The debt limit legislative fiasco to a large degree was controlled by a small group of recently elected tea-party legislators. A good question for civics teacher to ask: “In a democracy, how is it possible that a small group of zealots can force its will on the majority?”

It would be a trick question, because, in fact, in a democracy such an outcome would be impossible. If the U.S. Congress was structured as a town hall meeting, the 20% of the group who are radicals would have their voices heard. But eventually, in a Robert’s Rules run meeting, the majority would assert itself.

The U.S. government, however, is not organized as a town hall democracy.  The three branch system — giving Wyoming the same number of senators as New York — was designed, in part, by thinkers who were afraid of too much democracy.

I’ve often mentioned the POV of the genius of systems’ thinking, W. Edward Deming, that 85% of quality is determined by the organizational structure of a system. We are experiencing a systems’ problem. We need to analyze why it is, in our present system, over and over again our government pursues policies contrary to the will of large majorities of Americans. Our political discussions should explore possible system changes that would make our government more likely to advance the common good. For example, would a constitutional amendment that outlaws gerrymandering help? How about a constitutional amendment that guarantees free TV access for all verified candidates? How about a system of on-line voting? How about a whole new approach to civic education?

The exciting truth is, our system of government is changeable. Blacks, women, the poor and 18 year olds can now vote. And, the federal government, if it so chose, has the authority to soak the rich and redistribute their wealth. Our present system is a shocking change from that imagined by the founding fathers, and a big improvement on their design.

One obvious big glitch in the system that needs to be addressed, illustrated by this debt limit debacle, is the corrupting influence of the unchecked power of political parties. The parties have way too much power and are controlled by a very small, tiny, fraction of the entire voting public.  To a big extent the parties are isolated from the public — 80% of the members of the U.S. House are in “safe” seats. This unreality allows John Boehner, regardless he is Speaker, to see his connection to the Republican caucus as his first priority. In his important job, he makes no pretense that he is trying to represent all Americans, or, amazingly, even the Republicans in his district (OH-6).

The debt limit fiasco came about because the tea party representatives leveraged themselves to more power than they deserved. All the Republican sheepies, like my OH-3 representative, Mike Turner, allowed it to happen because maintaining solidarity with fellow Republican legislators, regardless of how crazy their ideas and actions, was seen as a first priority. The drift to unreasonableness within a major political party, illustrated by this event, is alarming.

This debt limit fiasco should wake us to the deplorable state of our system. True, congress was never designed to operate as a Roberts’ Rules Town Hall democracy, but, we still have a system that has the capacity to do a much better job than it presently is doing — of advancing the common good and of representing the interests of common citizens. The system, from many standpoints, is failing miserably. The foundational question that more and more Americans are asking is:  How do we get the system to work? As I wrote four years ago,  it seems to me, inevitably, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Is Democracy Itself.

See also: The Best Way To Transform Our Democracy Is By Transforming Our Political Parties

An analysis posted at the Economic Policy Institute web-site predicts that economic policies stemming from the the new agreement on raising the debt ceiling will result in a loss of 1.8 million jobs in 2012.

1. Applying conventional multipliers, the reduction of $30.5 billion in calendar year 2012 would reduce GDP by 0.3%, and result in roughly 323,000 fewer jobs.
2. The payroll tax holiday reduced the Social Security payroll tax for all workers by two percentage points. Extending that tax cut for another year would provide roughly $118 billion in stimulus through increases in employees’ take-home pay, which would boost economic activity by an even greater $128 billion. Allowing this policy to expire would lower GDP by 0.8% in 2012, and would lead to roughly 972,000 fewer jobs.
3. The continuation of unemployment insurance benefits to long-term unemployed workers (up to 99 weeks of benefits) is also set to expire at the end of the year. Allowing that provision to expire on schedule would mean $45 billion less in assistance to unemployed workers, and $70 billion less in economic activity (unemployment insurance has one of the largest bang-per-buck of any job-creation policy). That reduction in purchasing power would lower GDP by 0.4%, and mean roughly 528,000 fewer jobs.

The web-site “Fair,” that describes itself as a “national media watch group,” in a post entitled, “Media Malpractice on Debt Ceiling,” says this debt limit debate illustrates how the corporate media pushes the national discussion towards the right. It cites five areas:

Why Is the Debt Ceiling Being Raised?

While some coverage correctly pointed out that raising the debt ceiling has always been a routine political maneuver, Republican rhetoric and right-wing commentary portrayed the current round as a consequence of Barack Obama’s “big government” spending philosophy.

What was rarely explained is the fact that raising the debt ceiling is a consequence of previous budget decisions made by Congress (New York Times, 7/28/11)–like a massive tax cut tilted towards the wealthy, two major wars and, most of all, the effects of a major recession.

Both sides equally intrasigent?

Many writers have noted the partisan negotiations were presented through a distorted “both sides must compromise” lens. The media’s aversion to pointing out when one side is more prone to obstruction or exaggeration than the other makes it difficult for voters to understand what is happening–and does little to dissuade lawmakers from engaging in similar behavior in the future.

Debate Way Off to the Right

Often lost amidst all the talk about rancor and compromise is the fact that the entire debate between party leaders and the White House has shifted well to the right. Republicans would only support raising the debt limit if it came with cuts that would exceed the increase in borrowing power. …

Finding the ‘Center’

There is a long-established pattern of corporate media advising Democrats to move to the “middle,” which in practice means shifting to the right. This has been a constant presence throughout this debate. With a very Republican-friendly solution perhaps at hand, some accounts are portraying this as a deft move to the middle by Obama. The fact that liberals are opposed to Obama’s proposals only serves to demonstrate that he is on the right track.

Were There Budget Alternatives?

If this debate was really about dealing with the nation’s long-term debt/deficit issues, then the press would seriously examine a range of ideas for addressing these problems. But the most serious progressive alternative, the People’s Budget, was never given significant attention in the corporate media–in contrast to Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which, contrary to the rhetoric, failed to meaningfully reduce the deficit at all (Extra!, 6/11).

The corporate media’s abject failure to seriously examine a budget proposal that is more in line with majority public opinion suggests that serious dysfunction is not limited to Beltway political leaders.