How to fix American politics in five easy steps
Let’s take a break (sort of) from the despair of the present moment and think about some reforms that could help put the U.S. back on the right track. I thought about putting these in order of most likely to happen to least likely, but if we’re honest, all these are unlikely to happen. But this is supposed to be a bit more of a constructive, optimistic post, so let’s dream a little.
Place a maximum age limit of 75 years old to hold public, federal office. By public office I mean a member of Congress, Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court), President and Vice-President. As you can see from the graph above, the percentage of Congress over 70 has grown tremendously over the last 40 years. In 2023, 49 members of Congress were over 75 years old. Joe Biden was the oldest person to be elected president, until Donal Trump was elected again, becoming the new oldest person to become president. By contrast, the Supreme Court is young. Clarence Thomas is 76, Samuel Alito 75, Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts are 70.
Why an age limit? Yes, people do age differently. There are scores of people over 75 who can hold stressful jobs and excel. But there are scores of people under the age of 75 as well. Putting a maximum age limit would do two things. First, it would eliminate most of our discussion of the cognitive capabilities of aging office holders. Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Grassley and so on. There have been numerous examples lately of politicians holding on too long. The country, and their constituents, would be better served by younger, healthier, more energetic people. Second, it could prevent our politics from becoming too stale. I’m a little less enthusiastic about this one, but there is something about Senator Chuck Grassley, age 91, legislating about AI, cryptocurrency and so on that doesn’t feel quite right. Of course, younger politicians, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene do not inspire confidence either. Regardless, the point is there are plenty of people in the country under the age of 75 who can positively contribute. Let those over 75 retire and enjoy their accomplishments.
Adopting a parliamentary system. The U.S. has a presidential system, with the president separated from the legislature. The idea behind this is to place greater checks on presidential power. In theory, this makes some sense but how it has evolved is that the president has become a celebrity and almost viewed as a monarch. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is a member of the legislature and is directly accountable to the legislature. In general, prime ministers are easier to remove than presidents, which places checks on what they can and can’t do. Just look at the UK. Because the prime minister is elected by the legislature, it usually means their party controls a majority of the seats. Which means they can pass laws to accomplish their goals, instead of executive orders.
Presidentialism versus parliamentary democracy is a long-standing debate in political science. The class critique of presidentialism was provided by Juan Linz in his 1990 article “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Every graduate student in comparative politics has read and debated this article. I used to think Linz was wrong, but now I know he was right. He argues presidential systems are likely to lead to populism and a president who tries to abuse his power. The critique of Linz was always that it is too focused on Latin American presidential systems, and the U.S. is different. But here we are.
A parliamentary system would check the power of the chief executive to a greater extent than our presidential system is doing and would create a more effective, and accountable, legislature.
Restrict the president’s pardon power. There are no limits to the pardon power given to the president in the Constitution. We have all become aware of this. A simple fix would be a constitutional amendment putting some limitations on this pardon power. Perhaps restrict it to commuting existing sentences or require approval by Congress or the Supreme Court. Maybe forbid presidents from pardoning members of their own families, and themselves as well. The purpose of the pardon power is to check the abuses of the justice system, but it has become more of a political tool. Whether it is pardoning folks you are worried will face “political” prosecution (such as Richard Nixon or Hunter Biden) or pardoning political allies who have committed crimes (such as Mark Rich or the January 6 rioters) the pardon power has been abused. Placing some limitations on it seems like a common-sense thing to do. Out of all the suggestions here, this one might be the most likely to happen.
Make all election funding public. Countries vary on whether they allow private donations, and what type of private donations. In the U.S., there is a good case to make that private donations, both large and small, have a negative influence on our politics. Let’s take the most obvious case first, Elon Musk. He donated almost unlimited amounts of money to Trump’s campaign through Super PACs. His contributions to the campaign very obviously bought him access to policymaking decisions. A Senate report estimated that Musk’s companies have saved around $2.37 billion in potential liability due to 25 federal investigations or regulatory matters his companies were facing. This does not even get into the contracts his companies stand to receive because of Musk’s role as head of DOGE and advisor to Trump. Musk is the best example, but there are numerous other wealthy donors in American history who have benefitted from their proximity to power.
But small dollar donations are a problem as well. Trump, and others, have benefitted as much, if not more, from small dollar donations. After all, generally speaking, wealthy donors are not populists. Much of our current populism has emerged from the ease of small dollar donations with technological advancements, and the incentives this creates for politicians. If I want to get people to donate 10, 20, 30 dollars at a time, the easiest way is to make them angry and afraid. Trump has taken advantage of this better than anyone else.
Eliminating private funding of elections and providing a small amount of public funding to candidates, presidential and congressional, would potentially solve two problems at once. It would place some limitations on the corrupting effects of wealth while at the same time reducing the incentives to pander to populist anger and fear.
The last one is my favorite one and is the most outside of the box. Instead of presidential debates, we should have a series of intense, realistic decision-making simulations. It is one of the paradoxes of the presidency that what it takes to get elected is not what it takes to be an effective president. To get elected, we value appearance and style over knowledge and substance. This has led to a “celebrification” of the presidency and disincentivizes presidents from doing the work of governing. Debates intensify the style over substance, appearance over knowledge aspects of our politics.
What I would propose instead is locking presidential candidates in a simulated “war” room, providing them with a realistic, decision-making scenario (domestic or foreign policy), and then America can watch how and what decision they make. Not only would it be great entertainment, but you would also actually learn something about how a person processes information, what questions and resources they ask for, whose advice they value, and how they handle pressure. It would be far more insightful and relevant in assisting voters in making an informed decision about who would do the job of the presidency more effectively.
There you have it. Five easy steps to fix American democracy. If only it were really that simple. The reality is that it will take many reforms, both small and large, to address problems such as corruption, expansive presidential power, anger and fear-based populism, and style over substance.