I’m a critic of the institutional structure of the American government, preferring something more democratically representative and streamlined to allow for policy action. The usual criticism of this view is “we need the checks and balances.” Well, how are they working?
The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
Because James Madison did not properly anticipate political parties and their ability to choose party over branch and because he does not seem to have fully anticipated how his checks would fail to constrain the fetishization of the Presidency into a truly singular national leader (rather than a humble administrator, see my criticism of how many liberals want Obama to be monarchical), we manage to have all the disadvantages of no checks and balances while keeping all the disadvantages of them.
Somehow, presidential systems internationally have been much more subject to authoritarian takeover than parliamentary systems, even with all the institutional checks and balances. Isn’t it time that we admit that James Madison was a failure? He didn’t accomplish what he claims to have strived towards in the Federalist Papers.
