Two Corporate Parties

Here's a depressing read.

The authors argues that the increased amount of money on politics has made both political parties responsive to the same political forces:

Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans. You really have essentially -- except for the progressives on the left of the Democratic Party – you really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country.

The Constitution and Incremental Change

As we preview the weeks ahead in both 2301 and 2302, one of the themes I try to hit is how the Constitution resists efforts to suddenly and radically change public policy. David Brooks analyzes Senator Kennedy's goals in office and how those goals were thwarted by constitutional design:

Kennedy’s life yields several important lessons. One is about the nature of political leadership. We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.

But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism.

He points to an odd tension. As citizens we might want strong, effective leadership, but the interplay between the institutions established in the Constitution prevents this from really happening. Is this good or bad?

The Fall 2009 Semester

I've been taking a break from the blog recently to concentrate on other class related issues but will kick things back up soon. If you're a current student expect to see news items posted here that we will cover in class. I'm up for suggestions also, so please send them along.