Radical Islam and the West: It’s Time to Give Women a Chance to Lead and Make Peace

Radical Islam and the West: It’s Time to Give Women a Chance to Lead and Make Peace

 

The San Bernardino terrorist attack makes this a good time for us to stop and think about the way America and the West have been dealing with radical Islam for the past several decades.  Reflection suggests it’s time for a sharp change of course.  We need to give women on both sides of the conflict a chance to lead and make peace.

 

To begin, though, we need to be clear:  the terminology that everyone is so sensitive about doesn’t really matter here.  Whether you call it “radical Islam,” as Senator Marco Rubio does, or “jihadism,” as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does, it comes to the same thing.  Today, many people like the San Bernardino killers think that they’re entirely justified in killing innocent people because of their superior ideology.  It is futile to dismiss this deep ideological problem by saying they’re just “criminals.”  We can call their terrorism criminal if we want, but that means we’re completely missing the point that ultimately we have no choice but to defeat the ideology that supposedly justifies it. [1]  “Radical Islam” as used here is a theological view that justifies killing anyone, including innocent noncombatants, who opposes the spread of Islam or its domination of those subject to its idea of religious law.  Many people–especially young people–espouse it.  It may well be a perversion of Islamic thought, but it’s what we need to address.

 

How has the conflict between radical Islam and the West been going?  The answer is pretty easy to find if we’re realistic with ourselves:  we’ve spent trillions of dollars to fight Islamic terrorism and its allies, lost thousands of lives and permanently shattered thousands of others, and gained almost no real ground.  If we had, we wouldn’t be facing ISIS today.  But the news for the Islamic radicals is no better:  although they’ve forced us out of a couple of countries, they’ve done nothing that wouldn’t have happened anyway, because the West has at least in theory given up being colonial occupiers.  So what should the West do now?  I recommend that we put women—on both sides—in charge of peace talks.  Men on both sides have had their chance, and they’ve failed.

 

Men have been running the conflict between Islam and the West for the past several decades (ok, forever).  Their conflict model is strictly military–use violence to crush opponents.  What are the limits of that model?  You can take territory with it–but you cannot win hearts and minds with it.  That’s what the lives of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King prove.  American Founder John Adams thought that the same thing was true about the American Revolution.  Adams believed that the Revolution did not begin with (or even consist of) America’s war against Great Britain.  Instead, he wrote, it “was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people…”  What this shows us is that even if the West takes territory in today’s war, we will lose it again. Civilian populations that hate westerners will aid terrorists. The West’s citizens are simply unwilling to support or pay for the only alternative that can hold territory in that situation–large, expensive permanent military garrisons to impose a form of long-term colonial rule over Islamic countries whose citizens hate us.  So the military model for this conflict has no real future, because it is demonstrably losing—not winning—hearts and minds.[2] This is realism, not defeatism. And that’s where women come in.

 

The war between radical Islam and the west is doubtless sometimes a geopolitical or natural resources conflict—Afghans want to run Afghanistan (and drug traffic), everyone wants to own oil resources, etc.  But just as was true in the Cold War, it seems clear that an important part of today’s conflict is ideological—fundamental political, religious, and moral principles are at stake.  And just as was true in the Cold War, that is where the most important fight is today.  And it is a fight the West can win, if it puts women in charge.  Need I say it?  Radical Islam’s brutal, repressive, and utterly deplorable treatment of women is its Achilles’ heel.  How can it survive a challenge that requires it to treat its women as equals by making them peace negotiators without making peace in a way that gives Islamic women rights that women in the West today often take for granted but that Islamic women are told by their extremist male leaders they will never receive?  The resulting permanent alteration of Islamic societies should lay the groundwork for an end to radical Islam.

 

In theory, women in the West are supposed to be equals with men in every way.  This means that they should be equally capable of finding ways to make peace, using a non-military model to win hearts and minds. NATO can consult with its members and appoint a peace delegation led by women–and it can challenge Islamic countries to do the same.  I personally doubt that it’s a challenge they’ll take, but we’ll never know unless we put women in charge of the West’s efforts.  If we’re trying to find the basis for a lasting peace, it has to be in the hearts and minds of people who mostly see us as enemies today–and this is where women are far better equipped than, let’s face it, the guys’ club that has been running this conflict for decades.  Almost to a man, they have no real comprehension of the political and religious culture they’re opposing, or any real ideological strategy to combat it except spreading “democracy,” which means far too many different things to many different people to be useful.  If we put women in charge, and the Islamic radicals and their allies won’t, the West can then best spend its resources making sure that every Islamic woman knows they refused.  That will be a good place to start the next round of the cold war we are now fighting and losing.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] On terminology, see the thoughtful column by Ramesh Ponnuru, December 2, 2015, in http://www.thestate.com/opinion/op-ed/article47629395.html.

[2] For a former ISIS prisoner’s view that hearts and minds are the key issue, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nicolas-henin-the-man-who-was-held-captive-by-isis-for-10-months-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html.

MEXICO’S FAILED GOVERNMENTS ARE AMERICA’S PROBLEM TOO LOS GOBIERNOS NO DE México SON PROBLEMA DE AMERICA TAMBIEN

Note to Readers:  The English version of this article is followed by a Spanish translation.

Nota a los lectores: La versión en Inglés de este artículo es seguido por una traducción al español.

MEXICO’S FAILED GOVERNMENTS ARE AMERICA’S PROBLEM TOO

Public outrage in Mexico over the murders of forty-three innocent college student teachers by drug traffickers after they were handed over by corrupt local officials recently led to a dramatic response by its government.  On December 1, 2014, Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto proposed seven constitutional amendments to its Congress.  Their major goal is to replace all 1,800 municipal police forces in Mexico by thirty-two state forces.[1]  The Economist reported that: “The crime has horrified Mexicans like no other in recent memory. Though the country has been plagued by mass slayings since drug violence surged in the mid-2000s, the fact that the victims were young, with no link…to criminal gangs, and yet were seized by municipal police and savagely handed over to their executioners, has left many people disgusted at the level of lawlessness.”[2]  There are estimates that as many as 100,000 Mexicans have been killed or have disappeared over the past decade as a result of drug wars.[3]  Parts of Mexico today are failed governments.  These failures are a major problem for America.  We need to take vigorous action now to help the Mexican government combat their source: drug terrorism.

To understand this issue, we need to face a very unpleasant reality.  Mexico’s failed governments are dominated by drug cartels that are largely engaged in supplying American drug demand.   Mexican heroin primarily supplies American drug users, many of whom are turning to heroin as a substitute for prescription pain drugs.  Mexico’s transshipments of drugs such as cocaine are supplying mainly American customers.[4] American consumers are the largest single world market for illegal drugs.  Increasingly today, these drug customers are lower-middle and middle-class suburban whites, not poor minority inner-city dwellers.  More than ninety percent of American heroin users are white, and more than half are women.[5]  Government data suggest that the percentage of people consuming illegal drugs has changed little since America’s “war on drugs” began, while many poor, often minority, people have been needlessly jailed.[6]  Our drug war has primarily been a “war” on the foreign supply of drugs, not a serious attack on the American demand for drugs—and there are obvious political reasons for this.  Fighting drug wars in Colombia is much easier politically than fighting them in Chicago or Miami.

The immense profitability of the drug trade makes it possible for drug traffickers to finance widespread corruption of Mexican governments and thus to murder with impunity.[7]   The marijuana trade by itself is an enormously profitable business.  In Mexico, these drug businesses are clearly worth killing for—and there is evidence to suggest this is increasingly true in the United States as well.  It won’t be long before most Mexicans will no longer be willing to bear the costs of widespread corruption and death that are imposed on their innocent citizens as an indirect result of America’s drug demand.  In all likelihood, without powerful assistance, they will reach tacit agreements with drug traffickers that permit them to operate freely in Mexico as long as they minimize the harm done by the trade to Mexican citizens.

If Mexico becomes a haven for drug cartels, the drug trade there will remain highly profitable and receive maximum protection and freedom to operate.  This in turn will permit drug traffickers to spend additional money on corrupting American police and government officials.  Cops can be paid to look the other way when drug sales or drug terror crimes occur.  And with enough resources, bribes can be concealed without difficulty—through cash payments, offshore bank accounts, or by providing officials with low or no cost stakes in front businesses.  It is unrealistic to expect public employees uniformly to resist corruption when it becomes part of a broad culture or when payments rise beyond a certain level.   And at the same time, drug traffickers will be even more able to organize and use large, well-armed criminal gangs in the United States as ruthless distributors.  American law enforcement lacks the resources to fight gangs that are willing to intimidate witnesses using murder, arson, and threats against family members.  Gangs also force minors to commit violent crimes, knowing that they face far more lenient punishment in America than adults.

America therefore has a strong interest in helping Mexico to resist drug cartel corruption.  In recognition of this, the US has already provided more than two billion dollars worth of assistance to Mexico through the Merida Initiative. [8]   But a much more vigorous effort is needed.  The US can help in two ways.  First, it can attack the problem at home, by beginning a serious attack on drug demand in the United States.  That can be done by substantially increasing drug treatment resources and driving up the cost of illegal drugs.  Drug treatment is expensive—a month at a good clinic can cost $27,000—and so these resources are often now unavailable to those who need them.[9]  American police need to be given additional resources to combat drug trafficking. Local governments should not be asked to provide all of these resources, because some localities are clearly incapable of providing them, and will be overwhelmed, corrupted, or both.  American police departments—and federal law enforcement agencies, including the DEA, as well—need to be placed under additional scrutiny to combat possible corruption.   Second, the United States can offer considerably increased assistance to Mexico, both in direct funding and in institution building.  The United States should also consider negotiating a treaty with Mexico that creates the possibility of full cooperative law enforcement for drug crime, to the extent this is not currently permitted by law.

It is very much in America’s interest for Mexico effectively to combat drug cartel corruption.  Our companies and citizens do business there, and it is in our interest to expand this trade.  And our own governments and law enforcement will be put under enormous pressure if Mexico’s governments fail.   Mexico is an important line of defense for us against drug terrorism.  We need to make Mexico our partner in every sense of the word in dealing with a problem we have done much to help create.[10]

Notes

[1] The Economist, December 6, 2014 at 39. The report criticized the proposal in part because “in some states, governors and their police forces are just as corrupt as the municipal authorities.” Ibid.

[2] The Economist, November 8, 2014.

[3] According to The Guardian, February 3, 2014: “Supported by the US-financed Mérida Initiative, in 2006 the Mexican government declared a war on the drug cartels that has killed or led to the disappearance of 100,000 Mexicans so far…”

[4] “90% of the cocaine that enters the US passes through Mexico, a trade that is now valued at between $19bn and $29bn.” Ibid.

[5] The Economist, November 22, 2014 at 25-26 (chart).

[6] For data on illegal drug use trends see “Drug Abuse:  Nationwide Trends,” at http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends (accessed 12/12/14).

[7] According to a PBS Frontline special, “What keeps the drug industry going is its huge profit margins. Producing drugs is a very cheap process. Like any commodities business the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product. Processed cocaine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail). Heroin costs $2,600/kilo in Pakistan, but can be sold on the streets of America for $130,000/kilo (retail). And synthetics like methamphetamine are often even cheaper to manufacture costing approximately $300 to $500 per kilo to produce in clandestine labs in the US and abroad and sold on US streets for up to $60,000/kilo (retail).”  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html (accessed 12/12/14).

[8] For details on the Merida initiative, see http://www.state.gov/j/inl/merida/  (accessed 12/12/14).

[9] According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:  “There continues to be a large “treatment gap” in this country. In 2012, an estimated 23.1 million Americans (8.9 percent) needed treatment for a problem related to drugs or alcohol, but only about 2.5 million people (1 percent) received treatment at a specialty facility.”

[10] With thanks to Mary A. Van Cleve for perceptive and helpful comments.

Following is a Spanish-language version of this post created by Google translate:

LOS GOBIERNOS NO DE México SON PROBLEMA DE AMERICA TAMBIEN

La indignación pública en México en los asesinatos de los cuarenta y tres inocentes estudiantes de pedagogía de la universidad por los traficantes de drogas después de que fueron entregados por funcionarios locales corruptos recientemente llevado a una respuesta dramática por su gobierno. El 1 de diciembre de 2014, el presidente Enrique Peña Nieto de México propuso siete enmiendas constitucionales a su Congreso. Su objetivo principal es reemplazar los 1.800 policías municipales en México por treinta y dos fuerzas del Estado [1] The Economist informó que: “. El crimen ha horrorizado a los mexicanos como ningún otro en la historia reciente. Aunque el país ha estado plagada de asesinatos masivos desde la violencia del narcotráfico surgió a mediados de la década de 2000, el hecho de que las víctimas eran jóvenes, sin vínculo … a las bandas criminales, y sin embargo, fueron incautados por la policía municipal y salvajemente entregó a sus verdugos, ha dejado a muchas personas disgustados a nivel de la iniquidad. “se fracasó [2] Hay estimaciones de que unos 100.000 mexicanos han sido asesinados o han desaparecido en la última década como consecuencia de la guerra contra las drogas. [3] las partes de México hoy gobiernos. Estas fallas son un problema importante para los Estados Unidos. Tenemos que tomar medidas enérgicas ahora para ayudar al gobierno mexicano a combatir su fuente: el terrorismo de drogas.

Para entender este problema, tenemos que hacer frente a una realidad muy desagradable. Gobiernos fallidos de México están dominados por cárteles de la droga que se dedican principalmente en el suministro de la demanda de drogas de Estados Unidos. Heroína mexicana suministra principalmente consumidores de drogas estadounidenses, muchos de los cuales están dando vuelta a la heroína como un sustituto para los medicamentos recetados para el dolor. Transbordo de drogas como la cocaína de México están suministrando a los clientes, principalmente estadounidenses. [4] Los consumidores estadounidenses son el mayor mercado mundial único para las drogas ilegales. Cada vez más hoy en día, estos clientes drogas son blancos suburbanos de clase media y media-baja, no pobres minoritarios habitantes de las zonas urbanas deprimidas. Más del noventa por ciento de los consumidores de heroína de América son de color blanco, y más de la mitad son mujeres. [5] Los datos del gobierno indican que el porcentaje de personas que consumen drogas ilegales ha cambiado poco desde que comenzó la “guerra contra las drogas” de Estados Unidos, mientras que muchos pobres, a menudo minoría , la gente ha sido innecesariamente encarcelados. [6] Nuestra guerra contra las drogas ha sido principalmente una “guerra” en el suministro extranjero de drogas, no un grave ataque a la demanda estadounidense de drogas -y hay razones políticas obvias para esto. La lucha contra las guerras de drogas en Colombia es mucho más fácil políticamente que luchar contra ellos en Chicago o Miami.

La inmensa rentabilidad del negocio de la droga hace posible que los traficantes de drogas para financiar la corrupción generalizada de los gobiernos de México y por lo tanto para asesinar con impunidad. [7] El comercio de marihuana por sí mismo es un negocio enormemente rentable. En México, estos negocios de drogas son claramente vale la pena matar y no hay evidencia que sugiera que es cada vez más cierto en los Estados Unidos también. No pasará mucho tiempo antes de que la mayoría de los mexicanos ya no estarán dispuestos a asumir los costos de la corrupción generalizada y la muerte que se imponen a sus ciudadanos inocentes como resultado indirecto de la demanda de drogas en Estados Unidos. Con toda probabilidad, sin ayuda de gran alcance, van a llegar a acuerdos tácitos con los traficantes de drogas que permiten operar libremente en México, siempre que minimizan el daño causado por el comercio a los ciudadanos mexicanos.

Si México se convierte en un paraíso para los cárteles de la droga, el tráfico de drogas no seguirá siendo altamente rentable y recibir la máxima protección y libertad para operar. Esto a su vez permitirá a los narcotraficantes que gastar dinero adicional a los funcionarios policiales y gubernamentales estadounidenses corruptoras. Los policías se pueden pagar a mirar hacia otro lado cuando se venden drogas o delitos terroristas drogas. Y con los recursos suficientes, los sobornos se pueden ocultar sin pagos en efectivo de dificultad a través, cuentas bancarias en el extranjero, o proporcionando funcionarios con apuestas bajas o nulas de costes en las empresas delanteros. No es realista esperar que los empleados públicos de manera uniforme para resistir la corrupción cuando se convierte en parte de una cultura amplia o cuando los pagos se elevan más allá de un cierto nivel. Y al mismo tiempo, los traficantes de drogas serán aún más capaz de organizar y utilizar grandes bandas criminales, bien armados en los Estados Unidos como distribuidores despiadados. Aplicación de la ley estadounidense carece de los recursos para combatir las pandillas que están dispuestos a intimidar a testigos, utilizando asesinatos, incendios y amenazas contra miembros de la familia. Las pandillas también obligan a los menores a cometer delitos violentos, a sabiendas de que se enfrentan a penas mucho más indulgente en América que los adultos.

Por lo tanto, Estados Unidos tiene un gran interés en ayudar a México para resistir la corrupción cartel de la droga. En reconocimiento de esto, los EE.UU. ya ha proporcionado más de dos mil millones de dólares en asistencia a México a través de la Iniciativa Mérida. [8] Sin embargo, se necesita un esfuerzo mucho más vigorosa. Los EE.UU. puede ayudar de dos maneras. En primer lugar, puede atacar el problema en casa, empezando por un grave ataque a la demanda de drogas en Estados Unidos. Eso se puede hacer mediante un incremento sustancial de recursos de tratamiento de drogas y aumentando el costo de las drogas ilegales. El tratamiento farmacológico es caro-un mes en una buena clínica puede costar $ 27.000 y por lo que estos recursos son a menudo ahora disponible para aquellos que los necesitan. [9] policía estadounidense deben recibir recursos adicionales para combatir el tráfico de drogas. Los gobiernos locales no se debe pedir a proporcionar todos estos recursos, ya que algunas localidades son claramente incapaces de proporcionar ellos, y se verán abrumados, dañados, o ambos. Departamentos de policía estadounidenses-y agencias federales de aplicación de la ley, incluyendo la DEA, así, la necesidad de estar bajo un escrutinio adicional para combatir la posible corrupción. En segundo lugar, los Estados Unidos puede ofrecer aumentado considerablemente la asistencia a México, tanto en la financiación directa y en la creación de instituciones. Los Estados Unidos también debe considerar la negociación de un tratado con México que crea la posibilidad de aplicación de la ley cooperativa completo para el delito de drogas, en la medida en que esto no está permitido por la ley.

Es en gran medida en el interés de Estados Unidos por México para luchar eficazmente contra la corrupción cartel de la droga. Nuestras empresas y ciudadanos de hacer negocios allí, y es en nuestro interés de ampliar este comercio. Y nuestros propios gobiernos y la policía serán sometidos a una enorme presión si los gobiernos de México fallan. México es una importante línea de defensa para nosotros contra el narcoterrorismo. Tenemos que hacer que México nuestro socio en todos los sentidos de la palabra en el tratamiento de un problema que hemos hecho mucho para ayudar a crear. [10]

Notas

[1] El Economista 6 de diciembre de 2014 a 39. El informe criticó la propuesta, en parte, debido a que “en algunos estados, los gobernadores y sus fuerzas policiales son tan corruptos como las autoridades municipales”. Ibid.

[2] The Economist, 08 de noviembre 2014.

[3] De acuerdo con The Guardian 3 de febrero de 2014: “Con el apoyo de la Iniciativa Mérida financiada por Estados Unidos, en 2006 el gobierno mexicano declaró la guerra a los cárteles de la droga que ha matado o llevado a la desaparición de 100.000 mexicanos hasta ahora …”

[4] “El 90% de la cocaína que entra en los EE.UU. pasa a través de México, un comercio que ahora está valorada en $ 19 mil millones entre y $ 29bn.” Ibid.

[5] El Economista 22 de noviembre de 2014 a 25-26 (tabla).

[6] Para los datos sobre las tendencias de consumo de drogas ilegales ver “abuso de drogas: tendencias a nivel nacional,” en http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends (consultado el 12/12/14).

[7] De acuerdo con un especial de PBS Frontline, “¿Qué impide que la industria de la droga que va es sus enormes márgenes de beneficio. La producción de drogas es un proceso muy barato. Al igual que cualquier negocio de materias primas mientras más cerca esté de la fuente el más barato el producto. Cocaína procesada está disponible en Colombia por $ 1500 dólares por kilo y se vende en las calles de Estados Unidos por hasta US $ 66.000 por kilo (al por menor). La heroína cuesta 2.600 dólares / kilo en Pakistán, pero se puede vender en las calles de Estados Unidos por $ 130.000 / kilo (al por menor). Y sintéticos como la metanfetamina son a menudo incluso más barato de fabricar un costo aproximado de $ 300 a $ 500 por kilo de producir en laboratorios clandestinos en los EE.UU. y en el extranjero y se venden en las calles de Estados Unidos para un máximo de $ 60,000 / kilo (al por menor) “http:. //www.pbs .org / WGBH / pages / primera línea / mostrar / drogas / especial / math.html (consultado el 12/12/14).

[8] Para más detalles sobre la iniciativa Mérida, ver http://www.state.gov/j/inl/merida/ (consultado el 12/12/14).

[9] De acuerdo con el Instituto Nacional sobre el Abuso de Drogas: “Sigue existiendo una gran” brecha de tratamiento “en este país. En 2012, se estima que 23,1 millones de estadounidenses (8,9 por ciento) necesarios para el tratamiento de un problema relacionado con las drogas o el alcohol, pero sólo alrededor de 2,5 millones de personas (1 por ciento) recibieron tratamiento en un centro de especialidad “.

[10] Con agradecimiento a María A. Van Cleve para comentarios perspicaces y útiles.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

IS AMERICA REALLY A DEMOCRACY?

Is America Really a Democracy?

Many Americans think of the United States as one of the world’s leading democracies.  In theory, here the people rule.  But in reality, the American constitution was designed in part to prevent majority rule from trampling minority rights.  So the Founders added to the Constitution a series of checks on the popular will, including the Supreme Court, the Senate, the presidential veto, and the Electoral College.  But today, these same institutions prevent the majority will from operating far more often than was originally intended.

The Supreme Court’s tenure is a good example.  Justices are appointed for life.   The longer justices live, the fewer opportunities presidents have to choose new justices, who might alter the Court’s direction.  In 1787, there were competing ideas about justices’ tenure.  Some people thought that justices should serve for twenty-five years, others that they should serve for life.  But there wasn’t much difference then, because life expectancies were far shorter than today.  If a justice was appointed in 1789 in his mid-40s, and had a twenty-five year term, the odds were relatively good that he would die before it ended, so it didn’t make much difference whether his term was twenty-five years or life.  Today, differing terms would have far different effects.  If a justice is appointed in his early 40s, it is reasonable to expect that he or she might well serve at least 40 years.   So the Supreme Court today is far less amenable to popular input than many citizens probably wanted in 1787 or now.  At the same time, in cases such as Bush v. Gore (which decided the 2000 presidential election), the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself decisions the Constitution intended Congress to make.[1]

Another example is the presidential veto.  When it was created, it would typically have taken the votes of congressmen and Senators representing about two-thirds of the American population to override a veto.  Today, political scientists think that there may be times when it would require the votes of Senators representing seventy-five percent, or even a considerably higher percentage, of the population to override a veto. Only a very small fraction of vetoes are successfully overridden.  This means that the presidential veto is now far closer to the monarchical absolute veto advocated by a few Founders rather than a substantial check on the popular will.  Yet we still elect these more powerful presidents even when they fail to receive a popular vote majority because we elect them using the Electoral College.  It becomes more anti-democratic and dangerous with every passing day (for reasons to be explored in a series of subsequent posts).[2]

Congress’ broad lawmaking powers were originally seen as the principal means of expressing the popular will.  Other government branches were given their powers primarily as a means of restraining it.   But since the mid-twentieth century, at least, Congress has increasingly abdicated its authority on issues such as military intervention abroad and control of national defense and foreign policy.  In addition, since World War II, Congress has repeatedly delegated what practically amounts to lawmaking authority to the executive branch without agreeing on clear guidelines for its use.  These developments have substantially decreased Congress’ ability to represent the popular will.  Presidential power has been expanding for decades through regulatory action to fill the vacuum left by Congress’ chronic inability to reach meaningful agreements on legislation. We have moved from congressional government toward government through an imperial presidency.

There is one Congressional institution that is more responsible than any other for Congress’ failure to govern–the Senate “filibuster rule.”  Without getting into details, the effect of the filibuster rule is that ordinary legislation cannot pass the Senate unless at least sixty Senators agree to it.  This means that legislation cannot pass unless it is watered down to make it acceptable to a significant number of Senators in the minority on a legislative issue.  On any issue where the major parties are sharply divided, this means that legislation will not move forward unless the majority permits the minority to exercise a veto on its content.  The filibuster rule can only be defended on the grounds that it is necessary to ensure that minorities are reasonably consulted on legislation.  But why should minorities be able to hamstring progress when the issue is one of legislative policy rather than one that affects fundamental rights (which can be protected in court)?  Isn’t the purpose of electing majorities to give them the authority to govern?  If they choose to do so without addressing minority interests and voters are unhappy about this, they can retaliate at the polls by making a minority into a majority. [3]

The fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to end the filibuster rule–even though both have at times had the power to do so–shows that it is more important to both parties to continue to have a stranglehold on the entire Congressional legislative process than it is to them to actually govern by passing legislation.   This means that ensuring that they have the ability to protect the status quo–to prevent change–is actually their paramount objective. This means that needless gridlock will persist.  It also means that presidents become more powerful, and so presidential elections become the focus of politics.

America was not intended to be a pure democracy, or even a pure republic.  But it was surely intended by the Founders to be more republican than it is today.  Today, on many important issues, where sixty–or seventy–or even eighty percent of the population clearly wants change to occur, the government does not respond, or responds only when a crisis forces action.  It should come as no surprise that as a result popular support for government institutions has sharply declined over the past several decades.  It is high time for our antiquated constitution to change.[4]

[1] On this, see the brilliant dissent of Mr. Justice Breyer in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[2]  A very small percentage of presidential vetos have historically been overridden (about 7 percent as of 2004).  Of course, the coalitions that would sustain a veto will depend on the nature of the issue, and on whether the president is willing to trade votes for support or opposition on other legislation.  But today the Senate consists of states so disproportionate in size that if Senators from the top fifteen or so states in population, which together have about two-thirds of the nation’s population, all voted to override a veto, they would not have nearly enough votes to override it, even if their only opponents were the Senators from the seventeen smallest states, which have much less than twenty percent of the population.  Similarly, the populous states would also lose whenever they were opposed by Senators representing only twenty-five percent of the population.  For more information and background on veto procedure, see http://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf (accessed 11/30/2014) and Elizabeth Rybicki, “Veto Override Procedure in the House  Senate,” Congressional Research Service report, July 19, 2010.

[3] For the history of the filibuster rule and details of its operation, see Charles Tiefer, Congressional Practice and Procedure:  A Reference, Research and Legislative Guide (Greenwood, 1989).

[4] A number of the points made in this post are discussed in broader context in Sanford Levinson’s perceptive book, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It) (Oxford University Press, 2006), which also considers various reforms.  For another thought-provoking analysis of various possible constitutional changes, see Larry J. Sabato, A More Perfect Constitution: Why the Constitution must be revised:  Ideas to inspire a new generation  (Walker Publishing, New York, 2008).  Note:  Reference here to these books is not intended as an endorsement of their proposed reforms.

WHY SHOULD STATES HAVE EQUAL VOTING POWER IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE?

The United States Constitution provides that the Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each state. This composition was agreed on as a compromise in 1787 between large and small states. Large states wanted Congressional representation to be based either on population or wealth (or some combination). Small states wanted equal representation in Congress. The Philadelphia Convention agreed that states would receive their seats in the House of Representatives based on relative population, but that states would be equal in the Senate. The result was that as of 1790, states with 19 percent of the American population had 46 percent of the votes in the Senate. [Note 1]

Many Founders knew when they agreed to the 1787 compromise on state voting power in the Senate that it was flatly inconsistent with the republican principle of majority rule that was the basis of government legitimacy under the new Constitution. For that reason, leading delegates such as James Madison and James Wilson originally strongly opposed it. They realized after a bitter fight that they had no choice but to accept this distortion of the popular will to get enough states to agree peacefully to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the limited distortion they accepted has now been transformed into a far larger distortion than they intended as the nation has grown.

In 1787, the largest state was about 12 times as large as the smallest state. As of 2000, California was about 50 times larger than North Dakota. But California’s two Senators, who represented about 34 million people in 2000, still had the same number of votes as the Senators from North Dakota, who represented 2 percent as many people. This sharply increased distortion of the popular will has major effects on national policy. Senators from small rural states often do not vote the same way on national issues as Senators who represent major cities such as New York and Los Angeles. Here’s a way to see the negative effects this serious failure to follow popular will creates.

Suppose we did an experiment in which we reconfigured the current (“Old”) Senate to make a “New” Senate that more directly reflects the popular will. Then let’s look at a series of actual Senate votes over about twenty years from the late 1960s to the 1980s and see the likely results if the New Senate had voted on them instead. (See Note 2 for details). On a number of issues, national policy would have changed under the New Senate, often reaching the opposite result from the Old Senate.

For example, the New Senate would have adopted national “no fault” auto insurance standards to cut consumer insurance costs. (Voting Study, 4). And it would have refused to provide a federal loan guarantee to bail out defense contractor Lockheed Corporation. (Voting Study, 4). The New Senate would also have adopted fundamentally different positions on several major foreign policy and environmental issues than the Old Senate did. The New Senate might well have supported a constitutional amendment for direct election of the President in 1970 (Voting Study, 6-7). In short, the New Senate experiment shows that national policy is strongly affected by state voting strength in the Senate, often in unfortunate ways that do not represent the national popular will.

Here’s an example from the Voting Study: Federal No Fault Auto Insurance (Senate vote, May 31, 1976). On motion to recommit and thus kill bill to establish federal standards for no-fault motor vehicle insurance, results: Old Senate: Yeas: 49 Nays: 45. Motion adopted; bill killed. New Senate: Yeas: 68 Nays: 75. Motion failed. Bill would have been adopted.

Should Americans today accept the very large distortion of popular will that results from the Constitution’s two hundred year-old compromise on Senate voting? Should we do so even though it adversely affects national policy and badly weakens the democratic legitimacy of the entire Congress? Or is it time to create a New Senate that will actually make decisions in the national interest? Such a reform would sharply dilute the power of special interest groups (or “factions”) by balancing their interests against many others in the larger states and by lessening the power of smaller states where their influence might be strong enough to be politically dominant.

Notes

Note 1. For an excellent account of the struggle over representation at the 1787 Convention, see Richard Beeman, Plain Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution (New York: Random House, 2009). For additional discussion of the consequences of this compromise, see George William Van Cleve, A Slaveholders’ Union: Slavery, Politics and the Constitution in the Early American Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 119-121.

Note 2. First, the old Senate would be expanded somewhat. Then the formula for allocating Senate votes for states would be changed. In the “New” Senate, each state’s number of votes would be increased so that it was mid-way between the Old Senate and a full population system like that used for the existing House of Representatives. The New Senate Voting Study (pdf attached
to this post) shows how this would work (pages 1-2). In our experiment, the actual Old Senate votes are adjusted to show the likely results if the New Senate had voted on them instead; the results are shown in the Voting Study.

NOTE: THE TEXT OF THE NEW SENATE VOTING STUDY IS CONTAINED IN THE PDF DOCUMENT BELOW:   

state voting power in senate

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.