The Government is Fine, You Aren't

Ask any citizen of the United States, either on the left or right of the political spectrum, to lay out their list of government grievances, and you’ll soon realize that the list is almost unending. Indeed, it is practically a national pastime to blame the U.S. government for our multitude of problems. Healthcare, immigration, climate change, etc. are all issues current and past governments have floundered to address. Yet, while it may be common to use this line of thinking, it masks a deeper and more vexing issue underneath: that if the American public really wanted to solve these problems, they could. Indeed, the frequent adjustment of our founding document gives a clue of the potential for radical change in the United States. Furthermore, the public has never had more power when it comes to directly changing their situation through election of officials.

When it comes to discussions of governance, the public often looks to the Constitution for guidance. It is the reference point and final word for a wide spectrum of modern issues. Proponents of gun rights, for instance, will point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution to argue that they have a right to own and use firearms. The only way to combat this point is to argue within the confines of that very same document. For this reason, arguments over the Constitution become semantic. For example, there can be an argument over the wording of the Second Amendment that could allow for the regulation of firearms. 

What is most fascinating about the Constitution, however, is its malleability. The amendment process baked into the Constitution allows for its very nature to be changed. An argument about the Second Amendment need not even mention the Constitution, because the Second Amendment itself can be modified. In fact, there is historical precedent for amending an amendment: prohibition. Where the Eighteenth Amendment banned the sale of alcohol in the United States, the Twenty-First Amendment reinstated alcohol sales by repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. Vitally, every step of that process at some point lead back to the people. For example, while it was state legislatures that ratified the amendment, each of the legislators in those chambers were elected by the people.

It is a similar story when it comes to other amendments to the constitution, like the Twenty-Sixth Amendment which changed the minimum voting age to 18 from 21. Or the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave the right to vote to women. Both were the culmination of national movements for change among the U.S. population. Be it the Women’s Suffrage movement, the student activism movements during the Vietnam War, or the Temperance movement, these fundamental changes to the founding document of the nation came from a public hungry for change. Which brings up a critical question: why is it that we can’t solve our current problems if the nation’s very core can be altered?

We can certainly give a parting glance to problematic elements in our government system. For instance, the requirements for a third party, which might better represent the interests of the American people, to enter the presidential race are staggeringly high. Moreover, unpopular incumbent politicians have been able to change certain rules to inculcate themselves from the changing tides of public opinion. Even still, problems such as these are not insurmountable for a driven public. Take the Seventeenth Amendment. This amendment changed the way that senators were elected. It used to be The House of Representatives that collectively voted on who would become a senator. Yet, the Seventeenth Amendment gave that decision to the citizens of the U.S. Again, if the people can change their own system of voting, why can’t they solve their modern problems?

  

Another popular gripe with our current system is the Electoral College. This body of electors is the ultimate decider of United States presidential contests. One issue of this body that is often brought up is its disproportionality of power among the states, where more populous states have a greater say than less populous ones on who becomes the president.  Indeed, the electoral college has often run counter to the popular will of the people during contentious presidential races. Still, why not change it? If the very document that the United States is founded on can be molded to fit the public will, and if the legislators who carry out the laws of the land are often directly put in office by the popular will of the people, what is stopping change?

It seems that a growing polarization and lack of caring about local and national political issues has caused the people to simultaneously despise their current government while also letting it collapse. If the people had the determination for change, our system is built in such a way that, in time, change would come. If only the public looked in the mirror.