Slavery and Congressional Gridlock

There is a direct link between slavery and congressional gridlock. Looking back at the arc of American history, its original sin has shaped its curve. Embedded in the constitution and eventually splitting the country apart in a bloody war, slavery gave way to institutionalized and social and cultural racism. And racism became more exclusive to one party.

Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Voting Rights initiatives moved conservatives out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party. Before this, as noted in the Economist article, conservatives and liberals has existed in both parties and had allowed members to find common ground more easily, reducing gridlock. This partisanship has been a major factor in increasing polarization and gridlock in Congress.

Race is still a great dividing factor in America and talking about race is difficult, especially for white people, who can become defensive very quickly when discussing white privilege or institutional racism. So how can we heal this divide, and therefore remove a host of divisive social issues from party politics?

Without certain social divisions people could once again move among parties to find common ground on individual policy issues. Support Black Lives Matter and reducing the corporate tax rate? Vote for Republicans. Want to end affirmative action but support a single-payer option for health care? Vote for Democrats. If this were the case so many regular problems tied to the actual smooth running of the nation, which is the chief victim of polarized gridlock, could and would be addressed.

The salient fact in engaging in this sort of thought experiment is to note how many divisive issues surround race and America’s attempts to reconcile with its (more) racist past. Affirmative action, our view of police and policing, welfare and tax redistribution, the war on drugs. Race has gotten in the way of making policy decisions solely on the facts, and on Utilitarian principles of governing for the greatest good for the greatest number. The practice of dividing people on a granular level, especially with the rise of big data and analysis, has the effect of dividing people even further into a Republican/Conservative camp and a Democratic/Liberal camp where policy and social and cultural views are all linked, where they do not necessarily need to be. It is a dangerous path that risks dividing people from one another where even if they share some similar, broad principles, they are utterly separated.

New York State and democracy

To any close observer of the political process in Albany it is apparent that New York gets stuff done. Under the leadership of Andrew Cuomo legislation is passed, deals get done, problems are addressed, and the state runs smoothly. The other side of this is that New York State is run in an undemocratic fashion and for the exclusive benefit of elected officials and their benefactors. Personal vendettas and political payoffs drive policy and many concerned voices are stifled and silenced. The passage of the budget this year is a prime example. Three men conducted all the negotiations and there was no time for the legislation to be made public before the votes. Anti-corruption measures were not passed, despite the state legislature’s recent and frequent transgressions. In the larger sense of American political life it would seem that the citizens have an unfortunate choice: either accept gridlock and divisive politics, or submit to dictatorial and corrupt public governance. What are voters supposed to do?

Political Crisis

Fracturing political parties, loss of faith in the efficacy of government, gridlock. The Weimar Republic failed for many reasons unique to its place in the history of Germany, but many of its problems reflect on the current situation in the United States. The breaking point for the Weimar government came several years before the appointment of Hitler to the office of Chancellor when Chancellors, in order to break the gridlock in the Reichstag began ruling by fiat. The country came under the rule of dictators before Hitler. Gridlock is the destroyer of democracy, it is the fatal flaw in democratic government. Western Europe in the 1920’s and 30’s provides at least 3 clear examples of the danger to democratic governments caused by gridlock. Spain in the 1930’s, France in the 20’s and 30’s and, of course, Germany.

The United States has been in a prolonged political crisis since at least the Presidential election of 2000. The problems have accelerated since 2006. The fundamental problems of a changing economy, which has seen the destruction of high-paying, stable jobs that did not require substantial education, has driven much political dissatisfaction in this country. The extensive gerrymandering leading to a more politically extreme House of Representatives has not helped, nor the proliferation of lobbying to aid increasingly expensive and prolonged political campaigns. Additionally, the democratization of news media fostered by the Internet which has allowed people to listen to politically affirming news and commentary to the exclusion of generally agreed upon facts and opinions has widened the gulf between people of differing political persuasions.

The true problem in the country is the gulf between what many conservatives and liberals believe. It seems that now, more than any time in recent memory, that one side completely rejects the view of the other. The problem with this is that in addition to politically polarizing legislation facing intractable resistance, more mundane affairs and non-partisan issues become casualties of gridlock. A host of problems that are facing the United States right now and in the near future are being swept under the rug. There has been no comprehensive strategy to deal with cybersecurity for American corporations which face enormous long term problems from the theft of their intellectual property, which makes them vulnerable to foreign competition and represents a theft of billions of dollars of research and development. There is no comprehensive strategy for updating American infrastructure and coming to terms with our many legacy institutions. Medicare and social security are economically unsound and will eventually fail or suck up too much of the national budget and, finally, there is no plan to deal with $19 trillion in debt. The absurdities of the rise of Donald Trump are the least of the problems facing the nation, and in the long view, it is not the Donald Trumps, but the mundanities of proper governance that are a threat to the Republic.

Populism and the Slow Rate of Political Change

Beginning in the 1870’s there was general discontent among farmers that the economic policies of the United States government was stacked against them. They protested and lobbied for years, and even had an influential champion in William Jennings Bryan. Reforms were passed slowly in state legislatures and in the federal government but many of their problems were ignored, swept aside by the corrupted politicians of the Gilded Age who were enthralled by wealthy industrialists. For 60 years the populist and socialist movements were stymied though they were brought to public consciousness by the progressives and muckrakers. The dam didn’t burst until the upheaval of the Great Depression. Under dire circumstances that directly threatened the stability and long term viability of the United States government. Even with the massive reforms and regulations put in place by the federal government under Roosevelt when he took office with a liberal majority in Congress, there began to be aggressive pushback by conservatives. It is notable that Roosevelt did not pass any significant domestic legislation after 1937. Change in favor of people as opposed to entrenched businesses comes slowly in the United States.

The current populist cord struck by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is profoundly ironic. Bernie Sanders proposes socialist positions which are well established in Europe, but they have not broken the power of enormous conglomerates there. If anything, the governments of Europe are more closely aligned to large corporations than in the United States. The true irony of his positions really have to do with how little he could actually accomplish as president of the United States to realize his policy positions. A Sanders presidency would be a prescription for certain gridlock, maybe worse than some of the other candidates would see. The irony for Sanders is the same irony that has pervaded the Obama presidency. His two major pieces of domestic legislation, somewhat like Roosevelt’s, were passed early in his first term and he has been blocked at every turn since then. While promising the prospect of change and unity, Obama’s presidency has brought gridlock and division (much of it not directly his fault). Sanders supporters desperately want significant social and economic change, but electing him President would guarantee that there would be none.

Donald Trump proposes wildly unrealistic policy positions and changes them frequently. His firmest base of supporters are those who believe that they have been ignored and lied to by the Republican Party. That they should believe a candidate who promises things that are even more improbable than Conservative republicans have promised is indeed a terrible irony. The supporters of the two populists should know that by supporting those two candidates they are deluding themselves into thinking that they will bring the changes they wish to see.

Common Core and Inequality

Incentives matter. And so do disincentives. Modern economics has displayed this again and again as people debate everything from social issues to race relations. Unintended consequences have ruined many a brilliant plan to benefit individuals and society as a whole. In the United States, the Obama administration has now implemented legislation that has had negative unintended consequences twice. The first is the well-intentioned Affordable Care Act, designed to ameliorate the shameful absence of health coverage for millions of Americans. While this is a sprawling, confusing law the provision I want to focus on is the one setting a full-time work week at 30 hours. The drafters of this legislation outsmarted themselves on this one. I’m sure that they figured, “We will make it so that companies can’t deny people coverage by giving them 39 hours a week and saying that they are part-time workers.” Unfortunately what occurred was that thousands of businesses merely reduced the number of hours people were working to 29 hours. This certainly created additional hardship in many low-income workers lives by forcing them to get another job and then juggling their schedules and lives, or, live with a reduced paycheck.

One of the pillars of Common Core, which has the noble purpose of combatting job loss due to globalization, is tying teacher evaluations to assessments. One immediate effect this will have is to disincentivize teachers from teaching in poor-performing and poorer districts. Teachers have little control of the conditions of the community which make schools into “dropout factories.” No matter how effective Common Core is at reforming education in schools, at least initially, there will not be immediate improvements. So, why would a teacher go through the effort of working at a school where they will be punished by the conditions prevailing in their districts. It will push more teachers to apply in better districts, depriving already poor-performing districts of the best teachers. The overall effect of this will be to exacerbate inequality as poor and minority-filled districts, which already struggle in assessment and graduation rates, will fall farther behind wealthy districts. The students will, presumably, get a worse education and will be less-prepared for gaining high-quality employment. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.