Sunday, February 06, 2005
MSS: Shia, Sunni, Red, and Blue
No doubt many of my readers have daydreamed about breaking the Blue States away from our lunatic breathren in the Red States. Or simply approving the South's request for secession, and apologizing for the delay. But looking at Iraq's ethnic divisions has the Mad Social Scientist in me thinking: maybe we just have to deal with the Red/Blue split like we would deal with any (other?) ethnic conflict: create institutions granting both sides a veto.
My simple thought is that we reorganize Congress into two chambers with equal membership and powers (e.g., both have the power of the purse, and both have the right to deny confirmation to presidential appointees). One would be the House of the Blue, drawing its membership from Congressional Districts in Blue States only; the other the House of the Red. Under current rules for passing laws, this would grant each side in our national argument the easy ability to veto any legislation that comes up the pike (and that includes resolutions for war).
Points for the plan:
1. It achieves the goals the Founders set out for the Senate---balancing the interests of diverse states---in a fashion more appropriate for our present urban/rural split.
2. Only policy changes that are uncontroversial across the Red/Blue divided would pass. Some worthy policies would languish, but few horrible new policies---or unfair policies---would pass.
3. The potential for compromise would be built into the system, but if one side refused to negotiate, things still wouldn't get any worse than they are now.
Caveats:
1. Republicans will demur, because they have all the power, and want to use it to the maximum extent they can.
2. But, once the split is made, Republicans would have an unassailable veto forever. We would never become a great nation (we'd never get national health insurance, or stop global warming, or start a national initiative to develop new fuels, or give full rights to gays, the disabled, minorities, women, etc.). But we would never become a nation that either half our populace couldn't bear. Republicans who hate liberals could take comfort in that.
3. The presidency remains a problem, especially in its present imperial state. It would be better to have a Prime Minister selected by the consent of, and serving at the pleasure of, both Houses---some real milquetoast no one has strong feelings for or against. Alternatively, we could give each House an independent legislative veto.
4. We'd be competing with French 4th Republic and the pre-Berlusconi Italian Republic for the title of most immobilized political system (but that's better than global enemy number 1, our current world ranking).
5. It's a Mad Social Science idea...
Fun questions for political scientists:
1. How many parties would there be, and what would they stand for?
2. What rules would the Houses adopt? E.g., how would conference committees be selected?
3. Would the preferences of the national median voter have any relevance?
My simple thought is that we reorganize Congress into two chambers with equal membership and powers (e.g., both have the power of the purse, and both have the right to deny confirmation to presidential appointees). One would be the House of the Blue, drawing its membership from Congressional Districts in Blue States only; the other the House of the Red. Under current rules for passing laws, this would grant each side in our national argument the easy ability to veto any legislation that comes up the pike (and that includes resolutions for war).
Points for the plan:
1. It achieves the goals the Founders set out for the Senate---balancing the interests of diverse states---in a fashion more appropriate for our present urban/rural split.
2. Only policy changes that are uncontroversial across the Red/Blue divided would pass. Some worthy policies would languish, but few horrible new policies---or unfair policies---would pass.
3. The potential for compromise would be built into the system, but if one side refused to negotiate, things still wouldn't get any worse than they are now.
Caveats:
1. Republicans will demur, because they have all the power, and want to use it to the maximum extent they can.
2. But, once the split is made, Republicans would have an unassailable veto forever. We would never become a great nation (we'd never get national health insurance, or stop global warming, or start a national initiative to develop new fuels, or give full rights to gays, the disabled, minorities, women, etc.). But we would never become a nation that either half our populace couldn't bear. Republicans who hate liberals could take comfort in that.
3. The presidency remains a problem, especially in its present imperial state. It would be better to have a Prime Minister selected by the consent of, and serving at the pleasure of, both Houses---some real milquetoast no one has strong feelings for or against. Alternatively, we could give each House an independent legislative veto.
4. We'd be competing with French 4th Republic and the pre-Berlusconi Italian Republic for the title of most immobilized political system (but that's better than global enemy number 1, our current world ranking).
5. It's a Mad Social Science idea...
Fun questions for political scientists:
1. How many parties would there be, and what would they stand for?
2. What rules would the Houses adopt? E.g., how would conference committees be selected?
3. Would the preferences of the national median voter have any relevance?
