ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 78,389
We've spent the better part of a generation rewarding expediency over deliberation. As voters, we've increasingly accepted executive action in place of legislative compromise, even though Congress is supposed to be the branch that represents the people.
The current administration is hardly unique in relying on unilateral executive action. Presidents of both parties have expanded executive authority whenever Congress has been unwilling or unable to act. Each time, it may solve an immediate problem, but it also further weakens the institution designed to debate, negotiate, and represent diverse interests.
So my question is this: Do we still value thoughtful, representative government enough to accept that it takes time? Or have we reached the point where immediate action—even at the cost of concentrating power and diminishing Congress—is what most voters actually prefer?
In an age of instant information, social media, and 24-hour news cycles, is there still political space for prudence, compromise, and legislative deliberation? Or have we made those virtues politically impossible?
The current administration is hardly unique in relying on unilateral executive action. Presidents of both parties have expanded executive authority whenever Congress has been unwilling or unable to act. Each time, it may solve an immediate problem, but it also further weakens the institution designed to debate, negotiate, and represent diverse interests.
So my question is this: Do we still value thoughtful, representative government enough to accept that it takes time? Or have we reached the point where immediate action—even at the cost of concentrating power and diminishing Congress—is what most voters actually prefer?
In an age of instant information, social media, and 24-hour news cycles, is there still political space for prudence, compromise, and legislative deliberation? Or have we made those virtues politically impossible?
