(Originally posted: 1/15/2012)
To complete my ideas about how our government might be reformed to operate better, in this post I’ll consider how the organization and business of of Congress itself might be changed. Click through for my thoughts.
To review, I think the major problem in Washington, from an anthropological perspective, is not that “there is no compromise,” but rather that legislators in general form their whole identities in the wrong manner. Rather than identifying themselves as a collective that must distribute and share authority in such a way as to benefit the people, they view themselves primarily through the lens of party affiliation. Parties then compete against one another collectively, and prefer non-action to the risk of loss. Reforms should be aimed at lessening the identification between the individual and his or her party (without eliminating it; parties are an essential part of our democracy).
To that end, in a previous post, I suggested that elections should be reformed in a variety of ways to dissasociate the individual candidate from the party that supports him. That is, make the party less salient and encourage the voters to vote for individuals instead. But that’s only half the equation. After the electionis over and the victors are inducted into their offices, even the everyday business of government is structured around Democrats and Republicans. Even in the rare circumstance where a third party or independent candidate is elected, he or she must choose which of the major parties to caucus with–effectively forcing the identification that he or she eschewed during the election!
So how do we fix this? Much more simply than the election problems, for the most part. Those reforms would likely require Constitutional amendments to bring the necessary standardization. Congressional organization is only mandated by Congress’s own rules, and the Constitution isn’t (much of) an issue. With the proper motivation and encouragement from their constituencies, Congress could chaneg those rules relatively easily.
Right now, a Congressional committee is usually split between the two major parties, with the chairmanship given to a senior member of the majority party. Why? Why not have the committee members themselves vote on a chairman? The Speaker of the House is essentially chosen by the majority party leadership, but technically all Congressmen cast votes–why not reshape the rules of that election to return a real choice to the matter? Why assign organizational and administrative tasks (such as scheduling which bills will be debated and for how long) based on party membership–why not assign those tasks in a nonpartisan manner? It isn’t until you examine how the everyday business of Congress is done that you realize how thoroughly our government is dominated by the Republican and Democratic parties. Of course they have such overwhelming salience that a legislator’s whole identity becomes wrapped up in them!
Another, related issue whose time has come, I think, is term limits. No matter how daily business is reformed, so long as legislators are also politicans–that is, concerned about their next election–party identity will remain important. Its salience will decrease over time if the election reforms I discussed are enacted, but it will still remain important, and legislators will still put their own career concerns ahead of the concerns of the nation.
To fix that, we should simply enact reasonable term limits on Congress. Given that Senators serve for 6 years at a time and Congressmen for 2 years, perhaps 18 years in each chamber for a single legislator would make sense. Other suggestions I’ve seen (sorry, no citations easily at hand!) are unworkably short–“one term and out” or “ten years and done” won’t work for such a complex job as governing a nation of 300 million. An 18 year limit per chamber, though, would allow up to 36 years total for a federal legislator–more than enough for a long and satisfying career.
Term limits would also create a new class of legislator: the “last term” Congressman. These officials, since they are barred from running for re-election, are beholden to no interests but those of their constituents, and such a class could be drawn on for the various organizational and politically touchy tasks that are currently assigned based on party affiliation. Younger legislators could also pledge (in a legally binding manner) not to run for re-election to the same chamber and voluntarily enter this class. They could then demonstrate their leadership potential, and make the transition to the other chamber in the next election.
Finally, along the same lines as above, we should consider the presidency. Presidents, because they are both the public and private face of the nation, to the world and to itself, should never be in a situation where they are forced to compromise their own judgment simply to win votes. I’d suggest a single, 6-year term for a president, after which he or she is Constitutionally barred from ever holding elected office again.
All of these reforms, basically, would mean the greatest shake-up of our government since the Constitutional Convention abandoned the Articles of Confederation. I certainly don’t think the task would be as simple and straightforward as I’ve presented it in three short posts, nor that the changes would immediately create a better-functioning government. I think only that, based on my inexpert understanding of the US government and my expert understanding of social organization, they would, in the long run, make things better for the American people. There would certainly be an adjustment period, perhaps even one where things got worse for a time, but in the end, realigning our government to work for us, and not against itself, can only be a good thing.