During much of the past three years, the Syrian civil war has been the most prominent item on the Middle Eastern political agenda and has dominated the political-diplomatic discourse in the region and among policy makers, analysts and pundits interested in its affairs. 

Preoccupation with the Syrian crisis has derived from the sense, apparent since its early phases, that it was much more than a domestic issue. It has, indeed, become a conflict by-proxy between Iran and its regional rivals and the arena of American-Russian competition. It has also had a spillover effect on several neighboring countries and has been a bellwether for the state of the Arab Spring.

As the conflict festered it also prompted a broader discussion and debate over the future of the Arab State system. The collapse of Syria, the ongoing fighting in Iraq, and the general instability in the Middle East has led some observers to question whether the very geography of the region will be changed. Robin Wright, a journalist and scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, argues that “the map of the modern Middle East, a political and economic pivot in the international order, is in tatters.” Wright also warns that competing groups and ideologies are pulling the region apart: “A different map would be a strategic game changer for just about everybody, potentially reconfiguring alliances, security challenges, trade and energy flows for much of the world, too.”  Similarly, Parag Khanna, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues, “Nowhere is a rethinking of “the state” more necessary than in the Middle East.” He contends that “The Arab world will not be resurrected to its old glory until its map is redrawn to resemble a collection of autonomous national oases linked by Silk Roads of commerce.” Lt. Colonel Joel Rayburn, writing from the Hoover Institution, points out that the alternative may not be new states but rather simply collapse. “If watching the fall or near-fall of half a dozen regimes in the Arab Spring has taught us anything, it should be that the Arab states that appeared serenely stable to outsiders for the past half century were more brittle than we have understood,” warning darkly, “This conflict could very well touch us all, perhaps becoming an engine of jihad that spews forth attackers bent on bombing western embassies and cities or disrupting Persian Gulf oil markets long before the fire burns out.” 

This discussion touches on a key question: Will the collapse of one or several other Arab states produce a new order in the region? 

The regional order has been threatened before, but today’s challenge is unique. Syria is what has prompted the latest reevaluation of the Skyes-Picot borders, but many of the problems predated the Syrian civil war. Ambitious monarchs in the 1930s and 1940s challenged the order after the colonial period. The doctrine of Pan-Arab Nationalism and Gamal Abd al-Nasir’s messianic leadership in the 1950s and by Saddam Hussein in 1990 again posed a threat. Now it is now challenged not by a powerful state or a sweeping ideology but by the weakness of several Arab states that seem to be on the verge of implosion or disintegration.

This paper assesses the situation in Syria, with an emphasis on what might lead to its de facto partition or lasting collapse. It then examines Syria’s neighbors and their prospects for stability. The paper concludes by exploring how the United States, Israel and Iran might affect this tenuous balance.

Downloads

• The End of Sykes-Picot?: Reflections on the Prospects of the Arab State System

Led by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, one-time supporters of ‘single-payer’ health reform are rekindling their romance with a health reform idea that was, is, and will remain a dream.  Single-payer health reform is a dream because, as the old joke goes, ‘you can’t get there from here.

Let’s be clear: opposing a proposal only because one believes it cannot be passed is usually a dodge.One should judge the merits. Strong leaders prove their skill by persuading people to embrace their visions. But single-payer is different. It is radical in a way that no legislation has ever been in the United States.

Not so, you may be thinking. Remember such transformative laws as the Social Security Act, Medicare, the Homestead Act, and the Interstate Highway Act. And, yes, remember the Affordable Care Act. Those and many other inspired legislative acts seemed revolutionary enough at the time. But none really was. None overturned entrenched and valued contractual and legislative arrangements. None reshuffled trillions—or in less inflated days, billions—of dollars devoted to the same general purpose as the new legislation. All either extended services previously available to only a few, or created wholly new arrangements.

To understand the difference between those past achievements and the idea of replacing current health insurance arrangements with a single-payer system, compare the Affordable Care Act with Sanders’ single-payer proposal.

Criticized by some for alleged radicalism, the ACA is actually stunningly incremental. Most of the ACA’s expanded coverage comes through extension of Medicaid, an existing public program that serves more than 60 million people. The rest comes through purchase of private insurance in “exchanges,” which embody the conservative ideal of a market that promotes competition among private venders, or through regulations that extended the ability of adult offspring to remain covered under parental plans. The ACA minimally altered insurance coverage for the 170 million people covered through employment-based health insurance. The ACA added a few small benefits to Medicare but left it otherwise untouched. It left unaltered the tax breaks that support group insurance coverage for most working age Americans and their families. It also left alone the military health programs serving 14 million people. Private nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, other vendors, and privately employed professionals continue to deliver most care.

In contrast, Senator Sanders’ plan, like the earlier proposal sponsored by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) which Sanders co-sponsored, would scrap all of those arrangements. Instead, people would simply go to the medical care provider of their choice and bills would be paid from a national trust fund. That sounds simple and attractive, but it raises vexatious questions.

• How much would it cost the federal government? Where would the money to cover the costs come from?
• What would happen to the $700 billion that employers now spend on health insurance?
• How would the $600 billion a year reductions in total health spending that Sanders says his plan would generate come from?
• What would happen to special facilities for veterans and families of members of the armed services?

Sanders has answers for some of these questions, but not for others. Both the answers and non-answers show why single payer is unlike past major social legislation.

The answer to the question of how much single payer would cost the federal government is simple: $4.1 trillion a year, or $1.4 trillion more than the federal government now spends on programs that the Sanders plan would replace. The money would come from new taxes. Half the added revenue would come from doubling the payroll tax that employers now pay for Social Security. This tax approximates what employers now collectively spend on health insurance for their employees...if they provide health insurance. But many don’t. Some employers would face large tax increases. Others would reap windfall gains.

The cost question is particularly knotty, as Sanders assumes a 20 percent cut in spending averaged over ten years, even as roughly 30 million currently uninsured people would gain coverage. Those savings, even if actually realized, would start slowly, which means cuts of 30 percent or more by Year 10. Where would they come from? Savings from reduced red-tape associated with individual insurance would cover a small fraction of this target. The major source would have to be fewer services or reduced prices. Who would determine which of the services physicians regard as desirable -- and patients have come to expect -- are no longer ‘needed’? How would those be achieved without massive bankruptcies among hospitals, as columnist Ezra Klein has suggested, and would follow such spending cuts? What would be the reaction to the prospect of drastic cuts in salaries of health care personnel – would we have a shortage of doctors and nurses? Would patients tolerate a reduction in services? If people thought that services under the Sanders plan were inadequate, would they be allowed to ‘top up’ with private insurance? If so, what happens to simplicity? If not, why not?

Let me be clear: we know that high quality health care can be delivered at much lower cost than is the U.S. norm. We know because other countries do it. In fact, some of them have plans not unlike the one Senator Sanders is proposing. We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before. That is the way that public policy is made in democracies. Radical change may occur after a catastrophic economic collapse or a major war. But in normal times, democracies do not tolerate radical discontinuity. If you doubt me, consider the tumult precipitated by the really quite conservative Affordable Care Act.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Newsweek.

Health reform (aka Obamacare) is entering a new stage. The recent announcement by United Health Care that it will stop selling insurance to individuals and families through most health insurance exchanges marks the transition. In the next stage, federal and state policy makers must decide how to use broad regulatory powers they have under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to stabilize, expand, and diversify risk pools, improve local market competition, encourage insurers to compete on product quality rather than premium alone, and promote effective risk management. In addition, insurance companies must master rate setting, plan design, and network management and effectively manage the health risk of their enrollees in order to stay profitable, and consumers must learn how to choose and use the best plan for their circumstances.

Six months ago, United Health Care (UHC) announced that it was thinking about pulling out of the ACA exchanges. Now, they are pulling out of all but a “handful” of marketplaces. UHC is the largest private vendor of health insurance in the nation. Nonetheless, the impact on people who buy insurance through the ACA exchanges will be modest, according to careful analyses from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute. The effect is modest for three reasons. One is that in some states UHC focuses on group insurance, not on insurance sold to individuals, where they are not always a major presence. Secondly, premiums of UHC products in individual markets are relatively high. Third, in most states and counties ACA purchasers will still have a choice of two or more other options. In addition, UHC’s departure may coincide with or actually cause the entry of other insurers, as seems to be happening in Iowa.

The announcement by UHC is noteworthy, however. It signals the beginning for ACA exchanges of a new stage in their development, with challenges and opportunities different from and in many ways more important than those they faced during the first three years of operation, when the challenge was just to get up and running. From the time when HealthCare.Gov and the various state exchanges opened their doors until now, administrators grappled non-stop with administrative challenges—how to enroll people, helping them make an informed choice among insurance offerings, computing the right amount of assistance each individual or family should receive, modifying plans when income or family circumstances change, and performing various ‘back office’ tasks such as transferring data to and from insurance companies. The chaotic first weeks after the exchanges opened on October 1, 2013 have been well documented, not least by critics of the ACA. Less well known are the countless behind-the-scenes crises, patches, and work-arounds that harried exchange administrators used for years afterwards to keep the exchanges open and functioning.

The ACA forced not just exchange administrators but also insurers to cope with a new system and with new enrollees. Many new exchange customers were uninsured prior to signing up for marketplace coverage. Insurers had little or no information on what their use of health care would be. That meant that insurers could not be sure where to set premiums or how aggressively to try to control costs, for example by limiting networks of physicians and hospitals enrollees could use. Some did the job well or got lucky. Some didn’t. United seems to have fallen in the second category. United could have stayed in the 30 or so state markets they are leaving and tried to figure out ways to compete more effectively, but since their marketplace premiums were often not competitive and most of their business was with large groups, management decided to focus on that highly profitable segment of the insurance market. Some insurers, are seeking sizeable premium increases for insurance year 2017, in part because of unexpectedly high usage of health care by new exchange enrollees.

United is not alone in having a rough time in the exchanges. So did most of the cooperative plans that were set up under the ACA. Of the 23 cooperative plans that were established, more than half have gone out of business and more may follow. These developments do not signal the end of the ACA or even indicate a crisis. They do mark the end of an initial period when exchanges were learning how best to cope with clerical challenges posed by a quite complicated law and when insurance companies were breaking into new markets. In the next phase of ACA implementation, federal and state policy makers will face different challenges: how to stabilize, expand, and diversify marketplace risk pools, promote local market competition, and encourage insurers to compete on product quality rather than premium alone. Insurance company executives will have to figure out how to master rate setting, plan design, and network management and manage risk for customers with different characteristics than those to which they have become accustomed.

Achieving these goals will require state and federal authorities to go beyond the core implementation decisions that have absorbed most of their attention to date and exercise powers the ACA gives them. For example, section 1332 of the ACA authorizes states to apply for waivers starting in 2017 under which they can seek to achieve the goals of the 2010 law in ways different from those specified in the original legislation. Along quite different lines, efforts are already underway in many state-based marketplaces, such as the District of Columbia, to expand and diversify the individual market risk pool by expanding marketing efforts to enroll new consumers, especially young adults. Minnesota’s Health Care Task Force recently recommended options to stabilize marketplace premiums, including reinsurance, maximum limits on the excess capital reserves or surpluses of health plans, and the merger of individual and small group markets, as Massachusetts and Vermont have done.

In normal markets, prices must cover costs, and while some companies prosper, some do not. In that respect, ACA markets are quite normal. Some regional and national insurers, along with a number of new entrants, have experienced losses in their marketplace business in 2016. One reason seems to be that insurers priced their plans aggressively in 2014 and 2015 to gain customers and then held steady in 2016. Now, many are proposing significant premium hikes for 2017.

Others, like United, are withdrawing from some states. ACA exchange administrators and state insurance officials must now take steps to encourage continued or new insurer participation, including by new entrants such as Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs). For example, in New Mexico, where in 2016 Blue Cross Blue Shield withdrew from the state exchange, state officials now need to work with that insurer to ensure a smooth transition as it re-enters the New Mexico marketplace and to encourage other insurers to join it. In addition, state insurance regulators can use their rate review authority to benefit enrollees by promoting fair and competitive pricing among marketplace insurers. During the rate review process, which sometimes evolves into a bargaining process, insurance regulators often have the ability to put downward pressure on rates, although they must be careful to avoid the risk of underpricing of marketplace plans which could compromise the financial viability of insurers and cause them to withdraw from the market. Exchanges have an important role in the affordability of marketplace plans too. For example ACA marketplace officials in the District of Columbia and Connecticut work closely with state regulators during the rate review process in an effort to keep rates affordable and adequate to assure insurers a fair rate of return.

Several studies now indicate that in selecting among health insurance plans people tend to give disproportionate weight to premium price, and insufficient attention to other cost provisions—deductibles and cost sharing—and to quality of service and care. A core objective of the ACA is to encourage insurance customers to evaluate plans comprehensively. This objective will be hard to achieve, as health insurance is perhaps the most complicated product most people buy. But it will be next to impossible unless customers have tools that help them take account of the cost implications of all plan features and report accurately and understandably on plan quality and service. HealthCare.gov and state-based marketplaces, to varying degrees, are already offering consumers access to a number of decision support tools, such as total cost calculators, integrated provider directories, and formulary look-ups, along with tools that indicate provider network size. These should be refined over time. In addition, efforts are now underway at the federal and state level to provide more data to consumers so that they can make quality-driven plan choices. In 2018, the marketplaces will be required to display federally developed quality ratings and enrollee satisfaction information. The District of Columbia is examining the possibility of adding additional measures. California has proposed that starting in 2018 plans may only contract with providers and hospitals that have met state-specified metrics of quality care and promote safety of enrollees at a reasonable price. Such efforts will proliferate, even if not all succeed.

Beyond regulatory efforts noted above, insurance companies themselves have a critical role to play in contributing to the continued success of the ACA. As insurers come to understand the risk profiles of marketplace enrollees, they will be better able to set rates, design plans, and manage networks and thereby stay profitable. In addition, insurers are best positioned to maintain the stability of their individual market risk pools by developing and financing marketing plans to increase the volume and diversity of their exchange enrollments. It is important, in addition, that insurers, such as UHC, stop creaming off good risks from the ACA marketplaces by marketing limited coverage insurance products, such as dread disease policies and short term plans. If they do not do so voluntarily, state insurance regulators and the exchanges should join in stopping them from doing so.

Most of the attention paid to the ACA to date has focused on efforts to extend health coverage to the previously uninsured and to the administrative stumbles associated with that effort. While insurance coverage will broaden further, the period of rapid growth in coverage is at an end. And while administrative challenges remain, the basics are now in place. Now, the exchanges face the hard work of promoting vigorous and sustainable competition among insurers and of providing their customers with information so that insurers compete on what matters: cost, service, and quality of health care.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Real Clear Markets. Kevin Lucia and Justin Giovannelli contributed to this article with generous support from The Commonwealth Fund.

Latin America is starting off 2015 with a clear economic slowdown. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) projects a modest recovery (2.2 per cent) with respect to last year (in 2014 growth was only 1.1 per cent, the lowest since the 2009 crisis), though these calculations may vary due to several factors.

The world economy is not helping. The downward trend in raw materials prices, scant dynamism in global demand, and the appreciation of the dollar are three factors that work against the region today.

Venezuela and Argentina, are facing very complex economic contexts. Venezuela is in the midst of stagflation (aggravated by plummeting oil prices); and Argentina is experiencing negative growth, high inflation, and the unresolved conflict with the “vulture funds.”

The two largest economies of the region, Brazil and Mexico, are facing their own demons. Brazil President Dilma Rousseff, with a weak mandate, is gambling the political capital of her second term (which just began on 1 January) on the new economic team led by Joaquim “Scissorhands” Levy. Levy is to make a fiscal adjustment that has been put off and is much needed; Rousseff hopes it will enable her to regain investor confidence, and thereby return to higher growth. The Petrobras scandal (in addition to the negative impact it has been having within the Workers Party) requires that she wage a head-on struggle against corruption and impunity (she just proposed a national anticorruption campaign), and that she implement a thoroughgoing political reform, which has been put off for too long.

In Mexico, falling oil prices, economic growth below official expectations, and the wave of protests in the wake of the murders of the 43 students in school to become teachers at Ayotzinapa, have eclipsed the so-called Mexico moment and have Enrique Peña Nieto against the ropes. He has sought to retake the initiative by announcing new reforms and proposals, and he hopes to recover citizen trust if the structural reforms yield the results promised.

The challenge of the polls

In the 2015 electoral agenda, of special note are three presidential elections (Argentina, Guatemala, and Haiti), three legislative elections (El Salvador, Mexico, and Venezuela), and several state, regional, and municipal elections, in Bolivia, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay, among others.

The three presidential elections continue to be very open races. In Guatemala (from the return of democracy to date) the party in power has never been returned to office. The three best-positioned presidential candidates are the government party candidate Alejandro Sinibaldi, and opposition candidates Manuel Baldizón (for now he’s leading the polls) and former first lady Sandra Torres.

In Argentina, kirchnerismo is pulling into the election period worn down and without any clear candidate for now. The three leading candidates based on polling data are Peronists Daniel Scioli (former vice president of Néstor Kirchner and current governor of the province of Buenos Aires) and Sergio Massa (former chief of staff of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, currently a federal legislator and opponent of the government), and on the center-right Mauricio Macri (current head of government of the city of Buenos Aires).

In Haiti, in a tense political environment, it is not clear who will succeed President Michel Martelly, or what the exact date will be for municipal, legislative, or presidential elections. It is rumored that presidential elections may be held in January 2016. Ultimately the electoral calendar will depend on how negotiations proceed between Martelly and the opposition.

The Salvadoran legislative and municipal elections are especially important. The Sánchez Cerén administration will seek to revalidate its triumph of early 2014, ensuring good legislative and municipal support for his efforts with a view to the next three years, while the Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA) will seek to turn things around at the polls.

In Mexico, the future of the administration of President Peña Nieto, beset by protests and scandals, turns on the midterm elections of June 2015. Whether Peña Nieto will have sufficient political capital to continue giving impetus to his agenda of structural reforms (“Pacto por México”) during the remaining three years of his term will hinge on the results of these elections.

In Venezuela, the legislative elections will increase political tension and repression by the regime. The opposition has a golden opportunity to win back the legislative majority from the chavistas or President Chavez followers, taking advantage of the profound economic crisis looming over the country and the fall in Nicolás Maduro’s popularity in the polls. The big question is whether the opposition will prove capable of taking advantage of this opportunity and whether the elections will be truly free and competitive. The other aspect to monitor is whether Vatican diplomacy, under the leadership of Pope Francis (and with the precedent of the re-establishment of relations between the United States and Cuba in his favor), will be able to facilitate an effective political dialogue between the government and the opposition to seek a negotiated solution to Venezuela’s complex situation.

Colombia, Cuba and Chile

In Colombia, in addition to the regional elections (in which the uribistas, or followers of former President Álvaro Uribe, will seek to come out on top this time), attention is focused on the final phase of the negotiations in Havana between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the government of Juan Manuel Santos aimed at achieving peace. If the negotiations are successful, it will no doubt be the most important political event in the region in 2015. The fate of the peace process will be subject to a referendum, which will probably be held in the second half of 2015 or early 2016 (depending on the speed at which the negotiations proceed and their success).

The most important political event of 2014--the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba after more than 50 years of confrontation--will continue to capture considerable attention in 2015. This decision, which entails a 180-degree turnabout in U.S. policy to Cuba, will help improve relations between the United States and the region. It enables Cuba to fully assume its place in the hemisphere (its participation at the Seventh Summit of the Americas next April in Panama will make it a historic occasion), and at the same time it will also be able to diversify its trade relations and allow for new investment at a time when Venezuela (its main partner in recent years) is experiencing its own profound economic crisis. Full normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba (including the end of the embargo, a decision in the hands of Congress) will be a long and complex process, but the first step has already been taken, and in the right direction. In 2015 it will also be important to monitor the evolution and results of the economic reforms that Raúl Castro has been carrying out.

In addition, 2015 is a vital year in Chile for the government of Michelle Bachelet who, with markedly diminished popularity and mounting criticism of her presidency, must address two major challenges in the second year of her administration: bringing about the recovery of an economy that has clearly slowed down (1.7 per cent during 2014), and continuing to give impetus to an ambitious agenda of reforms.

This year the polemical education reform should be approved; it not only enjoys the backing of the opposition, but also provokes major tensions within the government coalition. In addition, the electoral reform should be unveiled (it will do away with the binomial system) and the labour reform, which is resulting in a new distancing of business from the government. Another point on the agenda is starting up the process aimed at amending the Constitution (one of Bachelet’s three main pledges during her campaign); the process promises to be the “mother of all reforms.”

Different scenarios in regional relations

In regional relations, seven events stand out for their importance and should be closely monitored:

1. The first ministerial meeting of China-Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños CELAC Forum in Beijing, China (January 8 and 9);
2. The third meeting of CELAC in Costa Rica (January 28 and 29), where Ecuador will assume the presidency;
3. The Seventh Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Panama (April 10 and 11), and whose focus of attention will be Cuba’s participation for the first time since the Summits process began in 1994;
4. The election of a new Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) with the capacity to strategically reposition this weakened regional organization affected by the political divisions among its member countries;
5. The evolution of the process of rapprochement between MERCOSUR and the Pacific Alliance;
6. The EU-Latin America Summit;
7. The recent re-launch of UNASUR (which took place in December in Quito), under the leadership of former President Ernesto Samper.

My opinion

Latin America finds itself in the doldrums, and must undertake a two-fold transition: from the model based on high raw materials prices and low financing costs, to one with low raw materials prices and higher financing costs. As the OECD rightly notes: “this abrupt economic slowdown is not a passing phenomenon, it has come to stay. It’s the end of a cycle.”

This requires the region to urgently set in motion profound structural reforms, aimed at changing its development model which can strategically adapt to this new global context.

Only by improving productivity and competitiveness, education and innovation, infrastructure, but also the quality of its institutions, will the region be able to achieve inclusive, equitable, and sustainable economic growth that makes it possible to continue reducing poverty and inequality. All this will enable the region to respond more effectively to the demands and expectations of citizens ever more aware and demanding of their rights and of quality public services.

This economic slowdown and the implementation of an agenda of structural reforms (including the structural adjustment policies that we’ll see in some countries) will surely affect certain interests, thereby paving the way for certain countries to suffer greater social discontent in 2015 and a more complex situation when it comes to governability.

Yet the region is not homogenous. On the contrary, there is a considerable degree of heterogeneity that will determine a wide diversity of national situations. In effect, while Central America grew 3.7 per cent in 2014, and will grow 4.1 per cent in 2015, in South America these percentages are 0.7 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively. Yet there is also diversity among countries. Accordingly, for example, while Panama (7.0 per cent), Bolivia (5.5 per cent), Peru, Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua (5.0 per cent) head up the list of economies with the best prospects for growth. Countries such as Brazil and Argentina – with more capacity for traction than the rest of the economies – have much more moderate projections. Mexico and Chile, predicted to experience 3 per cent annual growth, could help push the regional average up. Venezuela, similar to 2014 (with negative growth and inflation at about 64 per cent), will have a very complicated year economically speaking.

As Warren Buffet said, and rightly so, “when the tide goes out you can see who's been skinny dipping.” Something similar will happen with the countries of the region in 2015. Soon we’ll know which governments have been financially exposed.

This piece was originally published by International IDEA.

Over the past decade, many observers of U.S.-Latin America relations have taken a pessimistic view, arguing that U.S. influence is in retreat and decline. In this more optimistic policy brief, Richard Feinberg, Emily Miller, and Harold Trinkunas show that—to the contrary—U.S. core interests in the region have steadily improved in recent decades. While acknowledging heartening successes in the region, the authors outline how the United States should adapt its instruments of diplomacy for the 21st century.

Key Findings

• U.S. core interests in the hemisphere are: (1) progressive, resilient political democracies with respect for human rights; (2) reasonably well-managed, market-oriented economies open to global trade and investment; (3) inter-state peace among nations; and (4) the absence of credible threats to the United States from international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.

• In country after country, international and domestic actors have aligned to produce stronger economic growth, improved macroeconomic management, consolidated democracy, and inter-state peace.

• Traditional tools of U.S. leverage—including bilateral economic assistance, economic policy advice, sanctions, arms transfers, military training, and covert and overt military interventions—have declined dramatically in effectiveness and relevance.

• In a few countries, poor domestic policy choices have produced problematic macroeconomic outcomes and political conflict. However such cases may well be corrected as domestic politics change in due course.

Policy Recommendations

• Organize U.S. hemispheric policy around bolstering our four core interests and the regional institutions that undergird them.

• Target our policies toward Latin America to focus on collaboration on global governance with the upper-middle income countries, technical assistance for the fragile states of the Caribbean Basin, and watchful patience with rejectionist leaders as we wait for history to take its course.

• Rethink and retarget problematic U.S. counternarcotics policies, both to rebalance away from their dominance in the assistance agenda to Latin America and to focus on dimensions of the problem that fall under U.S. jurisdiction and control.

• Extend the principle of evidence-based programs, systematically evaluated based on transparent metrics, to other dimensions of our economic and security assistance to the region.

• Manage the challenges posed by our relationship with Brazil within a broader framework designed to promote constructive contributions by all rising powers to a stable and peaceful international order.

• Ensure that China’s inevitable economic presence in the region contributes positively to Latin America’s development without eroding hard-won political and social gains.

Downloads

• Better Than You Think: Reframing Inter-American Relations

Dear Members of the Senate,

As you know, the Senate has debated the merits of the filibuster and related procedural rules for over two centuries. Recently, several senators who are advocating changes to Senate Rule XXII have renewed this discussion. We write this letter today to clarify some of the common historical and constitutional misperceptions about the filibuster and Rule XXII that all too often surface during debates about Senate rules.

First, many argue that senators have a constitutional right to extended debate. However, there is no explicit constitutional right to filibuster.^[1] In fact, there is ample evidence that the framers preferred majority rather than supermajority voting rules. The framers knew full well the difficulties posed by supermajority rules, given their experiences in the Confederation Congress under the Articles of Confederation (which required a supermajority vote to pass measures on the most important matters). A common result was stalemate; legislators frequently found themselves unable to muster support from a supermajority of the states for essential matters of governing. In the Constitution, the framers specified that supermajority votes would be necessary in seven, extraordinary situations -which they specifically listed (including overriding a presidential veto, expelling a member of the Senate, and ratifying a treaty). These, of course, are all voting requirements for passing measures, rather than rules for bringing debate to a close.

Second, although historical lore says that the filibuster was part of the original design of the Senate, there is no empirical basis for that view. There is no question that the framers intended the Senate to be a deliberative body. But they sought to achieve that goal through structural features of the chamber intended to facilitate deliberation -such as the Senate's smaller size, longer and staggered terms, and older members. There is no historical evidence that the framers anticipated that the Senate would adopt rules allowing for a filibuster. In fact, the first House and the first Senate had nearly identical rule books, both of which included a motion to move the previous question. The House converted that rule into a simple majority cloture rule early in its history. The Senate did not.

What happened to the Senate's previous question motion? In 1805, as presiding officer of the Senate, Vice President Aaron Burr recommended a pruning of the Senate's rules. He singled out the previous question motion as unnecessary (keeping in mind that the rule had not yet routinely been used in either chamber as a simple majority cloture motion). When senators met in 1806 to re-codify the rules, they deleted the previous question motion from the Senate rulebook. Senators did so not because they sought to create the opportunity to filibuster; they abandoned the motion as a matter of procedural housekeeping. Deletion of the motion took away one of the possible avenues for cutting off debate by majority vote, but did not constitute a deliberate choice to allow obstruction. The first documented filibusters did not occur until the 1830s, and for the next century they were rare (but often effective) occurrences in a chamber in which majorities generally reigned.

Finally, the adoption of Rule XXII in 1917 did not reflect a broad-based Senate preference for a supermajority cloture rule. At that time, a substantial portion of the majority party favored a simple majority rule. But many minority party members preferred a supermajority cloture rule, while others preferred no cloture rule at all. A bargain was struck: Opponents of reform promised not to block the rule change and proponents of reform promised not to push for a simple majority cloture rule. The two-thirds threshold, in other words, was the product of bargaining and compromise with the minority. As has been typical of the Senate's past episodes of procedural change, pragmatic politics largely shaped reform of the Senate's rules.

We hope this historical perspective on the origins of the filibuster and Rule XXII will be helpful to you as matters of reform are raised and debated. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide additional clarification.

Very truly yours,

Sarah Binder
Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
Professor of Political Science, George Washington University

Gregory Koger
Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Miami

Thomas E. Mann
W. Averell Harriman Chair & Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

Norman Ornstein
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Eric Schickler
Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott Endowed Chair & Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley

Barbara Sinclair
Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics Emerita, University of California, Los Angeles

Steven S. Smith
Kate M. Gregg Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences & Professor of Political Science, Washington University

Gregory J. Wawro
Deputy Chair & Associate Professor of Political Science, Columbia University

Downloads

• Download the Original Letter

"We are now locked in a rolling filibuster on every issue, which is totally gridlocking the U.S. Senate. That is wrong. It is wrong for America."

Who said that? Democrat Harry Reid, majority leader of the Senate? Guess again. Try former Republican leader Trent Lott, bemoaning the troubled state of the Senate in the late 1990s.

No recent majority leader of either party has been saved the headache of trying to lead a Senate in which minorities can exploit the rules and stymie the chamber. This is not a new problem. Harry Reid may face a particularly unrestrained minority. But generations of Senate leaders from Henry Clay to Bill Frist have felt compelled to seek changes in Senate rules to make the chamber a more governable place.

Some things never change.

Twice this week, the Senate has opened debate with its party leaders engaged in a caustic battle over Reid's plans to seek changes to Senate rules in January.

Read the full piece at CNN.com »

As the clock runs out on the dysfunctional 112th Congress, few have been impressed by its paltry record and balky performance. But pardon my glee: December has been a great month for students of Congress. First, the House leadership was handed a blistering defeat on its “Plan B” to resolve the fiscal cliff. Next, while their leaders were meeting to negotiate an 11th hour of the 12th month fiscal cliff deal, eight senators unveiled a bipartisan proposal to head off a Democratic threat to change the rules by majority vote. When it rains, it pours!

The reform package—addressing “talking filibusters” and filibusters on procedural motions – deserves a bit more attention. And it deserves an appropriate historical illustration: To the right, a 1928 Chicago Tribune cartoon that features not the talking filibuster…but a sleeping one. Seems that talking filibusters might have been few and far between even back then.

Ezra Klein and Jon Bernstein have detailed the proposed changes and weighed in here and here, as has Steve Smith by tweet here and here. Since then, a coalition of nearly fifty liberal groups has rejected the proposal out of hand as watered down reform. To these several perspectives on the McCain-Levin plan, I would add the following thoughts:

First, these are at best incremental reforms. The majority leader would essentially gain the right to set the Senate’s agenda by majority vote, as a four-hour debate limit would be imposed on the motion to proceed. But the majority leader would pay a price for that new power: He would lose his power to block amendments (by “filling the tree”) and the minority bill manager and leader would be newly guaranteed an amendment each upon consideration of a legislative measure. (The majority leader, it seems, might still be able to fill the tree after the guaranteed amendments are dispensed with.) This change leaves untouched the sixty-vote threshold for invoking cloture on the measure or other amendments, similar to the plans of Democratic reformers. In short, the change tries to address the grievances of both the majority (by circumventing filibusters of the motion to proceed) and the minority (by creating and guaranteeing amendment opportunities).

Second, the incremental nature of the reforms is not accidental. Ezra has a point when he argues that this is “filibuster reform for people who don’t want to reform the filibuster.” Still, the incremental nature of the proposal strikes me as the price of negotiating procedural change in a legislative body whose rules already advantage the minority party: The majority gets a little only by giving a little. The barrier to reform is entrenched in the Senate’s cloture rule, given the supermajority required for ending filibusters of proposals that curtail minority rights. A Senate majority could circumvent that barrier by going nuclear with 51 votes, but that strategy is not cost-free. To be sure, reformers claim to have 51 votes for a reform-by-ruling move. But it’s not clear to me yet that the majority would be willing to pay the accompanying costs of weathering the minority’s response to going nuclear.

Third, the rules address leaders’ interests more so than those of the rank and file. Some of the proposed changes are aimed at time management. For example, with the consent of the majority and minority leaders and a bipartisan handful of senators , the cloture process is sped up markedly. Similarly, the three debatable steps required to get to conference are condensed to a single motion (albeit one still subject to sixty votes if the minority objects). Other proposed changes alleviate the minority leader from objecting on his colleagues’ behalf, undermining individual senators’ ability to threaten to filibuster without actually showing up. Then again, there’s no enforcement mechanism in the proposal: Senators would be counting on the minority leader to play by the new rules and to abandon his practice of lodging objections on behalf of his absent colleagues. It’s fair to be skeptical that such informal reforms would ever stick.

Fourth, I think there’s promise in the proposal’s directive to the presiding officer to put questions to a (majority) vote when opponents no longer seek to debate a bill. I share skeptics’ views that majorities might rarely want to hold the minority’s feet to the fire to wear down the opposition and that minorities might at times relish the spotlight while holding the floor. But the proposal strikes me as a potentially valuable chance to see if the change would make a difference. If approved, the McCain-Levin proposal would be adopted as a standing order of the Senate for just the upcoming Congress, providing a testing ground for this version of the talking filibuster. (Standing orders are typically approved opening day by unanimous consent; would there be such consent for McCain-Levin or another negotiated proposal?)

Finally, it may be that incremental procedural change is all that a polarized Senate can agree on—especially if some Democrats are skittish about changing the rules by majority vote. Granted, majority senators won’t agree to the plan if it’s perceived as empowering the minority, not the majority, as Senator Harkin has suggested. Nor should they. In that case, an incremental package may be more than a polarized Senate can agree on—leaving the nuclear option as the only avenue for Democrats seeking to rein in the excesses of the Senate minority’s parliamentary rights.

Today could have been the day when Senate Democrats went nuclear – reining in minority party abuse of the filibuster with a simple majority vote.  That would have been my Super Bowl.  Instead, the Senate is poised to adopt a bipartisan set of modest (many say, meager) changes to the Senate’s cloture rule.   More like the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, I say.

As many have noted (for starters, Ezra Klein here and Jonathan Bernstein here), the proposed changes to the Senate’s Rule 22 fall far short of what reformers had hoped for.  Much blame has been heaped on Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, and on a few senior Democrats, highlighting their resistance to abandoning the Senate’s sixty-vote threshold for bringing the chamber to a vote.  The reforms are modest, largely finding ways of speeding up the Senate once both parties have agreed on the matter at hand (for instance on the way to advancing a measure to the floor or after cutting off debate on a nomination).  Even if the changes may seem to many like small potatoes, I think there’s more to be gleaned from the Senate’s brush with reform.

First, take a little, give a little.  Today’s rule changes remind us that there is no free lunch when it comes to Senate reform.  That hurdle is built into Rule 22, given its requirement that 67 senators consent to a vote on efforts to reform Rule 22.  In the absence of majority willing to bear the costs of asserting the majority’s right to change its rules, Senate reform is necessarily bipartisan and incremental.  Reforms must secure the consent of the minority, or be packaged with changes judged equally important to the opposition.  (Recall that even when reformers reduced cloture to 60 votes in 1975, they paid a price: 67 votes would still be required to end debate on changing Rule 22.)  Today’s reforms allow a majority to circumvent filibusters of motions to proceed to legislative measures.  In return, the majority pays a price each time: The minority is guaranteed votes on two amendments, whereas previously recent leaders might have precluded all amendments by immediately “filling the tree.”  To be sure, this potentially dilutes the value of the rule change for the majority.   But concessions are dictated by the Senate’s inherited rules.  (And, of course, nothing is that simple when it comes to Senate rules; the majority may yet fill the tree, at least after the disposition of the minority’s amendments.)

Second, I suspect we might be underestimating the importance of a non-debatable motion to proceed for the majority party in a period of partisan polarization.  Judging from the increase in filibusters on the motions to proceed in recent years, minority parties have fought hard to keep bills off the floor that they oppose on policy or political grounds.   So long as the motion to proceed could be filibustered, majority and minority parties shared agenda-setting powers.  Today’s change grants the majority a slightly stronger hand in choosing the chamber agenda.  To be sure, the minority can still filibuster the bill and amendments beyond those newly guaranteed, but the reform undermines the minority’s ability to throw the majority off course.  Take immigration policy, for example.  Filibusters of the motion to proceed have kept the DREAM Act off the Senate floor in recent years.  Minority influence over the Senate’s agenda is diminished with today’s reform.

Third, these are leader-driven reforms, shaped by the unique burdens carried by the majority and (sometimes) minority leaders.  For example, the reforms speed up post-cloture debate on some judicial and executive branch nominations, and allow the chamber to hurry onto cloture votes on motions to proceed to legislative business when the minority offers a modicum of support.  No surprise that these housekeeping changes elicit little enthusiasm.   These changes don’t make it any easier for a majority to break sizable minority opposition.  And they potentially make it harder for rank and file senators to exploit the rules in pursuit of their own policy goals.  But from leaders’ perspectives, the reforms rein in the excesses of rank and file dissent when a bipartisan group is ready to move ahead.  As one Senate Democrat aide confided, “that’s all Reid ever really wanted.”

Finally, this episode highlights the limitation of the Constitutional option and other “reform-by-ruling” strategies.  There appears to have been a majority or near-majority support for securing only very limited reform of Rule 22.  Senators seem unwilling to use the tactic for a major overhaul of the Senate’s cloture rule—in part because of the fear of minority retaliation, in part because the filibuster rule likely serves as the foundation of senators’ power.   To be sure, Harry Reid aggressively used reform-by-ruling in the fall of 2011 to secure smaller changes to Rule 22 (as did Robert Byrd in the 1980s).  But we have to reach back nearly forty years to the 1975 reforms to find a Senate majority willing to go nuclear to impose major changes to Rule 22.  (Even then, reformers proceeded without the support of the majority leader, Mike Mansfield.)  Perhaps senators see the consequences of weakening Rule 22 in a different light when the parties polarize over policy problems and solutions, with senators nervous about curtailing extended debate when the tables turn on their majority.  Regardless, so long as majorities will only form to impose  minor reform by majority vote, those majorities will be forced to live under supermajority rules that daily frustrate their policy and political agendas.

And in the Senate’s world, those frustrating days can last for weeks!