The Mead List: Democracy Edition - Walter Russell Mead's Blog

Posted on February 16th, 2010 The Mead List: Democracy Edition Walter Russell Mead Posted In: American History, Politics

In a recent post I’ve written that American democracy is in more trouble than many of us think. There are no magic solutions to these problems, but there are some things we can do that would reduce the stresses that our system is under during these extraordinary times. So here it is: the Mead List of five political reforms to save American democracy in the next ten years.

1. Reviving Federalism

It’s absolutely vital to the well being of our democracy that we bring as many important decisions as possible as close as possible to the grassroots level. Individuals are virtually powerless in a republic of our size to affect federal policy; they can have a more significant impact at the state and local level. Moreover, the different states of our union — and the different regions, cities and towns within each state — have their own histories and cultures. There is a Vermont way of doing things and there is an Alabama way. Nothing wrong with that — and the people of both states like their own way best. In general, the more stuff we can decide at the state or local level, the better the people involved will like the solutions they come up with.

The growth of federal authority and power is, partly, an inevitable consequence of modernization. The list of things that can only be managed at the federal level is longer than it was in 1789, when there were no airports and communication satellites to regulate and protect and when the United States had many fewer international responsibilities than we do now. Overcoming our national history of racism and providing basic equal rights to all our citizens called on the power of the federal government. No matter what we do we are going to have a more powerful federal government in the 21st century than we did through most of our history.

But there’s another issue. In the now-failing blue social model I’ve been blogging about here and here, increasing the powers of the federal government wasn’t just a necessary evil that you had to accept because certain serious problems could only be handled at that level. A strong, unified national government was the ideal, the goal. States were dinky and corrupt; the federal government was modern, efficient and sleek. Historically Americans accepted federal power wherever they had to; blue model progressives promoted it whenever they could.

That needs to change. America’s best and brightest need to start thinking about how to revive local authority and local governance (see Pietro Nivola’s article from the most recent issue of The American Interest on rebalancing federalism). Maybe this requires a new legal approach to the 10th amendment to the Constitution, the forgotten little amendment that reserves as much power as possible to the states and the people. We’ve revived the second amendment in recent years; why not the tenth? In any case looking for ways to empower states, and within states to empower smaller units of government like cities and towns, has got to be a big part of any serious political reform strategy going forward.

Hawaii_Statehood

2. Congressional Term Limits

The time has clearly come for an amendment to the Constitution limiting the terms of senators and representatives. After Franklin Roosevelt’s record breaking four successful campaigns, we passed an amendment limiting presidents to two terms. This has worked very well so far and an amendment limiting representatives to, say, four terms and senators to two would bring government a bit closer to the people, make it harder for people to use the powers of incumbency to cement their hold on office, and give more people a chance to serve their country at this level. A class of permanent, professional politicians whose roots are in Washington and northern Virginia rather than in the districts and states that elect them is not a healthy thing. A term limit amendment would keep the growth of that class under control.

3. Grow the House

At the same time, we should increase the size of the House of Representatives. The House of Commons in the UK has 640 members and it works well enough as a legislative body. I think an even larger sized House could work well in this country, and giving local voters a greater voice in choosing their representative would strengthen our democracy. In the past, every ten years we increased the size of the House to reflect the new census results — we should return to that practice to prevent House districts to become too large and unwieldy. If we went farther, and increased the membership enough to shrink the size of House districts, we’d connect individual House members more closely to the grassroots of their districts. The House is the part of the government that is supposed to be the closest to the voters; we should do what we can to strengthen those ties.

4. Go Nebraska

The two-chamber state legislature serves no purpose anymore. In the past, state legislatures worked like the US Congress; state senates could be elected by the counties while the lower houses were elected by districts based on population. That’s been illegal since the Warren Court’s one man one vote decision in the 1960′s; since then there has really been no need for two chambers — other than to give politicians and their staffs nice jobs and to make it easier for lobbyists to influence state legislation by making the process needlessly complex. If we abolish the state senate, but increase the size of what is now the lower chamber, state governments will be easier for people to understand and you will have a significantly larger say in electing your state representative. It won’t cost more; abolishing the upper house covers the cost of expanding the remaining one. I would also favor term limits for state representatives in states where they don’t now exist — but this is one of those matters that should be left to each state. In any case, the unicameral legislature works in Nebraska; let’s learn from the Cornhuskers.

5. More Stars In Our Flag

Finally, some of our states are ungovernable because their populations are too large, their regions too distinct and their problems too complex to be run as a single state. What northern California needs bears little relation to what Los Angeles and San Diego need. Impoverished upstate New York needs a smaller and cheaper form of government than the tightly packed cities and suburbs of Long Island and the urban core around New York City. Southeastern Michigan and the rest of the state might both have a brighter future as separate entities. The practical and legal problems involved in breaking up big states are complex; how are the debts and assets divided up? How are the interests of bondholders protected? But figuring out how to make this work is a task that cannot be postponed; ungovernable states will simply dig themselves deeper into nastier holes and there is no way that the rest of us can insulate ourselves from the consequences. Smaller, more governable states will have legislatures that work better, that represent voters more effectively (especially if the new states go for unicameral and large legislative bodies), and that are more responsive to grassroots political forces than to the power of money. Nobody should make a state break up against the will of its people, but developing the framework and policies that can help people in ungovernable states reorganize their affairs will revitalize local governance and politics, replace money power with grassroots empowerment, and help our democratic system work in this challenging new century.

8 Comments »

California has a term-limited legislature. It hasn’t gotten rid of their professional political class at all; if anything, by making the elected positions temporary, it’s just shifted real power to bureaucrats and lobbyists, who aren’t accountable to anybody.

Comment by Michael Brazier – February 16, 2010 @ 9:55 am

I generally like these reforms. Although, I have mixed feelings about the efficacy of term limits and expanding lower houses. Is a representative that more effective with a constituency of 600,000 instead of 800,000? Will Congressmen be able to do more when they spend less time running for reelection but more time figuring out how to do their jobs well?

But that’s besides the point. What I really dislike about the post is the complete disregard of the impossibility of most of these reforms. Under what circumstances will states break up? I can’t imagine any outside of nuclear calamity.

And I really wonder whether another constitutional amendment is possible in my life time (I’m 24). The process of amending the constitution is almost impossible considering that every state starts with a no vote, and states aren’t forced to vote at all. It’s like the problems with cloture on steroids. This process is incapable for bringing about term limits. Unicameral legislatures would be our best bet to having the government attempt to address the problems we face instead of kicking the can down the curb, but that constitutional amendment will never ever pass.

At least growing the house is possible. But what hope do you get from the process to give Washington DC (more populous than ? states) a representative while also giving Utah a representative (to maintain the Democrat-Republican balance)?

Your most realistic proposal is the revival of federalism. But when states are relying on the federal government to just pay for the services the states have promised but can’t currently provide combined with most states budget issues before the recession, what hope is there for something as basic as federalism?

I am only so harsh because in the short time of I have read your blog, I have come to expect more from you. You do a much better job of identifying the specific problems and trends than most of the blogosphere. Please use those skills to identify solutions which are at least possible.

When the biggest crisis since the Depression/WWII came (the Cuban Missile Crisis is a possibly bigger crisis than the Recession as well), our country became more partisan divisive and useless, not less. So what hope is there for your social contract redefining reforms?

Comment by J. B. – February 16, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

I agree that most of the reforms described here would have been impossible for the past few decades and may in fact continue to be impossible for some time… However, I think that Mead returns time and again to the theme that the United States will be fundamentally different in the next few decades than it was in the last 100 years. Technological and cultural changes make this a virtual certainty.
Universal suffrage might very well have looked impossible in the first few years of the twentieth century, but cultural changes which were already stirring made it’s eventual passage a virtual certainty. (Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight)

Comment by Dave – February 16, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

Okay, you’ve spouted list of pipe dreams, now what is actually possible?

I’ll say instant campaign contribution and expenditure reporting, loan forgiveness for public service, fillibuster reform, National Popular Vote, Instant Runoff Voting,for starters. Hard because of the state by state nature – House districts must follow county lines. Hard because of money interests – public financing of campaigns. And pipe dream – 49% tax rate on income over $1 million dollars. It won’t make the system better, but at least it would fund it.

Comment by Norwegian Shooter – February 16, 2010 @ 10:23 pm

[...] The Mead List: Democracy Edition [...]

Pingback by Rebellion News – February 17, 2010 @ 3:29 am

You write: “America’s best and brightest need to start thinking about how to revive local authority and local governance.”

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, my experience as a resident of Tennessee is that the closer you are to home, the less transparent the politics. State and local governments are black boxes compared to Washington, both as to what is going on and what the real issues are.

More C-Span type coverage would help, particularly as local papers do less and less investigative reporting.

Also, local free-lance investigative blogs would probably attract a lot of attention, at least if someone could figure out a way of remunerating the people who run them. Local gossip sells!

Micro-payments via Google or Pay-pal might work if limited previews were available. I wouldn’t want to pay for a piece I don’t read to the end however.

Comment by Luke Lea – February 17, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

[...] Russell Mead has a thoughtful addition to the accelerating debate on reforming US institutions, even though I think he is wrong on every [...]

Pingback by More on Institutional Reform in the US: Our Greco-Japanese-Californian Future « Asian Security & US Politics Blog – February 18, 2010 @ 12:59 am

It’s great to brainstorm ways to revive (resurrect?) American democracy.

Yet many of Mr. Mead’s proposed reforms are pretty weak tea, ignoring that corruption goes all the way down the system, all the way to the people themselves. Yes, some of Mr. Mead’s ideas are very good, but while we’re amending the Constitution, why not strip corporations’ first amendment rights? Mandate public financing of elections? Ensure the quality of the national discourse? Why not add — any number of possibilities?

Indeed, these are questions that need a broad discussion by a wide variety of experts and, I would add, interested laypeople. But the policy-making apparatus in this country is store-bought, milquetoast and insulated from the realities of our dying democracy. As elites inevitably become. I imagine that trying to get them to produce revolutionary ideas is like trying to jump-start a mule. You just get a freaked-out mule, and a most foul smell in the air.

Meanwhile, regressive, even “peculiar” elements of our society disinform millions, ensuring that any ideas for reform get mauled, the mainstream media dumbs the rest of the population down, leaders infantilize us with a pernicious combination of fear-mongering and pandering, and long-term exposure to advertising destroys our will.

The resultant simple-minded, ignorant, narcissistic, disempowered, irrational and reflexively divided population reacts to the problems at hand with a combination of rage and resignation, and even though the Constitution has been amended many times before, under even less dire circumstances, the people are so befuddled they just watch their country fall apart.

It is shocking and saddening that the only group of citizens left in this country who actually show a glimmer of the individual dignity and responsibility that lay at the heart of the Enlightenment are the cruelly disinformed members of the Tea Party. It throws the massive incompetence and corruption of the left into stark relief, and as a liberal, I am ashamed.

It’s impossible to know what the future holds, and far too soon to write the epitaph of America, or the transformation of human life and potential she represents. But, shit, things are not looking good.

Doom an gloom aside, moving power down the chain can only have a salutary effect on the country. The more people actively engaged in government, the more self-government once again becomes a habit of the American people, the more virtue will have a chance to bubble up.

I greatly appreciate Mr. Mead’s continued advocacy on this issue.

Comment by Jules Mopper – February 18, 2010 @ 1:45 am

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.