Victor Wu's take on the president as the one who speaks for the whole country vs. the plural legislature is such a clean way to frame the essence of liberal democracy. Loved how you tied it back to Rousseau and Dahl — feels like a fresh breath in the current mess.
Thanks, that's great to hear! These ideas and arguments will gradually be published in academic papers over the next few years, culminating in a book titled Democracy After the Executive Revolution. So stay tuned!
This was mesmerizing for me. Thank you both. A couple items added to my reading list! You’ve given me a new perspective is not really thought of and it’s clearly important.
Would be helpful to get a quick comment on how you counter the simple argument that this is really just human nature; power doing what power does.
Our founding fathers had a few things in mind when setting up this system. Avoiding populist demagogues was one of them, and thus the very limited franchise they opened with. The separation of powers, and especially the role of the legislature being the voice of the people with the authority to govern rested in its premature; all meant to discourage the process I feel you describe here. We’ve eroded these institutions (opening the franchise, ever more executive power,) over the years and it has predictably led to the unfolding of what you describe here generally as a strengthening of the executive, the primaries, with money & corruption ever more firmly entrenched in our political and legislative processes.
I view the progression you’re describing as a bad thing that has likely already led to the demise of our political system.
I predict great turmoil in America in coming decades. Violence is likely IMO as the now seeming wealthy elites are about to get squeezed out of the pie themselves by the uber elites momentarily. The last bit of blood squeezed from our economic turnip. The dollar, I believe, is already ended with the international political and trade decisions of the last year. Squeezing that last bit of blood is the sole purpose, if there is one at all, of the current administration.
Thanks, I really appreciate it! To briefly respond to your comments:
I'd say the rise of the modern democratic executive is not just human nature or power doing what power does. It's a structural consequence of specific modern conditions—mass democracy, political parties, communications and transportation technologies, the administrative state, etc.—that did not exist or were not expected to exist at the Founding.
But pointing to structural transformations does NOT mean defending or explaining away current presidential power. I would argue, though, that the problem in the US is not the modern executive as such but rather at least two distinct pathologies in the broader political system: (1) executive unilateralism, licensed by and exacerbated by the Roberts Court's unitary executive theory, and (2) the legislator incentives produced by the current primary system, which undermine robust legislative critique. So what we need is (1) Supreme Court reform, and (2) primary system reform like the sort that John Griffin, Danielle Allen, and Jesse Littlewood are spearheading in MA this November: https://therenovator.substack.com/p/inclusive-politics-responsible-competition
Victor Wu's take on the president as the one who speaks for the whole country vs. the plural legislature is such a clean way to frame the essence of liberal democracy. Loved how you tied it back to Rousseau and Dahl — feels like a fresh breath in the current mess.
Thanks, that's great to hear! These ideas and arguments will gradually be published in academic papers over the next few years, culminating in a book titled Democracy After the Executive Revolution. So stay tuned!
That sounds fantastic! I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for those papers and the book. Best of luck with the writing process!
This was mesmerizing for me. Thank you both. A couple items added to my reading list! You’ve given me a new perspective is not really thought of and it’s clearly important.
Would be helpful to get a quick comment on how you counter the simple argument that this is really just human nature; power doing what power does.
Our founding fathers had a few things in mind when setting up this system. Avoiding populist demagogues was one of them, and thus the very limited franchise they opened with. The separation of powers, and especially the role of the legislature being the voice of the people with the authority to govern rested in its premature; all meant to discourage the process I feel you describe here. We’ve eroded these institutions (opening the franchise, ever more executive power,) over the years and it has predictably led to the unfolding of what you describe here generally as a strengthening of the executive, the primaries, with money & corruption ever more firmly entrenched in our political and legislative processes.
I view the progression you’re describing as a bad thing that has likely already led to the demise of our political system.
I predict great turmoil in America in coming decades. Violence is likely IMO as the now seeming wealthy elites are about to get squeezed out of the pie themselves by the uber elites momentarily. The last bit of blood squeezed from our economic turnip. The dollar, I believe, is already ended with the international political and trade decisions of the last year. Squeezing that last bit of blood is the sole purpose, if there is one at all, of the current administration.
Thanks, I really appreciate it! To briefly respond to your comments:
I'd say the rise of the modern democratic executive is not just human nature or power doing what power does. It's a structural consequence of specific modern conditions—mass democracy, political parties, communications and transportation technologies, the administrative state, etc.—that did not exist or were not expected to exist at the Founding.
But pointing to structural transformations does NOT mean defending or explaining away current presidential power. I would argue, though, that the problem in the US is not the modern executive as such but rather at least two distinct pathologies in the broader political system: (1) executive unilateralism, licensed by and exacerbated by the Roberts Court's unitary executive theory, and (2) the legislator incentives produced by the current primary system, which undermine robust legislative critique. So what we need is (1) Supreme Court reform, and (2) primary system reform like the sort that John Griffin, Danielle Allen, and Jesse Littlewood are spearheading in MA this November: https://therenovator.substack.com/p/inclusive-politics-responsible-competition