US Exit from NATO?

[Tonitrus]

I think is that some expect Congress persons to also discuss things and not disappear. But the American Congress hasn't been a space for actual speeches in a wild and that hurts the opposition.

Well, that is true.  Most Congressional speeches these days are Senators/Congressman talking to themselves and a camera in the middle of the night to an empty room all for the purpose of putting their dribble into the Congressional Record for some unknown reason.

But to be fair...I've seen that often in the UK House of Commons as well...

[Valmy]

Yeah the idea that there is going to be intense debates over important legal, constitutional, and policy issues in the halls of Congress is just dead wrong.

[Grey Fox]

While wrong, I think it's expected.

[Sheilbh]

Well, that is true.  Most Congressional speeches these days are Senators/Congressman talking to themselves and a camera in the middle of the night to an empty room all for the purpose of putting their dribble into the Congressional Record for some unknown reason.

But to be fair...I've seen that often in the UK House of Commons as well...

Yeah I don't think that's necessarily the role of Congress either - I think the bigger problem is they're just not doing their job. I've said before but I think the fact that the US has a constitutional branch of government MIA is a big cause of many problems. I'm not sure Congress has ever been the place of great speeches or debates - I don't think that's its role historically - but it has in the past been a seat of great power and its abidcated that. I listen to a podcast on movies from the 90s where they start every episode with looking at the front page of the NYT on the day of release - and even then, in the 90s, it is astonishing how much more Representatives and (especially) Senators mattered.

Nowadays lots of MPs are actually just reading for their social media channels so if you actually watch parliament it's not good. Lots of non-sequiturs and actually questions or arguments getting repeated to be clipped up for social media, lots of MPs now reading their contributions (an alarming number of which I suspect are now AI generated - which I think should result in an immediate by-election) - and also they've moved to more family friendly hours which means the Commons no longer really controls its own timetable (also Speakers are more likely to grant urgent questions etc filling the time they have) to just let a debate run as long as it needs which leads to the Speaker imposing time limits. So you get the slightly absurd situation of an important issue, like the withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Speaker limiting everyone to two minutes, then one minute, then thirty seconds.

There are times when it "rises to the occasion" but it's normally one or two speakers sort of compelling attention - and often because the occasion sort of demands someone rise to it.

It could get worse actually. I've seen 2024 intake MPs complain that they have to sit in the chamber to be called in a debate which gets in the way of them doing important emails/constituency work and they would like to move to getting appointed speaking slots (like the US Congress). There's also proposals to move to fully remote voting. None of which sounds good to me - I think it's kind of missing the point of the purpose of a legislature.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am not sure that is a very good or effective question to ask.  Even if the Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate, they would still not be able to compel the President to enforce the NATO treaty or utilize and deploy the military.  They can pass lots of bills complaining about it, as could the courts could make rulings, but they cannot force the Commander in Chief to act.  They could potentially do the reverse...passing War Powers acts to defund undesirable military action...but there is zero way to compel positive military action. 

Congress has the power to declare war . . .

This is the attitude that caused Congress, which once completely dominated American government to an extent of rendering the President a near cipher, to degenerate into a useless appendage. Congress has authority, if it chose to use it. In addition to its war power, it can control the budgets of every single department of government and it can impeach and remove any executive officer it wishes if it can summon the courage and the votes. 

[Grey Fox]

And the vast majority of it's members face election every 24 months. A fatal flaw in todays world.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not so sure that in itself is a problem - I think that combined with the money required to run in American politics is a big problem.

I think that also affects the leadership problems in the Congressional parties and the gerontocracy - in that I think ability to raise funds for the national senate/congressional committees is a huge part of the job. And als the people who have been in politics for 40-50 years are the ones with the biggest Rolodexes of contacts they can tap up. So I think structurally the ability to raise money and the contacts to do it becomes the primary qualification for leadership roles.

[Norgy]

Isn't what has been missing from politics a little bit of idealism and that sense of public service some of our ancestors shouldered?

[Grey Fox]

of course. We're too far from our last devastating war & post-capitalism is in full swing.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Congress has the power to declare war . . .

Nobody has ever done this, and so it hasn't been legally tested as far as I know, but my read on Article I, Section 7 is the President can veto that declaration, as I think it counts as a "Resolution" under Clause 3.  Overridable, of course, but I'm not sure you could get 2/3 of both chambers behind honoring Article 5 and upholding NATO in the current climate (either through agreement or the Democrats winning that many seats).

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure you could get 2/3 of both chambers behind honoring Article 5 and upholding NATO in the current climate

Well that's the issue isn't it?

In 74, the Senate Republicans went to Nixon and told him he was done.  And that was it.

Not long ago in years but forever in political culture.

[Tonitrus]

I am not sure that is a very good or effective question to ask.  Even if the Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate, they would still not be able to compel the President to enforce the NATO treaty or utilize and deploy the military.  They can pass lots of bills complaining about it, as could the courts could make rulings, but they cannot force the Commander in Chief to act.  They could potentially do the reverse...passing War Powers acts to defund undesirable military action...but there is zero way to compel positive military action. 

Congress has the power to declare war . . .

This is the attitude that caused Congress, which once completely dominated American government to an extent of rendering the President a near cipher, to degenerate into a useless appendage. Congress has authority, if it chose to use it. In addition to its war power, it can control the budgets of every single department of government and it can impeach and remove any executive officer it wishes if it can summon the courage and the votes. 

Same problem as enforcing the NATO treaty (and I was limiting my argument to just this factor).  If the Congress "declared war" against say, Russia...but Trump really likes Putin, he can just ignore the declaration and not utilize the military in any way.  Which brings us back around to impeachment...

And of course, as I already said...Congress can control funding, but there is no real funding cut that can be done that will really push the POTUS to exercise the military in a way he doesn't desire to.

[Valmy]

Congress does not control funding as we have seen Congress can pass a bill creating an agency and fund it and the President can just shut it down and not fund it with no repercussions. And there doesn't seem to be anything Congress can do about it than just impeaching the President, which is an extreme step never actually done in the history of the country.

So what is the point of Congress passing a law and designating money for it, if the President can just not do it? None that I can see.

[Tonitrus]

I think we're all mostly talking past each other...the core issue is that those who authored the system (arguably this can said for all liberal democratic institutions) didn't expect a totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt Executive branch to align with a party that is totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt in control of the Legislative branch.

In this case, that just leaves the weaker Judicial branch nothing to do but fight a partisan delaying action until the next elections.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't what has been missing from politics a little bit of idealism and that sense of public service some of our ancestors shouldered?

Maybe. I also think a return of virtue and the language of virtue in our leaders and politics would be good (I've done a 180 on this). I'm aware of how that can be weaponised and the dangers but I think it's important.

It's a very long process (and I agree with the idea that it starts with FDR and then is super-charged by the nuclear bomb) but I do wonder the abdication of Congress. I find it extraordinary. So yeah a bit of idealism and public service - but also frankly reigniting a bit of a thirst for power (republican power, not court politics) and jealousy of it in the legislature would help.