The states are not friends of voting rights in America

 Todays blog originally appeared in The Hill.

The story of voting rights in America yields two truths. First, even though since 1787 there has been an overall expansion of voting rights en route to universal adult franchise, it also has been a partisan battle often featuring efforts to disenfranchise. Second, left to their own devices, states are not the drivers of expanded voting rights. It has happened only when the national government has entered to guarantee, expand and protect rights. 

This is why Congress needs to enact federal legislation to federalize voting rights and enable national standards and enforcement.

America may be the world’s first experiment with popular government, but its record from the start in recognizing the right to vote is poor. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, disputes over slavery, representation and the selection of the president left the issue of voting rights out of the Constitution and in the hands of the states to decide. In 1787, state laws limited voting rights to white, Protestant males with property who were at least age 21. 

A few states prior to the Civil War expanded voting rights on their own. They did so by dropping property qualifications in lieu of poll taxes to ensure that only those with an economic stake in the community could vote. Yet, serious expansion of voting rights did not come until after the Civil War. Republican Party support of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, and the deployment of federal troops in the South during Reconstruction led to a dramatic increase in voting rights and representation for the freed males slaves.

But the disputed 1876 election — in which Democrat Samuel Tilden conceded the White House to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes on condition that federal troops be removed from the South — ended Reconstruction and support for voting rights for Black males. It ushered in a nearly century-long “first great disenfranchisement” in American history. This was the era of Jim Crow, in which mostly southern Democratic Party states employed a variety of mechanisms — grandfather laws, poll taxes, literacy tests and felon disenfranchisement laws — as tools to entrench single-party rule and prevent African Americans from voting. States also acted to prevent women, the poor, and young people from voting.

All the major initiatives to expand voting came as a result of federal legislation or action. The 17th Amendment (1913) gave individuals the right to vote for senators. The 19th (1920) and 26th (1971) Amendments banned denial of voting based on sex or age. The 23rd Amendment (1961) gave the District of Columbia electoral votes for president. The 24th Amendment (1964) banned poll taxes. Along with these amendments, the Supreme Court in United States v. Classic (1941) ruled that Article I, Section Two of the Constitution gave individuals a right to vote in federal elections. In Reynolds v. Sims (1864) and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the court located a right to vote in state and local elections in the First and 14th Amendments.  

Most importantly, the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 brought federal enforcement of voting rights, compelling states to preclear changes in election rules and desist from diluting voting rights. Even the Supreme Court’s cases on reapportionment and enforcement of the “one person, one vote” mandate were a major defense of voting rights. Then the 1993 Motor Voter Act expanded opportunities to register people to vote. All of this legislation and court action shared a common denominator — federal intervention into and protection of voting rights against states hostile toward expanding franchise.

Now we are witnessing efforts in the “second great disenfranchisement” in American history — this time led not by Democrats, but by Republicans. It began in the 1990s with claims that Motor Voter would lead to fraud. Then after the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida, which resulted in the court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore, Republicans cried voter fraud. They demanded voter identification to stem nearly nonexistent fraud. It degenerated in the past election into the chant of a stolen election, and now there’s a new round of proposed 250 voting restrictions in 43 states, mostly Republican initiated. 

All of this is taking place after the Supreme Court, in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively dismantled the Voting Rights Act and hobbled federal enforcement of franchise rights.

The “second great disenfranchisement” is a repeat of the first: Withdraw federal protection of voting rights and free states to restrict. This time it is not poll taxes or literacy tests, but restrictions on early voting, drop boxes and poll locations — different techniques but the same goals, same results.

States may be laboratories of democracy in many ways, but not where it matters most in protecting voting rights. Voting is the most fundamental of all rights, critical to protection of all others. The only way to defend universal franchise and, as former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said, give meaning to the first three words of the Constitution — “We, the People” — is for Congress to enact legislation reasserting a federal role in protecting voting rights.

Covid-19 Reveals the Weakness of the US Public Health Infrastructure

My latest appeared on March 25, 2020 in the  International Policy Digest.

The spread of Covid -19 across the US is perplexing.  If, in the words of Georgia Congressional Representative Buddy Carter: “We have the best healthcare system in the world,” why does it appear the US is one of the hardest hit nations in the world and on the brink of shutting economy down to try to prevent its spread?  Should not a country that spends more of its gross domestic product (GDP) than any other country in the world on health care be better prepared to confront this medical emergency than other countries?  The answer is no, simply because while the US may have a great private health care insurance and delivery system, it has an exceedingly weak public health system.

In 2019 the US spent 17.8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care expenditures.  Its next closest rival was Switzerland which spent 12.1% of its GDP.  Per capita, the US spends more than $10,000 per year on health care, 20% more than  Switzerland.  Despite this spending, the US ranks 46^th in the world in life expectancy, 55^th for infant mortality rates, and a prevalence of  incidence of   infectious  diseases at 9%, triple that of China and Japan at 3%, and 50% larger than the incidence of 6% in many European Union countries.  These three factors are traditional markers of health across the world. 

Moreover, compared to other advanced countries, 91.7% of the US population has health care insurance, ranking 35^th in the world and far behind most other rich countries across the world which have 100% or universal coverage.  In essence, the US has the most expensive health care system in the world and it does not cover everyone and it does not produce the best outcomes.  We pay too much for too little.  It is hard to argue that we have the greatest health care system in the world based on these statistics.

We pay too much and get too little for at least two reasons.  One, compared to other countries we have highest drug and administrative costs in the world.  But equally important, the US has among the weakest public health care delivery systems in the world.  By public health care, one needs to look at what we spend for example on long term care, preventive care, the gathering of health care epidemiology statistics, and perhaps even on nutritional and diet programs.  Looking at those factors we lag behind many countries in the world.  We have not built a public health care infrastructure that is as well suited as is other countries to addressing public health crises such as the rapid spread of an infectious disease as Covid-19.  As has become clear, the funding for the Center for Disease Control is behind what it needs to be to do the research and tracking necessary for health care issues, and there seems to be no federal infrastructure in place to coordinate a national health emergency.  States appear to be left on their own, ill-suited or prepared to address a national or global health emergency.

The US has a terrific private health care delivery system, for those who can afford it.  For those who want and can afford a doctor it is terrific.  For those who want and can afford elective surgery, it is terrific.  For those who want treatment for highly personal health care problems and can afford it, it is terrific.  For those who want can afford a wonder drug, it is terrific.

But in terms of treating or preventing basic maladies, the US health care delivery is weak.  It is weak because it is a system based upon a privatized notion of health and health care.  Health is a personal not a public issue, as is the cost or responsibility for paying for it.  Health and health care are seen not as public goods but as private or individual commodities that we each individually are responsible for.  Moreover, health care reform in the US has, at least since the failed Clinton reforms of the 1990s and the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) of 2010 been focused on insurance and not on improving the structure of the actual delivery system for health care, let along for the public aspect of it.

The US spends a lot of its effort on providing insurance to access a health care delivery system seen as more of a private good than something that is universally important.  We have under-invested in the public aspect of health care compared to many other countries, rending the US far less prepared to confront a public crisis such as Covid-19 compared to other nations in the world.  If we have learned anything from the current crisis, we need to invest more in public health than we currently do.

The Global Assault on Democracy

Me at Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius Lithuania

A country polarized and in paralysis by its political parties.  A country that spies on its citizens and where its representatives no longer seem connected or accountable to their people.  A country where the standard of living of its people is eroding.  Sound familiar?  At one time such a description did not include the United States.  It used to be them, those other countries, but not the United States.  But what has become clear is how much the United States has lost its exceptionalism and become just another advanced if not aging democracy in serious need of structural reforms.
    In the last two months I have traveled the world.  Or at least the western European world.  In October to Washington, DC, the capital of the United States and  to Moscow, Russia, the capital of Russia and the former Soviet Union, and in November now just returning from Brussels, the capital for the European Union and de facto capital of Europe.  This last trip was to attend a conference on comparative public policy, hosted by an organization dedicated to the study of comparative politics and efforts to draw conclusions about how law and policy is made across the world.  Beyond its purely academic purposes the group hopes to inform practitioners and public officials to make better laws by seeking to learn from the experiences of countries across the world.
    At the conference were scholars from across the world.  Russia, India, Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, and many other countries were in attendance.

KU Leuven University (location of the conference)

We discussed health care policy and Obamacare, security issues, lobbying and electoral systems, transparency and democracy, energy and food issues, and also simply the process of how governments operate and make decisions.  What fascinated me so much was the reality that it is tough times for democracies and freedom across the world.
    Across the board scholars from India, Russia, Italy, Greece, and other countries noted the paralysis facing their countries.  Political parties have become polarized, unable to compromise and work with one another.  Special interests plague the legislative process, fears arising from terrorism have led to a crackdown on dissent or spying on citizens, or the citizens of other countries.  Economically no country seems to be doing well.  All are still gripped in the aftermath of the 2008 market crash or they are still in the middle of austerity programs with citizens facing high unemployment and countries saddled with crushing debts.  There is a real democracy deficit not just in Europe, but it seems everywhere.
    At the same time we were meeting in Brussels over in Vilnius, Lithuania events were unfolding that also boded poorly for democracy. The EU was supposed to meet to welcome Ukraine into a trade pact that would more firmly move that country into the western European and democratic orbit, away from Russia.  It was a hope to bring Ukraine closer to its historic partners of Poland and Lithuania, but it did not happen.  The Ukraine president decided not to sign the agreement, or free the opposition leader from prison, leaving open the direction of Ukraine and whether it would join Europe or Russia.
    Events such as this are troubling and have a personal meaning for me.  They involve countries and places I have visited, and where I have friends.  It is also the geography of my ancestors.  I have been to Vilnius, Lithuania twice to lecture and teach.  The people are warm and friendly and the country has done a great job joining the democratic west, but the country fears an aggressive Russia to its east.   I have been to Kyiv (Kiev) Ukraine once.  It is a stunning city that feels like it wants to be democratic and west, but it is being pulled toward democracy and authoritarianism simultaneously with no clear answer regarding which wins.  And of course Moscow, a city I have visited five times and where I now have many friends.  In my last visit last month I noted how socially open the city had become.  Whatever we may say politically about the retreat from democracy there, the country is socially open, with young people and my students doing what my students in the United States do.  Russia, or at least Moscow, is in the midst of a generation change, ready to join democracy... if only its leaders would let them.  The people there want to be friends with the United States and the are interested in all things American. The same is true for Ukraine. So much of my impressions of these countries reminds me of the problems we face in the United States. 
    We live in a global world in the sense of sharing similar problems. The problems facing the United States are global and are shared by other countries.  It is a crisis of and a challenge to democracies to solve their problems. Yet no one seems to have a solution regarding how to address the gridlock or paralysis that we are all facing,

Me in Moscow near the Kremlin

Combating Bureaucratic Corruption and Inefficiency: Lessons from the United States

 Note:  On October 26, I head off to Moscow, Russia for a week to lecture and teach.  This blog is one of the talks I will be giving at Peoples Friendship University next week. For those into the nitty gritty of government reform you will like this blog.

Combating government corruption and inefficiency is a problem that is faced across the world. During the communist era bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption were widespread in the Soviet Union and across Eastern Europe.  Even today, many post-communist countries and emerging democracies face these problems.
    In their transition from communism, many countries employed several mechanisms to address corruption and inefficiency.  In some cases, state-owned enterprises were privatized.  In other situations, administrative law and civil service reform sought to control bureaucratic discretion and corruption. But the introduction of these reforms is not confined to post-communist states. Even the United States overt time has implemented administrative law or civil service reforms to achieve these and similar goals.
    What I would like to discuss today are two techniques, tools, or goals that the United States has adopted to address problems of what I shall bureaucratic discretion.  Bureaucratic discretion is the ability of government officials to make decisions or choices regarding the implementation of the law, adjudicating disputes, or making any other routine decisions.
    The two topics I wish to discuss are the use of administrative law to confine or limit bureaucratic discretion, and also a commitment to transparency in decision making.  Limiting discretion and promoting transparency are important pillars of American administrative law and decision making.

The Constitutional Ethic of Public Service
    Sociologist Max Weber once described government service as a professional calling.  In his description of bureaucracy he noted the such entities controlled bast amounts of power, with bureaucrats able to use their rational technical knowledge and skills to accomplish tasks.  While such power can be efficient and serve good purposes, it can also be corrupting and serve self-interested goals.
    Ensuring that government bureaucracies serve the good of the people is the goal of a democratic society.  In order to do that in the United States, what has developed is a constitutional ethic of public service.  This constitutional ethic has basically two components.  The first is the development of a set of internal or subjective beliefs in bureaucrats that they are supposed to serve the public good by limiting their discretion, avoid corruption, be accountable to their superiors and the public, and make decisions consistent with the rule of law.  In effect, an ethos or psychological commitment is fostered among those who work in government.
    But a second part to the constitutional ethic of public service is the creation of numerous laws, rules, or processes that promote democratic values.  In the United States, these rules include ones that promote political neutrality, respect for individual rights, and limit conflicts of interest.  But in addition, there are two other  types of laws that I wish to focus on today.  The first deals with limits on bureaucratic discretion, the second is the promotion of transparency and openness in making decisions.

Limiting Administrative Discretion
    In the United States efforts to define and constrain administrative discretion have occurred throughout its history.  In part, the building of the American national government was accomplished by the creation of administrative structures.  Efforts to tame the bureaucracy were essential because of the bureaucracy’s role in implementing laws, adjudicating disputes, and distributing benefits and largess.  In the nineteenth century, staffing of the federal bureaucracy through the spoils or patronage system led to corruption and inefficiencies.  This concern over spoils lead to the adoption of the Pendleton Act, America’s first civil service act, in 1883.  The growth of the American administrative state during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s led first to further expansion of civil service reforms, then to the passage of the Hatch Act in 1939 which limited the political activity of federal employees, and then to the adoption of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1944.  All of these reforms sought to constrain or tame presidential power, promote neutral competence (political neutrality), and accommodate bureaucratic power with the goals of American constitutionalism.
    The United States Supreme Court contributed to this limiting of discretion with several of its decisions.  For example, the government must have hearings prior to termination of benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)).  However, even with this due process or procedural requirement, the Court has given broad agency discretion to use rule-making versus adjudication when making rules (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp, 332 U.S. 194 (1947)).  It has also charted out deference to reasonable agency interpretations of law if statutes are silent or Congress has not spoken on the issue (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).  But Chevron deference to an agency interpretation applies only if it is clear that Congress intended to give it the authority to make rules carrying the force of law.
    The point here is that there is in the United States a well developed body of statutory and case law defining the boundaries of administrative discretion.  These limits curb executive power, corruption, and protect individual rights through the development of procedural regularity, judicial review, and defining the proper boundaries between bureaucratic and other government actors.  But given that the reforms in administrative law transpired at the same time the American administrative state was expanding to regulate the economy, they also served to build state institutions, improve their performance, and to enhance the economy by way of correcting market failures.
    In summary, the law that has developed in the United States is one that requires government officials to follow specific rules when making decisions.  These decisions, if they do not respect what is called due process of law, are subject to review by the judiciary in the United States.  Judicial review of administrative decisions has helped to limit bureaucratic discretion.

Transparency and Openness In Making Decisions
    A second major value important to limiting government corruption and inefficiency is the concept of transparency.  The idea of transparency refers to the mandate that all government decisions should be made in a open fashion, subject to coverage by the media and review by citizens.
    There are many rules promoting transparency.  Perhaps the most important laws regarding transparency at the national level in the United States are Freedom of Information Act and various open meeting laws.
    In terms of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the law dates from 1966 and it allows for citizens and the press to request documents from the government unless they are otherwise classified as secret.  The goal of this Act is basically state that all information that the government has is open to inspection by the public.  Over its nearly 50 year history the ACT has resulted in tens of millions of government documents being released to the public.
    In addition to the FOIA at the federal level, many state and local governments have their open freedom of information acts.  Along with these laws, all levels of government in the US have what are called Sunshine Acts or Open Meeting Laws.  Six years after passing the Freedom of Information Act, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act to open up to public oversight the advisory process of executive branch agencies. Since 1972,  FACA has legally defined how advisory committees operate and has a special emphasis on open meetings. In 1976 Congress adopted the Government in the Sunshine Act, which requires that certain government agency meetings be open to the public.
    In general, these three laws have had a dramatic impact on government decision making.  They establish a general presumption that decisions by government officials and agencies are presumed to be made publicly and that citizens and the media have a right to be able to review choices.  For the most part most government officials voluntarily accept these laws as binding and part of their duties.  But these laws are also enforceable by citizens and the media, both of which may go to court to have violations of the law reviewed and enforced by the judiciary.  Thus, these laws do not just exist in theory, but they have real force to affect bureaucratic behavior.

Conclusion
    The creation of a constitutional ethic of public service has been an important  way for the United States to promote efficiency and reduce corruption in government.    This ethic is a combination of both the creation of subjective beliefs and objective procedures that reinforce a commitment to democratic governance among bureaucrats.  Among the values that are part of this constitutional ethic are those that limit bureaucratic discretion and which promote openness and transparency in decision-making. 
    While this talk has focused mostly on the United States, many other democratic or emerging democratic countries have adopted similar values.  The question that I leave you with is how the lesson from the United States can be applied in Russia and to its bureaucracy to help it combat corruption and inefficiencies.

Making Sense of American Politics in the Age of Barack Obama

 Note:  On October 26, I will be flying to Moscow, Russia to teach at the Peoples Friendship University.  I will also be giving a talk at the American Corner, Moscow. This will be my fifth trip to Moscow. At the University I will be giving several lectures.  One of them is the one that I have decided to make as a blog this week.

Picture of me in 2012 in front of Peoples Friendship University with

 Professor Daria Stanis, my host.

A couple of weeks ago the United States was on the edge of a crisis.  Had Republicans and Democrats in Congress not come to agreement with President Obama, the United States would have run out of money and defaulted on its debts, potentially throwing the country and the world economy into a recession.  This crisis would have been a result of the Congress failing give the president to raise the debt ceiling which would have authorized him to borrow money to pay America’s bills.
    But this near missing of a crisis came on top of one that had already occurred.  On October 1, Congress and the president failed to reach agreement on a budget, forcing a partial shutdown of the government.  Even though an agreement was reached, it was only temporary and the United States may be back in the same place in three months.
    Moreover, as one observes the United States over the last five years while Barack Obama has been president, America has faced repeated political disagreement that seems to push the government from one internal crisis to another.
    How did all this happen?  To many Americans the partial governmental shutdown and the near default of the United States was hard to understand.  But no doubt to people around the world, including here in the Russian Federation, it must perplexing.  How could such a big and powerful country such as the United States face problems such as this?   Why is the United States so divided now, and what does it all mean?  How do we make sense of America?
    What I would like to do today is explain American politics to you.  For those of you seeking a better understanding of my country, my talk will try to give you a better picture of how our country operates and how it has changed in the last few years.  In particular, I want to explain to you two things about American politics.
    First, I want to briefly describe what I call the logic of American politics.  By that, I want to  explain how our constitutional framers designed the American political system.  I will argue that the  the design of our political system is meant to break up political power and slow down political change.  By that, there are no real single power centers in American government and that to get anything accomplished a significant amount of political consensus is required.
    Second, unfortunately that consensus has broken down.  This is where I shall discuss political parties in the United States.  My argument here will be that what the United States is presently experiencing is a significant political party polarization that is making it difficult to govern.  This is exactly where the United States is now and it explains so much about why the county seems to be moving from crisis to crisis.

The Logic of American Politics
    American politics was born out of a fear of a strong national government and the potential threat that political power could have upon the individual rights of citizens.  This was a fear from American colonial experiences with King George III of England, as well as a fear of mob rule during the early years after independence.  James Madison, one of the original authors of the American Constitution, once described the task of the American political system the following way.

   "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."

The issue then is how to preserve individual liberty and republican government from the threats of majority faction.  This is the core problem of politics that Madison, the Federalist Papers, and the constitutional framers sought to address.  Phrased otherwise, the problem, as Alexis DeTocqueville would later ask, is how can the American republic deal with the threats of the tyranny of the majority?   Another way of stating it: How to balance majority rule with minority rights?  How does one allow for majority opinion to rule, as it should in a popular government, but not let it become destructive, acting impulsively or rashly when threatened?
    Thus, the American political system seeks to preserve individual liberty, or balance majority rule and minority rights, by placing all kinds of checks on political power.  The American political system was meant to make it slow to change, for power to become centralized.  The American political system has many features to break up power.
The government and election system of the United States is unique when compared to the Russian Federation as well as the rest of the world. Much of the formal structure of the government is outlined in the United States Constitution, with additional national, state, and local laws articulating both the structural and electoral systems for the country.
The first two defining characteristics of the United States are that it is a separation of powers government, not parliamentary, and it is also a federal and not a unitary government.  Both of these factors mean that political power in the United States is divided up among three national branches of government and between a national government and 50 states.  The purpose of this division of power is to protect minority rights, respect local decision making, and also to ensure that no one institution has too much political power.  This type of governing system also means that it is difficult to achieve significant political change in a short period of time, thereby encouraging the likelihood that elections will not produce dramatic changes in policy or political direction.
    Unlike a parliamentary system, separation of powers means that the president of the United States is elected separately from Congress.  The president serves both as head of state and head of the government.  Yet in America the president presides only over the executive branch of the government, with the legislative branch (Congress) headed by its own officers.  Because of the separate elections, it is entirely possible for the president to be of one political party, with Congress having a majority controlled by a different party or parties.  This is called divided government in the United States, and such a governing arrangement is not uncommon in the United States.
    Being a federal system means that there is in reality no national election for Congress.  The lower chamber of Congress is the House of Representatives, consisting of 535 members who represent districts spread across the 50 states.  Each district is on the same population.  There are 100 members of the Senate, with each of the states allocated two senators.  House terms are for two years and Senate for six.  In 2012, the entire 535 members of the House of Representatives was up for re-election, while only 33 of the Senators are up for re-election.  Because of the structure of Congress, effectively all of the elections for Congress are really local elections.  Thus, think of 2012 as a situation where there was one national election for president and 568 local elections for Congress.
    There is no proportional representation in Congress.  The United States has a Westminster type of elections—whoever receives the most votes in a congressional election is declared the winner.  Additionally, because of this type of system, third parties generally are not strong and therefore the United States is a two party system where at present Republicans and Democrats are in competition with one another.  Whichever party has the most members in the House or Senate controls that chamber.
    The reason why all this is important is that it is possible to have several variations of party control in the United States.  One could have a situation where the president and both houses of Congress are controlled by the same party.  This was the case when George Bush was president from 2003 to 2007. This occurred again in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president.  But it is also possible to have the president be from one party and Congress controlled by another.  This again occurred under George Bush from 2007 until 2009.  Another scenario is when the president and one legislative chamber are controlled by one party and the other chamber is controlled by another.  This is currently the cases in the United States.
    There are major differences between the two houses of Congress in terms of their constitutional authority and how they operate.  However, in both chambers, it is generally possible for a minority slow down or stop legislation from passing.  Again, in theory the idea for this is to protect individual liberty or ensure political agreement on major issues.
    Finally, in addition to the United States dividing up power at the national level, America is also a federal system where power is divided among 50 subunits of government that we call states.  Within the states there are cities and other local governments.  Overall, political power in America is highly divided and in order to make any significant political change there needs to be basic consensus and agreement.  No one, not even the president, can simply order things to be done.

Party Divide in the United States
    American politics also operates with party competition.  The two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, while they have historically disagreed on some issues, really shared some basic agreement on the role of government in our society.  Moreover, the two major parties, up until recently, were less ideologically polarized 20 years ago.
     American political parties used to be more coalitional and regional than they are now.  Parties were more likely to be mixed ideologically.  When I grew up in New York in the 1960s my governor was Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  One Senator was Republican Jacob Javits, the other was Democrat Bobby Kennedy.  The most liberal?  Javits.  The most conservative, Kennedy.
    We have seen in the United States a disappearance of moderates in the two parties.  There is a rise of straight party line votes in the Congress.  The Republicans have become more conservative, the Democrats slightly more liberal.  But more importantly, the Republican Party has seen the rise of the Tea Party faction, a group of ultra-conservative people who are pulling the Republicans further to the right.  The Tea Party also is less likely to believe in compromise, and they  do not believe that shutting down the government is necessarily a bad thing. It was the influence of the Tea Party in the House of Representatives that significantly caused the partial governmental shutdown and the near default.
    But the party divide in America is part of a larger social divide in the United States.  The Democrats and Republicans are a tale of two parties The Republicans are older, whiter, male, more Christian, and part of the Silent generation along with some older Boomers.  They vote against gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and favor smaller government.  The Democrats are younger, more female,  less white, less Christian, and they represent the  Millennials and Gen Xers. They favor gay rights, choice, immigration and diversity, and more government.  The two parties represent two generations and world views, and party of the intensity right now is a demographic contest witnessing the passing of power from one generation to another.  It also represents a racial polarization the greatest since 1988, and an identity shift as America moves from a White Christian nation to something else.
    In addition politics and geography now overlay and intersect.  There is a political sorting of living space by politics and geography.  We increasingly have Democrat and Republican neighborhoods.  We are divided politically by rural and urban.  The result is a decline in the number of real marginal or swing districts and such a problem is only accentuated by redistricting in some states (or conversely, even the best redistricting cannot overcome the political sorting we are experiencing).  There are only 50 or so competitive seats in Congress. The remainder are certainties for either of the two major parties.  Partisan districts create less incentive to compromise, reinforcing  polarization.

Conclusion
    So what does this discussion of the American political system and changing party structure mean in terms of understanding the United States?
    The partisan divide and political polarization that has emerged in the United States over the last 20 years has become very serious since Barack Obama was elected president.  America appears to be a politically divided country where there is no real consensus on some core issues about what government should do.  But even if there were consensus, the logic or structure of the American political system is being manipulated by a minority of the population to pursue its goals.
    This is not a problem that James Madison envisioned. He and the others who wrote the American constitution did not anticipate that a minority could be so powerful that it could affect the country the way it does now.  Nor did Madison and the framers envision a country perhaps so divided on some basic political values or issues.
    Barack Obama’s presidency is about generational change and in part the reason why the country is so divided is because we are witnessing a beginning of a significant generational shift in American politics.
    In the near future the United States will continue to face political division.  But over the longer term the changing demographics or population of the United States may resolve this problem.  As one generation dies off and is replaced by another, the United States will see a change values and  perhaps, then, a new consensus will emerge about where the country should go.