[stupac2]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156586#msg156586 date=1455577076]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14611.msg156582#msg156582 date=1455576371]Now, because of increasing partisanship, those norms are breaking down. I fear we'll need to completely reform American government to accommodate that reality.

Did you see this article by Matt Yglesias?  He agrees with everything you said but takes it a step (or nine) further: the system is going to collapse sooner or later because the constitution is not up to resolving these issues.  http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/amer...acy-doomed
[/quote]

I did, yes -- it's one of the articles I had in mind.

I think another article in that series poses what I think is the most likely scenario: like the Romans the founders so admired, the President will gradually dispose of the legislature -- and effectively rule more-or-less unilaterally for his term. American Caesars, in essence.
[/quote]

At this point it's basically inevitable. It seems wildly unlikely that we'll ever get reforms that ensure unified government, or that we'll go back to the non-ideological parties that could actually govern together. But we've seen the president taking more and more power (and congress sometimes willingly abdicating it), so it's pretty easy to project that trendline.

But, unlike ferrari, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The question is what do you think is worse, a term-limited, judicially (and somewhat congressionally) constrained monarch, or a nearly nonfunctional government? Besides "fear of change" I'm not so sure why the latter is obviously better.

[stupac2]

[quote author=burger link=topic=14611.msg156586#msg156586 date=1455577076]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14611.msg156582#msg156582 date=1455576371]Now, because of increasing partisanship, those norms are breaking down. I fear we'll need to completely reform American government to accommodate that reality.

Did you see this article by Matt Yglesias?  He agrees with everything you said but takes it a step (or nine) further: the system is going to collapse sooner or later because the constitution is not up to resolving these issues.  http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/amer...acy-doomed
[/quote]

I did, yes -- it's one of the articles I had in mind.

I think another article in that series poses what I think is the most likely scenario: like the Romans the founders so admired, the President will gradually dispose of the legislature -- and effectively rule more-or-less unilaterally for his term. American Caesars, in essence.
[/quote]

At this point it's basically inevitable. It seems wildly unlikely that we'll ever get reforms that ensure unified government, or that we'll go back to the non-ideological parties that could actually govern together. But we've seen the president taking more and more power (and congress sometimes willingly abdicating it), so it's pretty easy to project that trendline.

But, unlike ferrari, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The question is what do you think is worse, a term-limited, judicially (and somewhat congressionally) constrained monarch, or a nearly nonfunctional government? Besides "fear of change" I'm not so sure why the latter is obviously better.