Ezra Klein is a columnist and blogger at The Washington Post and a policy analyst for MSNBC. His work focuses on domestic and economic policy-making, as well as the political system that's constantly screwing it up.
The last three years have tested the
U.S. political system’s capacity to manage crises. How did we
do?
I’ll quote Standard & Poor’s: “The downgrade reflects our
view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of
American policymaking and political institutions have weakened
at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges.”
Not well, in other words. Yet we deserve some credit. We
did respond swiftly and decisively in 2008-09 to a financial
crisis that, judging from the data, could have been as bad or
worse than the Great Depression. We saved the auto industry and
passed a stimulus that kept millions of people working. We
didn’t default on our debt, or shut the government down. The
financial crisis proved that our political system, as polarized
and sclerotic as it is, can act if the consequences are
sufficiently grave.
So it’s not crises I’m most worried about when peering into
our economic future. It’s the non-crises. It’s legislating when
disaster doesn’t loom. It’s taking advantage of economic
opportunities and preventing future emergencies. It’s governing,
as opposed to firefighting.
Resistant to Action
Compared with other political systems in other
industrialized democracies, our system is unusually reliant on
consensus and resistant to action. In many countries, there’s no
such thing as “divided government,” where one party controls the
executive branch and the other runs the legislature. Nor is
there a filibuster, a debt ceiling, or, to go back to one of the
primary impediments to action of the civil rights era, a House
Rules Committee. It’s simply easier for governments elsewhere to
get things done (though it’s not necessarily easier, as the euro
region shows, for those governments to get things done in
cooperation with one another).
As the political scientists Sven Steinmo and Jon Watts
concluded in “It’s the Institutions, Stupid,” their 1995 paper
on health-care reform, the United States is “the only democratic
country that does not have a comprehensive national health
insurance system because American political institutions are
structurally biased against this kind of comprehensive reform.”
Passage of the Affordable Care Act last year brought us
closer in line with our international peers. But not much
closer. And consider the costs we continue to impose on
ourselves in the interim: If the U.S. simply had the per-person
health-care costs of Switzerland, which hosts the second-most
expensive health-care system in the world, we would spend $3,000
less per person and save about $900 billion a year. Assuming we
need to reduce deficits by about $4 trillion over the next 10
years, those savings would do the heavy lifting with about $5
trillion to spare.
Hard to Innovate
While our system grows more polarized and less predictable,
our problems -- mounting deficits, crumbling infrastructure,
rising temperatures, stagnant incomes -- are on autopilot.
It’s going to be hard to innovate our way out of the energy
crisis with a broken patent system, flat research and
development budgets, and an underperforming education system.
We’re not going to be the best place to do business if our roads
are thick with traffic and our broadband speeds lag behind those
elsewhere in the world. We’re not going to get health-care costs
under control if Republicans, having failed to repeal the
health-reform law, refuse to allow it to be effectively
implemented. We’re not going to attract the best talent from
around the world if we can’t make it easier for the skilled and
educated to settle in the U.S.
None of these problems is likely to balloon into a crisis
anytime soon. (Interest rates won’t surge if we refuse a green
card to the next Sergey Brin.) But over time, mistakes, missed
opportunities and policy paralysis will lead to lower growth,
higher deficits and a weaker country; then we’ll look back and
ask, “What happened?”
The old theory was that the right answers to policy
problems would, by virtue of seeming right, command enough
consensus in Washington to clear the system’s hurdles. That may
have worked well enough in recent decades, when the system was
less polarized and the parties were far better at working
together. It seems naive in 2011.
Other countries have had strong, polarized parties for
longer than we have, using party-line voting to make effective
governing majorities possible. In that sort of system, one side
wins and implements much of its agenda. Eventually, the economy
turns or the agenda fails and the other side gains power,
reverses its predecessor’s excesses and implements its own
agenda. And so it goes. Rather than governing through
compromise, it governs by, well, governing, and letting voters
judge the results.
The U.S. has never felt that it had much to learn from
other political systems; even suggesting that there might be
useful lessons abroad seemed borderline unpatriotic. But our
dysfunctional political system just forfeited our sterling
credit rating, and doubts about our governing capacity are
roiling global markets. At this point, ignoring the system’s
problems seems borderline unpatriotic.
(Ezra Klein is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions
expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article:
Ezra Klein in Washington at
wonkbook@gmail.com.