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.
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.