisker, since only seven decades on from Washington's tenure, the nation convulsed in brutal civil war - a war which would have seen the end of the United States as it then existed, and far more quickly, but for a few bad military decisions by Jefferson Davis in the early days of the war.
I might add that a reasonable person could also conclude that a number of players - FDR, the Supreme Court, LBJ come to mind - together have dramatically (and illicitly) imposed entirely new meanings on to the Constitution, such that it in many respects (by real world measurements), it seems pretty much like a different Constitution, even though most of the words remain the same. (This is a topic for an entirely separate post).
Anyway, back to the point, after the US, Chile has had the most constitutional continuity; but even Chile of course experienced a breakdown of democracy in the early 1970's with Pinochet's coup.
The other oft-cited presidential "successes" - Finland and France - are actually hybrid systems, so I wouldn't say they count as presidential successes.
Disconcertingly, the dozens of other nations which have adopted presidential systems over the past two centuries have eventually been plagued by Civil War-style convulsions, revolutions, coups, breakdowns, chaos, economic volatility, the rise of dictators, etc. The more you examine, the less that seems like a coincidence.
By contrast, the clear majority of the world's stable, democratic regimes are parliamentary in nature. Again, the more you examine that, the less that seems like a coincidence, for all sorts of reasons.
To be clear, NO political system, however wisely designed, can save any particular population from itself once that population has given itself over to licentiousness or some other form of wickedness.
As you imply, there do seem to be some indispensable cultural (non-constitutional) props to any governing system. I'm only pointing out here that when it comes to constitutional continuity or stability, parliamentary systems actually have fared much better.
Now perhaps what you meant by "stability" was something like "inflexibility" - or that presidential systems are less able to perform the actions which comprise "governing".
And if that's what you meant, yes, you're right. Gridlock is baked into the cake of presidentialism, and there is no way around it. (Incidentally, the eventually intolerable effects of gridlock are a big part of why so many presidential countries wind up with autocratic [albeit usually elected] leaders: desperate, frustrated populations eventually come to feel that *someone* has to get necessary stuff done, no matter what some law or Constitution or Supreme Court says.)
In contrast to the gridlock unavoidable in a presidential system, you can't actually *have* gridlock in a parliamentary system. You can only have a government able - and motivated - to be responsive to voters, which, by design, operates in full transparency, since everyone knows a parliamentary government is 100% responsible for what it does.
In this post, I just responded to one comment of yours. Tomorrow I'll try to get to more.
Most interesting, Tal, but wrong on one important particular. We do not have 4 or 3 "co-equal" branches of government. Instead, we have one branch that is so supreme that it's even right there in its name -- the Supreme Court. The other two branches may propose laws or actions, but the Supreme Court always has the final word. This country is ruled by 9 people, people who aren't elected and have lifetime appointments.
That's the real situation here.
Thanks Tal,
Let me address your complaint regarding the inflexibility of the U.S. Presidential/Federal system. I would argue that over the course of its history the U.S. Federal Government has been quite energetic, that is within its proper field of authority. Among these I would include;
The acquisition of the Louisiana territory by treaty
The acquisition of Florida by treaty
The acquisition of the American Southwest by war, followed by treaty
The acquisition of Alaska by treaty
Completion of a transcontinental railroad
Establishment of uniform currency and exchange
The settlement and admission of numerous territories to the Union
Completion of a large interstate highway system
Development of nuclear weapons, followed by development of nuclear energy
I would even throw in the prosecution of the Civil War and Reconstruction. That the Nation was able to survive that event at all I think is a testament to the stability of the U.S. system.
I think if I took more time that list would grow significantly. Here is where I think you and I might be talking past each other a little bit. It was recognized by the framers, particularly Hamilton that the Federal Government needed to be energetic in its field of authority. This was the main flaw in the Articles of Confederation; i.e. it couldn't do anything without the say so of the States.
The revamped form established by the Constitution corrected this flaw, but at the same time limits were put on the powers of the Federal Government. This is because it was believed that the State Governments would be more responsive to their populations in everyday matters of governance. This worked fairly well for the first century and a half of the Republic, and I believe it could again. But as you mentioned, things started to change in the first half of the 20th century. Those changes have accelerated in the past 50 years.
Among the culprits in these changes I would put primarily the Nationalization of the Senate and the Federalization of what are naturally State and Local issues. But, perhaps that is where the failure in other Presidential systems lies? That is, over-centralization. The suitability of the U.S. Federal system relies on the separation of powers not only between the several branches of the Federal Government, but also between the Federal Government and the States, including the States having their own representation via the Senate?
On a somewhat related note, I just read a few articles about something that recently happened in Europe. What is being dubbed "The Treaty of Aachen" between France and Germany didn't get much press in the U.S., but it is an example of the thing I fear most from a Parliamentary system. I feel very secure from things like that, protected by the 2/3 majority in the Senate required to ratify such treaties.
Steven - Very strange how few on either side make this obvious point, although it's the democrats who focus more on this unelected body with absolute power, hence the extreme reaction at the Kavanaugh hearings. They created a national same sex marriage law out of whole cloth which far exceeded any conceivable authority of the judicial branch. Antonin Scalia was apoplectic in his reaction noting that this ruling was unconstitutional and in fact illegal. No matter as they answer to no one. In theory this is a good thing - in actual practice it's incredibly dangerous and a very real threat to the very concept of self-governance.
Another obvious point that no one ever seems to make is that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the final word on the Constitutionality of any law passed by Congress, let alone the States. The Supreme Court essentially granted itself this power in Marbury v. Madison, probably the most egregious and audacious creation of law out of whole cloth in the history of the planet, particularly since the case itself was not a Constitutional question.
Hello Matthew
Thanks for your reply.
Can we postpone this chat?
I'm so pressed for time on this business trip that I can't adequately (nevermind convincingly) respond. Maybe eventually this site will adopt a bulletin board where discussions of this kind can go on indefinitely.
At any rate, just quickly:
1.) I don't know anything about The Treaty of Aachen in particular, so can't comment on it.
2.) Regarding your earlier comment about presidential systems comparing pretty well to parliamentary systems protecting the rights of minorities (or what we might just call civil liberties)...that would require an in-depth discussion, and certainly I would concede that no political system is blameless historically. For now, I'd just say this.
As a starting point, let's look at how the various systems of government compare nowadays in protecting civil liberties (including minority rights).
In 2018, the Cato Institute teamed up with the Canadian think-tank The Fraser Institute and the German think-tank Liberales Institut to undertake "a global measurement of personal, civil and economic freedom". The report they publish is called "The Human Freedom Index 2018", and you can read it here (https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2018-revised.pdf).
As far as I can tell, the "Human Freedom Index" (HFI) is the most reliable guide of its kind, and its findings would speak directly to concerns about civil liberties and minority rights. So what does it tell us?
The HFI examined and ranked 162 countries for personal, civil and economic freedom.
Of the top 25 countries (actually, 26 since the #25 spot is tied), a full 20 I think qualify as having parliamentary systems (either within a republic or a constitutional monarchy).
The parliamentary countries include New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, Estonia, Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, Malta, Czech Republic, Latvia, Singapore, and Spain.
Four of the countries on the list have hybridized systems (which we might call "semi-presidential republic" systems). They include Taiwan, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania.
Only one - the United States, coming in at #17 - has a presidential system.
(Hong Kong, coming in at #3, has a political system so bizarre, I'm not sure how to classify it, nor is any else).
The point is that statistically, this distribution is not what we should expect to find if presidential systems do about as well as parliamentary systems in protecting civil liberties and minority rights. In fact, parliamentary systems vastly outperformed presidential systems on this index, as on other similar indices.
Is that a definitive argument? No. There are lots of other factors to considered and controlled for. Jam a million savages or Islamic fundamentalists into the most finely-tuned parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and it'll probably go down the toilet within months, if not weeks or even days. It would be foolish to underestimate the influence of an array of variables which don't fall strictly into "process".
And yet, at the same time, as you move through this list, a clear pattern does emerge indicating that when it comes to the protection of civil liberties, parliamentary systems perform much better than other systems, even where those non-process factors seem to be roughly equal.
Gotta run to another soundcheck. Hope we can continue this later, perhaps on a forum more conducive to long term, more in-depth, discussions.
Also, if any Mark Stey Club members are in the Chicago area, I'm performing with my dad tonight at The City Winery. Come and introduce yourself so we can hang!
Matthew: I found a moment to respond.
Above you describe Marbury vs. Madison as "probably the most egregious and audacious creation of law out of whole cloth in the history of the planet".
This is a sensible enough view. It's one I held myself for many years. But now I would use a different word to describe Marbury's establishment of judicial review. It's a word I am inviting you to seriously consider, too.
That word is "inevitable".
Here is another heresy which no one wants to hear - no liberals, no conservatives, no one: Bills of Rights *guarantee* - always and with no exceptions - judicial review, which in the end is always synonymous with judicial activism, judicial supremacy, judicial oligarchy and judicial tyranny). In the name of protecting rights, they create a net erosion of rights. In the name of democracy, they erode democracy.
What is the evidence that Bills of Rights make judicial review inevitable? Only every nation with a Bill of Rights now having judicial review. There are no exceptions. And there are no exceptions, because Bills of Rights make judicial review just as certain as the absence of a Bill of Rights makes judicial review inconceivable and impossible.
Why this should be so is actually so easy to understand, it embarrasses me to type it out. But here goes anyway.
Think of what must, by force of both logic and law, happen when any nation enacts a Bill of Rights as part of their constitution: Rulers and ruled alike view the new Bill of Rights as possessing an authority superior to any statute. (That IS the whole point of a Bill of Rights, after all).
As a result, when a legislature afterward passes a mere statute which some citizen or faction believes conflicts with the new Bill of Rights, they launch a legal challenge.
And because courts are where legal challenges are adjudicated, the case winds up before a judge, or panel of judges, who then must decide whether that statute conflicts with that Bill of Rights. And...that is judicial review. What it entails, of course – positively requires - is that a judge interpret the meaning of the words in the statute and the Bill of Rights, and find the statute either constitutional or unconstitutional.
In other words, *by its very existence*, a Bill of Rights transforms the function of judges: Whereas they once solely judged how (necessarily broad) statutes applied to very specific circumstances, they are now required by force of logic to also make judgments on whether a statute conflicts with a Bill of Rights...which means in turn, they acquire the power to declare null and void any statute or section thereof.
Conversely, where there is no Bill of Rights, there is nothing for a statute to conflict with, and therefore, judicial review is inconceivable and impossible – just as it was in Canada until 1982 when they (idiotically) passed their Charter of Rights and Human Freedoms (which, as is always the case, created judicial review for the first time in Canada), and just as it still is in Australia, which has no Bill of Rights, and therefore, no judicial review.
There is a lot more to say on this, but I just wanted to post this for now.
Wayne: I just read your comment above - the one ending with the words "the administrative state runs the show regardless of election outcomes. So we are effectively ruled by a bureaucratic Leviathan than has no master. Making matters worse is that nobody even realizes what has happened."
Your whole comment is a bullseye. Yes. No one realize it has happened. No one believes you if you articulate it. No one sees it or believes it *even though it could not be more obvious* and you show it to them.
One of the great paradoxes of American democracy is that it began with the rejection of a monarch on grounds monarchs had no democratic legitimacy; but its attempted solution has culminated in rule by not one, but thousands upon thousands of little power-mad monarchs sitting behind desks in Washington DC, none of whom have any democratic legitimacy either, and who in aggregate are far more lethal to American democracy than any constitutional monarch out there would be.
Lest anyone take me the wrong way, all my comments on this thread come from this feeling:
There is a deeper, truer Americanism behind contemporary Americanism; a deeper, truer conservatism behind contemporary conservatism; a deeper, truer truth behind many of the truths we believe. Those deeper elements, considerations, and truths sound like heresies because we are unfamiliar with them, or because they conflict with an image of the truth we've grown attached to and mistaken for the ultimate truth. Sometimes, they even sound treasonous.
But recognition of those deeper truths, to me, is the real key to saving the original idea of America, and its continued existence.
Just my two cents.
Tal,
Thanks again for the reply. My apologies for my own tardy reply, but the weekend was full of activities and Sunday had me traveling to New Jersey for a job interview, which occurred yesterday.
At any rate, I agree that we could go on and on about this important subject. Therefore, just a few comments.
I'll take time out to read that Cato institute study in full, but having a quick look at the HFI rankings one thing jumps right out. That is that the vast majority of top ranked countries are "Western." Of the top 25 only 3, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong are clearly non-Western. One could argue that the Baltic states (all three listed) are non-Western, but for sake of argument I'm lumping them in with the Western nations based on recent history. Of the three remaining non-Western countries two, Singapore and Hong Kong have a history of British rule, which is a boon to any nation. Therefore, as you allude to, one could chalk up the performance of these countries to fealty to Western Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment values.
With respect to Marbury v. Madison, I believe you are right with respect to the inevitability of judicial review, particularly when the organizing document of a nation is silent as to the issue. Article V of the U.S. Constitution does provide a mechanism for overriding judicial review via amendment, but it is quite laborious. As I said, built for stability. ;-) But, inevitability does not make the institution any less maddening, particularly when it is practiced in such a seemingly flippant manner.
That's all for me on this string. Hopefully, we'll someday get a chance to continue the conversation in person.
Regards,
Matt
Mark replies:
I wouldn't call Singapore or Hong Kong "non-Western" at all, Matthew. The latter's highest court includes judges (in wigs) from the UK, Canada and Australia. And as for Singapore, as Lee Kuan Yew said on telly some years ago, with an admittedly somewhat inscrutable smile, "civis britannicus sum."
I just wanted to add that this has proven to be an unexpectedly interesting discussion. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who questions the supposed superiority in practical terms of the American republican system of government over a typical parliamentary government.
In concept, the American republican government reads like a perfected constraint on government power. But in terms of practical application, I think it's fair to say it takes about 250 years before in degenerates into rule by an unelected administrative state that has no master. It's far worse than a king because at least a king will eventually die.
Just got a chance to re-read your original comment. A few comments:
1.) Belgium had problems not because it has a parliamentary system, but because it has the insane proportional representation electoral system. PR is the electoral equivalent of a barrel of monkey wrenches jammed into a Porsche engine.
Traditional parliamentary systems (which by definition feature "first-past-the-post" electoral systems) usually wind up with majority governments. When they don't, they tend to have fully-empowered governments which won a plurality. There are cases of course where coalition governments come into being, but they are quite rare. They are much more likely under the insane monkey-wrench PR system.
2.) Your claim that a majority government would "disregard the rights of the remaining 40% to 45% of Americans" is not borne out by the real-world record of traditional parliamentary systems.
One reason for that is that traditional parliamentary systems, because of their more transparent nature, tend to mitigate against ideological ghettoization - which is to say (commenting on your concern above) that it's doubtful a popular American left wing party would be quite as insane and demonic as the Democrats are right now under America's present system. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so.
After all, in a parliamentary system, when you form a government and fully run the show, you have nowhere to hide. If you pass a law, everyone knows who to blame when it succeeds or fails. So if you pass a raft of cockamamie laws which harm people, you get thrown out of office. You can't blame it another party; there can be no veneer of plausibility on any attempt to pass the buck. Not even socialists like going bankrupt.
So, in BC, when the left-wing NDP party screwed things up in the 90's, they were thrown from power by the very people who'd voted for them: even NDP voters could no longer deny their own party wasn't fit to govern. Consequently, the pro-business BC Liberal Party (a different beast than Justin Trudeau's federal Liberal Party) then ran BC for the next two decades.
So, I hear your fear that under a parliamentary system, the insane demons currently steering the Democrat party would crush conservatives and discriminate against them. Certainly those sorts of things are always *possible*.
I'm only pointing out that in a parliamentary system, that's less likely than you think, because again, due to the greater transparency, they wouldn't be able to obscure their insidious, lethal incompetence the way Democrats can and do in the US, and as a result, there probably wouldn't be anywhere near as many leftist ideologues to begin with.
3.) There is another available check on possible tyranny in a parliamentary system, and that is to do what Canada did when they moved away from British rule: they rejected Britain's highly-centralized model, and baked into their constitutional cake a stark jurisdictional division (albeit only in certain, important areas) between their federal and provincials governments. Once established in custom and law (and with no judicial review to worry about due to the absence of a Bill of Rights), this stark jurisdictional division has endured.
So, just as one example, Canada has but one criminal code which applies to every citizen in every province; but each province has exclusive control over education. British Columbia, for example, chooses to fund up to 50% of the cost of private religious schools. If it wanted, it could drop that to 0% or increase it to 100%. The Canadian federal government could have nothing to say about any such move. Stark jurisdictional divisions between federal and provincial mitigate against federal encroachment.
There is another result of Canada's de-centralized parliamentarism, and that is that provincial political parties have no meaningful connection to federal provincial parties, even where the parties share the same name. They are independent and attached to the province (quite often at the expense of attachment to the federal party) in a way unseen in the US. Last year, for example, Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley railed against federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh without a second thought.
I realize my comments might sound anti-American. They are in fact just the opposite: the world is better off with a strong America, and I want it to remain strong, and not collapse under the weight of ideological ghettoization and hostility, abiding government gridlock. rogue and unaccountable bureaucracies, tyrannical "special prosecutors", radical demographic changes due to uncontrolled immigration, etc.
So I am trying to think of ways to right a listing, shuddering ship with its rivets popping out; and as I mentioned before, I think a compelling conservative case can be made for some specific changes to America's governing system - not least, so as to eradicate once and for all the scourge of "judicial activism" (read: judicial tyranny).
To those who automatically recoil at such suggestions, I would only submit that in the end, America is not any particular amendment or procedure or series of words on a piece of paper. We just mistakenly think it is, too often.
What America actually is, or is supposed to be, is a people united by their allegiance to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and my point is that *whatever best keeps that going, I am for*, even if that means contemplating ideas and adjustments which sound heretical at first.
Certainly, contemplating heretical ideas and adjustments is what America's founders did in the first place. Maybe now, with the benefit of 200 plus years of national experience, it's time to do so again.
Just one man's two cents.
Boehner did not take you up on your idea, Mark, because he knew that the media outrage would burn hotter than a thousand suns. Nancy Pelosi did borrow your idea because she knew the media would wave palm leaves and shout Hosanna as she delivered the rejection letter on her ass.
I wrote this before seeing Marks comment here is my independent comment from my vantage point:
Latest news from Pres. Trump he decided backtrack on his earliest decision to hold the state of the union address as would normally be scheduled beginning of February and decided not to hold it as long as the partial shutdown is in effect. My interpretation is that he caved under tremendous pressure from the Republicans that read the latest polls which stated that the public considers the partial shutdown as a more serious problem than the lack of security on the southern border. This is another example why Democracy is good for the birds. USA is not democracy it is Mediacracy i.e. a country that is ruled by the MSM Public media including all of its means TV, Radio, social media, and what have you. The public media is 90% or more controlled by the left that decided that they want to bring down the democratically elected President. It is unlikely that they will bring down the president i.e. impeach him but for sure they are bringing down the country. The method is proven and simple it is what Goebbels called the Big Lie and what it entails use all means of publication to publicize a Brazen Lie maintain it without stop over and over also demonize anyone that opposes it and do it for a while and the public will accept it as a truth and nothing but the truth. It has been used by the Nazis, communist, fascist and Islamist in support of the anti-Israeli terrorist. There was a saying that by the time that the truth puts on his slippers the lie has reached half of the globe. That was the time when the news broadcasted by telegraph With the current technology the lie can circle the globe 10 times before the truth opens his eyes In this case MSM highlight the difficulty of the public service employees that did not get the paycheck by selecting one or more employees that have a true problem and painting Pres. Trump as cruel heartless person, while they ignore completely the tragedy of the families of 60 or more US citizens that die every day of drug overdose by drugs that are smuggled to the USA across the southern border.
As with some of your other comments here, AB, you make many valid points. But one invalid point you make weakens your valid ones. If this were truly not a democracy, but a mediacracy, Trump would never have been elected. Neither would a Republican House and Senate have been elected, not to mention Republican Governors and state reps. If the MSM were as powerful as you say (and they are, almost), none of that would have happened. The script was already written and loaded on the teleprompter. Trump flipped the script, flipped over the table, flipped the bird--and the Left just flipped. Some of what's happening is expected blowback (the Dems were likely to take back the House), some is Deep State machinations (the Mueller probe, and DoJ/FBI scandals), and some is, as you note, the MSM BIG LIE. But we're still here, for now, and, as you can read here every day, madder 'n' wet hens.
Josh, If you would have read carefully you would notice that I allocated 90% to the MSM it's still leaves 10% for the rest. I believe as time goes by the non-MSM portion will shrink. I would not bet that Mark Steyn club will be in operation five years from now and not because some medical problem with Mark. The MSM and their financiers tasted blood and they want more of it as I understand Tucker Carlson is now in their gunsight. As to Trump victory it is not that he won it was Hillary that lost. If Trump would have faced a semi-normal opponent, he would not have won. Actually, the MSM assisted Trump by free advertisement and by trapping Hillary and her advisors in false overconfidence that she has it in the bag. They had already after election issues showing her picture and calling her Mme. President. The house, Senate, and state election campaign were fairly normal. What is not normal is the concentrated vitriol that they are spewing on Pres. Trump from the moment that the election result showed that he won. Hoping that there would be a legal trick to annul and overturn the results. Then claiming first that he is illegitimate because he was assisted by Russia this is the first time in US history that the president is being considered as illegitimate president. Then accusing Trump that he is an agent of Russia that is also first instance that the president is called traitor. Then incessantly twisting and turning what he says so that it means the opposite. Attacking his family, his wife, even his youngest son is a fair target. Using vulgar language that they never have used against any candidate for public office not to mention a sitting president. Clearly rooting not only for his opponents but for the enemies of USA and an encouraging everyone that they can to undermine what president from is striving to achieve for the benefit of United States
The last time I watched a State of the Union speech from start to finish Reagan delivered it.
But if Trump mailed a speech to Congress to fulfill the Constitutional requirement and then held a rockin' and roarin' State of the Union rally somewhere far away from the swamp... well that would be must-see TV.
Absolutely perfect.
Great column - you've been on fire lately.
I am so glad that you prefer the non house trained Trump.
It has gotten so tiresome reading the articles even when praising Trump have to add "if only he didn't use twitter,wasn't so vulgar." etc
I am a huge supporter of Pres. Trump, and I always say to those people who complain about Trump "not being nice, should stay off Twitter," I reply, "you're right! However, at this point, being nice and trying to work things out civilly with the left is not longer an option." Trump is a fighter, and we need that at this point. Call me uncivilized, but I like him best when he is at his most brawl-y!
Absolutely!
I like Mark best when he is brawl-y too!
The State of the Union, like the Oscars, is musn't-see TV, as far as I'm concerned. I would side with Trump over Pelosi in any competition you care to name, including swimsuit. But she can have her petty triumph here. Big whoop.