How Washington Works, Part 1

Many Americans assume the leader of the United States is all-powerful—able to fix a bad economy, decide how tax dollars are spent, and subdue an enemy with a quick airstrike. And presidents do have a lot of power: The Constitution gives them control of the military and Cabinet-level agencies like the Education and Agriculture departments. They can appoint the heads of those agencies and federal judges, including Supreme Court justices (all subject to Senate confirmation). And yes, they can order airstrikes without asking anyone for permission.

But there are also a lot of limits on what they can do. Much depends on how presidents use their power—and especially, whether Congress and the courts support them.

Many Americans assume the leader of the United States is all-powerful. They believe the president is able to fix a bad economy, decide how tax dollars are spent, and subdue an enemy with a quick airstrike. And presidents do have a lot of power. The Constitution gives them control of the military and Cabinet-level agencies like the Education and Agriculture departments. They can appoint the heads of those agencies and federal judges, including Supreme Court justices (all subject to Senate confirmation). And yes, they can order airstrikes without asking anyone for permission.

But there are also a lot of limits on what they can do. Much depends on how presidents use their power. And whether Congress and the courts support them plays a key role.

The White House has the most leeway in diplomatic and military matters. The president can set economic policies toward allies and rivals, reward friendly nations, and punish enemies with trade and military pressure. As commander-in-chief, the president can order the military to intervene in conflicts and retaliate for aggressions like terrorist attacks. Only Congress has the power to declare war, but modern presidents haven’t waited for lawmakers to green-light military actions: Neither the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, nor the conflict in Afghanistan—the nation’s longest—were ever “declared” by congressional votes.

The White House has the most free reign in diplomatic and military matters. The president can set economic policies toward allies and rivals, reward friendly nations, and punish enemies with trade and military pressure. As commander-in-chief, the president can order the military to intervene in conflicts and respond to aggressions like terrorist attacks. Only Congress has the power to declare war. But modern presidents haven’t waited for lawmakers to green-light military actions. Neither the wars in Vietnam and Iraq nor the conflict in Afghanistan—the nation’s longest—were ever “declared” by congressional votes.

But domestically, few presidents get much done without Congress’s help. Already, President Biden, a Democrat, has found that some of his legislative goals, like raising taxes on the rich, will be difficult to pass on the slim majorities Democrats hold in Congress. On the other hand, President Donald Trump proved that an American leader can have enormous power to slow or reverse policies through his control of federal agencies and treaties with foreign nations. During Trump’s term, the U.S. pulled out of a global pact to fight climate change, revamped longstanding immigration policies, and rewrote about 100 environmental rules. (Biden has now reversed many of these actions.)

Some critics have recently called for additional restraints on presidential power, but Stephen Hess, a longtime presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, argues that’s not necessary: “A president is just one player in a very complicated system.”

But domestically, few presidents get much done without Congress’s help. Already, President Biden, a Democrat, has found that some of his legislative goals, like raising taxes on the rich, will be difficult to pass on the slim majorities Democrats hold in Congress. But President Donald Trump proved that an American leader can have enormous power to slow or reverse policies through the control of federal agencies and treaties with foreign nations. During Trump’s term, the U.S. pulled out of a global pact to fight climate change and rewrote about 100 environmental rules. Trump also changed longstanding immigration policies. (Biden has now reversed many of these actions.)

Some critics have recently called for additional restraints on presidential power. But Stephen Hess, a longtime presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, argues that’s not necessary: “A president is just one player in a very complicated system.”

On uncontroversial matters, they can and do: The last Congress (2019-21) passed 344 laws, from pandemic relief to a measure clarifying the salary of foot doctors in the Department of Veterans Affairs. But on most serious issues, the two parties are further apart than ever, and true cooperation seems a long way off.

If Republicans and Democrats once joined to enact historic legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, why are they unable now even to agree to investigate the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6? One big reason is that today’s Congress is a different animal. In decades past, lawmakers lived and socialized with each other in Washington, and friendships bloomed across party lines. That made cooperation easier, but that’s all gone now. Most members commute to the Capitol a few days a week and spend most of their time at home to avoid being tagged as out of touch with their constituents.

Another reason: Lawmakers used to cut deals behind closed doors and approve bills in closed-door committees. Today, open meetings laws, the 24-hour news cycle, and computer-searchable legislative records make it hard for politicians to compromise without being accused of flip-flopping.

But the two parties are different too. Decades ago, both parties had liberal and conservative wings, and bills could be passed by recruiting like-minded politicians from the opposing party. Today, there’s very little overlap: The most conservative Democrat is still more liberal than the most liberal Republican.

“We’re in a tribal environment,” says Norman Ornstein, a scholar of government at the American Enterprise Institute. “If you say over and over that the other side is evil and trying to destroy your way of life, then being in the Rose Garden with the other side for a signing ceremony is going to be viewed by your voters as a betrayal.”

On uncontroversial matters, they can and do. For example, the last Congress (2019-21) passed 344 laws. These laws ranged from pandemic relief to a measure clarifying the salary of foot doctors in the Department of Veterans Affairs. But on most serious issues, the two parties are further apart than ever. Today, true cooperation seems a long way off.

Republicans and Democrats once joined to enact historic legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, why are they unable now even to agree to investigate the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6? One big reason is that today’s Congress is a different animal. In decades past, lawmakers lived and socialized with each other in Washington. That helped friendships bloom across party lines. Those connections made cooperation easier, but that’s all gone now. Most members commute to the Capitol a few days a week. They spend most of their time at home to avoid being tagged as out of touch with the people who elected them.

There’s also another reason. Lawmakers used to cut deals behind closed doors and approve bills in closed-door committees. Today, open meetings laws, the 24-hour news cycle, and computer-searchable legislative records make it hard for politicians to compromise without being accused of flip-flopping.

But the two parties are different too. Decades ago, both parties had liberal and conservative wings. Back then, bills could be passed by recruiting like-minded politicians from the opposing party. Today, there’s very little overlap. The most conservative Democrat is still more liberal than the most liberal Republican.

“We’re in a tribal environment,” says Norman Ornstein, a scholar of government at the American Enterprise Institute. “If you say over and over that the other side is evil and trying to destroy your way of life, then being in the Rose Garden with the other side for a signing ceremony is going to be viewed by your voters as a betrayal.”

By one measure, the Congress that adjourned in 2020 was a busy body indeed, filing 16,601 bills—the most since 1978. By another measure, not so much: Only 2 percent of those bills became law, a historic low.

Why is it so hard to pass a law? One reason is that the Constitution makes it hard, routing proposals through two legislative bodies and then allowing the president to veto anything lawmakers approve. (Congress can override a veto, but it takes two-thirds of the vote in each chamber to do it.)

Some bills are introduced not because they stand a chance of passing but simply as statements that tell people where a politician stands. Some House Republicans have proposed this year to suspend the federal gasoline tax. Many Democrats are backing bills to tighten gun laws. Both might impress voters back home, but neither is likely to attract enough votes to become law.

By one measure, the Congress that adjourned in 2020 was a busy body indeed, filing 16,601 bills—the most since 1978. By another measure, not so much: Only 2 percent of those bills became law, a historic low.

Why is it so hard to pass a law? One reason is that the Constitution makes it hard. The process includes routing proposals through two legislative bodies. And then it permits the president to veto anything lawmakers approve. (Congress can override a veto, but it takes two-thirds of the vote in each chamber to do it.)

Some bills are introduced not because they stand a chance of passing but simply as statements that tell people where a politician stands. Some House Republicans have proposed this year to suspend the federal gasoline tax. Many Democrats are backing bills to tighten gun laws. Both might impress voters back home, but neither is likely to attract enough votes to become law.

Even realistic proposals face daunting hurdles. House and Senate committees decide whether a proposal ever gets a vote, and committee chairs kill many bills by not scheduling hearings on them. In the Senate, the leader of the majority party decides which bills to bring to a vote. When he was majority leader in 2019, Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, killed so many Democratic bills by bottling them up that he dubbed himself the “grim reaper.”

Except for spending bills and some presidential nominations, the minority party in the Senate can strike back by filibustering legislation—refusing to stop debate so that a vote can take place. Because it takes 60 of the 100 senators to overcome a filibuster, it’s hard for a measure’s supporters to end one and proceed to a final vote.

With so many obstacles, it might seem like nothing can become law. But the parties usually unite to pass measures like spending bills that are essential to keep the government running. And even amid the gridlock of the last Congress, small but important measures made it into law—including a bill giving Native Americans help in starting new businesses; an update of the landmark trade agreement between Mexico and the U.S.; and money for a Great Lakes cleanup.

Even realistic proposals face challenging hurdles. House and Senate committees decide whether a proposal ever gets a vote. And committee chairs kill many bills by not scheduling hearings on them. In the Senate, the leader of the majority party decides which bills to bring to a vote. When he was majority leader in 2019, Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, killed so many Democratic bills by bottling them up that he dubbed himself the “grim reaper.”

Except for spending bills and some presidential nominations, the minority party in the Senate can strike back by filibustering legislation—refusing to stop debate so that a vote can take place. Because it takes 60 of the 100 senators to overcome a filibuster, it’s hard for a measure’s supporters to end one and proceed to a final vote.

With so many obstacles, it might seem like nothing can become law. But the parties usually unite to pass measures like spending bills that are essential to keep the government running. And even amid the gridlock of the last Congress, small but important measures made it into law. That included a bill giving Native Americans help in starting new businesses, an update of the landmark trade agreement between Mexico and the U.S., and money for a Great Lakes cleanup.

The U.S. is a democracy based on the concept of majority rule. But in two of the last six presidential elections, the candidate who won wasn’t the one who got the most votes nationwide: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald J. Trump in 2016. And in Congress, efforts to combat climate change and overhaul immigration laws—measures that have overwhelming public support—have been stalled by opposition from the minority party.

How did the minority come to have such power? Much of it comes down to a decision made when the Constitution was drafted in 1787 to give every state two senators, regardless of population. It was a concession to smaller states that feared that big states would dominate if both House and Senate seats were allocated by population. The Electoral College—our system for electing a president—was also part of this compromise.

The U.S. is a democracy based on the concept of majority rule. But in two of the last six presidential elections, the candidate who won wasn’t the one who got the most votes nationwide: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald J. Trump in 2016. And in Congress, efforts to combat climate change and overhaul immigration laws have been stalled by opposition from the minority party. That’s despite both measures having overwhelming public support.

How did the minority come to have such power? Much of it comes down to a decision made when the Constitution was drafted in 1787. The Framers decided to give every state two senators, regardless of population. Smaller states feared that big states would dominate if both House and Senate seats were allocated by population. So, the decision was a compromise. The Electoral College—our system for electing a president—was also part of this deal.

Today, however, it’s the smaller states that have outsized power at the expense of the larger ones. More than half of the nation’s population lives in just nine states, and those states account for only 18 of the 100 Senate seats. The remaining 41 states have fewer people but many more senators—82.

“The U.S. Senate is the most malapportioned legislative body in the democratic world,” says Thomas E. Mann, an expert on American democracy at the Brookings Institution.

Another problem in the Senate is the filibuster (see No. 3). There’s been a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster, but that looks unlikely. And changing the Senate’s two-senators-per-state makeup is all but impossible: The Constitution forbids it without each state’s approval.

Much of this is no accident. The Framers of the Constitution wanted a government that would keep the passions of common folk in check, says Michael Klarman, a constitutional scholar at Harvard University.

“Almost everything they did in Philadelphia was addressed toward restricting the amount of power that popular majorities would have,” says Klarman. What they didn’t anticipate, he explains, was that developments like filibusters and population shifts would stymie the majority even more than they planned.

But things are different today. The smaller states now have outsized power at the expense of the larger ones. More than half of the nation’s population lives in just nine states. Those states account for only 18 of the 100 Senate seats. The remaining 41 states have fewer people but many more senators—82.

“The U.S. Senate is the most malapportioned legislative body in the democratic world,” says Thomas E. Mann, an expert on American democracy at the Brookings Institution.

Another problem in the Senate is the filibuster (see No. 3). There’s been a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster, but that looks unlikely. And changing the Senate’s two-senators-per-state makeup is all but impossible. That’s because the Constitution doesn’t allow it unless each state approves.

Much of this is no accident. The Framers of the Constitution wanted a government that would keep the passions of common folk in check, says Michael Klarman, a constitutional scholar at Harvard University.

“Almost everything they did in Philadelphia was addressed toward restricting the amount of power that popular majorities would have,” says Klarman. What they didn’t anticipate, he explains, was that developments like filibusters and population shifts would hinder the majority even more than they planned.

President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981 by campaigning against a federal government he said spent too much money and wrote too many rules. His argument that government was too big has dominated the national debate ever since.

Now, however, some are asking whether he was right. They point to potholed roads that go unrepaired for lack of money, and the widening gap between society’s haves and have-nots. China’s emergence as a world power with vast high-speed rail networks and huge investments in solar energy and science have made some Americans wonder whether they have squandered their global lead by penny-pinching.

The irony is that the government is perhaps bigger today than at any time in history. When President Lincoln took office in 1861, he ran the government from a small study in the White House, and 30,000 of the 36,000 federal workers were post office employees. Today, the government directly employs almost 2.1 million civilians, 1.5 million people in the military, and another 6.8 million who work for the federal government indirectly as contractors or through grants. Spending is at a record high. And President Biden is proposing to spend trillions more to modernize not just highways but also basic services from internet access to preschool education.

How did this transformation happen? The Great Depression was a turning point: It caused so much upheaval that people wanted the government to take on a larger role in the economy and caring for its citizens. The most influential of the programs created under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was Social Security, a system of payments to support the elderly.

Sometimes big government has worked wonders. President Eisenhower’s commitment to build today’s interstate highways transformed the economy, and President Johnson’s Great Society programs brought health care to the poor and elderly. But they also created new bureaucracies and new costs for upkeep. Once a program is started, it’s hard to kill it, because voters appreciate the benefits, and the programs create jobs.

Today no politician would oppose guaranteed health care for old people or a highway system, but the division over whether to approve new projects is as fierce as ever.

“A lot of it,” says Jason Grumet of the Bipartisan Policy Center, “comes down to the fact that we’ve always had an ambivalence about government in this country and what it should take on.”

President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981 by campaigning against a federal government he said spent too much money and wrote too many rules. His argument that government was too big has dominated the national debate ever since.

But now some are asking whether he was right. They point to potholed roads that go unrepaired for lack of money. They also note the widening gap between society’s haves and have-nots. China’s emergence as a world power with vast high-speed rail networks and huge investments in solar energy and science have made some Americans wonder whether they have sacrificed their global lead by penny-pinching.

The irony is that the government is perhaps bigger today than at any time in history. When President Lincoln took office in 1861, he ran the government from a small study in the White House. At the time, 30,000 of the 36,000 federal workers were post office employees. Today, the government directly employs almost 2.1 million civilians and 1.5 million people in the military. It also employs another 6.8 million who work for the federal government indirectly as contractors or through grants. Spending is at a record high. And President Biden is proposing to spend trillions more to modernize highways and basic services. His plans include improving a range of social benefits, from internet access to preschool education.

How did this transformation happen? The Great Depression was a turning point. It was so disruptive that people wanted the government to take on a larger role in the economy and caring for its citizens. The most influential of the programs created under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was Social Security. This system of payments supports the elderly.

Sometimes big government has worked wonders. President Eisenhower’s commitment to build today’s interstate highways transformed the economy, and President Johnson’s Great Society programs brought health care to the poor and elderly. But they also created new management systems and new costs for upkeep. Once a program is started, it’s hard to kill it. That’s because voters appreciate the benefits, and the programs create jobs.

Today, no politician would oppose guaranteed health care for old people or a highway system. But the division over whether to approve new projects is as stark as ever.

“A lot of it,” says Jason Grumet of the Bipartisan Policy Center, “comes down to the fact that we’ve always had an ambivalence about government in this country and what it should take on.”