You identified a particularly stubborn issue: “A major challenge for American democracy today is whether our bargain-inherent system can now move quickly enough to survive.” As you point out, bargaining is a slow process. Unfortunately, in some cases, a rapid decision is just what is needed. How great was the loss of life in Ukraine as a result of slow Congressional bargaining? Maybe that is a price that must be paid, but there is another option. I think we sometimes need a decisive (and beneficent) leader, one whose power, while limited, is capable of intervening when a rapid response is called for. Think of Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I’m not saying his was necessarily the right approach to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, just that it is worth noting the cost of bargaining there. The framers of the Constitution wisely provided for both forms of decision-making. We should not go overboard in either direction.
Regarding bargaining, many citizens lack the patience for negotiating and compromising among differing personalities and priorities. Indeed, in today’s Internet world of fast, simplified opinion-formation, I think it is too much to hope our populace will listen and bargain carefully. Instead, I believe it is incumbent upon our leaders, at least primarily, to do this work for us. The best message we can send to the public is to elect individuals who can negotiate with those who have differing wishes, while still considering the needs of those whom they represent. This is a difficult kind of person to find, especially before they have a visible track record in elected office, but that is what we need more than ever today. Such people should be encouraged to run and we should be sure to vote for them when they do.
Thank you Paul for your thoughtful comments. The tension between urgency and the slow democratic process is ages old. The Roman Republic had a provision for "emergency dictatorship" (to take unilateral charge in times of danger), which worked pretty well until Julius Caesar abused it en route to his autocratic attempt to create one man rule--leading to his assassination. Certainly having the right kind of leaders to be our bargainers would be wonderful--but of course hard to guarantee in popular elections. My post was mostly intended to raise the issue...and add another 'drop in the bucket' of improving our civic thinking about the skills and temperment of the people we elect to office.
Interesting article today by William Galston in WSJ about how our congress's "dithering" about aid to Ukraine has indeed penalized what they can do on the battlefield. Brings to life with real detail the dangers of "Slowpoke Democracy"
You identified a particularly stubborn issue: “A major challenge for American democracy today is whether our bargain-inherent system can now move quickly enough to survive.” As you point out, bargaining is a slow process. Unfortunately, in some cases, a rapid decision is just what is needed. How great was the loss of life in Ukraine as a result of slow Congressional bargaining? Maybe that is a price that must be paid, but there is another option. I think we sometimes need a decisive (and beneficent) leader, one whose power, while limited, is capable of intervening when a rapid response is called for. Think of Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I’m not saying his was necessarily the right approach to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, just that it is worth noting the cost of bargaining there. The framers of the Constitution wisely provided for both forms of decision-making. We should not go overboard in either direction.
Regarding bargaining, many citizens lack the patience for negotiating and compromising among differing personalities and priorities. Indeed, in today’s Internet world of fast, simplified opinion-formation, I think it is too much to hope our populace will listen and bargain carefully. Instead, I believe it is incumbent upon our leaders, at least primarily, to do this work for us. The best message we can send to the public is to elect individuals who can negotiate with those who have differing wishes, while still considering the needs of those whom they represent. This is a difficult kind of person to find, especially before they have a visible track record in elected office, but that is what we need more than ever today. Such people should be encouraged to run and we should be sure to vote for them when they do.
Thank you Paul for your thoughtful comments. The tension between urgency and the slow democratic process is ages old. The Roman Republic had a provision for "emergency dictatorship" (to take unilateral charge in times of danger), which worked pretty well until Julius Caesar abused it en route to his autocratic attempt to create one man rule--leading to his assassination. Certainly having the right kind of leaders to be our bargainers would be wonderful--but of course hard to guarantee in popular elections. My post was mostly intended to raise the issue...and add another 'drop in the bucket' of improving our civic thinking about the skills and temperment of the people we elect to office.
Interesting article today by William Galston in WSJ about how our congress's "dithering" about aid to Ukraine has indeed penalized what they can do on the battlefield. Brings to life with real detail the dangers of "Slowpoke Democracy"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-pays-the-price-for-u-s-dithering-over-military-aid-4f59ce12?st=lzzyy0dpmjizcfv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink