|
Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias clearly doesn't like the American system. Over the years, he has pointed out time and again that if we had a different system, things would be better (or, at least, more liberal).
Here's his most recent criticism of our system: "It's worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that in a unicameral United States of America, we would now have passed both a comprehensive health care reform bill and also the most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world. Now that's not the world we live in. Instead we live in a world where neither of those things have passed and where their prospects aren't clear. But think back on this point the next time you hear someone say Obama is struggling with his agenda because he's not centrist enough, or else that Obama is struggling with his agenda because he's not left-wing enough. The reality is that he's struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured."
This is a frustrating argument to continually hear, primarily because one can always make the argument that if things were different, things would be different.
I mean, if the World Series were a best of 13 instead of a best of seven, the Phillies might have won. Did the Phillies lose because of the Yankees were better, or because of the way "our baseball institutions are structured"?
... If elections were held September -- instead of the arbitrarily decided-upon November -- John McCain might have won the election. Did John McCain lose merely because the way our political calendar is structured?
... And if we didn't have any pesky Members of Congress -- if Presidents could act as dictators -- we would have a "comprehensive health reform system," as well...
If, If, If, If, If ... What's your point? Do you really want to abolish the U.S. Senate?
|