From Brookings: How rising polarization will challenge the next president

Regardless who wins - apparently - the political environment will negate the ability of the next president to get much done.

Dysfunction will continue.

- Click here for the article.

While most political observers are focused on the ups and downs of the presidential race, it’s not too early to think about the condition of our politics once it ends. There is no evidence that the campaign will do anything to reduce the partisan polarization that has blocked progress on vital national problems. On the contrary, it seems likely to deepen the crisis of governance that has hobbled the United States for much too long.

There are three reasons to fear the worst. In the first place, the campaign has done little to help voters understand the real choices we face, especially in the economic sphere. The recovery from the Great Recession has been achingly slow, wages have barely budged, many working-age Americans remain outside the labor force, and productivity—the key to higher living standards—has declined for three consecutive quarters. Slamming the door on immigration won’t cure these ills, and neither will protectionism. Policies such as paid family leave will help at the margin but leave the core of the problem untouched. The president-elect will not enter the transition with an economic mandate and will have to create one virtually from scratch.

Second, challenges to the legitimacy of elections and candidacies have disfigured our politics for the past four presidential elections, a trend that may well continue into 2017 and beyond. In the wake of the botched vote count in Florida and the Supreme Court’s controversial Bush v. Gore decision, many Democrats never accepted the legitimacy of George W. Bush’s inauguration. In 2008 and beyond, conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s birthplace convinced many Americans that he was not an American citizens and was therefore ineligible to serve as president. This year’s Republican nominee, a principal proponent of these theories, has repeatedly warned his supporters that the election may be “rigged.” If he loses by a relatively narrow margin, there is a real danger that he may question the outcome and give his supporters additional reasons to reject the winner’s legitimacy.

Third, and most fundamentally, the 2016 campaign has further divided Americans along demographic lines, according to a just-released reportfrom the Pew Research Center. Among whites, men are 10 percentage points more likely to identify as Republicans than they were in 2008; individuals over 50 are 13 points more likely; whites with a high school education or less, 14 points more likely. Because white women haven’t shifted nearly as much, the gender gap among whites has widened significantly.

From the Washington Post: Senate passes bill to avert government shutdown after Flint deal struck

As usual, appropriations bills will not be passed in time for the new fiscal year, instead a continuing resolution will be passed.

For detail: What Is a Continuing Resolution?

Now the House must vote on it.

- Click here for the article.

The Senate cemented an agreement Wednesday to avoid an Oct. 1 government shutdown after House Republicans allowed a vote on federal aid to address the water crisis in Flint, Mich., removing a major obstacle in negotiations.

Senators voted 72-15 to pass a stopgap measure that will keep the government open until Dec. 9, giving appropriators time to pass 2017 spending bills. The measure also provides $1.1 billion in funds to address the Zika virus and $500 million in emergency flood relief.
Both the Zika and flood funding were subject to long and painstaking negotiations between majority Republicans and minority Democrats, but it was funding for Flint that threatened to push matters past the brink.

Democrats made clear earlier this week they would not support the spending bill unless Republicans moved to guarantee Flint aid, while GOP leaders countered the Senate had approved Flint aid earlier this month in a separate water projects bill.

The impasse was broken late Tuesday after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) struck a deal allowing a vote to attach $170 million in Flint relief to the House version of the water bill. That bill is expected to pass late Wednesday; the stopgap spending measure is expected to pass shortly afterward.
Ryan, addressing the Economic Club of Washington Wednesday morning, said the amendment would “help unlock” the spending bill. “We should be able to move this through, I believe, before Friday,” he said.

By Wednesday morning, Senate Democrats were satisfied that, thanks to the House deal, Flint would be addressed once Congress returns after the Nov. 8 election.

“I am convinced that there is going to be help for Flint in the lame duck,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor. “They’ve been waiting for help, they deserve help, and I am very happy it is going to come.”

Wednesday’s Senate votes capped weeks of frustration for Republicans, who complained that Democrats had engaged in bad-faith spending negotiations aimed at keeping vulnerable GOP incumbents in Washington rather than on the campaign trail.

From the Christian Science Monitor: Politics is crippling the US economy, Harvard study says - According to an annual competitiveness survey, dysfunction within federal government is the single biggest barrier to economic progress in the United States.

Dysfunction has a real, tangible cost.

- Click here for the article.

Despite somewhat encouraging news this week that the middle and lower-wage workers appeared to see relief in 2015 as the US median household income finally rose, most Americans are much worse off than they were two decades ago.

This is not the product of the natural dips and bumps that typically punctuate our economy. According to a study released Thursday by Harvard Business School, the biggest threat to US competitiveness is our crippled political system and the “unrealistic and ineffective national discourse on the reality of the challenges facing the U.S. economy,” study authors reported.

“A lot of people think that what’s going in is we had a bad recession and that we’re just recovering,” Michael Porter, a study author and co-chair of Harvard’s Competitiveness Project, which conducts an annual survey of US business leaders, tells CNBC. “What we find is that all the major data points that started moving in the wrong direction started in the late 90s and 2000s.”

These data points plot a picture that doesn’t bode well for small businesses and average American workers, whose pay and job opportunities are declining as they’re competing with workers around the globe.

"We used to have the most skilled workers in world; now we don’t,” Dr. Porter says.

From the Brookings Institute: 2016 in Congress: Five things to watch

The 114th Congress ended strong. Some smart types try to figure out whether this will continue:

- Click here for the article.

They pose five questions:

1. Can Speaker Ryan extend his honeymoon?

2. Will we see separate appropriations bills?

3. What does a “proposition party” look like, exactly?

4. How does Ryan’s vision for the House square with McConnell’s electoral reality in the Senate?

5. Will congressional Republicans hand President Obama one last legislative victory on the TPP?

We will monitor progress over the spring.

From Politico: How McConnell outfoxed Ted Cruz

There have been several articles recently about how Cruz has been contained in the Senate.

- Click here for this one.

Ted Cruz called out Mitch McConnell seven times by name on Monday night. Afterward, the Senate majority leader barely uttered a word about his chief Republican adversary.
Asked about Cruz’s diatribe on the Senate floor, during which the Texas Republican suggested McConnell is a puppet for Democratic leaders and a foe of conservatives, McConnell couldn’t conceal his smile on Tuesday.

“I have tried very hard to stay out of the presidential race, and I think that’s probably a good rule for me,” he said with a chuckle.

McConnell may not like to talk about Cruz, but he and his leadership lieutenants have quietly and methodically worked to isolate the conservative senator and minimize his effect on the critical fall spending debate. The end result, in spite of Cruz’s invective toward Republican leaders, is music to McConnell’s ears: no government shutdown.

“We had to be prepared,” said John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican. “He’s running for national office. He’s got a different endgame than we do. There are things we have to do here. We’ve got to fund the government every year.”

Government Disservice: Overcoming Washington Dysfunction to Improve Congressional Stewardship of the Executive Branch

The Partnership for Public Service analyzes the various ways that government can become dysfunctional and offers solutions for them.

- Click here for the report.

Bullet point items can be found on pages 2 and 3.

From the Huffington Post: The 114th Congress at 100 Days

On the heels of the previou post, there's this assessment of the current Congress. The author argues it has been very kind to wealthy contributors.

- Click here for it.

April 15 marks the 100th day of the 114th--some might call the best Koch money could buy--Congress. The first 100 days of any new Congress is a well-established timeline to evaluate its priorities, efficacy and focus. After sweeping into 2015 with overwhelming midterm election victories, and majorities in the House and Senate, Congressional Republican leadership looked poised to enact policies that best represented the interests of their constituents. But given the time they devoted to advancing policies that benefit their wealthy contributors and dark money donors, perhaps the clearest thing we know about their priorities is that donors and polluters outrank the will of the people.

For more:

- NYT: Why Congress Is Having Trouble Governing.
- Denver Post: After a few stumbles, GOP lawmakers regain footing on budget.

Is Congress dysfunctional?

A few 2305 students are investigating congressional dysfunction and trying to determine whether the 113th Congress was the most dysfunctional yet. Here are some sources.

- From Vox: What is Congressional Dysfunction?
- From Politico: The Least Productive Congress in History?
- CNN: Don't say "dysfunctional Congress."
- The Hill: Worst Congress ever?
- The Fiscal Times: How the 113th Do-Nothing Congress Lived Up to Its Name.
- Pew Research Center: Congress ends least-productive year in recent history.
- NYT: Senate Prepares to Wrap Up Sluggish 2013.
- CQ Roll Call: 2013 Legislative Summary. 

Remember that there is no reason to agree with the premise. A key issue here will be defining just exactly what the word "dysfunction" refers to. What is Congress supposed to do anyway?

Does the U.S. Constitution grant dominance in foreign policy to the executive or legislative branch?

Great checking and balancing going on:

Yesterday's letter from Republican Senators to the Iranian leadership makes this a pertinent question. It allows us a further look at the separated powers. The textbook story is that Congress shares influence over domestic policy with the executive branch, but defers to it when it comes to foreign affairs.

- Click here for the letter.

Its a very brief letter that intends to inform the "Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" of the constitutional basis of both treaty making and terms lengths. The first point they make is that if Congress does not ratify a president's agreement it is a "mere executive agreement." The second is that die to term limits President Obama will only be in office through January 2017 while many of the senators plan to be in office for decades. This weakens the status of whatever agreement should be struck between the president and the Iranian government.

Not surprisingly the White House objected.

For background on the dispute, click here: The Nuclear Talks With Iran, Explained.

Before we go much further, here is the actual language in the Constitution - not the omission of the word "ratify."

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

- Click here for background from the Founder's Constitution.
- Click here for annotations from Findlaw.

But what do the experts say?

These are links to recent commentary form the writers at Lawfare - a site that specializes on national security.

- The Error in the Senators’ Letter to the Leaders of Iran.

The author - Jack Goldsmith - points out a nuance I hate to say I was not aware of, one that comes from the Senate's own website:

The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.

It then mentions a story I try to relate in class when discussing Washington's decision to use his department chairs - what is now known as the "cabinet" - as his chief advisers rather than the Senate:

The Senate of the First Congress set the precedent for how it would handle treaty consideration. When President George Washington visited the Senate Chamber in August 1789 to seek advice and consent on a pending treaty, he became frustrated when the senators referred the treaty to committee for further discussion. Another 130 years would pass before another president of the United States personally delivered a treaty to the Senate. On July 10, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson asked for a quick consent to the Treaty of Versailles.

Goldsmith recommends a a report from the Congressional Research Service for further detail.

- Click here for the report.

And highlights the following:

“It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

So the president ratifies treaties, the Senate advises and consents to them.

More from Lawfare:

- More on the Senate’s Role in the Impending Iran Deal.
- The Iran Letter and the Logan Act

From The American Interest: The Decay of American Political Institutions

Via The Dish, Francis Fukuyama tries to get at the root of dysfunction in the American governing system. This adds to a handful of writing linked to in previous posts that try to get to heart of it - or - argue that we're being a bit too pessimistic.

Fukuyama thinks American governing and political institutions are decaying - this should be applicable to the material in 2305 because we spend a lot of time looking at the gradual development of these institutions over history and the importance of maintaining them. Is the politicized environment we are now in undermining the stability these institutions are supposed to provide?

He makes a handful of observations, each suggests a structural problem is at the root of the curretn dysfunction:

1 - He argues that the judicial and legislative institutions are growing at the expense of the executive, and that the ability of the executive branch to effectively implement the law is being undermined - which undermines the effectiveness of governing institutions.

2 - He also argues that the growth of interest groups and lobbying undermines the efficient operations of government - personal relationships rather than impersonal govern decision making. This means that narrow special favors are more likely to drive policy making than the general welfare.

3 - Ideological polarization has allowed the system of checks and balances to go far beyond what it was originally intended to do - check excessive executive power - and made it unable to do what it is designed to do.

He argues that we are now a nation of "courts and parties" and that ain't good:

The decay in the quality of American government has to do directly with the American penchant for a state of “courts and parties”, which has returned to center stage in the past fifty years. The courts and legislature have increasingly usurped many of the proper functions of the executive, making the operation of the government as a whole both incoherent and inefficient. The steadily increasing judicialization of functions that in other developed democracies are handled by administrative bureaucracies has led to an explosion of costly litigation, slow decision-making and highly inconsistent enforcement of laws. The courts, instead of being constraints on government, have become alternative instruments for the expansion of government. Ironically, out of a fear of empowering “big government”, the United States has ended up with a government that is very large, but that is actually less accountable because it is largely in the hands of unelected courts.

He makes an ironic observation - two actually. The first is that efforts to democratize government - such as the passage of the Pendleton Act in the late 1800's (discussed in the section on campaign finance) have allowed wealthy interests to expand their influence over the political process. The second is that limits on the executive branch not only lead to decreases in opinion of it's performance, but to political movements that use that dissatisfaction to further place limits on the executive branch. This leads to a negative spiral that creates a less and less effective governing apparatus.

Ordinary people feel that their supposedly democratic government no longer reflects their interests but instead caters to those of a variety of shadowy elites. What is peculiar about this phenomenon is that this crisis in representativeness has occurred in large part because of reforms designed to make the system more democratic. Indeed, both phenomena—the judicialization of administration and the spread of interest-group influence—tend to undermine trust in government, which tends to perpetuate and feed on itself. Distrust of executive agencies leads demands for more legal checks on administration, which further reduces the quality and effectiveness of government by reducing bureaucratic autonomy. It may seem paradoxical, but reduced bureaucratic autonomy is what in turn leads to rigid, rule-bound, un-innovative and incoherent government. Ordinary people may blame bureaucrats for these problems (as if bureaucrats enjoy working under a host of detailed rules, court orders, earmarks and complex, underfunded mandates coming from courts and legislators over which they have no control). But they are mistaken to do so; the problem with American government is less an unaccountable bureaucracy than an overall system that allocates what should properly be administrative powers to courts and political parties.

He makes an intriguing, counter-intuitive argument for a less accountable bureaucracy in order to improve performance, and public attitudes towards government.