Given recent events the subject of the biennial or mid-term elections will be much discussed. Gee, ya think? So, let's add to the noise.
We do not have a parliamentary system. If we did, the health care vote failure would have resulted in a no-confidence vote and we would face another general election soon. In that system, the executive is also the head of the majority party or coalition. The heads of the various executive departments are also members of the legislature. Boy, I hope you know that. It would make it a much longer essay if you don't.
We manage government power differently. We limit government power differently. Oh Geez, now I'm gonna bore myself.
Our government was formed by men who were in rejection of unlimited executive and governmental power. They didn't like kings much so they set up a system that sequestered the executive power. They fiddled around with the weak-executive model of the Articles of Confederation for a bit and decided that just didn't work. They didn't pull a Conny writing flash mob one day. They'd been thinking about it for a bit.
Our system limits executive power on a slower time table with mid term elections whether we like it or not. I think it works pretty good. Thinking most of what government does doesn't work pretty good is something of a cottage industry. That industry will be on full display in the coming months.
Now, wait for it, wait for it. This is where I always say it's really kinda interesting. But it is. We tend to want to change a system when we don't like the result. We're not gonna change the Electoral College or the way we elect Congress or the rules of Scrabble, (Though I do have some thoughts on that.) no matter the amount of hot air expended.
Our time would be better spent in understanding why a thing works the way it does and manipulating that "why" if we think it necessary. Why we don't get that is interesting to me.
Every four years we elect a President. Stop me if you've heard this. He (so far "he") usually has coattails that bring members of his party in larger numbers into the Congress. Those elections usually have fairly large turn outs. People are motivated by a national appeal and pageant. There is no small measure of a cult of personality involved. I dunno, it just is.
Then we have the mid-terms two years later. The voter turnout is about half for these elections. It is the usual, all members of the House and a third of the Senate. There really isn't the national pageant aspect and no personality cult except the sitting executive is usually demonized to some degree. A kind of personality cult in reverse.
Since these national polls involve a very large sample you would think reduction of that sample wouldn't affect the outcome much but that's not what happens. Obviously, people are motivated to act by dissatisfaction more than they are by satisfaction. Talk radio and the Alt-Right movement are built on exploiting those feelings of exclusion and dissatisfaction. The party that's in power is satisfied and often smug. The "outs" are very dissatisfied and can't wait to vote their displeasure. They show up in disproportionate numbers. Congress can end up peopled with members with no real agenda except rejection and dissatisfaction. To oppose is the duty of the opposition. You can oppose very effectively from that position but it's very difficult to govern.
So, what's gonna happen next year? I dunno but look at the dynamic of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. A lot of people across the culture are very dissatisfied with the current executive. Are they right? That answer isn't part of this assignment but you would have to think the midterms will be a bloody affair. I think it's probable the "no confidence" vote will be held then. Since the '90s it's been the grassroots republicans that have made splashy backlashes in the mid-terms. There are a few things that haven't really been discussed. In the '98 mid-terms the republicans lost seats while pursuing either sex or impeachment. It was never clear which. That just doesn't happen. In 2006, G W was left with most of the curtains in the White House and little else. Frankly, had there been a possibility he could serve more than the two remaining years on his 2nd term he would have been impeached without a kiss. That was understandable. In 2016, I guess we have to say the republican presidential candidate was successful but that really depends on what your definition of success is. However, the republicans actually lost seats in both houses of Congress. That just doesn't happen. You have to think the dynamic of dissatisfaction is going to work against the republican members of Congress. Nineteen months is an eternity in politics so, I guess we'll see.
I think republicans are going to make an even harder right in response to their base and against their better judgment. The events in Washington are pushing the country to the left or at least more to the center. I can't imagine discussing taxes is going to help the republicans stem that tide at least not the way they intend to go about it. Right or wrong the rich have been thoroughly demonized. It has been pointed out the rich are even excluded from mention on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The republicans show no signs of proposing anything that mildly acknowledges that demonization.
Those are the dynamics which is all I set out to discuss. I'll leave the predictions to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment