Attorneys David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey rebut the punditocracy’s favorite theme these days: Washington is “broken.” Those annoyed with the failure to jam through controversial legislation bemoan the “gridlock” and urge all manner of parliamentary tricksterism to get what they want — the passage of Obama’s radical agenda. But Rivkin and Casey remind us that this is precisely how the system is supposed to work. It was designed to make swift passage of ill-conceived measures difficult, by “generally requiring a high level of consensus in support of governmental action.” The Constitution sets up an intricate framework of checks and balances and the Senate “did the framers one better” with the filibuster, which the Left wants now to abolish. The result, the attorneys explain, is that “the government established by the U.S. Constitution, as well as the document itself, is ‘conservative.’ Its default is the status quo, unless and until the advocates of change can secure a sufficient consensus to support their idea.”
The failure then is not of the “system,” but rather of the Obami and of the congressional Democrats — in eschewing the center and trying to push through a far-reaching agenda with no popular consensus, and, indeed, in the face of a great deal of opposition.
But the critics claim that we are then “doomed” to do “nothing.” Well, sometimes nothing is better than something horrible. But there are two obvious responses. First, come up with a shortlist of reforms that does enjoy bipartisan support. And second, look to the states. In addition to federal checks and balances, the Framers set up a federal system with power reserved to state governments, which until recently had primary responsibility for issues such as education, health care, and public safety.
As this report explains:
Some governors, frustrated by halted federal efforts to overhaul the U.S. health-care system, are introducing their own changes at the state level. “Most of what’s called health-care reform can be done at the state level,” Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri, a Republican, said on Sunday on the sidelines of an annual winter gathering of the National Governors Association here. . . A few states, such as Massachusetts, have sought their own solutions to address problems with the health-care system. More states appear to be pushing to take the initiative now, however, as they grapple with continued budget shortfalls, a big part of which is due to rising health-care costs, and as federal efforts to overhaul the country’s health-care system have faltered.
There are lots of good ideas and some bad ones out there. But let the states try these out, and figure out which work and which don’t. Pennsylvania is looking into requiring “medical facilities operate 24-hour non-emergency treatment centers that would offer services such as stitches for cuts. Mr. Rendell said he expected that savings generated from the operation of these centers could help pay for the new initiative.” Is he right? Who knows, but he and others can try out dozens of ideas. (“Other governors also suggested that the savings recouped from changes to the health-care system could help pay for new measures.”)
In sum, the system is far from broken. We simply have leaders who have failed in their jobs to garner popular support for reasonable reforms. If they can’t do it, maybe the states will, and then in the process remind us of the benefits of federalism and of the excessive reliance we have come to place on Washington to solve our problems with one-size-fits-all solutions.