I concur with the four steps identified by Cass Sunstein in his op-ed at Bloomberg for ending the stalemate in American politics. They are:
- Civility now.
- Compromise, early and often.
- Identify a set of attractive proposals from “the other side,†and champion them.
- Ease up on the process for confirming executive-branch nominees.
I’d add one more: stop legislating by regulating, something for which Mr. Sunstein was the intellectual champion. It’s been a flop for the Obama Administration, it infantilizes the Congress, and it weakens the rule of law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
Sunstein married to the warmonger complicit in rendering anarchy to Libya, Orange Revolt in Ukraine etc. the Russophobe Samantha Power. Sunstein who wants the government to infiltrate and subvert any group fomenting ‘conspiracy theories’ which might result in destabilization or violence, the better some might say to assist conspiratorial havoc-wreaking in the Mideast and eastern Europe,
without public awareness.
The column itself expresses a subdued concern that political norms
be restored. We are all supposed to believe that what was normal was better than polarization and paralysis. We are all supposed to accept, in the end, that an ineffectual but polite free trading Russophobe Mitt Romney is preferable to a shoot from the hip Russophile protectionist populist Trump. We are all supposed to accept that the John McCain who was wrong about every aspect of the Iraq War all the way through but who kept on being scheduled by the talk shows as a guest “expert”–and who defended the lies about WMDs–was preferable to war opponent Trump who said correctly, we were lied into the war.
Sunstein is part of the problem not the solution.
Other than his nudge idea, which was not adding new regulations, how did he want to regulate by legislation?
Steve
If the optimal answer is 2.1 you ain’t never gonna get there by compromising between 3.1 and 4.3.
Legislate by regulate. It was an idea that Mr. Sunstein espoused over many years. If the Congress wouldn’t pass the law, just make it a regulation.
I didn’t find Sunstein’s discussion of 4 very compelling, and it probably is antithetical to Dave’s regulatory reform.
One issue is the number of executive positions subject to confirmation; probably far too many. But the legislative decision to require a position to be confirmed is tied to the powers lawmakers grants to appointees, particularly lawmaking. One of the key checks on such delegations is continuing oversight, including confirmation.
Presidents use the appointment power to reward political allies. These allies often have little in terms of management experience, and if Sunstein is arguing that they mostly meet a standard of “competence and probity,” his standard is low. I think he means that the appointee has expressed mainstream views, at least within his/her party, and nothing more. This is an issue that government by technocrats avoid. It’s one thing to say that mainstream political views should not be disqualifying because they are not shared by the party opposition; it is another to talk about what qualifications are appropriate for a truly technocratic bureaucracy.
Sunstein would probably make a good Supreme Court Justice.
I honestly think there are times when we NEED the civility of Andrew Jackson. The constitution is WORTH defending.
Except that “technocrat” doesn’t mean what you might think it means. It means “the appointee has expressed mainstream views, at least within his/her party, and nothing more” and has a credential.
There is another strategy for his fourth proposal. Presidents could put forward nominees who would be acceptable to senators of the other party. I realize that’s controversial. I mean what fun is being president if you can’t poke a stick into the eye of senators of the other party?
That would make an interesting debate topic. Does the Senate owe deference to the president or does the president owe deference to the Senate or neither?
The problem, as an increasing number of American’s on both sides of the OLD divide see it, is that the ruling class has in fact had a consensus view for decades, and has used relatively trivial matters to divide the people so the two factions can fight over the spoils. So his idea of Dems supporting Republican ideas & vice versa is simply so much bullshit. One could determine that even without knowing his past “accomplishments” and personal entanglements to the ruling class.