American politics may be becoming a bit less dysfunctional
IN HIS big annual speech to Congress, Barack Obama made several promises. He pledged to raise the minimum wage for those contracted to the federal government, to create a new tax-free savings bond to encourage Americans to save, to work for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison, to push immigration reforms and to veto any sanctions that Congress might pass designed to derail his deal with Iran over its nuclear programme. But for anybody listening from abroad, his most startling promise to America’s legislature was to bypass it. “Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do,” he vowed. This year, he said, will be “a year of action”.
That in America this pledge was not regarded as the most remarkable element of the speech shows how inured the country has become to dysfunctional government. After years of gridlock, Americans have got used to the idea that the gerrymandering of the electoral system and the polarisation of their two political parties have set the branches of government against each other, and that the checks and balances originally intended to keep the country’s polity healthy have condemned it to sclerosis. Government shutdowns, fiscal cliffs and presidents who promise to do their best to ignore the legislature are no longer much of a surprise. Yet Americans may have become too gloomy: Mr Obama’s speech could be the latest in a series of small signs that things are getting better.
Last year’s shutdown was such a public-relations disaster for politicians in general and the Republicans in particular that it is unlikely to happen again. The Tea Party’s kamikaze tactics have been discredited; that is why, without much fuss, Congress recently managed to pass a budget. Mr Obama knows that he can do nothing of interest without co-operation: when parsed, the promises of unilateral action in his speech amounted to not much more than a few low-level government workers getting paid a sliver more. No one expects 2014 to be a year of bipartisan chumminess, but several deals are possible.
Take inequality, Mr Obama’s new theme. Higher minimum wages are a less effective way to help poorer Americans than expanding the earned income tax credit (a negative income tax for workers on low pay). Several Republicans are open to this idea. Senator Marco Rubio, a rising star, recently said so; a fact Mr Obama alluded to in a speech that was uncharacteristically—and encouragingly—short of partisan sniping.
Explore our interactive guide to the states and stats of America
On immigration, too, a deal is doable. House Republicans are about to release a list of principles for reforming a system everyone agrees is broken. Mr Obama said he wants to sign a bill this year; if he handles Congress delicately, he may get his wish. The same goes for his request for lawmakers to give him “fast track” authority to negotiate trade deals. This is an essential tool for promoting free trade: if Asians and Europeans think Congress will rewrite trade pacts after the haggling is over, they will not take Mr Obama seriously as a dealmaker.
Trade, tax, immigration—and no shutdown
It is still sad that this is the best that can be said of the world’s most powerful democracy. It is hard to imagine the citizens of emerging economies looking at these compromises and finding them inspiring. But they are a start—and the political winds may be changing. If Mr Obama is to be remembered for anything at home but the botched roll-out of his health reform, he needs to get some measures through Congress. The Republicans need to be seen as something other than obstructionist if they want to win the White House. For once, they both have something in common: they need government to work.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Deal or no deal?"
