Obama Has a Structural Power Problem

The U.S. has escaped bankruptcy, yet the ideological gap remains. There are barely any conservative Democrats in Congress, and even fewer liberal Republicans.

Only a few hours after America’s bankruptcy had been prevented at the very last moment, President Obama urged the 535 members of Congress: “The way business is done in Washington has to change.”

This is wishful thinking. The polarization of society and of the political class has advanced far. Moreover, a number of written and unwritten laws make it possible for political extremists to obtain excessive power in Congress and take their own party hostage.

If a miracle does not happen, if catharsis and understanding do not occur, then governing will become even more difficult in the U.S. This will be true especially when the electorate has — as is the case now — distributed political power and has not entrusted the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House to one party.

Separated power is normally a good corrective. Yet in the U.S. it has for some time led to blockades and deadlocks, for an influential group of stalwart ideologists put their principles above compromise — regardless of the price.

America’s political division has several causes: Both parties have become more extreme and uniform over time, especially the Republicans who have stalwartly moved to the right. Today there are barely any conservative Democrats in Congress — and, more so, there are barely any liberal Republicans. Even if a handful of each could be found, there is hardly anything upon which they agree. They also have drifted further apart.

Society Becomes More Multicolored

An important cause for this deep division is the dramatic demographic changes that also carry different political attitudes with them. Over the course of the last decades the Republicans have become a party for the white and the South; the Democrats a party of minorities and the Northeast as well as the West. Generally speaking, most Republicans view the state as the problem whereas Democrats emphasize the state as the agent of change.

In numbers: Nine out of ten voters who voted for the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney this past November were white. On the contrary, almost five out of ten votes for Obama came from minorities; that is, Latin-Americans, African-Americans or Asian-Americans.

The polarization and the rage with which the political argument is being carried out are also founded in the defense battle of many white people. They are afraid of changes since society is inevitably becoming more colorful, especially more Latin-American. And society is becoming more secular, more socially liberal and more urban. Democrats mobilize their electorate mainly in the growing big cities, whereas the Republicans draw from suburbs and rural areas.

Feeding into this polarization is the constant redrawing of electoral district borders. Democrats as well as Republicans take delight in playing this game. When they win a state election, they arrange the electoral districts in a way that as many Republicans or Democrats as possible live in them to secure majorities. Left-wingers live with left-wingers, right-wingers with right-wingers.

An additional difficulty has emerged: Since Democrats tend to settle in the big cities, Democratic majorities are very high in these electoral districts. However, the Republicans do not live as concentrated but are dispersed across the countryside. This is frustrating for Democrats. During last year’s election to the House of Representatives, Democrats won 1.4 million more votes than the Republicans, yet remained in the minority. The resounding majorities in their electoral districts were often “lost votes.”

Competition from within Their Own Ranks

It is especially problematic that there are increasingly less electoral districts with swing voters and thus more steady districts. Only one fifth of the 435 districts are still contested. Consequently, candidates do not have to fear their opponents from the other political spectrum but only rivals from their own party. The primary elections, where the candidates from each party are chosen, have become riskier than the general election.

This is especially true for the Republicans. Their moderate candidates often had to face contestants from the right in the past years, as the party has become more radical under the influence of the tea party. During the elections for Congress in 2010 and 2012, the ideologists proved very successful.

Newly arrived in Washington, they have encountered regulations that feed into their unwillingness to compromise. For instance, each senator can make use of the filibuster rule. According to it, the Senate is only allowed to further discuss a bill if a supermajority, meaning 60 of 100 senators, agrees to it. However, the Democrats only have a simple majority of 55 senators, and thus rely on Republican support every time, which is normally denied.

The Power of Radicals

In the House of Representatives, where the Republicans hold the majority, the so-called Hastert rule is of use to extremists. According to it, the Speaker of the House normally only allows discussion of a bill if a majority of the Republican votes is secured. If the proposition does not please the ideologists, it can easily be canceled.

Like Obama, most people realize that it cannot continue this way. Only nobody dares to address the problems at their roots. The power of radicals has become too strong.