Reply #19: Honestly, the biggest problem is our constitutional structure

[liberalpragmatist]

It's true that there are some cultural differences that are relevant. America's strength is in our diversity, but it also results in greater divisions between people; a lot of political science research supports the idea that more homogenous societies generally have more robust welfare states. When large blocks of the population see fellow citizens as "the other," they're less likely to support social spending.

Still, even allowing for those cultural differences, polls have long shown majorities in the U.S. support things like universal health care and robust education spending. The numbers are totally comparable to other countries. In the late 1940s, when Europeans enacted their health care systems, polls showed over 70% of Americans supported government-provided health insurance.

The single biggest obstacle - which we aren't supposed to say because we're supposed to extol "the genius of the Founders" - is that we have a ridiculously creaky constitutional setup. European countries mostly have parliamentary systems - a party wins an election, and if they can cobble together a majority, they enact their agenda. That isn't to say there aren't obstacles or compromises. But the equivalent in the U.S. would be if the House could just pass H.R. 3200 and it would automatically be law. Negotiating that bill was arduous, but it's there and it's fairly progressive. Instead, however, we now have to pass a separate bill from the Senate, reconcile the two, and then get it to the President's desk.

The fact is that the U.S. constitutional setup has far more veto points and obstacles than nearly any other democracy. We have two co-equal houses of the legislature (in most countries, the upper house has more limited powers than the lower house), and a separately-elected president with veto power. Plus, congressional rules such as the committee system and the filibuster introduce even more veto points. On top of that, both Houses, especially the Senate, are tilted towards rural, agrarian interests. The result is that it is very difficult to enact major progressive changes in the country because the burden is always on those trying to change the system.

Granted, another big factor is money in politics. Most European countries use extensive public financing and have real limits on campaigns. Because our Supreme Court holds that campaign spending = speech, money plays a far bigger role in our politics than others.

But that's not really a controversial statement. Saying that our constitutional structure is really to blame isn't politically correct, but it's completely true. I honestly believe that it's a bigger factor even than the money issue.