Addict
|
I don't think "spineless" is the correct word. Congress is intentionally designed to oppose radical change. You will very rarely see them "shake things up", especially in ways that contradict the message of the executive.
In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction... By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
|
Naturally, a system that controls factions in this fashion will also have a tendency to resist the development of any sort of group calling for radical change, even if that change is for the greater good. So, how does the American system control factions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is... to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
...The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, ...if the proportion of fit characters be not
less in the large than in the small republic, [the large republic] will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried...
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and
extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of
republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance
principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in
the former than in the latter... Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater
variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a
majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of
other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more
difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act
in unison with each other...
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their
particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration
through the other States... A rage for paper money, for an
abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other
improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body
of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as
such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district,
than an entire State.
|
Congress, and the national government more generally, was designed to resist passionate impulses and hasty urges. In the case of the wiretapping investigations, it makes perfect sense that Congress is not swept up in the same fervor as the people at large because they are, by design, insulated from the opinion of the moment. Having an ineffectual government should be the least of our worries: a radical, impulsive legislature is a sure recipe for the end of rule of law.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|