[washingtonismoney]

One last comment here! There's been a lot of discussion over the text of the Constitution and what it empowers each respective branch to do. It's very Scalia-esque; I'm sure he would be pleased. Nevertheless I think it misses the point.

Governments are made effective because of their informal norms as much as, if not greater than, their formal rules and procedures. In 1968, for example, Republicans were perfectly willing in theory to confirm a Supreme Court justice -- they blocked Abe Fortas because he was outstandingly corrupt. The same in 1988 with Kennedy. That is, the legislature deferred to the executive.

What's slightly terrifying to a neutral observer these days is the frequency with which both parties are abandoning long-held informal norms for partisan gain. It used to be that filibusters were incredibly rarely used; their use escalated during the second GWB term, and then escalated another degree during Obama's administration. The Senate used to be very hands-off with respect to confirming nominees; now it's a real quagmire to get anyone through. (Take the FDA, one of the least partisan agencies out there -- currently Obama's widely-respected nominee is having to traverse the muck to get through.)

American government used to have a lot of understandings that worked when people weren't incredibly partisan- and personally-focused. My old workplace used to bring bagels to work, and people would recompense the person with a couple of bucks every now and again. It worked, because no one was a jerk. The government was more-or-less the same in many respects. (It was a worse government overall, but it kept a lot of informal norms sacred.)

Now, because of increasing partisanship, those norms are breaking down. I fear we'll need to completely reform American government to accommodate that reality.

[washingtonismoney]

One last comment here! There's been a lot of discussion over the text of the Constitution and what it empowers each respective branch to do. It's very Scalia-esque; I'm sure he would be pleased. Nevertheless I think it misses the point.

Governments are made effective because of their informal norms as much as, if not greater than, their formal rules and procedures. In 1968, for example, Republicans were perfectly willing in theory to confirm a Supreme Court justice -- they blocked Abe Fortas because he was outstandingly corrupt. The same in 1988 with Kennedy. That is, the legislature deferred to the executive.

What's slightly terrifying to a neutral observer these days is the frequency with which both parties are abandoning long-held informal norms for partisan gain. It used to be that filibusters were incredibly rarely used; their use escalated during the second GWB term, and then escalated another degree during Obama's administration. The Senate used to be very hands-off with respect to confirming nominees; now it's a real quagmire to get anyone through. (Take the FDA, one of the least partisan agencies out there -- currently Obama's widely-respected nominee is having to traverse the muck to get through.)

American government used to have a lot of understandings that worked when people weren't incredibly partisan- and personally-focused. My old workplace used to bring bagels to work, and people would recompense the person with a couple of bucks every now and again. It worked, because no one was a jerk. The government was more-or-less the same in many respects. (It was a worse government overall, but it kept a lot of informal norms sacred.)

Now, because of increasing partisanship, those norms are breaking down. I fear we'll need to completely reform American government to accommodate that reality.