Deadlock of democracy: four party politics in America

In his 1963 book, "The Deadlock of Democracy," the historian James MacGregor Burns complained of too much fragmentation in American politics. Presidents couldn't enact their programs because it was too hard to assemble congressional majorities. Party loyalties were too weak; single-minded interest groups were too strong. To break the deadlock, Burns wanted the parties and Congress overhauled. The system should allow "the winning party to govern and the losers to oppose."

Given Americans' historical suspicion of government -- the main reason we have the system we do -- Burns's suggestions never went far. But his basic analysis remains popular because it's plausible. There's much political paralysis and much ugly legislation, the byproduct of creative coalition-building. (The recent corporate tax bill, full of dubious giveaways, is an exquisite example.) Still, I think Burns basically got it wrong. The deadlock of democracy doesn't result from the specific mechanics of governing. It stems instead from the unwillingness of our leaders to be brutally candid with the public, because doing so would be politically suicidal.