New poll reveals why Founders would be worried

The men who traveled to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to negotiate what would become America’s Constitution were, at root, focused on two separate and conflicting concerns. One group was primarily worried about the prospect of power shooting to the top—as in a monarchy. Having just seceded from Britain, Virginia’s delegates (in particular) worried that America’s commercial elite might somehow seize the bulk of federal authority, laying siege to the interests of “ordinary” people, like the slave-owning planters of the South.

A separate group, led largely by Alexander Hamilton, was pre-occupied by a countervailing concern: They feared mob rule. As born out in the French revolution that would begin two years later, weak central authority opened the door to chaos and terror. So Hamilton and his allies wanted to establish a system where people of great talent, expertise and civic dedication could look out for the long-term national interest.

{mosads}In the end, the two sides resolved their conflicting concerns by coming to a common realization: Mob rule and imperial arrogance could be checked against one another. Rural America might want one thing, and urban America might want something else. Our constitutional republic, riven with checks and balances, would compel antagonists to find some sort of collaborative resolution—and that would work to the greater good.

Their system wasn’t perfect—indeed, slavery broke it apart just a few decades later. But it has otherwise worked remarkably well through most of our two century-long history. Until now.

As we approach 250 years of independence, something has gone awry—something entirely different from what the Founding generation feared. For all we hear about the divisions between red and blue America, on many issues Americans aren’t divided so much as we’re broadly aligned. Nevertheless, our constitutional democracy is proving unable to legislate commonsense solutions. In other words, Washington’s dysfunction is now upending progress even when nearly all of America embraces a certain way forward.

Look, for example, at the twin challenges of immigration and border security. On the one hand, the imminent expiration of an Obama-era program (DACA) is leaving the law-abiding grown children of undocumented immigrants (the Dreamers) at risk for deportation. Most Democrats, most Republicans, and President Trump are all fundamentally sympathetic to their plight. And border security? Americans may disagree about whether to build a physical wall on our southern border, but almost no one supports leaving a backdoor open to anyone who wants to enter the country without permission.

The bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus and several bipartisan groups of senators have each proposed plans that would marry these two ideas together, comprehensively saving the Dreamers and protecting the border. But Washington remains mired in disagreement, unable to move forward on any specific plan. That’s not because a grand compromise on border security and immigration would mark bad policy. It’s not because the compromise offends any particular constituency. It’s just because, well, that’s Washington.

A new No Labels Poll conducted by Harris Insights & Analytics found that more than three in four Americans support a grand bargain that saves the Dreamers and protects the border. Eighty percent of Independents support it, along with 73 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans. In others words, legislation currently adrift on Capitol Hill has no major electoral opponent—and yet Congress still can’t get it passed into law.

Let’s be clear: This grand bargain isn’t supported exclusively by the nation’s elite—though you would be hard-pressed to find a group of thoughtful civic leaders who oppose it. Nor is it some sort of radical and shortsighted ruse that would harm the nation in the long run. Rather, this grand bargain is exactly what American democracy was supposed to produce—thoughtful compromise. And yet it’s stuck.

In the late 1700s, as America’s founding generation debated how to shape our system of government, they anticipated disagreements among the American people. They knew that class-oriented concerns and economic disparities would drive Americans to support divergent agendas. So they created a system that forced everyone to the table. What they did not anticipate—and what we face today—is an entirely separate challenge. Even when the nation is broadly united, Washington struggles to get something done.

We cannot let our democracy continue to unravel. We face too many challenges to let dysfunction prevail. We need to find a different way of getting the results the American people deserve. Our leaders need to prove that they can forge real solutions even amid the wrangling that’s endemic in politics. On the Dreamers and border security, they have an opportunity now to get things right. Congress should seize it and build on that success.

Evan Bayh served as governor of Indiana from 1989-1997 and as senator from 1999-2011. He is co-chair of No Labels.