Our dubious Constitution (continued)

[isomin at gmu.edu]

Absolutely! It's certainly "good enough for government work":). But 3 out of 3 - which Britain might have gotten under a system where midterm replacement is very difficult  but not impossible - would be even better.

Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
ph: 703-993-8069
fax: 703-993-8202
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/

----- Original Message -----
From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
Date: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:06 pm
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Our dubious Constitution (continued)

> One out of three isn't bad :)
> 
> sandy 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isomin at gmu.edu [mailto:isomin at gmu.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:42 PM
> To: Sanford Levinson
> Cc: Bob Sheridan; Miguel Schor; DavidEBernstein at aol.com;
> CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu; Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: Our dubious Constitution (continued)
> 
> I'm aware that a detailed debate over the records of British 
> politiciansis of dubious topical relevance here, so I'll try to be 
> brief and to
> link these points to general issues about midterm leader replacement:
> 
> 1. Macmillan.
> 
> As noted before, he played a key role in causing the "British 
> disease."He also appointed  ministers who had the bad judgment to 
> become involved
> in a massive prostitution ring involving Soviet agents that led to the
> Profumo scandal that toppled his government (it wasn't just one bad
> apple, it was a whole  group of Macmillan appointees). "Mediocre" is
> certainly not an overly harsh characterization of this record, and 
> as I
> have tried to suggest, the selection of such a mediocre leader was not
> accidental.
> 
> 2. Thatcher. 
> 
> Yes, she adopted some unpopular policies like the poll tax. But 
> some of
> these may have fallen into the category of policies with short term
> political costs and longterm benefits that we have discussed before
> (e.g. - the poll tax might have improved local government finance and
> given Britain some of the benefits of competitive federalism). 
> More to
> the point, if she had been defeated in 1992, it might well have been
> better for Britain than 7 years of Major's corrupt and incompetent
> administration turned out to be. The post-1997 futility of the 
> Tories to
> which Sandy refers is in large part a consequence of Major's political
> legacy. The point is not that the incumbent was perfect (she 
> wasn't by
> any means), but that removing her in midterm was probably worse 
> than not
> doing so.
> 
> 3. Chamberlain.
> 
> Yes, like just about everyone else I think it was good that Churchill
> replaced Chamberlain in 1940. But this was, for a wide range of 
> reasons,a special case unlikely to be replicated. In particular, 
> only  the
> immediate pressure of a desperate wartime situation led the British
> political elite to pick a strong leader like Churchill (a man most of
> them hated and feared) as Chamberlain's replacement. Furthermore, the
> magnitude of the disaster brought on by Chamberlain's errors was so
> great that he would probably have been removed even under a system 
> whereit is more difficult to get rid of the PM than currently.
> 
> Ilya Somin
> Assistant Professor of Law
> George Mason University School of Law
> 3301 Fairfax Dr.
> Arlington, VA 22201
> ph: 703-993-8069
> fax: 703-993-8202
> e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
> Date: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:20 pm
> Subject: RE: RE: Our dubious Constitution (continued)
> 
> > For what it's worth, I think it may be very unfair to classify 
> Harold 
> > Macmillan as a "mediocrity."  John Major was certainly less 
> splashy 
> > than Lady Thatcher, but I share the view that he was a person of 
> > substance (who did, after all, lead his party to re-election, 
> and no 
> > Tory has won since).  Thatcher was displaced for excellent 
> reasons, 
> > unless one indeedhas a taste for dictatorship; however shart she 
> > undoubtedly is, she had become a serious outlier with regard to 
> > general public opinion and wouldundoubtedly have been sharply 
> > repudiated in the next election (as,recall, Winston Churchill 
> was in 
> > 1945, a sound decision by the Britsthat he was far better at 
> fighting 
> > a war than responding to hum-drum domestic exigencies).  We 
> could, of 
> > course, add Churchill's replacementof Chamberlain to the list, 
> since 
> > that, too, came without an election.
> > I presume that no one on this list would object to Chamberlain's 
> being
> > bounced.
> > 
> > sandy
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: isomin at gmu.edu [mailto:isomin at gmu.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:08 PM
> > To: Sanford Levinson
> > Cc: Bob Sheridan; Miguel Schor; DavidEBernstein at aol.com; 
> > CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu; Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> > Subject: Re: RE: Our dubious Constitution (continued)
> > 
> > One further point on the costs and benefits of replacing the 
> executive
> > in midterm:
> > 
> > A key question is: Are there any generalizable reasons to expect 
> that 
> > executives replaced in midterm will be replaced by  mediocrities 
> such 
> > as Macmillan and Major (and possibly President Ford).
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I think the answer here is "yes." An executive is 
> only 
> > likely to be removed in midterm after a bruising and divisive 
> > politicalbattle, usually including internal divisions within his 
> own 
> > party. After such a battle, political elites within the party 
> and 
> > outside it are likely to settle on a lowest common denominater 
> leader 
> > as a replacement.The new leader's principal virtue is likely to 
> be the
> 
> > fact that no one strongly opposes him. Obviously, anyone who is 
> > forceful and highly competent is unlikely to fall in this category.
> > 
> > Thus, there is good reason to expect that a leader removed in 
> midterm 
> > will be replaced by a mediocrity. That doesn't mean that we 
> should 
> > neverengage in such replacement (in my view, getting rid of 
> Nixon was 
> > worth it, for example). But it does suggest that replacement 
> should be
> 
> > difficult enough to ensure that it will only occur in cases 
> where the 
> > incumbent is so bad that even a dubiously competent mediocrity 
> will be
> 
> > better.
> > 
> > Ilya Somin
> > Assistant Professor of Law
> > George Mason University School of Law
> > 3301 Fairfax Dr.
> > Arlington, VA 22201
> > ph: 703-993-8069
> > fax: 703-993-8202
> > e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> > Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
> > Date: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:18 pm
> > Subject: RE: Our dubious Constitution (continued)
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bob Sheridan [mailto:bobsheridan at earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 1:15 PM
> > > To: Sanford Levinson
> > > Cc: Miguel Schor; isomin at gmu.edu; DavidEBernstein at aol.com; 
> > > CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu; Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Our dubious Constitution (continued) Bob Sheridan
> > writes;>
> > > 
> > > There's a difference between a corporation, or a baseball team,
> > or a
> > > treating physician, or an airline, and the presidency of the U.S.
> > > 
> > > All of the former are under the much more immediately 
> available 
> > > controlof their respective boards, employers, shareholders,
> > etc., and
> > > can be readily hauled into court for rules violations.
> > > 
> > > It is much more difficult and disruptive to the country to
> > impeach or
> > > otherwise replace a president.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > No doubt this is correct, but the question is why do countries
> > around
> > > the world successfully replace prime ministers (again, I 
> mention 
> > > Thatcher's being bounced and replaced by Major or Anthony Eden
> > being
> > > fired after Suez, replaced by Macmillan, to take only two
> > English
> > > examples)?  What I was suggesting with my questions was a
> > version of
> > > the famous Learned Hand formula in which we multiply the costs
> > of an
> > > incompetent president (which seem to me higher than the costs of
> > an
> > > error-prone surgeon etc.) by the costs of mid-term replacement
> > (which
> > > would admittedly be high).  But why do we systematically
> > underestimate
> > > the costs of being governed for several years by an incompetent?
> > > 
> > > sandy
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>