The impact of one Supreme Court decision on US Politics
As I prepared to watch the president's annual State of the Union speech and the opposition party's rebuttal on Tuesday, I couldn't help but think about what it would be like if we didn't have such division in our country. The ongoing impasse over the border wall is evidence of the degree of separation between leadership in the two major parties, which is symptomatic of the public mood when it comes to hot button issues. I was pleasantly surprised that his speech and the response to the speech did not reflect the childish bickering we have seen in recent years. The most noticeable contrast in response to the speech was the president's reference to late term abortion, where the Republicans stood and applauded, while the Democrats sat with scowls on their faces.
By coincidence (or perhaps divine prompting), I had a discussion about the divisiveness of American politics on Monday over lunch with a friend originally from Russia. At first we were talking about the impact of social media, the slow demise of journalism, and similar topics. After all, social media was a major contributor to the election of President Obama as well as President Trump, each of whom have been vilified by many from the other party, and I believe an argument could be made that Trump's election was fueled in large part as a backlash against the hard swing the left under Obama.
We have had a stable democracy for longer than any nation on earth, and over the course of nearly a quarter of a millennium, the voters have become less tolerant of third party candidates. Each party has fine-tuned the art of politics, through deception, propaganda, and demonization of the opposition. It has been a part of American politics for most of our history, and like everything else we continue to optimize the political machine. Every position taken by one party is adamantly opposed by the other party, leading to the extreme positions taken on many issues.
Each party seems to be trying to outdo the other in testing the boundaries of common sense with their positions on controversial topics in an effort to score political points with the interest groups that have the most influence over them. Just as Democrats rush to exceed the Roe v Wade criteria of viability in favor of unrestricted abortion at any stage of pregnancy, Republicans fight against any tax increase or gun regulation.
In the course of our lunch discussion, my friend and I talked about how many who voted for Trump may have done so because they believed he would follow through on promises to nominate conservative justices to the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. It should come as no surprise that the conversation would turn to the new "reproductive rights" law in New York as evidence of the concern that abortion-rights supporters have now that two conservative justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court.
We covered most of the points that I wrote about in my recent post The Abortion Debate, and we found a lot of common ground despite being on opposite sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. If only more people in this country could sit down for a civil discussion on important issues.
I've heard pro-life advocates say that abortion is the seminal issue of our day with regards to the shift in our culture. There is definitely some merit to that statement. However, I would contend that abortion is even more so the seminal issue politically. and is the driver behind the dysfunction our two party system.
Votes based on potential judicial appointments pull economic conservative libertarians to the left and socially conservative federalists to the right. A person may feel strongly enough about the sanctity of life to vote for a Repiblican despite being economically liberal. Another person may feel strongly enough about the right of a woman to choose abortion to vote for a Democrat despite being economically conservative.
I explained many years ago in a post entitled The Problem with Roe v Wade the many issues with that decision, but I would add that the decision has changed the course of politics, especially presidential elections. Many conservatives vote out of moral conviction to protect lives of the innocent. Many liberals in response vote out of fear of losing hard-won progressive victories.
As I explained many years ago in penning Return The Constitution To The Founders' Intent, at a national level, the Constitution clearly defines the role of the federal government to provide for national defense, promote interstate commerce, and work with other countries in our national interest. The rest is left to the states.
Presidential politics should not be dealing with issues that the founders intended to be dealt with at a local level. The battle over abortion is distracting voters from supporting presidential candidates based on their ability to lead the country in areas that can only be effectively dealt with at a national level.
Replacing two-party rule, unfortunately is not the solution, either. It is a byproduct of the republican form of government our founders so wisely instituted. After all, if we had a parliamentary form of government, with proportional representation instead of election based on majority by district, we would effectively return to the colonial-era concerns about taxation without representation that led to the American Revolution.
The genius behind our Constitution is the very thing people most often complain about. When Congress and the president can't agree or the House and Senate can't agree, gridlock results. Eventually gridlock may lead to compromise. If compromise is not possible, a bill or a proposal dies due to insufficient support.
Examples of legislation that died due to insufficient support abound. The legislation that inspired me to start this blog (Economic Crisis 2009) resurrected many proposals that should have stayed dead.
When one party has total control, the result is the much maligned Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ("Trump Tax Cuts"). The ACA was passed in a rush with insufficient review and procedural maneuvers with the Democrats controlling both houses and the presidency. The TCJA was passed more smoothly but was ill-timed and similarly represents overreach by the party in power vs. compromise.
The United States at her founding was determined to avoid too much centralized control. The Articles of Confederation were the first governing document of the new nation, but ultimately, they were replaced by a much improved Constitution that has stood the test of time as the ultimate example of effect government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The founding fathers recognized that it was necessary to avoid having the federal government become too powerful relative to the states. Having a senate with staggered six year terms and only two senators per state, regardless of population, ensured that the long term interests of the individual states would be considered. Having a house with two year terms proportional to population ensured that the latest whims of the populace would be heard. For the two bodies to agree would require compromise between the big states and small states as well as between the long term and short term perspectives.
The electoral college, often the target of derision as anti-democratic was a similarly brilliant innovation. There are certainly issues with how the states have selected electors (see my post In Defense of the Electoral College), but that system reduces the divisiveness of close election results and avoids tyranny of the majority. Presidents Reagan and Obama are examples of presidents whose landslide victories in the Electoral College gave a sense of mandate greater than a much closer election in terms of popular vote. Elections won easily in the Electoral College but involving a plurality of the electorate, such as President Clinton, help preserve the legitimacy of the result and avoid the issues with run-off elections.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, it would not result in nationwide outlawing of abortion, as much as many hope and others fear. What it does is cause many people to hold their noses and vote for candidates that they otherwise disagree with on issues that are best dealt with at the national level, such as national defense, interstate commerce, international relations, and taxes.
Overturn Roe v Wade so we can remove that issue from presidential elections.
By coincidence (or perhaps divine prompting), I had a discussion about the divisiveness of American politics on Monday over lunch with a friend originally from Russia. At first we were talking about the impact of social media, the slow demise of journalism, and similar topics. After all, social media was a major contributor to the election of President Obama as well as President Trump, each of whom have been vilified by many from the other party, and I believe an argument could be made that Trump's election was fueled in large part as a backlash against the hard swing the left under Obama.
We have had a stable democracy for longer than any nation on earth, and over the course of nearly a quarter of a millennium, the voters have become less tolerant of third party candidates. Each party has fine-tuned the art of politics, through deception, propaganda, and demonization of the opposition. It has been a part of American politics for most of our history, and like everything else we continue to optimize the political machine. Every position taken by one party is adamantly opposed by the other party, leading to the extreme positions taken on many issues.
Each party seems to be trying to outdo the other in testing the boundaries of common sense with their positions on controversial topics in an effort to score political points with the interest groups that have the most influence over them. Just as Democrats rush to exceed the Roe v Wade criteria of viability in favor of unrestricted abortion at any stage of pregnancy, Republicans fight against any tax increase or gun regulation.
In the course of our lunch discussion, my friend and I talked about how many who voted for Trump may have done so because they believed he would follow through on promises to nominate conservative justices to the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. It should come as no surprise that the conversation would turn to the new "reproductive rights" law in New York as evidence of the concern that abortion-rights supporters have now that two conservative justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court.
We covered most of the points that I wrote about in my recent post The Abortion Debate, and we found a lot of common ground despite being on opposite sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. If only more people in this country could sit down for a civil discussion on important issues.
I've heard pro-life advocates say that abortion is the seminal issue of our day with regards to the shift in our culture. There is definitely some merit to that statement. However, I would contend that abortion is even more so the seminal issue politically. and is the driver behind the dysfunction our two party system.
Votes based on potential judicial appointments pull economic conservative libertarians to the left and socially conservative federalists to the right. A person may feel strongly enough about the sanctity of life to vote for a Repiblican despite being economically liberal. Another person may feel strongly enough about the right of a woman to choose abortion to vote for a Democrat despite being economically conservative.
I explained many years ago in a post entitled The Problem with Roe v Wade the many issues with that decision, but I would add that the decision has changed the course of politics, especially presidential elections. Many conservatives vote out of moral conviction to protect lives of the innocent. Many liberals in response vote out of fear of losing hard-won progressive victories.
As I explained many years ago in penning Return The Constitution To The Founders' Intent, at a national level, the Constitution clearly defines the role of the federal government to provide for national defense, promote interstate commerce, and work with other countries in our national interest. The rest is left to the states.
Presidential politics should not be dealing with issues that the founders intended to be dealt with at a local level. The battle over abortion is distracting voters from supporting presidential candidates based on their ability to lead the country in areas that can only be effectively dealt with at a national level.
Replacing two-party rule, unfortunately is not the solution, either. It is a byproduct of the republican form of government our founders so wisely instituted. After all, if we had a parliamentary form of government, with proportional representation instead of election based on majority by district, we would effectively return to the colonial-era concerns about taxation without representation that led to the American Revolution.
Examples of legislation that died due to insufficient support abound. The legislation that inspired me to start this blog (Economic Crisis 2009) resurrected many proposals that should have stayed dead.
When one party has total control, the result is the much maligned Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ("Trump Tax Cuts"). The ACA was passed in a rush with insufficient review and procedural maneuvers with the Democrats controlling both houses and the presidency. The TCJA was passed more smoothly but was ill-timed and similarly represents overreach by the party in power vs. compromise.
The United States at her founding was determined to avoid too much centralized control. The Articles of Confederation were the first governing document of the new nation, but ultimately, they were replaced by a much improved Constitution that has stood the test of time as the ultimate example of effect government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The founding fathers recognized that it was necessary to avoid having the federal government become too powerful relative to the states. Having a senate with staggered six year terms and only two senators per state, regardless of population, ensured that the long term interests of the individual states would be considered. Having a house with two year terms proportional to population ensured that the latest whims of the populace would be heard. For the two bodies to agree would require compromise between the big states and small states as well as between the long term and short term perspectives.
The electoral college, often the target of derision as anti-democratic was a similarly brilliant innovation. There are certainly issues with how the states have selected electors (see my post In Defense of the Electoral College), but that system reduces the divisiveness of close election results and avoids tyranny of the majority. Presidents Reagan and Obama are examples of presidents whose landslide victories in the Electoral College gave a sense of mandate greater than a much closer election in terms of popular vote. Elections won easily in the Electoral College but involving a plurality of the electorate, such as President Clinton, help preserve the legitimacy of the result and avoid the issues with run-off elections.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, it would not result in nationwide outlawing of abortion, as much as many hope and others fear. What it does is cause many people to hold their noses and vote for candidates that they otherwise disagree with on issues that are best dealt with at the national level, such as national defense, interstate commerce, international relations, and taxes.
Overturn Roe v Wade so we can remove that issue from presidential elections.
Comments
Post a Comment