I am a firm believer in sharing creative and risky ideas, not because they are the best, but because they ignite a shared interest in bettering something that is broken or needs improvement. I look forward to future articles like this Gabe! Our nation was founded on thinkers like yourself and ideas like this.
Well said! Ideas are fragile things and need to be carefully supported in order to incubate and have a chance to prove themselves...and as you point out, this incubation period leads to confirming shared interests and to additional strategies for improvement.
This is exactly the “out-of-the-box” thinking that is needed in a seemingly hopeless situation (like our 17% trust ratio in Congress). And yes, this (and your detailed reporting of otherwise overlooked issues) is exactly what I am willing to pay for.
Very original idea, but as others have said, impossible to add to the Constitution, at least in my lifetime. A better fix would be an informed, educated, engaged electorate that would throw the bums out, regardless of party. Also unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Unlike one other commentator, I very much appreciate your outside-the-box thinking balanced with your detailed reporting. Keep your creative juices flowing Gabe; they identify problems that we all need to think about.
How about moving back toward democracy with robust protections for media like Wikileaks and generous support for public media and real financial rewards for people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden instead of persecution and retribution?
It seems to me that what you are arguing for is to make the Justice Department that Fourth Branch. Then you would make the IGs that are currently within each department and agency employed by the Justice Department. We haven't needed that separation until Trump decided to turn the Justice Department into his own vengeance apparatus.
The root cause that prevents the Justice Department from acting in this way is the presumption that the AG works for and at the pleasure of the President. Not only was the court completely wrong in overturning Humphrey's Executor, which dealt with independent agencies, it is wrong in thinking that Congress doesn't have the legislative authority to dictate how the Executive is structured and functions.
I don't think that we need to amend the Constitution. We need to update the members of SCOTUS.
It seems to me to be a great idea; and our current, well-founded distrust of politicians is turning into a consensus across the citizenry that is harmful to the national character. Major reforms can take decades to achieve, but it's not like we are currently swimming in excellent, competing ideas. I hope this one can take shape and become real. It's more doable than eliminating the electoral college, curtailing gerrymandering or packing the court, all of which are very partisan, and unlikely.
Our system has been created with the presumption that it will be conducted by honorable people. Unfortunately, it isn't. And the trending on that score is clearly downward. I salute you for bringing this idea into the light.
I like the spirit in which this is offered, but like other "watchdog agencies" (e.g., the so-called Consumer Finance Protection Board), it would be almost certainly immediately politicized and would lose its effectiveness thereby. Also, the LAST thing we need is another branch of government to be corrupted. You said we'd have to be careful that it wouldn't become another group unelected bureaucrats. That's exactly what it would be from the beginning.
Yes, the idea of any sort of reform to our National system of governance seems far-fetched. How do you reform a defunct operation inhabited by policy extremists who arrived there as a result of devious torquing of the very system for electing them (e.g., gerrymandering on steroids). We just witnessed the disaster befalling one of our most treasured institutions, 60 Minutes. CBS has become a cesspool, along with vast components of our Federal government.
It takes real guts to contemplate some form of better in the midst of this rolling disaster.
It's almost remindful of the Civl War. Or the Great Depression. Or World War II.
What you have done, though, is you have planted a seed. Perhaps, given the desperation rampant among so many of us, it will find a way to grow into something that could happen. Is that preferable to giving up? This Nation's pattern in many fields has been to identify what couldn't be done, until finally, it was.
What would happen if a real dialogue around this concept began in earnest? What is likely to be the path if that doesn't happen?
I am afraid that a fully functioning “accountability branch” would, at best, merely push the problem back a step. Install an accountability agency, and watch it immediately tumble to the same partisan pressure under which the existing structures groan already. Whichever parties control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches would try to commandeer the accountability agency, too, so as to make accountability as dead as ever. This is what accountability actually means to operatives who are accustomed to power without restraint. That the agency would derive its constitutional authority from a popular mandate would not secure it against partisan abuse any more than it secures the White House, the Congress, and the courts.
I would start by reinforcing the existing political structure and making it easier for each branch to enforce binding orders on the others. Yes, legislative and judicial bodies need limited quasi-executive powers to deploy against other government agencies. One of the most visible reasons why our establishments don’t respond to abuse or incompetence is because there is no outside entity with the power to make them respond.
Ultimately, however, the only enduring solution will be to take the partisan motivation away and ensure that no single faction can aspire to total control of every branch of government. To this end, I continue to hope for a thoroughgoing reform of representation that moves away from single-member plurality. It is because of this, I believe, that extremists are over-represented and local minorities under-represented within party and government establishments, all of which leads them to undercut public accountability so that they can keep advancing positions contrary to the public interest and public sentiment without consequence.
Interesting idea. I am curious how you imagine the fourth branch’s efforts might be funded?
I could see it having an initial impact, but eventually being starved of the resources needed to do its job. The resources needed to run costly investigation would need to be approved and allocated by the very people it threatens…
I think implementing
(1) one of the ideas you explored a while back for de-politicizing voting maps; and
I agree, but I struggle with the idea of finding people who are apolitical. This entire concept would work wonderfully only if we find apolitical people. Now a days, it is extremely difficult to find someone who is 100% apolitical. As a society, we are engrained to categorize, to find differences, to create values. I believe everyone is at minimum about 30-50% political. The majority of us are about 80-100% political. This could be calculated by performing multiple psychological tests to weed out one's biases. What do you think Gabe, do you think finding enough apolitical people to run an Accountability Branch is possible in American society?
Your “4th Branch” is to be created by the Congress? obviously self-defeating. A Constitutional Amendment? The Equal Protection Amendment could never get the 2/3 state approval, why would this? Always enjoy a good bloviation.
It shows what a sad state the country is in now that my immediate reaction was who or what would police the fourth branch. Then I thought - if Gabe can put in the effort to come up with a solution, why can't "we" help him follow through on it.
Most worthy topic for discussion. Two other positions/segments to consider would be the government employee deciding if a bill fits the reconciliation process, and someone(s) to address if State legislatures/governor/courts are doing their responsibilities.
I am a firm believer in sharing creative and risky ideas, not because they are the best, but because they ignite a shared interest in bettering something that is broken or needs improvement. I look forward to future articles like this Gabe! Our nation was founded on thinkers like yourself and ideas like this.
Well said! Ideas are fragile things and need to be carefully supported in order to incubate and have a chance to prove themselves...and as you point out, this incubation period leads to confirming shared interests and to additional strategies for improvement.
Excellent, Gabe!
This is exactly the “out-of-the-box” thinking that is needed in a seemingly hopeless situation (like our 17% trust ratio in Congress). And yes, this (and your detailed reporting of otherwise overlooked issues) is exactly what I am willing to pay for.
Very original idea, but as others have said, impossible to add to the Constitution, at least in my lifetime. A better fix would be an informed, educated, engaged electorate that would throw the bums out, regardless of party. Also unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Unlike one other commentator, I very much appreciate your outside-the-box thinking balanced with your detailed reporting. Keep your creative juices flowing Gabe; they identify problems that we all need to think about.
How about moving back toward democracy with robust protections for media like Wikileaks and generous support for public media and real financial rewards for people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden instead of persecution and retribution?
It seems to me that what you are arguing for is to make the Justice Department that Fourth Branch. Then you would make the IGs that are currently within each department and agency employed by the Justice Department. We haven't needed that separation until Trump decided to turn the Justice Department into his own vengeance apparatus.
The root cause that prevents the Justice Department from acting in this way is the presumption that the AG works for and at the pleasure of the President. Not only was the court completely wrong in overturning Humphrey's Executor, which dealt with independent agencies, it is wrong in thinking that Congress doesn't have the legislative authority to dictate how the Executive is structured and functions.
I don't think that we need to amend the Constitution. We need to update the members of SCOTUS.
It seems to me to be a great idea; and our current, well-founded distrust of politicians is turning into a consensus across the citizenry that is harmful to the national character. Major reforms can take decades to achieve, but it's not like we are currently swimming in excellent, competing ideas. I hope this one can take shape and become real. It's more doable than eliminating the electoral college, curtailing gerrymandering or packing the court, all of which are very partisan, and unlikely.
Our system has been created with the presumption that it will be conducted by honorable people. Unfortunately, it isn't. And the trending on that score is clearly downward. I salute you for bringing this idea into the light.
I like the spirit in which this is offered, but like other "watchdog agencies" (e.g., the so-called Consumer Finance Protection Board), it would be almost certainly immediately politicized and would lose its effectiveness thereby. Also, the LAST thing we need is another branch of government to be corrupted. You said we'd have to be careful that it wouldn't become another group unelected bureaucrats. That's exactly what it would be from the beginning.
Yes, the idea of any sort of reform to our National system of governance seems far-fetched. How do you reform a defunct operation inhabited by policy extremists who arrived there as a result of devious torquing of the very system for electing them (e.g., gerrymandering on steroids). We just witnessed the disaster befalling one of our most treasured institutions, 60 Minutes. CBS has become a cesspool, along with vast components of our Federal government.
It takes real guts to contemplate some form of better in the midst of this rolling disaster.
It's almost remindful of the Civl War. Or the Great Depression. Or World War II.
What you have done, though, is you have planted a seed. Perhaps, given the desperation rampant among so many of us, it will find a way to grow into something that could happen. Is that preferable to giving up? This Nation's pattern in many fields has been to identify what couldn't be done, until finally, it was.
What would happen if a real dialogue around this concept began in earnest? What is likely to be the path if that doesn't happen?
Just sayin'.
I am afraid that a fully functioning “accountability branch” would, at best, merely push the problem back a step. Install an accountability agency, and watch it immediately tumble to the same partisan pressure under which the existing structures groan already. Whichever parties control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches would try to commandeer the accountability agency, too, so as to make accountability as dead as ever. This is what accountability actually means to operatives who are accustomed to power without restraint. That the agency would derive its constitutional authority from a popular mandate would not secure it against partisan abuse any more than it secures the White House, the Congress, and the courts.
I would start by reinforcing the existing political structure and making it easier for each branch to enforce binding orders on the others. Yes, legislative and judicial bodies need limited quasi-executive powers to deploy against other government agencies. One of the most visible reasons why our establishments don’t respond to abuse or incompetence is because there is no outside entity with the power to make them respond.
Ultimately, however, the only enduring solution will be to take the partisan motivation away and ensure that no single faction can aspire to total control of every branch of government. To this end, I continue to hope for a thoroughgoing reform of representation that moves away from single-member plurality. It is because of this, I believe, that extremists are over-represented and local minorities under-represented within party and government establishments, all of which leads them to undercut public accountability so that they can keep advancing positions contrary to the public interest and public sentiment without consequence.
Interesting idea. I am curious how you imagine the fourth branch’s efforts might be funded?
I could see it having an initial impact, but eventually being starved of the resources needed to do its job. The resources needed to run costly investigation would need to be approved and allocated by the very people it threatens…
I think implementing
(1) one of the ideas you explored a while back for de-politicizing voting maps; and
(2) ranked choice voting throughout all elections
would improve accountability faster.
I agree, but I struggle with the idea of finding people who are apolitical. This entire concept would work wonderfully only if we find apolitical people. Now a days, it is extremely difficult to find someone who is 100% apolitical. As a society, we are engrained to categorize, to find differences, to create values. I believe everyone is at minimum about 30-50% political. The majority of us are about 80-100% political. This could be calculated by performing multiple psychological tests to weed out one's biases. What do you think Gabe, do you think finding enough apolitical people to run an Accountability Branch is possible in American society?
Your “4th Branch” is to be created by the Congress? obviously self-defeating. A Constitutional Amendment? The Equal Protection Amendment could never get the 2/3 state approval, why would this? Always enjoy a good bloviation.
It shows what a sad state the country is in now that my immediate reaction was who or what would police the fourth branch. Then I thought - if Gabe can put in the effort to come up with a solution, why can't "we" help him follow through on it.
Yes, indeed!
That's supposed to be the media's job..that's why they are called the 4th estate.. but billionaire owners have attacked their own newsrooms.
Most worthy topic for discussion. Two other positions/segments to consider would be the government employee deciding if a bill fits the reconciliation process, and someone(s) to address if State legislatures/governor/courts are doing their responsibilities.