Ted Cruz pouts; when will he lie again?

Pouting is about the only thing one can say about Ted Cruz's filibuster threat on the debt ceiling bill yesterday.

The lying part? Remember how, a month ago, on CBS' "Face the Nation," Bob Schieffer backed him into a corner over last fall's government shutdown and Cruz kept lying about how he didn't cause it? Well, set your watches for how soon it will take for him to lie or spin this one.

Meanwhile, note that this was the first "clean" increase of the debt ceiling since 2009. And, I think we changed presidents that year, didn't we?

So, this in essence removes one GOP lie, that many in Congress have told about debt ceiling votes for the last half-decade.

Meanwhile, for getting enough GOP votes to overcome Cruz's filibuster threat, GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is now in Cruz's gunsights.

And, even if the Turtle should win his primary, he's by no means out of the election woods.

Beyond the stupidity of debt-ceiling legislation, this is another example of two ingrained American stupidities, and one that's developed more and more over the last few decades.

1. The two-year election cycle, combined with the problem of the body of the US Constitution being considered largely sacrosanct. Britain, without a formal written constitution, and with some eye of flexibility on its unwritten traditional one, had no problem with moving Commons terms to five years (outside of the fall of a government). And, speaking of ...

2. The nonsense in a nuclear-and-computers age of our nonparliamentary government. Now, if you're France, where the president has some powers vis-a-vis its parliament that our president doesn't always have with Congress, that would help a little. Or one could go further down that end, to where a president accumulates Putin-like powers. No thanks.

3. The developed issue? The power of money, and of think-tank type special interests with it, in American politics. This is more an issue of the right than the left, but liberals have been slow and scattershot in adopting public financing of Congressional elections, rather than their own money rush, as the appropriate alternative. This should have been done in the

US Constitution from "horse and buggy era"

So says Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan, in the SCOTUS case about presidential recess appointments.

Kagan said the clause may be a “historic relic” from “the horse and buggy era,” when presidents needed the authority to fill vacancies because lawmakers were out of town and could not return on short notice. More recently, she said, presidents of both parties have used the appointment power “as a way to deal, not with congressional absence, but with congressional intransigence, with a Congress that simply does not want to approve appointments that the president thinks ought to be approved.”

She suggested that the new use of the clause was problematic.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he had scoured the historical and legal materials. “I can’t find anything,” he said, “that says the purpose of this clause has anything at all to do with political fights between Congress and the president.”

The problem of congressional absence no longer exists, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “The Senate — I think to be candid — the Senate is always available,” she said. “They can be called back on very short notice.”

Partisan politics aside, yes, Kagan is right that recess appointments are from the horse and buggy era. Yeah, the entire body of our constitution is. So's every amendment before the 16th. Tell that to Scalia and his moronic "originalism." Doorknob, I wish more Americans in general would stop worshiping the body part of our constitution like holy writ. It's not. It's not even close. It's hopelessly anachronistic in today's era of computers and nuclear weapons.

Solutions? I'd love to scrap a lot of it, but given today's climate, amending the constitution would draw Tea Party nonsense enough to stuff a room to the raptors. We've already heard plenty of Tea Party talk about junking the 17th Amendment and direct election of U.S. Senators. 

And, partisan politics not aside, per SCOTUSblog, Obama's going to lose this one. Because, per Lyle Denniston, the Senate controls when it's in session or not, as notes the Chief, John Roberts, its power to confirm or block presidential appointments is absolute. And, I really don't see five Justices finding a non-originalist interpretation to preserve some degree of presidential recess appointment power for the world of the 21st century. I hate to think this, because a purely partisan action by Senate Republicans brought us to this point, but on the letter of the law, Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on.

On the spirit of the constitution? Depends on whether your spirit is originalist, or even close. Frankly, this is one of those era where horse and buggy is so far away from today, reflecting Frederick the Great's doubt that the US would survive, that I don't see how constitutional scholars can agree on a non-originalist interpretation.

Solution? Parliamentary government, of course, with a relatively disempowered Senate, and a prime minister and cabinet officials as part of the House. Add in electing part of the House off a national list, like Germany and others, so as to get third parties into the House, and there you go.

Chances of getting adopted? The same as Sarah Palin outing herself as a lesbian who had a threesome with both Mary and Liz Cheney.

Minor tweak? Now that Harry Reid's curtailed the filibuster, a Senate majority can always take the next step, and control Senate rules on exactly how a recess is defined, and do its best to kill the phantom recess.

Prime ministers, presidents and principles

One thing last night’s presidential debate illustrated is that prime ministers, except where directly elected like in Israel, simply have to have more principles than presidential candidates. (Along with that, as Fact Check shows, the debates, here in the US, lead to gotcha moments and zingers, rather than detailed proposals about planned future policies.)

When you're running to represent a party, not just yourself, and executive and legislative are combined and you can't blame gridlock, you have to stand by at least a few principles, not just for the public and votes, but to control your own backbenchers. Now, the difference isn’t absolute. In the UK, MPs within the Labour Party disliked Tony Blair in part for running “presidential-style” campaigns.

But, it is largely true. The British have had debates between prime minister candidates, and they’re nothing like American presidential debates.

And, beyond that, Britain has the unique custom of “question time” on Fridays.

That said, this isn't totally true, even in coalition governments. Why Nick Clegg still has the Lib Dems in coalition in the UK after the failure of the proportional representation referendum, I don't know.

Could the US become slightly more parliamentary? While still retaining aspects of its presidential system? That is, becoming like France?

Yes, although it would require some constitutional amendments as well as simple changes of law.

My modest proposals:

1.     Up the House of Representatives to, say, 800 people. Of those, we would increase state-by-state single member districts from 435 to 600. To boost third parties, we would proportionally elect the other 200 off a national list, similar to what Germany does. (That part would require constitutional amendment.)

2.     Add, either by regions or nationally, 50 Senators to be elected proportionally off a national list. (Constitutional amendment.)

3.     Remove the Senate’s power to amend money bills, therefore putting the power of the purse more firmly in the House’s hands. (Constitutional amendment.)

4.     End the Senate’s filibuster power.

5.     Increase House terms to four years. (Constitutional amendment.) Possibly increase Senate terms to eight years, or else reduce them to four. (Constitutional amendment.)

Those few changes would not weaken Senate power too much, so, hopefully would not raise too many hackles. The third-party issues would not threaten a vast third-party wave, at least not immediately, and so would not draw two-party opposition, I think.

The money bill issues, and modest weakening of Senate power, might force the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader wanting to become Speaker to actually campaign on their own, by parties. And, it would force the presidential nominees to co-ordinate policy more with House leaders.

Punishment: The non-idealistic reason to vote #Green

A lot of people are familiar with the classic psychological game theory game of Prisoner’s Dilemma. In multi-round versions of the game, people who are knowledgeable that the logical response is for both persons to cooperate.

Of course, that would theoretically be the logical response with two political parties, too. But, evolutionary biology, as well as human social psychology, point out  that there are incentives for “cheaters” to abound in a game like Prisoner’s Dilemma.

That said, there’s a simple response to “cheaters” in a multi-round version of something like Prisoner’s Dilemma. It’s the old childhood action of “tit for tat.”

Sadly, somewhat with Slick Willie Clinton, and even more with President Kumbaya, modern (neo)liberalism in the U.S. is invested in the idea of “cooperation.” Period.

Or, as Dylan Otto Krider puts it on ScienceProgress, we currently have tit without tat.

Basically, this is why today’s Democrats, overall are political idiots (another reason to vote Green), politics is irrational today and why centrism (since the Democrats ARE centrists, in many ways) won't work in today's USofA (Apologies to my centrist sister; none to the idiotic Teapot Tommy Friedman.

Neither blind cooperation nor blind stonewalling is best, actually:

(A)fter a few cycles of mutual recrimination, it eventually becomes clear both sides are better off cooperating within the system.

Axelrod’s computer tournaments showed that Tit-for-Tat eventually rooted out the defectors, making it possible for everyone to default for cooperation. …

However, the computer competitions showed this arrangement was unstable, too. Once everyone defaulted to cooperation, the system became too trusting and open to exploitation by defectors.

And, that, Krider says, is where Democrats, abetted by, or abetting for, mainstream media types like Teapot Tommy, blew it:

It’s easy to point fingers at the GOP, but the blind ideology of the Democrats and the media are equally to blame for its steady drift to extremism. Democrats never tatted. And the media let the former boundaries of acceptable politics and discourse slide by defaulting to narratives of “both sides do it.”

So, if Democrats won’t punish Republicans for “cheating,” shouldn’t Democrats be punished for being weak-kneed, or whatever you want to call it?

Exactly!

Beyond idealism, per the story, voting Green is an obvious way to "punish" Democrats for cooperating too much with the GOP as it shifts the Overton window. 

Note: This is also a good argument for parliamentary government or, at the minimum, some proportional representation seats off of a "national list" in the U.S. House, never mind reforming the U.S. Senate. Third parties having an easier foothold make it easier to force cheaters to be punished.

Why America needs parliamentary government, Lesson No. 102

James Fallows details how the permanently dominant GOP minority, party self-identification and more, have crushed real governance, and how a parliamentary system simply doesn't have all of that.

Why bipartisanship won't work

With a highly illustrative sidebar into parliamentary government, James Fallows details how the permanently dominant GOP minority, party self-identification and more, have crushed the idea.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz then gives a concrete illustration.

Another great argument for US parliamentary government

It’s the glacial pace of getting presidential appointments through Senate confirmation. Of course, Obama has some self-blame on tax issues there with some folks!

Seriously, though, things like this, the semi-undemocratic Senate, the corruption of unregulated Congressional campaign finance, short House terms and the “permanent campaign” may all be contributory to the waning of the American imperium.

Swine flu another example of need for parliamentary govt

The New York Times story explains it succinctly:

The outbreak in the United States comes before President Obama has his full health team in place. His nominee for health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, nor has the woman he selected to Food and Drug Administration, Margaret Hamburg, a former New York City health commissioner. Mr. Obama has not yet named anyone to run the Centers for Disease Control or the National Institutes of Health.

Why do people who should know better continue to defend the horribly antiquated Constitution of the United States?

And, given our two-party duopoly, while people may be quarantined, CAFO hog farms most certainly will not.

And, since a Smithfield CAFO-type farm in Vera Cruz, Mexico is the likely source for the swine flu outbreak, they obviously NEED to be quarantined.

Needed - parliamentary government with third-party viability

First, for anybody who wants to know more about how a parliamentary system could play out in America, and why we need it, I strongly recommend Daniel Lazare’s “The Frozen Republic.” (Ted Rall was very interested, I know.)

Second, my rhetorical question to any opponent of parliamentary government, ignoring questions about its reality or likelihood in America: How invested are you in one half or the other of the duopoly, and is that restraining you from looking at what might really be best for America?

I’m going to dig in and tackle both parliamentary government and third party access in this post.

I begin by noting the two are separate, though somewhat intertwined issues.

The main reason third parties TODAY (as opposed to the past, per the one commenter to your post) get such short shrift is that the duopoly, in conjunction with the MSM on something that vaguely resembles "debates," conspire to keep third parties off the ballot (the duopoly) or out of the limelight should they qualify (the MSM). The "presidentialism" focus of our modern federal government, with governance "eggs" ultimately in one basket, only exacerbates this problem.

MSLBs are guilty of abetting this, to. In summer 2006, Congressional Dems made noise about a Congressional public campaign finance bill - with the restriction of limiting it to the duopoly. MSLBs like Kos signed on.

Now, on to your talk of "coalitions."

First, not everybody does it the same, contra your claim.

Japan, for example, has a one-party coalition, not a two-party. The Socialists and Japanese Nationalists not inside the LDP are both internally coherent; neither is a coaltion.

Germany, thanks in part to the national list that elects 1/3 the Bundestag, has multiple politically viable parties, MOST of which are NOT coalitions in the U.S. sense. The Christian Dems and Social Dems arguably are; the Free Dems arguably are not, and the Greens and ex-Communists CLEARLY are not.

Israel has numerous political parties, and due to mutual suspicious, you CANNOT lump all of Israel's religious parties under the umbrella of "coalition." (This is shown by the behavior of various religious parties in Israel whenever Likud tries to form a coalition.)

Next is the question of what would better serve America.

From where I sit, a parliamentary government, even without third parties, would undercut the dry rot of presidential hagiography that threatens to make us like a Russia or something.

It would also fight government gridlock; for example, PM Nancy Pelosi would have been leading our government the past two years.

But, parliamentary government WITH third parties would do more. It would force parties to stand for something. Take PM Pelosi, rather than Speaker Pelosi, for example. Failure to do more on Iraq would have provoked enough of a revolt by, say, the Progressive Caucus to risk a no-confidence vote. Or, let's say half the Progressive Caucus members were actually Greens. Beyond a no-confidence vote, in that case, Pelosi would have risked the downfall of the coalition, if she had to be in coalition with Greens.

Ditto on the GOP side. With third parties, especially with German-style national list, the Religious right could "walk" from the GOP and join the Religious Right party we already have, called the Constitution Party.

And, if the James Dobsons of the world wanted to risk "access" for integrity, their rank-and-file could revolt.

Ditto for folks like Gang Green enviro groups; a viable Green Party would put Sierra et al on the spot vis-a-vis "access politics."

Plus, we’d have parties focused on issues rather than just on “winning,” an idea you seem to tout favorably, but another major thing WRONG with our current system.

Finally, if we had to have coalition government in America because we had viable third parties, I'd rather have "external" coalitions hammered out between different parties than have amorphous blobs as the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the duopoly.

In short, the current duopoly is anti-democratic in spirit and action and stifles political creativity. Parliamentary government would be the best way to booster third-party access, as well as getting rid of the anti-democratic focus on "presidentialism." (Why the Founders, for all their abhorrence of this, didn't more narrowly prescribe and proscribe presidential powers in the Constitution, I have no idea.)

Oh, and "just different" doesn't make our system better, either.

Atlantic: A Presidential mistake in the Constitution

In its new issue, the Atlantic Monthly, as part of a larger retrospective on the Bush years and look-ahead to Obama, bemoans the lack of specificity in Article II of the U.S. Constitution for allowing George W. Bush to happen, in the sense of the "unitary executive."

The historical analysis is good. At the constitutional convention, law professor Garrett Epps says that none of the founders wanted to risk Washington's volcanic, even if normally unspoken, temper, to talk about putting more statuatory restrictions on the powers of the presidency. Epps then notes that Alexander Hamilton, the man who pushed for a president-for-life idea, filled the void by essentially acting as Washington's prime minister and developing the idea of the unitary executive.

All well and good so far, and no quibble with Mr. Epps. Epps then notes the number of problems we've had since then, beginning with the deadlocked 1800 election, and the number of times we've amended the Constitution specifically to address executive branch issues.

Still well and good.

Then, his prescriptions fall flat.

Direct popular vote? Wouldn't rein in presidential power.

Force the president to take members of the opposition into his cabinet if there's a mid-term power switch in Congress? How many? What departments? Does the president pick them, or, a la 2007, would Speaker Pelosi pick them? Do you want to clutter the Constitution with that detailed of language?

Meanwhile, Epps misses the boat on not discussing France's hybrid presidential-parliamentary system in light of his proposal.

He misses the boat even more by not even discussing the idea of full parliamentary government in America.

Anyway, give the full story a read; it's great on historical analysis, but you may agree with me it falls short on prescriptive solutions. And, Epps appears ignorant of the rise of the term "presidentialism" to describe the problem at hand.

Will Parliament gridlock in Ottawa end minority government?

As noted in The Guardian, Canada's been under minority government during not only Harper's entire tenure, but before him, with Paul Martin's last liberal government.

Half the problem, to be blunt, is the Bloc Quebecois. Harper is right; it is oppositionist, if not secessionist. (Oh, and there are plenty of Anglophone Liberals in Quebec who are wary, at least, of the Bloc.)

For Americans starting to read about Canadian politics? If you throw out the BC, the Conservatives have the majority, not just a plurality.

Stickings says this is going to take more active leadership in Ottawa. Agreed. That includes stronger campaigning in Quebec, and, as part of the hustings, demanding that the Bloc stand for something Canadian, not just against a lot of things Canadian.

Would I go as far as to hint that Governor General Michaelle Jean was a coward to allow Harper to prorogue? I don't know her well enough other than to say many Canadians consider her a carpetbagger. Also, many political analysts say it would have been an even greater constitutional shock not to grant Harper's request.

For more on yesterday's events, see here.

Argument 422 for parliamentary government

You don’t have executive orders in a parliamentary government.

In a partial concession to Congressional pressure, the Bush administration agreed on Wednesday to show the Senate and House Intelligence Committees secret Justice Department legal opinions justifying harsh interrogation techniques that critics call torture.

The decision, announced at a Senate hearing where Democrats sharply criticized the administration’s secrecy on legal questions, did not satisfy other members of Congress who have pushed for the documents for several years, notably Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said officials were discussing whether to share part or all the opinions with Mr. Leahy’s panel.

At the hearing, a department official, John P. Elwood, disclosed a previously unpublicized method to cloak government activities. Mr. Elwood acknowledged that the administration believed that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he or other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation.

Mr. Elwood, citing a 1980s precedent, said there was nothing new or unusual about such a view.

Whether Elwood is right or wrong about presidents having the right to, in essence, classify executive orders is besides the point.

In a parliamentary government, if a prime minister tried to do something called executive orders, not just the opposition but perhaps backbenchers in his or her own party might be calling for a ministerial head on a platter.

Ted Rall tells Nader and third-party dissers to STFU

Now, I’ve already indicated I’ll vote for the official Green Party candidate; if that’s not Nader, he needs to drop the independent run. Nonetheless, Ted Rall’s total smackdown on Democratic-Republican conventional media and punditry is 110 percent on the mark:

Is Ralph really a spoiler? To answer "yes," you have to buy three assumptions:

First, that the two-party system is written in stone. But it’s not. There's nothing in the Constitution about two parties, or about parties at all. (The Founding Fathers were dismayed when parties emerged around 1800.) Besides, the Democratic-Republican stranglehold ill serves a diverse population of 300 million. Because parliamentary democracies offer voters a wide selection of parties representing almost every conceivable ideology, voter turnout in Europe typically exceeds 80 percent. In the U.S., most registered voters stay home.

Assumption two: voters ought to vote strategically, i.e., for the lesser of two evils. Even for those who accept this curiously alienating concept, however, evil often comes in pairs. Most citizens think the U.S. has lost more than it has gained under NAFTA; neither Obama nor McCain want to repeal it. Most people want the U.S. out of Iraq; both men have repeatedly voted to prolong the war. How shall anti-NAFTA, antiwar voters divine which will prove least anathematic as president? Should they resort to a ouija board?

The third leg of the Nader=Spoiler tripod relies on a belief that opinions espoused by a small minority of a population are inherently worthless. But, as anyone who has successfully gambled on a business can attest, today’s fringe thinking becomes tomorrow’s conventional wisdom. After 9/11, nine percent of Americans thought George W. Bush was a lousy president. Seventy-two percent feel that way now. America's greatest political achievements — emancipation, women's suffrage, the 40-hour work week — were first espoused by tiny voting blocs led by figures on the political fringe.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. And, that’s why I espouse a parliamentary government.

Changing the U.S. voting and political system radically

In a post below, I talked a bit about wanting to change the U.S. electoral system. In response to one of the comments, I added some information there, and I’m going to talk more here about what I’d like to see changed.

First, as I mentioned there, I encourage everyone here who is interested in political science issues to read David Lazare’s “The Frozen Republic.” It is the best book I know advocating a parliamentary government for the U.S.

The first reason I cite is based on the analogy of the U.K. and other modern parliamentary democracies. You have an election, and the new government, if there is a change of parties, takes over the next day. If a coalition is needed, it takes over as soon as coalition details are in place. Opposition parties already have “shadow” cabinet secretaries, etc.

In a nuclear-armed, and computer-driven age, the U.S Constitution (the body, not the various civil liberties and rights) is antiquated in many ways. This is the most egregious way. It’s simply unacceptable for the world’s most-powerful (both militarily, and for a bit longer, at least — watch that Chinese shadow — economically) nation to have a transition of 10 weeks between governments, with another two-three weeks after that before a cabinet is in place.

The second way it’s antiquated is illustrated by the 2006 election. First, a change of Congress like this would have booted Bush out of power.

Related to that, especially if (per my discussion on voting changes, below), we had third parties holding seats (let’s say, Greens and maybe a Libertarian or two) and the Democrats’ margin was narrow, the Democratic party would have to actually deliver on getting out of Iraq. If not, deaths, resignations, by-elections (to use that wonderful British term), etc., would undercut Democrats’ power to govern without coalition.

Beyond going to a parliamentary system, I’m also ready to change specifics of those representatives.

First, in addition to the 435 single-member district Representatives (which we might change to call them “state-proportioned Representatives), let’s elect another, say, 165 off a national list, on a proportional basis. I’m directly using the German Bundestag, with a 400/200 split, as my starting point. Having a national list (with a lower cutoff percentage for third parties to qualify than in Germany) would give third parties a better chance of getting a couple of seats, at least.

Second, to eliminate the perpetual campaign, and tracking the norm in other states, Representatives would serve four-year terms. But, to make government even more responsive, we would stagger this to have half the House elected every two years. Or, to give a “mid-term” feel, we could have single-member districts on one four-year cycle and the national list on another.

Third, though I would not make the Senate as weak as the British House of Lords, since this is a parliamentary government, I would weaken it somewhat, a la the German Bundesrat, the Japanese Diet’s upper house, etc. And, to further reflect regionalism, versus single-state federalism, I would consider the idea of having some Senators elected on a regional basis; also, to lessen the small-state inequity of the Senate, regional Senators would be apportioned to different regions (South, Mid-Atlantic, New England, etc.) on a population basis.

States would also be allowed to have their Representatives elected by a method other than first-past-the-post single-member districts. The particular method for this would be of their choice.

Here are Wiki links for single transferable vote (a method I like more than what Clay proposes, but which would probably require change in federal law), preferential voting in general (which includes both IRV and the STV I like, and voting systems in general, including Clay’s range voting.

I favor the Single Transferable Vote system, myself.

A strong federal Congressional campaign finance law would also be passed, including money for third-party candidates meeting reasonable thresholds.

I would also eliminate the “life or good behavior” tenure in office of federal judges. District judges would serve 12-year terms, reappointable once. Appellate and Supreme Court justices would serve 14- and 16-year terms, respectively, also reappointable once. (Extra appointments could not be carried over from inferior to superior courts.)

Now, I’m not at all sanguine about ANY of this actually happening. But, you can now see how dissatisfied and disaffected I am with the current political process.