It's Even Worse Than It Looks

1. American Politics is Dangerously Dysfunctional Due to Extreme Partisan Polarization.

Acrimony and hyperpartisanship have seeped into every part of the political process.

Deeply broken. American politics is suffering from unprecedented dysfunction, characterized by extreme acrimony and hyperpartisanship that has paralyzed Congress and driven approval ratings to record lows. This isn't merely the "messiness" of democracy; it's a systemic breakdown endangering constitutional democracy itself. The traditional spirit of compromise between the two main political parties has eroded, replaced by an adversarial stance that makes effective governance nearly impossible.

Hostage-taking politics. A stark example of this dysfunction was the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, where Republican leaders cynically held the nation's full faith and credit hostage to force radical policy changes. This brinkmanship led to the first-ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poor's, which cited America's "governance and policy making becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable." The public's widespread disgust with Washington, however, often fails to translate into strategic voting that rewards problem-solving.

Mismatch of systems. The core problem lies in a serious mismatch: America now has vehemently adversarial, parliamentary-style political parties operating within a governing system (separation of powers, checks and balances) that makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. This structural incompatibility, combined with intense partisan warfare, creates a formula for willful obstruction and policy irresolution, leaving critical national challenges unaddressed.

2. The Republican Party Has Become an Insurgent Outlier, Driving Asymmetric Polarization.

The second is the fact that, however awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

Unbalanced extremism. While both parties engage in tribal warfare, they are not equally culpable. The Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right, becoming an "insurgent outlier" that is ideologically extreme and scornful of compromise. This asymmetric polarization means the GOP is often unpersuaded by conventional facts or science and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, creating a significant obstacle to effective governance.

Historical deviation. Former Republican leaders like Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Reagan and the two Bushes, would likely not fit within the contemporary GOP. Their pragmatic approaches, including tax increases or expansions of government programs, would be anathema to today's party. This transformation is evident in the near-unanimous "no-tax-increase" pledge, which has become a defining, and often paralyzing, ideological thrust.

Democratic centrism. In contrast, the Democratic Party, while not without its own flaws, has largely remained more status-quo oriented and centrist. They are generally more open to incremental policy changes through bargaining. This ideological divergence is clearly visible in roll call votes, where Republicans have moved much more sharply conservative than Democrats have moved liberal, leading to zero overlap between the parties in Congress.

3. Newt Gingrich's Tactics Laid the Groundwork for Today's Destructive Partisanship.

The core strategy was to destroy the institution in order to save it, to so intensify public hatred of Congress that voters would buy into the notion of the need for sweeping change and throw the majority bums out.

Calculated destruction. Newt Gingrich, entering Congress in 1978, developed a deliberate strategy to achieve a Republican majority by intensifying public hatred of Congress. He aimed to destroy the institution's reputation to "save" it, uniting Republicans in refusing cooperation with Democrats and publicly attacking them as corrupt. This approach marked a significant departure from traditional legislative norms.

Weaponizing rhetoric. Gingrich and his allies, including the "Young Guns" and "Gang of Seven," mastered the use of overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric and ethics charges as political weapons.

• He attacked Democrats as "blind to communism" and "McCarthyism of the Left."
• He led relentless ethics charges against Speaker Jim Wright, contributing to his resignation.
• The "House bank scandal" was exploited, with members like Jim Nussle using stunts like wearing a paper bag over his head on the House floor.
  These tactics undermined basic public trust in Congress and fostered a culture where colleagues became "mortal enemies."

Permanent campaign. Gingrich's nationalization of congressional elections, recruiting candidates to relentlessly attack Washington as corrupt, culminated in the 1994 Republican takeover. His legacy includes:

• A cohesive, parliamentary-style minority party.
• Undermining public trust in government.
• Creating a norm of personal attacks and delegitimization.
• Establishing a "take-no-prisoners" politics of confrontation and obstruction that persists today.

4. The Rise of Partisan Media and Unregulated Money Fuels Political Dysfunction.

America has gone back to the future with the new and prominent role of partisan media, just as in much of the nineteenth century but with far more reach, resonance, and scope than at any earlier period.

Fragmented reality. The telecommunications revolution has fragmented media audiences, replacing a shared public square with partisan echo chambers. Networks like Fox News (and MSNBC on the left) thrive on presenting the same message repeatedly to loyal audiences, often prioritizing sensationalism and extremism over objective information. This environment makes it easy for falsehoods, like the "birther" conspiracy, to persist despite factual debunking, further entrenching partisan divisions.

Money's corrosive influence. American elections are awash in money, with politicians dedicating excessive time to fundraising. The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, overturning decades of precedent, allowed corporations and unions to make unlimited independent expenditures, effectively shredding campaign finance regulations. This decision, coupled with lax enforcement by the Federal Election Commission, has created a "Wild West" scenario.

Undisclosed spending. The rise of "super PACs" and 501(c)4 "social welfare" organizations allows for unlimited, often undisclosed, contributions for political campaigning. Operatives like Karl Rove have exploited these loopholes to fund aggressive partisan attacks while hiding donor identities. This influx of dark money:

• Reinforces partisan polarization.
• Creates an "arms race" for anonymous large donors.
• Leads to "stealth campaigns" of vilification against incumbents.
• Undermines the independence and integrity of policymakers, making electoral goals dominate policy.

5. Senate Rules, Especially the Filibuster, Are Abused to Obstruct Governance and Appointments.

Now, since 2006, but especially since Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the filibuster is more often a stealth weapon, which minority Republicans use not to highlight an important national issue but to delay and obstruct quietly on nearly all matters, including routine and widely supported ones.

Weaponized obstruction. The Senate's filibuster, once a rare tool for intense minority opposition, has become a routine "stealth weapon" for partisan obstruction. Cloture motions (to end debate) have spiked dramatically since 2006, often used even on non-controversial bills that ultimately pass with overwhelming majorities. This pervasive use of the filibuster is unprecedented, transforming the Senate into a body where a minority can routinely block action without genuine debate.

Holds and delays. Individual senators increasingly use "holds"—informal notifications to leadership—to indefinitely block bills and, more critically, presidential nominations. This tactic cripples a president's ability to staff the executive and judicial branches, leaving critical positions unfilled for months or even years. Examples include:

• Senator Larry Craig blocking Air Force promotions.
• Senator Richard Shelby placing blanket holds on executive nominations.
• Judge Barbara Milano Keenan's 99-0 confirmation taking 169 days.

The "new nullification." A particularly disturbing trend is the use of obstruction to prevent the legitimate implementation of laws already on the books. Republicans blocked Donald Berwick's nomination to head Medicare/Medicaid Services to hobble the Affordable Care Act, and refused to confirm a director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless the agency's structure was changed. This strategy, akin to pre-Civil War nullification, undermines the government's ability to execute laws and reflects a profound disregard for democratic outcomes.

6. Common "Bromides" Like Third Parties or Balanced Budget Amendments Won't Fix the System.

We don’t question Friedman’s and Miller’s policy goals, which they see as the most promising means of meeting the long-term challenges before the country. We do, however, question their political acuity, both the assumptions behind their analysis and their failure to anticipate the damaging, counterproductive consequences that could result from such an effort.

False hope of self-correction. Many believe the political system will naturally correct itself, citing historical precedents of overcoming dysfunction. However, the current era of asymmetric polarization, legitimacy denial, and unprecedented obstruction is qualitatively different. The magnitude of economic and political challenges demands active intervention, not passive reliance on historical patterns.

Third-party illusions. The idea of a "radical center" independent or third-party candidate, championed by some commentators, is a "chimerical knight on a white horse."

• Most "independents" are closet partisans, not centrists.
• Such a candidate would likely be a spoiler, leading to a plurality winner and an ungovernable administration.
• Organizations like Americans Elect, despite good intentions, lack transparency and are vulnerable to manipulation.

Dangerous constitutional amendments. A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, a centerpiece of Republican plans, is a "faulty response."

• It would mandate drastic, immediate spending cuts (e.g., capping spending at 18% of GDP) that would likely worsen economic downturns.
• It removes crucial fiscal flexibility needed for a modern economy.
• Historically, deficits have been managed through policy changes (like PAYGO), not constitutional mandates, which would likely lead to gimmicks and artificial crises.

Ineffective term limits. Term limits for Congress, a perennial reform idea, are "utterly unresponsive" to current dysfunction.

• State-level experience shows they don't produce "citizen legislators."
• They amplify ambition, weaken institutional expertise, and make legislatures less productive.
• The recent influx of Tea Party members, who fit the "citizen legislator" profile, has paradoxically reinforced polarization.

7. Reforming Electoral Rules Can Moderate Parties and Expand Voter Participation.

That reality suggests that Americans should explore multiple ways of making voting by eligible citizens easier, not harder, while guarding sufficiently against voter fraud and illegitimate manipulation of the voting process.

Modernizing voter access. To counter the influence of ideological activists and partisan manipulation, America must make voting easier for eligible citizens. This includes:

• Automating voter registration: Allowing online registration and portable voter records, which is cheaper and more accurate.
• Leveraging private data: Using external databases to verify and update voter lists, reducing partisan manipulation.
• Flexible polling places: Allowing voting at convenient locations like superstores or work, and implementing Election Day Registration (EDR), which significantly boosts turnout.

Fighting voter suppression. Aggressive efforts to restrict voting, such as tough voter ID laws and limiting early voting, disproportionately harm minority and student voters. A new Voting Rights Act should:

• Mandate free IDs and supporting documents, widely available.
• Allow civil rights groups to "opt-in" to federal protections.
• Require acceptance of valid student IDs.
• Implement a federal ballot for national elections to reduce confusion and disputes.

Mandatory voting. Adopting an Australian-style system of mandatory poll attendance (with a modest fine for non-participation) could dramatically increase turnout (over 95%). This would:

• Force politicians to appeal to the broader center, not just their ideological bases.
• Elevate political dialogue and reduce extreme rhetoric.
• Strengthen the civic fabric by instilling voting as a societal obligation.

8. Institutional Reforms Are Needed to Restore Majority Rule and Executive Effectiveness.

Eliminating or reducing the scope of Senate actions subject to filibuster-related obstruction would allow the majority to resolve highly contested issues and to conduct Senate business in a timely and electorally responsive fashion.

Streamlining the Senate. The Senate's rules must be reformed to restore majority rule and prevent routine obstruction. Key changes include:

• Limiting filibusters: Allowing only one filibuster per bill, rather than multiple stages.
• Shifting the burden: Requiring the minority to actively hold the floor to continue debate (e.g., 41 votes to continue, not 60 to end).
• Eliminating delays: Reducing the "ripening" period for cloture motions and requiring actual debate during post-cloture time.
• Expediting nominations: Guaranteeing up-or-down votes on executive nominees within 60 days of committee approval.

Executive authority. In an era of congressional gridlock, presidents are naturally inclined to use unilateral executive actions to advance their agendas. While a full shift to a parliamentary system is unrealistic, some modest transfers of authority to the executive or independent bodies can improve governance.

• Independent agencies: The Federal Reserve's independence in monetary policy is a successful model.
• BRAC-like mechanisms: While unsuccessful for broad budget issues, models like the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) could work for more focused, necessary but controversial policy changes.
• IPAB model: The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) in the Affordable Care Act, designed to control Medicare spending, represents a potential model for depoliticizing specific cost-cutting decisions, though it faces significant political resistance.

9. Changing the Political Culture Requires Restoring Public Shame and a Shared Public Square.

Trashing others, undermining their very legitimacy, and lying openly and repeatedly about individuals or institutions now bring no visible penalty or public obloquy.

Reclaiming civility. The current political culture, where bombast, lies, and personal attacks bring fame and fortune with no visible penalty, must change. Opinion leaders from diverse institutions—military, religious, academic, business, media—must collectively and outspokenly denounce those who profit from coarsening public discourse. This effort aims to restore a sense of public shame for egregious behavior.

Tech's responsibility. Technology companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft have a role in combating the spread of insidious falsehoods online. Beyond one-time fact-checking, they should implement continuous, aggressive efforts to debunk misinformation that persists or re-emerges, preventing the public from being misled by viral lies.

Rebuilding the public square. The fragmentation of media has eroded the shared public square where citizens once debated policy with a common set of facts. To re-create this, new funding for public media is essential.

• Broadcaster fees: Requiring commercial broadcasters to pay annual rental fees for using public airwaves (e.g., $2.5 billion) could fund a public or private foundation.
• Enhanced public media: This foundation could support more candidate-centered discourse, genuine news coverage, and lively debates across various platforms, serving as a positive counterweight to corrosive partisan media.

A "shadow Congress." Creating a parallel "shadow Congress" of former lawmakers from across the political spectrum could model the kind of civil, yet vigorous, debate and deliberation that the actual Congress often lacks. Such a body could:

• Engage in heated exchanges without tribalism.
• Provide a powerful role model for the real Congress.
• Enlighten the public and encourage broader discussions on critical issues.

10. Voters Must Act Strategically to Punish Extremism and Demand Problem-Solving.

Punish a party for ideological extremism by voting against it. (Today, that means the GOP.) It is a surefire way to bring the party back into the political mainstream.

Accountability is key. While political elites clarify choices, voters ultimately decide elections and bear the responsibility for healing a dysfunctional system. Visceral disgust with Washington is unproductive if it leads to indiscriminate "throwing the bums out" without strategic intent. Voters must understand the forces driving dysfunction and make informed choices.

Strategic voting. To counter ideological extremism and promote problem-solving, voters should:

• Punish extremism: Vote against parties that exhibit ideological extremism (currently, the Republican Party) to bring them back to the political mainstream.
• Promote norms: Demand that elected representatives adhere to republican norms like respect for opposing views, acceptance of opposition legitimacy, bargaining, and compromise. Reject candidates who proudly reject these norms.
• Seek unified government: Entrust one party with the White House, House, and Senate. In polarized times, unified government is more likely to achieve policy goals than divided government, which often leads to gridlock.

Challenge obstruction. Voters should actively challenge the legitimacy of Senate filibusters and holds, recognizing them as arcane rules that undermine the legislative process and make government ineffective. A vocal public backlash against obstructionism can compel lawmakers to work more effectively and responsively.

Beware of spoilers. Voters should be wary of "nonprofit political groups bearing independent presidential candidates" or "balanced, centrist tickets." While parties are often disliked, they are essential vehicles for representing values and directing government. Such groups often suffer from a democratic deficit and are more likely to play spoiler or produce an ungovernable administration than to remedy dysfunction.

11. The Media Must Report Asymmetric Polarization Truthfully, Not With False Equivalence.

A balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon is a distortion of reality and a disservice to your consumers.

Truth over false balance. Traditional news organizations, despite their professional codes, often fall into the trap of "false equivalence," presenting both sides of a story as equally responsible for political dysfunction. This distorts reality and disserves the public. The media's highest priority should be to report the truth, even if it means attributing disproportionate blame to one party when warranted.

Aggressive fact-checking. Fact checks are crucial contributions to contemporary journalism but are often buried or treated as equally important regardless of the severity of the falsehood. The media should:

• Integrate fact checks directly into news stories and leads.
• Repeat debunked falsehoods when politicians continue to propagate them.
• Clearly identify who is telling the truth and who is taking hostages at what risks.

Exposing obstruction. The media must stop legitimizing Senate filibusters and holds as routine. Instead, they should:

• Inform consumers of the high costs associated with these tactics.
• Report individual senators' abusive use of holds.
• Clearly state when a bill or nomination is blocked despite majority support by a filibuster, rather than simply saying "Congress killed a bill."

Clarifying choices. Ultimately, the media has a responsibility to clarify the choices voters face and the likely consequences of those choices. This means going beyond surface-level reporting to explain:

• How different parties would govern.
• What they could realistically accomplish.
• The expected differences between unified and divided governments, helping voters make informed decisions in a highly polarized environment.