In North Carolina, defeated lame-duck Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory has called a special session of the heavily Republican legislature. Democrats spread false rumors that Republicans would try to pack the state Supreme Court, but what they actually began doing was to pass laws that will limit the power of the incoming Democratic governor in what is already a very weak-governor state.
Republicans there argue that their reforms are not radical, and that there is also ample precedent for what they are doing. And they are right — Democrats who held the legislative in the 1980s did the same thing upon the election of a Republican governor, limiting the governor’s power and later the lieutenant governor’s as well when a Republican was elected to that post.
But this only proves that Democrats once made the exact same bet the Republicans are making now — that they would forever control North Carolina’s legislature. They eventually lost that bet — and Republicans probably will someday as well. One man’s “precedent” is another man’s “repeating the mistakes of others.”
Respect for the process of government is hardly the most enticing topic, but it cannot be said often enough how much it matters in the American system. The delicate checks and balances between the branches of government at all levels force those in power to govern according to a public consensus or else suffer the consequences. Changes to the balance of power, especially by a lame-duck legislature and a governor after his election loss, should be avoided and viewed with skepticism.
Both parties resort far too often to the sort of outcome-based governance that discounts procedural safeguards in ways they will not only regret later, but which also diminish Americans’ freedom in the long run. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid did it when he arrogantly ended the Senate minority’s ability to block most presidential nominations, with the result that Democrats are virtually powerless to stop President-elect Trump’s nominees. Senate Democrats also were willing to infringe on individual rights in service of other policy goals — weakening the First Amendment in the name of campaign finance reform, and weakening Fifth Amendment due process rights in the name of gun control.
President-elect Trump has made some worrying comments pointing in the same direction. When he speaks of changing libel laws so as to make it easier to sue the press for negative coverage, he is threatening another cherished part of the First Amendment.
The American system works because it is rigorously devoted to both individual rights and to the limitation and division of the powers of government. This inevitably frustrates those who would bring about radical or transformative change, whatever sort of change it might be. And that is a good thing.
This is the single biggest reason President Obama will not leave much of a legacy behind when he exits office. It is also the reason American politics are mild and centrist compared to most European countries, where a change in government can dramatically change the laws almost overnight. In the U.S., only a very large legislative majority makes such dramatic change possible — and even presidents like Obama, who receive that blessing, are not always able to convert.
As Milton Friedman once observed, most of humanity throughout history has lived in a condition of poverty and tyranny. Americans’ freedoms are already constantly in peril, despite all of the procedural checks and balances they enjoy. When Republicans or Democrats try to upset this delicate balance with procedural changes that are self-serving in the short run, they put everyone’s freedom at greater risk.
