Is Government of USA in governance crisis? This is liberal democracy’s game of life, the US Presidential system in particular, since it was purposively designed to adopt policies and implement them in this precise way. Many democracy’s founders and American still have strong view that tougher the policy or act is made the finest it could achieve. And the game is like this: You cannot expect something best by just simply spending little or less efforts. To get a premium outcome, say policy in this case, controversies, debate and re-polish again and again is very likely. Very sharp contrast to realist’s assumption that state is the only rational actor, the U.S. liberal democracy is inherently written to seek discussions, competition and compromises so that relevant factors such as voters, the public or private entities are integrated and counted.
The problem is not mainly about who control the Senate or the House the most, after all. So far in history, Democrats randomly control the House or the Senate. Since 1947, there have been six Congresses with divided party control. From 1981 to 1987 (the 104th to 106th Congresses), Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the House of Representatives; the 107th Senate was mostly controlled by Democrats while Republicans controlled the House. And finally, the 112th and 113th Congresses are divided in the same way. The rest congresses since then controlled by the same party either Democrats or Republicans. Division seems not the real obstacles to policy development and adoption. As found out by Almond A., [political] culture of compromise seems deeply inject in American society from top to the bottom. Being one American was considerably high. Americans come from different camps, ideologies, status and races found themselves more united than separation especially in time of crisis, such as oil crisis in 1970s or terrorism later in September 11, 2001.
However, as discussed earlier there is less and less policy enacted comparing to overloaded demands. It becomes a staggering concern for some commentators. America needs responsive and productive policies in this particular situation. And America should suppress polarization. To do that, she has to be responsive and tries not to fall in a type of government that some economists always making fun of – government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. They warned that America is declining and that China is rising. The U.S. cannot expect something different, if she keeps doing the same thing. Maybe at the old day, we need old constitution. It’s more than two hundred years already, things have countlessly changed but the constitution was amended only 27 times which, for some scholars like Steven argued, does not imply the reality.
Yes, it is a crisis but not that governance crisis because they design that way. The U.S. governance crisis is not that simply a crisis that many poor and weak states are sharing. Unlike those states that are in crisis because of no policy adoption and no implementation, the U.S. governance crisis, if there is (and if I would call), is a high-class crisis. There is always room available for negotiation after all, except some non-negotiable issues. In Cambodia, for instance, governance is weak and very complicated to get it worked smoothly because of poor policy, incompetent authority, spoiled bureaucrats and under participation. Very sharp contrast, the U.S. is full of best educated, best skilled and best trained people. They are more or less knowing where will go next. Despite some controversies and debates, the U.S is still moving forwards.
America is not declining nor is in crisis. The thing is because of relative explanation while China is re-emerging many Western states, including the U.S., are comparably declining. It is not truly declining but just the fact that they did not reach what they project to see, say GDP accumulation at the end of the year. Perhaps Francis Fukuyama is right to certain levels about political decay. The cycle of error just happens in any system in any state no matter the developed or underdeveloped world. The U.S shares the same story. With exception of only act of god, it is predicted within more or less ten years of peaceful, stability, and growth, there would be two or three years of backwardness. This rhetoric does not need to be true.