US Democrats have more voters on their side

Nigel Williams, 3 October 2013

The United States government is temporarily shutdown. Staff deemed non-essential have been sent home on furlough, meaning unpaid leave, and the services stopped. Staff deemed essential are still expected to work but without pay until some future settlement. All stems from a pull devil, pull baker disagreement between the House of Representatives, and the Senate and President over healthcare reform. It is the sort of stoppage that, in Britain, is usually attributed to the militant end of the trade union movement but with differences. A strike requires the balloting of the members involved and they, as the instigators, are the ones that lose out from their lost labour. There is the further prospect that the US debt ceiling will suffer a similar failure to reach agreement and that the USA, the world’s most powerful economy, whose currency is the world’s reserve of choice, will default on its debts.

However deeply those involved feel about their cause, it is hard to feel any sympathy for the more intransigent agents in the argument. Undeniably, borrowing and over-spending have adverse consequences and need responsible limits but closing down the government and defaulting on debts are irresponsible means of arguing for responsibility.

The US constitution has traditionally served well to prevent one faction gaining excessive power. This year is the centenary of the seventeenth amendment that gave the people the right to elect senators directly instead of via state legislatures. In a lesson for all considering the future configuration of the House of Lords, all three arms of the US constitution can claim a democratic mandate. Unusually, the rest of the world is making a better job of collaborative government. In Italy, even Sylvio Berlusconi had the sense to retreat from a threat to bring down Italy’s prime minister Enrico Letta in a vote of confidence. Nick Clegg, the usual punchbag of British politics, was in a position in 2010 to prevent either larger party gaining a majority in the House of Commons. It has cost the Liberal Democrat party immensely to give up their election promise on university tuition fees but it was a more responsible attitude than refusing all co-operation. As a consequence, Clegg’s party won a concession to raise tax thresholds at the bottom instead of cutting rates at the top. Now he has to trust the electorate to understand that the tuition fees were the wish of 306 Conservative MPs rather than 57 Liberal Democrats. Behind his decision was the acceptance that 10.7 million voters had chosen the Conservatives in 2010, more than voted for any other party.

Before too much harm is done in the United States, it is worth looking at the strength of mandate each side has. In each case, a greater share of the popular vote has gone to the Democrats. That includes the House of Representatives, where an unequal spread has allowed a Republican majority. If democratically elected representatives cannot agree, then the whole people can be regarded as a higher authority. Given responsible co-operation, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives provides a useful check on majority power. In the absence of responsible co-operation, the Republicans have a choice. They can give way and allow the Democrats to take the blame for any future adverse consequences or they can continue to obstruct and take the blame themselves.