0 L$ o& z) N5 t1 c5 u2 K) W3 E要擺脫目前的政治僵局，我們不僅需要強大的領導層，還需要修改關系到美國政治機構的法律法規。修改美國憲法目前看上去不太可能，但美國可以實施一系列改革，來減少動用“否決票”的機會和簡化決策程序。可以實施的改革，一是廢除參議員的“阻止表決權”，二是減少對常規立法的阻撓，第三是禁止通過不相干的修訂案進行“立法要挾”。 1 b+ P! j q2 w% `! X( g5.39.217.76 O8 X! [ \) c. _
但可能進行的最重要的一項改革，是把預算過程轉變得更類似於“威斯敏斯特體系”。正如這次失敗的超級委員會那樣，預算應由一組精簡得多的議員制定。委員會的成員中，應該有一大部分是來自非黨派機構——比如美國國會預算辦公室(CBO)——的技術專家，而不像現在這樣充斥著黨派斗爭。技術專家們受到的來自利益集團的壓力，要比現任議員們小得多。預算編制完成后，應該送交國會，在不允許修訂的情況下進行一次要麼通過、要麼失敗的直接表決。類似程序已有成功先例，比如為了規避利益集團之間的僵局而走“快速通道”的一些貿易立法﹔非黨派委員會在決定關閉哪座軍事基地時也使用了這種程序。 % A# }) |' f) Q5.39.217.76tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb7 a. ^9 y6 R! h& {
但在當前黨派對立的氛圍下，美國不可能接受這種建議。共和黨總統提名候選人之一的紐特•金裡奇(Newt Gingrich)最近將國會預算辦公室稱為“社會主義”機構。但美國的財政麻煩如此之大，而美國經濟還在繼續滯漲，使得實施上述改革看上去至關重要。現任議員們肯定不願意很快放棄他們的否決權，正因為如此，我們首先必須通過廣泛的基層動員來推動政治改革。 * v8 w+ C. w" u3 r% K" |5.39.217.76tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb- b3 T; L. Q8 o
z' V+ J3 s; R3 H5 {Francis Fukuyama 是美國斯坦福大學弗裡曼•斯波利研究所(Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute)高級研究員，其最新著作是《政治秩序諸起源》(The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution)作者: felicity2010 時間: 2011-11-24 08:58 AM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-11-24 09:04 AM 編輯 - M5 G4 t/ j8 j* F+ }* U & E& x: v% \ i* r- \' DTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。Oh for a democratic dictatorship and not a vetocracy Francis Fukuyama . g6 ?0 w& O- Z7 [; [ 3 Q: G6 Y! V: N% ]- V5 }TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 : u4 r, l, F4 G. S1 RThe failure of the congressional supercommittee to reach a deal on the budget is a sad reflection of the polarisation in the US today. But this failure has roots that go well beyond the individuals charged with coming up with a plan to reduce the deficit; they go to the very nature of the political system. And while this committee has failed ignominiously, it contains the seed of an idea that might show us a way out of paralysis. ; z. U! H; ]3 p' m; K" z/ g: B' ]tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 Y |, v5 }( d+ ^4 j
American stake great pride in a constitution that limits executive power through a series of checks and balances. But those checks have metastasised. And now America is a vetocracy. When this system is combined with ideologised parties, one of which sees even the closing of tax loopholes as an unacceptable tax increase, the result is paralysis. 0 Q6 d$ L* K) M5 k( x' v/ S/ F5.39.217.761 I/ I5 E9 L) ]5 w4 m* ?) a8 y# w
The problems of the US system are all too apparent when compared with the classic British Westminster system: parliamentary, with first-past-the-post voting, no federalism or decentralisation, and no written constitution or judicial review. Under such a system, governments are typically backed by a strong legislative majority. The present government’s coalition is highly unusual for the UK, which typically gives the leading party a strong parliamentary majority. A simple majority plus one in the House of Commons can make or overturn any law in the land, which is why it has sometimes been referred to as a democratic dictatorship. % `/ I7 H2 r$ t: c" x9 y) _公仔箱論壇 0 Q2 f/ B0 q% M) s' \: p2 ~5.39.217.76The American system, by contrast, splits power between a president and a two-chamber Congress; devolves power to states and local government; and permits the courts to overturn legislation on constitutional grounds. The system is deliberately engineered to put obstacles in the way of decisive government,which in turn is the result of a political culture strongly suspicious of centralised power. 8 e" Y8 ] B) ]2 G% D% hTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 & m7 Y" {6 R$ L8 XTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。The advantage of the British system with its fewer opportunities to cast vetoes is clear when it comes to passing budgets. The budget is written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who as an executive agent makes the difficult trade-offs between spending and taxes. This budget is passed by parliament, with little modification, a week or two after the government introduces it. # O, J. Z3 g4 J" X$ Q. C公仔箱論壇 7 ~; V! e* M4 v9 \& v$ |TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。In the American system, by contrast, the president announces a budget at the beginning of the fiscal cycle; it is more an aspirational document than apolitical reality. The US constitution firmly locates spending authority in Congress, and indeed all 535 members of Congress use their potential veto power to extract concessions. The budget that eventually emerges after months of interest group lobbying is the product not of a coherent government plan, but of horse-trading among individual legislators,who always find it easier to achieve consensus by exchanging spending increases for tax cuts. Hence the permanent bias towards deficits. 3 |, h* u, B+ Q) T$ `" I5.39.217.76 - Y6 M" e* e0 o' I b4 ~& y公仔箱論壇In addition to the checks and balances mandated by the constitution, Congress has added a host of further opportunities for legislators to use their veto power to blackmail the system, such as the anonymous holds that any of 100 senators may place on executive branch appointments. A particularly egregious example of this is taking place today. The Obama administration has wanted to appoint Michael McFaul ambassador to Russia, but the foreign relations committee has put off action indefinitely due to the objections of certain unnamed Republican senators. Mr McFaul – formerly a professor at Stanford (and also a longtime friend) – has been senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council for the past three years and is widely regarded even by the Republicans as well qualified for the job. Foreign Policy magazine has reported that one of the holds is due to a senator wanting the federal government to build a facility in his state. As a result, the US may not have an ambassador in place in Moscow next March as the Russians vote for a new president.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb/ b/ K) Q& T8 T- e6 M8 Z- k2 L
7 U# k0 _0 A1 O+ I, ^( |5.39.217.76If we are to get out of our present paralysis we need not only strong leadership,but changes in institutional rules. If constitutional amendments are off the table for the moment, there is nonetheless a list of reforms the US could undertake to reduce the number of veto points and simplify decision-making. One would be to eliminate senatorial holds; another would be a rollback of the filibuster for routine legislation; and a third would be a rule that would prevent legislative blackmail through irrelevant amendments. , B8 }# [. ?: S5.39.217.767 `2 \6 O; D9 [/ m* `
But the most important potential change would be to move the budgeting process towards something that looked more like the Westminster system. Budgets would be formulated, as in the case of the failed supercommittee, by a much smaller group of legislators. Unlike today’s strongly partisan committee, it would have heavy technocratic input from a non-partisan agency like the Congressional Budget Office that would be insulated from the interest group pressures that afflict the sitting legislators. A completed budget would be put before Congress in a single, unamendable up-or-down vote. The procedure has already been used successfully to get around interest group deadlock in fast-track trade legislation and by the non-partisan commission that decided which military bases to close.公仔箱論壇' c7 o I3 |- Q" ~# c V, D+ L
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。- u# S# F z8 T7 t) Q" M0 M0 _
This proposal has no chance of being accepted in the current climate of polarisation. Newt Gingrich, one of the Republican contenders for the party’s presidential nomination, recently called the CBO a “socialist” institution. But our unaddressed fiscal problem is so great that something like it would seem essential as our economy continues to stagnate. Serving legislators are unlikely to be willing to give up their veto power soon. That is why political reform must first and foremost be driven by popular, grassroots mobilisation.公仔箱論壇. d, P l$ r$ F# z1 ?8 s
/ I# c) S q& Y3 W: p& g5 G公仔箱論壇5.39.217.76$ e9 I, o* C8 h- c Francis Fukuyama is a senior fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute. His latest book is The Origins of Political Order: From PrehumanTimes to the French Revolution作者: felicity2010 時間: 2011-11-24 09:05 AM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-11-24 09:31 AM 編輯 ; N; w3 e# T/ D' m5 S ?1 B% kTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。; Y1 E8 Q$ T! H8 z Defense and Democracy in America Bennett Ramberg ! }2 Q3 ~& U; X' h! t3 G( _! T% i f! }9 g ~8 r
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb% Y9 h, z. R7 ~0 R
The failure of the US Congressional Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction to reach agreement on budget cuts now sets the stage for $1.2 trillion in automatic reductions to begin in January 2013.Should these cuts go into effect, the US Defense Department, which already must implement $450 billion in reductions over ten years, will take half the hit.But pushback has already begun, with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta arguing that further reductions will impose “substantial risk” to America’s national security.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。: _& K/ V" }5 J6 a& |7 e R! t7 G
; j! Y( _' U5 ^! zBut, if history is a guide, global events, not deficit hawks or military promoters, will have the ultimate say over how far defense reductions go. As the Cold War ended, who would have thought that the US would become entangled in Somalia, the Balkans, and Kuwait – or, when the new century began, that the US would spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year on wars in Southwest Asia.; `3 |6 k% e6 d4 Z9 z n
公仔箱論壇) \ e4 ]+ D/ T! t a- }
While America must, of course, bear any cost to fight a war of survival, throughout history, America’s economic power gave it a broad cushion to pursue wars of choice. In today’s world, one would think that US economic distress would cure that compulsion. But that did not happen in Libya, and events will likely tempt future presidents to behave in the same way, despite the risks. And Congress is unlikely to use its authority to play a more assertive role if legislators wed themselves to the recent past.公仔箱論壇* @* I; {" ]5 l! Z
+ J3 \& @4 B2 w0 w公仔箱論壇America’s fiscal challenges ought to prompt a re-evaluation.Practical change requires revision of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which grants presidents unfettered rights to commit American forces for 60 days. More fundamentally, Congress must ask itself whether the responsibilities that it assumed in America’s formative years provide a template for today. + f- G! b" W4 X5 V) |% ~. ]tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb“Upon the whole it rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute, and ransom as the means of re-establishing our Mediterranean commerce,” Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson advised President George Washington in 1790, as he pondered a response to continued attacks by the Barbary Pirates on America’s merchant fleet off of North Africa. With no navy to speak of, Congress had little choice but to grin and bear it.7 d6 u$ W, f3 ^. S
# I9 }4 a' ?* ]In 1798, it stopped doing so. It responded to revolutionary France’s attacks on American ships destined for England by voiding treaties and commercial agreements, and then, at President John Adams's request, by authorizing the use of force.公仔箱論壇 l- [4 z; s+ D" R
By the time Jefferson assumed the presidency, that quasi-war had ended, but the challenge posed by the Barbary Pirates remained. In 1801, with Congress absent from the capital, Jefferson took matters into his own hands, ordering a new fleet of frigates to sea to protect merchant shipping. Still mindful of Congress’ critical role in war-making, Jefferson asked for and received ratification when legislators returned.1 K3 p* l! v" b: H+ H- j
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb# s( X) A4 F2 ^
A decade later, in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars, with the British attacking American ships and impressing sailors,Congress broke with the past. Despite divisions, for the first time it used the power granted by the Constitution to declare war. In the nearly 200 years that followed, Congress did so only four more times, three in response to attacks on US maritime interests – the Spanish-American War and the two world wars – and the Mexican-American War in 1846. ; K6 ^8 w. d0 K1 p2 W5.39.217.76 . l, @$ h) p3 m9 V6 l, K/ m0 J公仔箱論壇President James K. Polk provoked the Mexican-American war by sending American forces across the disputed Texas frontier without congressional consent. That set a precedent that would be replayed in repeated interventions in the Caribbean, Central America, and Mexico from the turn of the century through the early 1930’s,as well as in interventions in China and Russia. Throughout, Congress remained largely impassive. 1 `. I8 F/ Q' ^& F 0 f, C0 I3 X% n( ^* A" sTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。That passivity continued after World War II,not only in Latin America, but also in US interventions around the world – Korea, the Balkans, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Libya. In other instances – the Formosa Straits, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait – Congress issued broad authorizations but no declaration of war. 1 V/ o+ {4 R3 s4 x w3 Q. C5.39.217.76 6 ]9 j d6 |4 t+ E" S2 A' C& ^公仔箱論壇Had the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq gone well, perhaps the US could accept the costs and manner of authorization.But they did not go well, bolstering those who declare “enough,” and prompting the question of whether the US president alone – even under the facade of congressional authorizations rather than formal declarations of war – ought to bear the war-making responsibility.5.39.217.76( r- F9 D8 R) \; Z3 `/ S1 X) I
公仔箱論壇7 W: X2 y. E( C4 s1 v
At the time that it advanced its draft war-powers legislation, the Senate said “no.” Instead, it proposed that Congress assume the authority to commit forces to combat without a war declaration except to forestall or respond to an armed attack on the US or to protect the evacuation of American citizens from foreign soil. But the final War Powers Resolution rejected that approach.公仔箱論壇! l+ J+ e: a* {# ^1 ^
' b" q1 j! R& ^# @& b, S6 A, f8 u! M, YThose who feel comfortable with the status quo would do well to heed the conclusion Representative Abraham Lincoln reached at the end of the Mexican-American War: “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion,and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” , j R" y+ h" @1 a, Y) f- ltvb now,tvbnow,bttvb / F" s* X- f5 X# }; K& t7 I公仔箱論壇In today’s difficult economic era, only Congress can ensure that the president’s pleasure no longer becomes the country’s burden. The time to act in formulating new legislation is now, before the next war of choice presents itself.5 i! e% \( R7 Q2 w2 ?, Z5 L tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb/ O) e$ p; M% @3 `) K4 h
, y0 e# E! T* o H+ n. SBennett Ramberg served as a foreign policy analyst and consultant to the US Department of State and the US Senate. He is the author of several books on international security.
