The American Political System Needs Reform

Introduction 

That the American political system stands apart, in significant ways from many other world systems is quite axiomatic. American presidentialism stands in stark contrast to the parliamentarism of many of her developed world allies. Her constitutional order varies in remarkable aspects from those of many countries of the world. Her electoral system stands out for having a unique Electoral College system and embrace of a winner take it all system. Years of experimentation with this unique model has engendered mixed reactions. On the one hand, some have argued that the American political system is an anomaly in the world’s political systems that ought to be revised to make it more conformist. These critics often cite the modest success of this model and the need for the nation’s political arrangements to evolve with the times. Those on the other hand of this debate point to the success of the system in enduring major turbulences the nation has witnessed, its merits within the current world order and the weaknesses inherent in other alternative models. This paper is a revisitation of this ongoing discourse. In light of recent discourse, the paper seeks to answer whether indeed there are adequate reasons to revise the current American political system. 

Background 

Political organization in the United States has been significantly influenced by the country’s history. This is not a strange phenomenon; most nations are to a considerable extent influenced by the unique circumstances and experiences of her past. These past occurrences have the effect of influencing and shaping ideology and belief of a society. One of the fundamental belief that has characterized the United States is that of American exceptionalism. Whether this belief is grounded in reality has been a matter subject to extensive intellectual deliberations. What is significant here, however, is that most Americans have historically believed in their exceptional nature, a notion that has invariably shaped her institutions and actions. 

The idea of American exceptionalism is not new. The term was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville who argued that Americans have certain peculiar situations that sets them apart from the rest of the world. Tocqueville writes ‘the situation of the Americans is, therefore, entirely exceptional, and it must be believed that no democratic people will ever reach it.’ With this observation, Tocqueville sets in motion a series of inquiries on the United States as unusual, anomalous and exceptional. Writing over a century after Tocqueville, Louis Hartz observed that the United States is exceptional because it attained liberal values without undergoing tumultuous revolutions against some ancient rulers like the rest of Europe. The ability of the United States to avoid the feudal stage of history, he argued, is what makes it different from the rest. William Fulbright, writing a decade after Hartz, argued that America was extremely fortunate in that it has developed with time institutions capable of adapting to a variety of circumstances. In his view, American institutions are what set the nation apart. This point was emphasized by Byron Shafer who suggested that American singularity was to be found in its division of powers, ideology of populism and primary elections. 

Seymour Marin Lipset, writing more recently in his The American Exceptionalism argued that the United States is the most religious, least statist, most patriotic, most optimistic, moralist, individualist and most oriented to their rights. Further, he notes that the absence of socialist movements makes it singular. Graham Wilson, taking a more moderate view, argues that the United States has its differences from other nations but is not Sui generis. Samuel Krislov argues that American federalism is the most obvious manifestation of its singularity. Charles Lockhart in 2003 after a comparative study of public policies in the United States and other western nations including Canada, France, and Switzerland concludes that the United States is exceptional. 

The notion of an exceptional America, however, transcends scholarly discourse. Perhaps no category has been most emphatic about American exceptionalism than her presidents. The theme reverberates across numerous speeches, policy debates and perhaps most notably in her foreign policy. As recently as 2012, President Barrack Obama in his state of the union address could be heard saying, “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs, and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.” Throughout the other parts of his speech, the president praised various facets of America unique standing as a country in the world. 

Based on the aforementioned, it is evident that the idea of American exceptionalism runs deep. The extent to which this idea has been hammered in over the years begs the question whether for most Americans their exceptionalism is a psychological construct, passed across over generations, or whether it a self-evident reality. If indeed the n otion of American exceptionalism is to be debunked, then it is also possible to unsettle the very basis for her political system. As it has been observed earlier, the basis for the existence and perpetuation of some of the fundamental aspects of her political system has to do with this idea. Before addressing this question, it must also be noted that the very basis for American exceptionalism is so extensive to the extent of making it analytically useless. As it has been seen, claims of American exceptionalism straddle political processes, her institutions, her history, her status as a unipolar, her people, her ideologies amongst other claims If indeed there is no specific basis for such claims, then it might be cogently argued that every polity with a number of peculiarities is exceptional. On this basis, every political society can lay claim to exceptionalism. 

Against American Exceptionalism 

First, the actions of the United States, both internally and externally suggest no singularity from other states. In an inherently competitive international system, the United States has employed its power to advance her interests just like any other nation-state. By focusing on their exceptional qualities abroad, Americans have blinded themselves to the forms in which they are similar to everyone. This perhaps explains why a good number of nations are often alarmed by the US engagement abroad and frequently infuriated by what has come to be seen as American hypocrisy whether it is in matters of conformity to international law, her propensity for unilateralism in global affairs as exhibited in the Iraq war or the debate on nuclear weapons. Some have thus argued that the pursuit of American foreign policy would be more effective if the country were to abandon such or purge them to her foreign policy. This does not necessarily mean an abandonment of values but rather a subordination of them to a domestic domain. 

Second, the claim that her superpower status makes her different, puts special burdens on her shoulders and thus the basis for being exceptional fails the novelty test. In fact, such lofty declarations remind us of the well-worn path that other nations have taken before. Many of the superpowers of yore- from the Greeks to the Romans to the Chinese- have considered their rival inferior and have behaved on the premise that they are advancing some greater good. The British spoke of the white man’s burden while the French spoke of la mission civilisatrice to justify their acts of imperialism. The Portuguese, whose acts of imperialism cannot be distinguished from those of British or the French, spoke of missão civilizador. The communists of the Soviet Union committed unspeakable atrocities in the genuine belief that they were leading their people to a socialist utopia. While there is, in fact, no comparison between the motivations of the United States and the communist Soviet Union, what is also true is that all nations tend to praise their specific qualities. 

Third, the notion that American success has been due to some special genius needs to be brought into some special focus. That Americans attribute their success to the virtues enshrined in their constitution, the special foresight of their founding fathers, their embrace of liberty and the creativity and hard work of Americans has been well documented. There is a degree of validity in this claim: America’s technological and scientific achievements deserve praise and have had something to do with the vitality and openness of their political order. However, American success has also had to do with good fortune. Droves of immigrants that came to the United States were to a considerable degree attracted by the land’s natural resources. The continent was endowed with navigable rivers, and her distance from great power conflict created stable conditions for economic prosperity. The fall of European powers in World War I and World War II also created suitable conditions for American ascendancy. 

Equally important is the American claim that it has done more in the spread of democratic ideas across the world than any other nation. The manifest destiny of the United States has undeniably formed the core of American exceptionalism. And yet as some scholars have forcefully argued, the spread of liberal ideas may be seen as a global phenomenon tracing its roots in the enlightenment, and those European political leaders and philosophers may have played a more important role in the spread of democracy than Americans have been keen to admit. 

In brief, there are numerous grounds on which American exceptionalism may be dismissed. If indeed the notion of American exceptionalism cannot be sustained, then there is adequate reason for Americans to review a philosophy that has had far-reaching influence on her institutions and actions. This would thus lead to a review of her political system while putting into consideration the more realistic aspects of her society. And yet it must be admitted that the America people are rational beings capable of an objective analysis of the functioning of her system without reference to any ideological system. This recognition demands that attention be given to workings of the American political system when evaluating the necessity for a review. Such an approach must also take into account the feelings of the American people about their own system 

An analysis of the effectiveness of the American political system suggests a deeply dysfunctional system. In addition, a CNN opinion survey found that 86% percent of Americans felt the federal government has broken with a meager 14% believing it was working effectively. Based on these findings, it would be reasonable to expect that the American public would be willing to undertake changes to the system if only to bring a degree of effectiveness. 

The problems that afflict American politics are now relatively well-known and will receive a brief mention here. A monumental challenge has been declining institutional performance. Recurring deadlocks over such critical issues as climate change, economic policy, immigration and social security have characterized the American political landscape for some time now and indicate that a reexamination of administrative and governance capacities is long overdue. These differences have been exacerbated whenever there is gridlock meaning that the president cannot implement policy agenda effectively. The constitutional provision for checks and balances was primarily geared towards deliberative decision -making and not delaying or derailing policy agenda. There is, in fact, a growing cynical view that the leadership under the current system is incapable of making tough decisions, more so those that bring long-term benefits while imposing short-term costs. Failure to break such deadlocks for years on some pertinent issues and the inability to craft sustainable policies indicates an inability of political institutions and leadership to strike a vital balance between competing policies. 

Over the last two and half decades, American chief executives have attempted to forge coalitions in the house to push big initiatives. To be fair, there was a degree of success. President Clinton secured NAFTA, and WTO passage and the enlargement of NATO balanced the budget and undertook welfare system reforms . President Bush obtained support for prescription drugs benefits and some educational reform. President Obama was able to enact economic stimulus package although along partisan lines. And yet each of all these presidents faced major difficulties and failures. Clinton could not forge a consensus on health care reform or agreements on climate change in 1997 or trade negotiating authority in 1998. Bush was unable to pass immigration reform in 2007 or in 2004 undertake entitlement reform. Obama faced major difficulties especially towards the last half of his term. He could not assemble a winning coalition of financial regulation, climate change or health care. While some have argued that the role of Congress as an independent arm of government is to approve proposals and therefore part of this would entail rejection of proposals, what is also true is that most of the decisions were partisan and not guided by the merits of the proposals. 

Public polarization and hyper-partisanship have compounded decision making in the public sector. While the self-declared moderates have remained 40% of the American electorate in the last four decades, self-described conservatives and liberals have divided themselves further along party lines. Like-minded people on either end of the spectrum have no incentive to come together under the current structure and typically seek out media outlets sympathetic to their own views. Northern liberal Republicans and southern conservative Democrats have disappeared, which reflects ideological extremism on the part of voters. Gerrymandering has also enormously contributed to further divisions by making legislative positions safe for either party. The consequences of an action are that there is almost no competition and the only meaningful competition takes place not during the general elections but the party primaries. Consequently, candidates are more concerned with winning the support of like-minded voters and not persuading crossover voters. Appealing more to the party base and not centrist interests undermine deliberations, distorts public policymaking process while encouraging competition as opposed to cooperation between parts. In consequence, institutional reforms meant to improve governing and electoral institutions are forestalled. 

News media has been turned into a combat forum as opposed to a platform for deliberative discourse. Modern technologies have allowed the expansion of the media landscape from cable news to web videos, websites, and blogs, all of which have the effect of expanding political discourse. Nonetheless, cut-throat competition between traditional media and modern media as well as between modern forms to increase revenues has led to the targeting of narrower groups to meet their tastes and preferences. The tendency by contemporary media platform to be more opinionated and to pander to the wishes of their target groups has led to more polarization. The net effect is the exacerbation of governance problems. 

Reform 

American politics are in a state of political polarization, mistrust, and unprecedented partisanship. While these problems demand solutions that transcend any structural change, there cannot be a doubt that the current political system continues to fuel some of these difficulties. Acute political reforms are necessary to cure some of these ills that pose an existential danger to the American polity. 

In light of the rigidities associated with a presidential system, the American political system ought to be revised to incorporate changes that have worked elsewhere, especially in the developed world. A parliamentary system that is based on coalition building (in case of no outright win) would facilitate more bipartisanship both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. This phenomenon would also allow the emergence of more parties beyond the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic Party. The challenges associated with a two-party system have received extensive attention recently. Perhaps the fundamental challenge with a two-party system is its tendency to lead to gridlock. More parties within a parliamentary framework would allow coalition-making in the house, breaking dreadlock which has become a key feature of the American system. 

Overcoming challenges of immobilism in the American Congress, it needs to be emphasized here, would lead to considerable headway in policy implementation especially in the more protracted disputes within American society. While proponents of American presidential system point to the stability it has brought to the American political system, a nuanced study of American stability would have to go beyond the democratic system and look at other aspects of the American society that have engendered stability in the last 200 years. Further, there is no reason to think that a parliamentary system in the United States would disrupt this stability. While stability is no doubt an important consideration in such a discourse, there is also need to tamper bold stability and government efficiency concerns. 

Daniel West has proposed four principles that ought to guide political reform in the United States: The reforms must aim at addressing institutional and administrative challenges that hinder cooperation between and within government branches and across party lines. Here, he recommends mechanism that strengthens congressional majority while not suppressing the minority, empowerment of moderate voters who can detoxify the system of extremists and reform of the selection process of judges. He also recommends a rigorous public debate on the complexities of such reforms and the need for them to be aware of the tradeoff in such a process. He also urges a discourse on how technology can be tapped to improve public sector functions, improve governmental transparency, accountability and entrench responsiveness. This, he argues, would be done for instance through public outreach, online service delivery, public civic engagement and social networking. 

Conclusion 

This paper has detailed the uniqueness of the American political system relative to others more so in the developed world. The basis for this exceptionalism, it is argued, is the United States special historical circumstance. The paper thus interrogates whether American exceptionalism in the 21 st century can be used as a basis for her political arrangements. It is argued that the idea of American exceptionalism in the 21 st century is anachronistic and ought not to be used as a basis for a political system. The paper thus urges reasoned scrutiny of the American circumstance as a basis for revising her political system. Also considered is the extent to which the current model has engendered prosperity and therefore whether such performance can be used as a basis for a reform agenda. It is submitted that the current model is highly ineffective which offer more reason for a reform agenda. 

Bibliography 

Bartels, A. (2000). Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton University Press . 

Domke, D. S., & Coe, K. M. (2010). The God strategy: How religion became a political weapon in America. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Edwards, J. A. (2008). Navigating the post–Cold War world: President Clinton’s foreign policy rhetoric. Lanham: Lexington Books. 

Gingrich, N., & Haley, V. (2011). A nation like no other: Why American exceptionalism matters. New York & Washington DC: Regnery Publishing. 

Lipset, S. M. (1996). American Exceptionalism: A double edged Sword. New York: Norton. 

Murray, C. (2013). American Exceptionalism: An Experiment in History. AEI Press. 

Schmitt, M. (May 29). A Constitutional Amendment Wouldn’t Really Limit the Power of Money in Politics. Washington Post . 

Smith, R. (2007). The American Anomaly: US Politics and Government in Comparative Perspective. Routledge Publishers , 200. 

Walt, S. M. (2011). The Myth of American Exceptionalism. Foreign Policy . 

West, D. (2010). Issues in Governance Studies: Broken Politics. Brookings Institution .