Debatable. The legislative branch is decisively captured by Republicans bc of its bias towards rural land over population & their interests. It is if anything significantly more halting and hostile to progressive politics. A more vigorous Congress will not save us! It may just hurt us more!
The only thing I got is there gotta be a way to get rid of structural bias favoring rural lands over populated urban centers and I got nothing off the top of my head. Because as long as we keep operating on that premise, we'll just be in the same position down the road with just a larger Congress.
And that’s why you should triple the size of the house, so it’s too big for special interests and lunatics to completely capture.
1st: leaders are obviously going to still exist in a larger House, and will still have outsized influence due to charisma and organizational power. 2nd: how would that affect special interest groups and lobbyists, who are still relatively focused, small groups of actors with deep pockets?
1. you’re increasing the chance of have more and therefore competing centers of leadership and power 2. It’s harder and more expensive in aggregate to buy off enough reps to make a difference under that setup.
I think looking for structural solutions here is understandable but misguided. Congress has not historically been a den of virtue or civic spirit, and there is no prior era of (small r) republican engagement to point to to ensure it could not yield a Trump.
The biggest argument against giving Congress more power being some infusion of civic virtue and functionality is that Marjorie Taylor Green, Randy Fine and Nancy Mace are all howling demagogues and they're also all members of Congress.
Frankly, right now I would be fine with Congress choosing to exercise the budget, oversight, and censure powers it already has.
What’s the alternative to a structural solution?
Ultimately? There's no substitute for "electing people with good politics who will take necessary action to every single government office we can, and building a consecutive term advantage."
That’s the Step 1 that gets us the progressive trifecta I mentioned; one that’s willing and able to address structural problems! We agree that there *are* structural problems, yes? Problems which make it harder to elect people with good politics, and harder for them to act to build and keep power?
I think the bigger issue isn't just structural, it's electoral. But I'm also skeptical of the idea the House is more functionally democratic just because it's swingier and requires constant campaigning.
Is your argument that the presidency is more functionally democratic than the House at present, and would continue to be even if the latter were made more representative?
I mean I sure as hell don't get any more say in Congress either way and end up largely subordinate in my own political desires to what other, often more conservative parts of the country say in the exact same way :)
It’s a very bad system, to be sure. Hence the need for structural changes! I don’t see a persuasive argument against making Congress more representative (the House expanded, gerrymandering banned nationwide, the power of the Senate reduced, etc.) & empowering it vs. just electing a “good” dictator.
My point is that ultimately a larger Congress wouldn't really affect how much I'm represented one way or the other, I still have a single Congressperson who's likely either outvoted by more conservative areas or swayed by influential leadership.
Expanding the House would reduce the disproportionate representation of more conservative areas and give electeds fewer constituents to be responsive to As for the issue of influential leadership, such is the nature of parties, but it’s better than a dominant president under the current system
We should absolutely elect the best people to all positions possible, but it’s impossible to imagine doing that forever. Have to change the rules of the system while you can.
My view is that if Dems are lucky enough to get a trifecta and another bite at the apple in this competitive authoritarian environment, a structural change is absolutely imperative because it increases the odds of breaking the doom loop I think reforming and empowering Congress would be best
We should also demote the Senate to an advisory body that only approves appointments and levies administrative pauses rather than abject vetos on vital legislation. Fuck the Senate.
Or rather we should threaten this and then negotiate down to a second proportional body, that would be ideal, I think.
I did specify that Congress needs to be made much more representative! The last few decades have seen Congress cede much of its power to the other branches. I think that’s been straightforwardly a disaster. We’re seeing the perils of an unconstrained SCOTUS and POTUS simultaneously right now.
I think your concerns about Congress are most valid and applicable to the Senate. I’d like to do everything possible to subordinate that body to an un-gerrymandered House
I am not entirely convinced that the House is inherently more virtuous here
More virtuous than what? The Senate? The presidency? It’s vastly more representative than the Senate, can be made more so through legislation, and has passed numerous progressive policies that went on to die in the upper chamber