We are all familiar with the saying “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” (a gander is a male goose). It is meant to say that if a boy is allowed to do something, a girl should be allowed to do the same thing. The saying was put in practice most notably when women were allowed to vote, when colored people were afforded the same rights as Caucasians, and when the military allowed women to serve in combat roles. It does not mean that if something is good for a certain segment of the population, it is automatically also good for everyone else (for that we use the saying that “The rising tide lifts all boats”). So, if we think of the goose and the gander in terms of the political reality of the two-party system in the United States, it is evident that what serves the interest of the Democratic Party does not serve the interest of the Republican Party as well. In our two-party system it is a zero-sum game. The national interest in a truly representative democracy is taking a backseat in this partisan contest. And herein lies the problem.
There is no
denying that the current American political constellation is dysfunctional. It
has been for a good while, but never more so than today, now that one of the
two parties has decided not to be guided by the Constitution but by the whims
of a narcissistic, populist, leader. That party is in complete disarray with
House Republicans and the Speaker of the House held hostage by a handful of
populist extremists and House Republicans at odds with Senate Republicans on
vital issues like the funding of the government, the budget, and support for
Ukraine. Almost certainly this disarray will result in another shutdown of the
government when on September 30 the current fiscal year expires. This
internecine squabble would not be as damaging if it was not for the additional
dimension that a substantial segment of the Republican Party signals that it is
ready to forego democracy as the governing principle for the nation. Republican
lawmakers are making no bones about this when they say: “we are a republic, not
a democracy” as if there was a contradiction in terms between the two. When
saying this they are clearly echoing the sentiment of their cult leader who has
repeatedly maintained that when you are the President you can call all the
shots even if they are illegal or unconstitutional. L’etat c’est moi!
This dysfunction brings me back to the goose and the gander.
As I have stated many times before, there is no lack of ideas about ways in
which our system of government can be improved, and democracy can be protected
from subversion by authoritarian impulses. Most prominently in these deliberations
figure the elimination of the Electoral College and electing the President by a
direct national popular vote, expanding the number of seats in the House of
Representatives, putting term limits in place for members of Congress, eliminating
the “filibuster Rule” in the Senate, taking money out of politics, and eliminating
the practice of jerrymandering from the creation of voting districts. The
problem with all these suggestions, and the reason that none of them have ever
gained traction, is that implementation of any of them requires, if not
amendment of the Constitution itself, amendment of established federal and
State laws, procedural rules set by Congress, or abandoning age-old covenants
and practices. The hurdles to fundamental improvement of the system of public
governance in the United States are so high that even the most obvious ways to
improve the system have no chance of getting implemented. First, the hurdle for
a change in the Constitution requiring a qualified 2/3rd majority of
votes in both Houses of Congress and ratification by 75% of the legislatures of
the States of the Union, is so high that it cannot be achieved without complete
bi-partisan support. In effect this means that going forward only innocuous,
largely symbolic, amendments will ever have a chance to pass. Under current
conditions, the avenue of using amendments to the Constitution as a means of
improving public governance is closed off.
The next, equally obstructive, hurdle is in the construct of
a two-party system, where the parties have roughly equal support. Every measure
that we can think of if we want to improve the system by enhancing both
democracy and effectiveness has a calculable impact on the electoral chances
for each of the two parties. It is a zero-point game. If it benefits the
Democrats, it hurts Republicans and vice-versa. Take jerrymandering which has
largely enabled Republican popular minorities to achieve majorities in State
legislatures. Prohibiting jerrymandering will hurt Republicans and benefit
Democrats. So would elimination of the Electoral College and election of the
President by direct national popular vote. Similarly, expanding the number of
seats in the House of Representatives will give more representation to the
larger population zones and thus enhance the prospects for Democrats, hurting
the Republicans. Taking money out of politics and imposing term limits on
members of Congress are less predictable in their impact on electoral chances
for each of the parties, but will, in the unlikely event that they will ever
come up for consideration, still be judged on their deliverable for the
political future of both parties. I am hard pressed finding a system
improvement that would result in a clear benefit to the Republicans and a
disadvantage to the Democrats and conclude from that that the current system favors
the Republicans and allows them to turn popular vote deficiencies into majority
representation in Congress as well as in State Legislatures. In other words,
the current system turns minority protection into minority advantage.
The only way to make the American political system more
democratic is by lowering the hurdles to system improvement. A voting rights
bill has been languishing in Congress for years under the Trump and Biden
administrations. But unless both parties rededicate themselves to making the
Union a more perfect democracy it is unlikely to ever become law. In American
politics, this day and age, if it is good for the goose, it is not good for the
gander!
