Time for Institutional Reform? Well, Only When Democrats Are Losing

Leave it to the bright lights of the political science profession to call for major structural reforms on the heels of the debt deal. It reminds me of all the useless handwringing over the filibuster once Obama-the-Socialist was elected. Progressives lost. And the losers are screaming foul! See Jacob Hacker and Oona Hathaway, at New York Times, "Our Unbalanced Democracy" (via Memeorandum):

OUR nation isn’t facing just a debt crisis; it’s facing a democracy crisis. For weeks, the federal government has been hurtling toward two unsavory options: a crippling default brought on by Congressional gridlock, or — as key Democrats have advocated — a unilateral increase in the debt ceiling by an unchecked president. Even if the last-minute deal announced on Sunday night holds together, it’s become clear that the balance at the heart of the Constitution is under threat.

The debate has threatened to play out as a destructive but all too familiar two-step, revealing how dysfunctional the relationship between Congress and the president has become.

The two-step begins with a Congress that is hamstrung and incapable of effective action. The president then decides he has little alternative but to strike out on his own, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Congress, unable or unwilling to defend its role, resorts instead to carping at “his” program, “his” war or “his” economy — while denying any responsibility for the mess it helped create. The president, on the defensive, digs in further.

This is, to say it plainly, pure bull. The system's working just the way it's supposed to. The electorate voted for a GOP House majority in 2010. And the Republicans stuck to their guns, to the shock of the old establishment, both Democrats and Republicans alike, who have historically, in previous rounds of debt "negotiations," faked spending restraint while hiking taxes. We have a presidential system and the separation of power. Each office is elected individually, with elections staggered every two years between the House (two-year terms, the entire membership up for reelection every two years), the Senate (six year terms of office for political insulation, with one-third of senators elected every two years), and the president (four year terms of office, term limited since 1951 to prevent cults of personality). Thank the Framers of the Constitution. They built a system that effectively prevents tyranny of the majority. If the voters are unhappy, they get to pick the government they want in 2012. That's how it works. No one's taking hostages. The system's not dysfunctional. If you don't like the filibuster, elect 60 senators from your own party to the majority in the Senate. That solves the problem. If you don't like Republican backbone in the House, take back the chamber in 2010. That's how it works. Amazing how progressives whine about how the sky is falling when folks say we ought to live within our means. It's all going to work out, and in the end the average voter will have demonstrated more influence than the upper-crust academics sneering from their ivory towers.

Image Credit: The People's Cube.