I don't think I agree that Congress, having outsourced its work to the administrative state, is now completely unimportant. The administrative state does a lot, but the Inflation Reduction Act is surely important; the Affordable Care Act was important; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was important; the American Health Care Act would have been important; and so forth, no?
Now, if you wanted to tell me that these bills are all written by unelected staffers and that individual members of Congress, especially of the House, are important basically inasmuch as they put a vote into the Red Column or the Blue Column--there I think I'd be with you.
I don't think I disagree with the thrust of your argument, Jonathan. When there are unified majorities in Congress it is sometimes possible to impose priorities that would otherwise get tied up in bipartisan deliberation. This does happen occasionally. The Democrats did indeed manage this on big-ticket items such as the Inflation Reduction Act in the last Congress, using the extraordinary process of "reconciliation" to sidestep Republican opposition. But the business of legislating (democracy) often doesn't deliver clear or satisfying victories, and sometimes asks members to take positions they would rather avoid taking. So the parties now seek to win many of their arguments through court rulings, administrative rule-makings and executive orders, rather than through the legislative process. It is the major reason so much power is now concentrated in the presidency, which is not at all what was intended by the Founders.
For the record, I did not argue that Congress is now "completely unimportant"; on the contrary, I argued it has "important responsibilities," and suggested it lacks the will to engage them. I will acknowledge that the word "largely" in "largely farmed out" is doing a lot of work, though.
Thanks for reading, neph. Your points are interesting, and I really value your perspective.
I don't think I agree that Congress, having outsourced its work to the administrative state, is now completely unimportant. The administrative state does a lot, but the Inflation Reduction Act is surely important; the Affordable Care Act was important; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was important; the American Health Care Act would have been important; and so forth, no?
Now, if you wanted to tell me that these bills are all written by unelected staffers and that individual members of Congress, especially of the House, are important basically inasmuch as they put a vote into the Red Column or the Blue Column--there I think I'd be with you.
I don't think I disagree with the thrust of your argument, Jonathan. When there are unified majorities in Congress it is sometimes possible to impose priorities that would otherwise get tied up in bipartisan deliberation. This does happen occasionally. The Democrats did indeed manage this on big-ticket items such as the Inflation Reduction Act in the last Congress, using the extraordinary process of "reconciliation" to sidestep Republican opposition. But the business of legislating (democracy) often doesn't deliver clear or satisfying victories, and sometimes asks members to take positions they would rather avoid taking. So the parties now seek to win many of their arguments through court rulings, administrative rule-makings and executive orders, rather than through the legislative process. It is the major reason so much power is now concentrated in the presidency, which is not at all what was intended by the Founders.
For the record, I did not argue that Congress is now "completely unimportant"; on the contrary, I argued it has "important responsibilities," and suggested it lacks the will to engage them. I will acknowledge that the word "largely" in "largely farmed out" is doing a lot of work, though.
Thanks for reading, neph. Your points are interesting, and I really value your perspective.