The Chaos in Washington Has Global Consequences

I stole the title for this piece from The Economist, since it sums up, in a simple and short phrase, a situation that drags on and is difficult to explain.

The chaos in Washington is the chaos in the American political system, a situation that has been brewing for a long while and has now reached the point of complete dysfunction. As to the global consequences, they arise from the surreal but inexorable fact that what goes on in the American government ends up reflected, in many ways, in the lives of those around the world who have nothing to do with America and would much prefer to live their lives without the presence of this particular elephant in the room.

A treatise would be needed to explain how the system works, and that’s because it simply does not function. It is ironic that the most vocal champions of democracy are those who do not actually practice it, just like the aliens in Tim Burton’s 1996 film “Mars Attacks,” who wandered the streets with megaphones proclaiming, “We came in peace, to save you,” while they pulverized everyone. But the global consequences — actually already well established — can wait until later. Let us first examine the structure of the American state, and then discuss the circus that has been installed in the capital of the (still) most powerful country in the world.

The norms of the American system are quite different from those institutionalized in European countries. In its favor, it should be acknowledged that it was the first constitutional parliamentary system codified in a single document in modern times (unlike the English system, which is older but built on several, often unrelated, agreements and documents), but also that its original authors, as much as they carefully introduced a series of “checks and balances,” could not possibly have foreseen all the situations that would develop in the future. And one could be critical of the fact that efforts to update and perfect it in light of changing norms have been ponderous. The first 10 amendments, which came to be known as the Bill of Rights, went through 27 drafts, and there have only been a further 17 clarifying amendments since that time, with few daring to fundamentally challenge the document. To this federal constitution has to be added the 50 state constitutions, often quite different from each other. In some states, for example, judges are elected, while in others they are appointed by the governor or legislature. There are county, state and federal prosecutors, with contradictory roles and powers, and ones that sometimes have an effect outside their direct jurisdiction.

But more to the point, it is a presidential system, with no prime minister, and the federal legislature has two chambers: the Senate (with 100 members, two per state) and the House of Representatives (with 435 members, elected in proportion to the population of each state). The president may issue decrees, known as “executive orders,” which can be overturned by Congress in some instances.

In practical terms, the president can only govern freely if the president’s party has a majority in Congress, which is not often the case. Currently, Joe Biden’s party has a majority in the Senate but is in the minority in the House of Representatives. Barack Obama, for example, was unable to fulfill his agenda once he lost his congressional majority in 2011.

Another complicating factor is the existence of an unwritten rule in the Senate, the “filibuster,” which essentially means that legislation needs 60 votes to pass, not just a simple majority of 51 senators.*

Another factor needs to be taken into account. Legislative bills are generally made up of a series of provisions which are often unrelated to each other, which means that in order to approve legislation, unrelated items that have been attached, first have to be negotiated. A current example is that Congress will approve a final budget only if it does not include any additional aid to Ukraine. Normally, members of Congress try to insert provisions that benefit their own states or perhaps their financial contributors, but in this case some of them decided to use their opposition to military aid to Ukraine as the reason for blocking a budget bill. What this means is that this group of congressional radicals, “Trumpists” who are also members of the House Freedom Caucus, evidently feel that immigration and conflicts with China are more important issues for Americans than supporting somebody’s war efforts somewhere in Europe. Reflecting on this order of priorities makes clear that the international policies of the United States have been completely overrun by internal, partisan, political interests.

Further complicating the situation — complex enough as it is — is the internal battle going on within the Republican Party. It may seem illogical, even surreal, that issues of national importance such as the federal budget, as well as international issues like the war in Ukraine, should take a back seat to the dispute between the Trump wing of the party and traditional Republicans, but that is exactly what is happening, which is why the title from The Economist is so appropriate.

All of this began in January, when Rep. Kevin McCarthy put himself forward to become speaker of the House of Representatives. It took 15 rounds of voting before he was able to convince his Republican colleagues that he would be tough enough for the task. Fifteen rounds! Others would have stepped aside after the second or third round, but McCarthy really wanted the position and had to promise he would not make life easy for the Democrats. In doing so, he had to agree to an unprecedented condition: that it would take just a single representative to call for a vote, at any time and for any reason, to remove him from the position.

McCarthy, caught between the Trumpists and the Democrats, tried to navigate an almost impossible situation as sinuously as he could. The truth, however, as The Guardian put it, is that the real leader of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is Donald Trump, operating through a fearsome group of loyalists.

McCarthy’s relationship with Trump has a long history of ups and downs (with Trump, who doesn’t?), and at a certain point, the “orange menace,” as Theresa Hanafin of The Boston Globe referred to him, called McCarthy a “pussy,” before deciding to tolerate him in the role he so coveted.

And McCarthy, who in an earlier life ran a yogurt shop in Bakersfield, California, spared little effort in pandering to the Trump wing while simultaneously trying to maintain a relationship with the Democrats, an impossible balancing act. He approved all the hearing requests proposed by the radicals, such as the ridiculous investigation to determine if Biden should be impeached, accepted all challenges to the 2020 election results (still!), put pressure on government civil servants at all levels for not being pro-Trump and raised questions about aid to Ukraine several times.

Even in the midst of this carnival, he was able to convince the House to raise the debt ceiling, that peculiarly American national budget feature, which in America is a constantly shifting target. This means that budgets are always approved only for set periods of time, and their renegotiation typically involves high drama instigated by the efforts of members of Congress to include their own specific interests.

On Sept. 30, just when it seemed that the government would have to shut down in the absence of a deal, McCarthy was able to secure a 60-day funding agreement.

This is when Matt Gaetz, a representative from Florida (who, incidentally, is facing an inquiry into sexual abuse and misuse of funds allegations) burst into action. Last Monday, Gaetz, an ancient and very vocal enemy of McCarthy, made use of the special clause McCarthy agreed to when he was elected speaker, and asked for a motion to vacate the position of House speaker. After a vote in the House, this is exactly what happened. As for a successor, no one seems to know who it should be, and the work of the House is meanwhile frozen.

All of this feels like a bad political movie, but it is real, it’s happening in the United States and it has a far-reaching impact. Biden quickly promised that funds to Ukraine would not be cut, but in the end, he cannot provide more than has already been allocated, meaning that in the near future, there will have to be a reduction in weapons deliveries to the Ukrainians.

There are many other questions beyond this current budget concern, obviously. For one, there is the fact that the work of Congress is essentially paralyzed until Republicans, who cannot seem to get along with each other right now, choose the next speaker. There is also the issue of the next budget, since the 60-day countdown has begun, and it’s difficult to imagine what demands will be made to get a new deal done.

Then, and still, there is the issue of the trials Trump will face next year, and an election that he may well win. But that’s another matter, and the current insubordination of the Trump wing is a more pressing concern.

Europe, whose various governing organisms have been meeting on an almost weekly basis —the last one in Malaga — is having to consider multiple options as it tries to figure out how to deal with an ever more dyslexic America.

The behavior of Republican members of Congress is so unbelievable in its disdain for real problems in the country and disinterest in international affairs that it has become hard to fathom the lack of shame, the sly and duplicitous verbiage and the fact they no longer even feel the need to come up with explanations for why they place Trump on such a pedestal above all gods.

I have written about these issues several times, but I frankly do not understand how it is possible for politics to descend into such a radically partisan level. We know what to expect from dictatorships, but democratic nations, beginning with one that proclaims itself to be the greatest democracy in the world, are much harder to predict when they begin to behave this way.

*Editor’s note: A filibuster is an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assesmbly while not technically contravening the required procedures.