Some analysts maintain that the United States is poorly served by a Congress that is often beset by inaction and localism.Supporters of the Congress maintain that the institution is a...
Some analysts maintain that the United States is poorly served by a Congress that is often beset by inaction and localism.
Supporters of the Congress maintain that the institution is a superior deliberative and representative institution. Which argument is the more persuasive and why?
I think that some clarification might be needed. Initially, I have to agree with the previous post's assertion that inaction might not be a bad thing. The framers brilliantly conceived of a government rooted in the notion that it would be very difficult to do something really bad to the fabric of the democratic system. The idea of representation from each state or region helps to make sure that all interests are voiced from all parts of the nation. The notion of inaction only refers to the number of voices involved in the process, which is not a bad thing. As for the argument of localism, the framers were convinced that the challenge of living under British rule was that their particular interest were not being heard by the central authority. Determined to not let this happen again, the new government that emerges is driven by the idea of hearing out all individuals/ regions in the policy making process. Again, this might not be that bad of a thing.
These are two different issues.
As for inaction, I do not think that this is a fault, really. This is just what the Founders wanted. They wanted government not to work too easily because they were afraid that it would then be tyrannical. So we should not blame Congress for that. It is the fault of our system as set up by our Founders.
I tend to agree the localism is a bad thing. The biggest problem, to me, is that it leads to the sort of pork barrel politics that put the local interest ahead of the national interest.