Matt Yglesias laments that American political institutions aren’t more like, well, ours:
Matt is specifically addressing the failure to eliminate mortgage-interest tax relief and, in this instance as in many others, he’s right that the US Congress frustrates efforts at rectifying past mistakes. It’s also true that Congress makes new mistakes almost every time it passes a bill. But the notion that a parliamentary system is a cure-all is not, alas, borne out by the British experience. An over-mighty executive that dictates to parliament is not a recipe for good government either.The American legislative system, however, is not a good venue in which to attempt to rip off a band-aid. Nobody wants to propose such a thing, provoke an outcry, and then have it not happen. And the odds of getting 60 votes in the Senate for anything more controversial than a vote in favor of mom and apple pie are pretty thin. Consequently, bad policy can just sit there on the books with everyone afraid to peek their head over the ramparts lest it get shot off.
The American system is designed to disable change and, sometimes, frustrate the popular will; the British system enables change and, often, ignores the popular will. There’s something to be said for both of them, but each comes with considerable drawbacks.
Still, American progressives frustrated by the difficulty of passing sweeping legislation in DC might consider returning to the Republic’s federalist roots. A state-by-state approach is not as sexy as a landmark bill passed amidst much fanfare in Washington, but it might result in better, simpler bills less prone to hostile takeover or the laws of unintended consequences. If the system in Washington is broken beyond repair, then look elsewhere and, in the end, reduce the role and importance of Washington.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in