Josh Marshall advances, and Matt Yglesias seconds, the observation that the Republicans are moving towards a form of parliamentary government, in the sense that the executive holds the whip hand over the legislative branch, and that party discipline within the legislative branch is tight.
And they're right that the Democrats really have to recognize that their role is as an opposition party. They must oppose the Bush administration, not seek to work with it, and then they must propose an alternative policy platform. As it happens they have the latter. It's the platform Kerry ran on, which was vastly more substantial as an actual program for governing than Bush's. (This gets back to what Bush's "mandate" means).
But the appearance of a parliamentary system reflects the coincidence of Republican majorities in the House and Senate at the same time they hold the Presidency. Whether this pattern would assert itself if the Republicans held just one chamber is less clear.
There's many virtues to a parliamentary system. Not the least, after this presidential election, is that you only get to be Prime Minister after proving your competence in shadow cabinet positions, and in lesser-ranked cabinet positions.
Proper parliamentary systems have mechanisms for holding the executive to account: question time. The Prime Minister and their cabinet have to front up to opposition questions twice a week. It's an unusually effective way of keeping the government accountable.
In its absence there has to be a vigorous press who ask difficult questions. Something we don't have in America.
I'm all for parliamentary government -- it's just that what we're going to get is all the flaws of a legislature that is tightly whipped and closely related to the executive without any of the accountability the system also has.
Posted by robe0419 at November 5, 2004 12:49 PM