As n American with no stake in this, but a sympathetic concern, I just want to say that Madison's theory of governance based on the separation of powers is a crock of shit, as we have proved repeatedly for 234 years. Don't fall for it.
Is this because you think it doesn't actually succeed at separating powers? Or that it DOES succeed at doing so, but the results of that separation are baleful?
A criticism I've heard of SOP, from people who think it does do what it purports to, is that it makes it difficult for politicians to institute any sort of wide-ranging reform legislation, because there will always be one branch or another opposed to what they're trying to block it.
As n American with no stake in this, but a sympathetic concern, I just want to say that Madison's theory of governance based on the separation of powers is a crock of shit, as we have proved repeatedly for 234 years. Don't fall for it.
This reminds me of my American political science class when I was in undergrad. The professor told us that the political arguments of the Founding Fathers are severely flawed because they underestimated the power of partisanship. Checks and Balances do not work if politicians are more willing to put their allegiance to party over the allegiance to the common good.
And my professor's argument was proven by both impeachment votes of Trump.
^ Even if the respective parties vote totally as one bloc, Checks And Balances(CNB) still gives the voters the ability to place the various elected branches under the control of opposing parties.
If I vote for a Widgetian congress and a Widgetian president one year, but then I think the Widgetians are screwing things up, I can vote to put congress under Doodadian control two years later.
In fact, in that situation, CNB arguably works better if the members do put party allegiance first. Because if in the second election I'm voting to stop the Widgetian agenda, I want Doodadians who are going to consistently do that, not renegades who are gonna side with the Widgetian White House half the time because they think "it's what's best for the country".
Comments
Nothing beats seeing a government fall on a loss of supply, or failing that, a grumpy no-confidence motion.
Is this because you think it doesn't actually succeed at separating powers? Or that it DOES succeed at doing so, but the results of that separation are baleful?
A criticism I've heard of SOP, from people who think it does do what it purports to, is that it makes it difficult for politicians to institute any sort of wide-ranging reform legislation, because there will always be one branch or another opposed to what they're trying to block it.
This reminds me of my American political science class when I was in undergrad. The professor told us that the political arguments of the Founding Fathers are severely flawed because they underestimated the power of partisanship. Checks and Balances do not work if politicians are more willing to put their allegiance to party over the allegiance to the common good.
And my professor's argument was proven by both impeachment votes of Trump.
If I vote for a Widgetian congress and a Widgetian president one year, but then I think the Widgetians are screwing things up, I can vote to put congress under Doodadian control two years later.
In fact, in that situation, CNB arguably works better if the members do put party allegiance first. Because if in the second election I'm voting to stop the Widgetian agenda, I want Doodadians who are going to consistently do that, not renegades who are gonna side with the Widgetian White House half the time because they think "it's what's best for the country".