Balkinization: Tom Friedman still can't connect the dots

Tom Friedman still can't connect the dots

Sandy Levinson

From tomorrow's column by Tom Friedman in the NYTmes:

I’ve always believed that America’s government was a unique political system — one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong. No system can be smart enough to survive this level of incompetence and recklessness by the people charged to run it.....
I always said to myself: Our government is so broken that it can only work in response to a huge crisis. But now we’ve had a huge crisis, and the system still doesn’t seem to work. Our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, have gotten so out of practice of working together that even in the face of this system-threatening meltdown they could not agree on a rescue package, as if they lived on Mars and were just visiting us for the week, with no stake in the outcome.

I don't always agree with Friedman, but I think he is smart and savvy. But note the tension in the two paragraphs. Paragraph one accurately describes the American system as "unique," and it may even have been designed by "geniuses" in order to solve the problems they perceived in 1787 America. For example, James Madison loathed the principle of equal representation in the Senate, but he submitted to it as a necessary political compromise at the time. And, by the way, he didn't really believe that it could be run by "idiots." The best reading of Federalist 10 is that representative government would serve as a filtration system to select out the most public-spirited (in civic-republican language, "virtuous") among us. For a variety of reasons, including the inability to predict the rise of the mass-based political party, that vision didn't survive.

The second paragraph returns to the "broken government" trope that is a feature of this year's campaign. But Friedman locates the "brokenness" in an almost inexplicable inability to "work together." Nowhere is there any suggestion that the Constitution, designed by "geniuses" though it may be, may have played some role. It's not only the multiple checks and balances and ambitions countering ambition; it's also the fact that not a single member of Congress, except those running for the White House, has an incentive to think in terms of the "national interest" (assuming that term makes any real sense), since each and every one is a local official elected by a necessarily parochial local constituency. Thus the impact of angry constituents and their phone calls. Would a more "nationally-minded" House necessarily have passed the bill? We'll obviously never know. But what we do know is that parochialism remains supreme, especially when one of the parties no long has a "leader" it is willing to defer to, as has so dramatically happened with George W. Bush, who is reduced to his legal powers but is otherwise wholly without "authority." It's every man and woman for him/herself in the Republican Party right now, especially as they see the McCain candidacy collapsing. Perhaps some year some very bright and well-paid pundit will realize that one really can't explain the American political system without paying at least a modicum of attention to the Constitution.

Posted 10:55 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Well Sandy, I've always agreed with you about the inherent defects of the Constitution, but I actually have to disagree a bit in the immediate context.

If I was addressing Tom Friedman on the point, I'd just say: "It's the idiots, stupid."

But you aren't stupid, and I can certainly relate to your frustration having so many of my own. Nevertheless, that is our biggest problem: the sheer idiocy, hypocrisy, and deluded confusion of the American Public, especially that part of it which supports the Republican crime syndicate, but equally, everyone who has been complicit in the economic follies of the past 25 years.

The reality is that every bit of what we are going through now is entirely self-inflicted, just like the Civil War or the Great Depression, and there isn't any system that can prevent people from making bad choices when they ignore facts and logic in favor of lies and delusions.

The Bush gang are not merely irresponsible and foolish, they are in fact CRIMINALS, and so is the Republican Party. The Democrats have their faults, but they aren't murderous fascists, and it's long past time to get real about this stuff. I agree with you that we need to ammend the Constituion, but there's another task even more pressing:

We have to prosecute Bush, Cheney, and their entire gang for their crimes, regardless of any pardons that Mt. Bush or his successor might issue. If you can't do that first, then the Constitution isn't even worth amending, it's just one more lie that tyrants use to justify their crimes.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 3:13 AM

it's also the fact that not a single member of Congress, except those running for the White House, has an incentive to think in terms of the "national interest" (assuming that term makes any real sense), since each and every one is a local official elected by a necessarily parochial local constituency

So... let's have one huge PR election, like Israel? Also, I'm not sure how this argument works. Assuming the bailout's in the national interest and that there would be major, pardon the cliche, Main Street spillover if we don't have one, wouldn't it be in the local interest of all these local officials to support the bailout? If it really is in the national interest, then it must be in the interest of a majority of localities. So parochialism isn't to blame here. This is how I see it. First, you have an incredibly ignorant electorate. Second, there was a free rider problem. If the bailout had passed, we'd never have known what would've happened if it hadn't passed. People would be free to think we never needed it in the first place, and the huge price tag would make it unpopular. So if I believe that the votes are there to get it passed, it's in my best interest to vote no and go home and tell my constituents I tried to save them from having to foot the bailout bill. Enough people think like this, and you can't get a majority to support the thing. Eventually, the price of inaction becomes more evident (the bailout bill fails and the market crashes), and now it's in my interest to support it.

# posted by

Asher : 4:02 AM

Spake tray: Assuming the bailout's in the national interest...

But I think this is the fly in the ointment of post bail-fail commentary: Few seem willing to say it was a terrible plan that deserved to fail, in no small part because it was the equivalent of leaving the fox to guard the hen-house. Most of the rhetoric supporting the bailout is arguably good press, "too big to fail" and "put out the fire", but not really apt. And don't forget, while the bailout was being voted down, the Fed pumped $630 billion into the global market.

I think the public outrage about corporate welfare is valid, but in this case I think it misses the point. We'll likely end up spending as much or more on ad hoc rescues, and there's really no knowing which would be most cost effective in the end, to have granted the lump sum or to go the ad hoc route. But the corporate welfare will continue, and the PNAC agenda of gutting social welfare by deploying all national wealth elsewhere will be quite fully achieved before Cheney leaves office. This is especially true if W's handlers cause W to pronounce the crisis a catastrophe sufficient to invoke NPSD51. It does little to comfort me that the only thing standing in the way of such a "legalized" coup is political will of some of the players. I'd be a lot happier if those geniuses of the 18th century had succeeded in creating the checks and balances they intended.

# posted by

Robert Link : 7:56 AM

Refusing to pass this "bailout" nee looting bill is one of the first sensible things this Congress has done. It should do likewise with the bloated military budget and the Iraq misadventure. Bottom line - the money isn't there and isn't going to be there in any future. We've hit every sort of limit - energy, resources, the ability of the environment to sink toxics.

The Powers That Be recognize that; this bill amounted to a grab for whatever could be grabbed while the grabbing was good. Market up or down as a result? So what? The market is being gamed; the market is "owned" by the major players.

These hedge funds are scaled into hundreds of trillions globally; there is nowhere for them to unwind and there will be no future for this country if they are allowed to empty the treasury.
If there is nothing in the treasury, then what? If there is no gas, oil or food, then what?

Our Constitution might have been fit for a time of growth and unbounded frontiers, but it is entirely inappropriate for a time of limits. Friedman - one of the cheerleaders of globalization - doesn't have a clue about the unwinding. Krugman's last few columns suggest he has an inkling of how bad it might get. Think the break of the Former Soviet Union.

Law, economics, culture, technology - all are of a piece with our level of energy (and more generally resource) consumption. This looting bill is a consequence of that, not a solution; it won't work - unless you are one of the few getting the money - simply because it tries to perpetuate a dead model.

# posted by

dryki : 8:48 AM

The solution to excess parochialism certainly isn't moving to complete nationalization, a la Israel. My favorite formal system is Germany's, which elects half the Bundestag in geography-based single member districts and the other half in national elections with party-lists, and the overall allocation of seats is adjusted to account for glitches in the "geographical vote," as where a party with only 50% of the vote manages to get 60% of the seats because of odd distributions. Germany very nicely combines the virtues of localism and those of nationalism. Ditto the much smaller country of New Zealand.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 9:20 AM

Like Prof. Levinson, I support the mixed member proportional model that works very well in Germany and New Zealand. I also support the single transferable vote model that works very well in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Australian Senate.

Prof. Levinson's essential point, that the causes of dysfunctional government are institutional and not the result of anyone being an "idiot", survives any policy disagreement among us about the existing bailout proposal. Like Robert Link and dryki, I oppose it and feel compelled to comment on the extent to which media coverage has been colored by the unstated assumption that rank and file citizens are the idiots here. But whoever is right about that, both the polarization of legislative bodies and the disconnect between citizens and their representatives reflected in Friedman's complaints, are largely the result of our winner-take-all election rules.

Incidentally, the single transferable vote is on the ballot on November 4 for city elections in Cincinnati.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 1:26 PM

sandy levinson said...

The solution to excess parochialism certainly isn't moving to complete nationalization, a la Israel. My favorite formal system is Germany's, which elects half the Bundestag in geography-based single member districts and the other half in national elections with party-lists, and the overall allocation of seats is adjusted to account for glitches in the "geographical vote," as where a party with only 50% of the vote manages to get 60% of the seats because of odd distributions. Germany very nicely combines the virtues of localism and those of nationalism. Ditto the much smaller country of New Zealand.

Is there any evidence that placing the party in between the voter and the candidate in Germany creates any greater "national interest" in the form of voting by the Bundestag against the popular will than it has in our Congress?

I would note that the German Bundestag has made almost no effort to enact necessary reforms to the labor laws and the welfare state that is creating high unemployment and crippling costs on government despite campaigns by the political leadership to do so.

I would suggest that no matter what form of democracy you choose, people will vote their personal pocketbooks and their representatives will listen. What you are effectvely seeking is the "dictatorship" which you condemn.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:28 PM

Well I'd like to make a couple of things clear:

1) I'm not using the term idiot to refer to merely to "rank and file voters". Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo are all highly intelligent, experienced individuals who are nevertheless obvious moral cretins.

2) If indeed you and Sandy think that this entirely a matter of institutions, you're kidding yourselves inside a chicken and egg paradox. This is about making decisions, and the institutions reflect decision-making just as much as our elections and legislatures do: things are exactly what we have made them by our choices.

I do agree with you that the German / Kiwi approach has real advantages, because it would result in legislatures that more accurately reflect the the views of the public and promote a more genuinely democratic public forum, but that is not a cure for false premises and delusions -- GIGO is a problem no matter how sound the algorithm is.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 4:53 PM

Spake tray: Assuming the bailout's in the national interest...

I take no position on this issue; I'm just saying that if it were, it ought to be in the parochial interest too. If we're all going to hell in a handbasket, then we're all going to hell on a local level as well as a national one.

# posted by

Asher : 7:50 PM

@tray,

Sorry about that; didn't mean to imply you were taking a stand. My complaint was meant to be more generic, that most of the conversations which decry the "failure" to pass the bailout begged the question of the plan's efficacy.

# posted by

Robert Link : 7:55 PM

Charles,

Speaking only for myself and not for Prof. Levinson, I'd like to make a clarification of my own. There are two senses of "broken" (another common term is "dysfunctional") floating around in this thread, as in many discussions of governance. "Broken" in the first sense refers to the idiots and idiotic policy results that we disagree with. "Broken" in the second sense refers, depending on the context, to unresponsiveness to the will of the people and/or political gridlock, inaction, instability, etc. Most people who are obsessed with the second sense the way I am get that way because we think things are broken in the first sense, but the two meanings are different. Since I think about the second sense all the time, I read the extended quote from Friedman in that light.

I believe that proportional representation is the single most important thing we can do to fix what's broken in the second sense. Whether you think that would eventually contribute to fixing what's broken in the first sense depends, I suspect, on whether you believe in democracy.

# posted by

Bob Richard : 11:19 AM

I don't think anyone believes that one can focus entirely on institutions in the absence of, say, political culture, character of leaders, etc. That's just a way of saying that there are no perfect institutional structures and all generate costs as well as benefits. But, obviously, I believe that our Constitution-mandated institutional structures generate considerably more costs than benefits and that they therefore make their own contribution to our present situation. But even if I had a magic wand to change everything I'd like to, I still couldn't warrant that the new Levinson-drafted Constitution wouldn't exhibit its own problems.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 11:30 AM

Bob Richard said: "Whether you think that would eventually contribute to fixing what's broken in the first sense depends, I suspect, on whether you believe in democracy."

This, in turn, depends on whether you believe more in tyranny of the majority or wisdom of the crowds. Me, I like checks and balances, which I suppose makes me less committed to captial-D democracy.

Professor Levinson said: "I still couldn't warrant that the new Levinson-drafted Constitution wouldn't exhibit its own problems."

We know it wouldn't be for lack of trying, Prof. Keep the faith.

# posted by

Robert Link : 3:07 PM

Well Sandy said about what I thought he'd say-- and I agree with him and Bob about the advantages of proportional representation. But this is deep water, and there's a lot more to it than "believing" in democracy. It may seem a quibble, but I'm not even sure how meaningful it is to say one "believes in democracy".

On the one hand, I think we all believe in democratic principles in the most general sense, but on the other, there are some things I'm not willing to go along with no matter how many people vote for it.

I believe in internal combustion engines: they exist, and they have their uses.

They have their problems too.

What I really believe in is reason, and that all society is inherently democratic, while all political systems are inherently tyrannical.

But some are more so than others, here we are, and like I said: this is deep water.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 6:57 PM

"I always said to myself: Our government is so broken that it can only work in response to a huge crisis. But now we’ve had a huge crisis, and the system still doesn’t seem to work. Our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, have gotten so out of practice of working together that even in the face of this system-threatening meltdown they could not agree on a rescue package, as if they lived on Mars and were just visiting us for the week, with no stake in the outcome."

I find this a very curious, and inaccurate contention. The competing parties represented in Congress, whether Federalist v Republicans or Republicans v Democrats have worked together since the inception of the republic, created by the aristocracy, to promote the interests of the aristocracy, financially elite, or whatever label one wishes to use.

From the war profiteering during the revolutionary war, to the promiscuous issuance of railroad grants of the mid-1800s, to the conquest of foreign nations to secure and defend markets for USA business, to the deregulation craze of the last 30 years.

The real divide, I believe, has always been between the elite financial interests and the general population.

Presently, the democrats and republicans are beholden to, and do the bidding of, the same benefactors.

How many millions, for instance, have those who work within financial industries 'contributed to Christopher Dodd and what did he have to say at the hearing of the Bear Sterns bailout. Likewise practically every other member of the Senate Banking Committee, regardless of party?

Dana Milbank tells us in a report some months back. http://twp.com/detail.jsp?key=212676&rc=dana_po&p=1&all=1

# posted by

You Know Me : 9:49 PM

I'm disappointed to see that Friedman's outrageous statements found an approving audience here. The people and the Nobel economist were right on this, for the same reasons.

# posted by

Ningen : 4:35 AM

"For the good of the American economy, Mr. Paulson is correct that credit needs to flow and the distressed assets need to be removed. He is not correct that credit needs to flow from Goldman, Sachs and other Wall Street financial houses. And the distressed assets do not have to be assumed by the taxpayers.

"There are other, far more equitable and justified ways to accomplish both."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/22-4

That's what I meant, and that is why Thomas Friedman, as usual, is full of it.

# posted by

Ningen : 4:39 AM

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var

# posted by

Osman Atarci : 9:13 AM

I don’t need a friend who changes when I change and who nods when I nod; my shadow does that much better.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 12:02 PM