The main insight I took from this book is probably not the one Wallison intended, though it is one he makes several times. America’s founders did not foresee the rise of political parties, and this was their biggest mistake. They set up the federal government with checks and balances so that the different branches would compete against each other, not different parties. Having distinct federal and state levels of government provided an additional level of non-party competition.
This system does not work so well when powerful political parties exist. If one party controls both Congress and the presidency, those two branches do not compete with each other, they collude.
The first-past-the-post electoral system the founders established is also naturally conducive to a two-party system—and the two parties which usually oppose each other will cooperate to prevent rule changes that would allow additional competing parties.
This probably doesn’t matter so much; Europe’s experience with proportional representation has shown that most people coalesce around two polar ideologies, and most political parties represent various points on the spectrum between those two poles—meaning proportional representation doesn’t differ much from the U.S. system in terms of policy outcomes, muting its appeal. It merely has higher transaction costs for building coalitions, a separate issue well outside of Wallison’s subject matter. In the U.S. case, the dominant parties oppose proportional systems for their own organizations’ sake, rather than to promote conservative or progressive values.
The primary point Wallison does make is also compelling—judicial restraint and judicial activism are both ineffective safeguards against a regulatory state that lacks transparency and democratic accountability. A passive judiciary lets Congress and the executive make and enforce all sorts of crazy laws and regulations. This is a rather obvious problem. Legislation from the bench is also a problem; besides offending democratic sensibilities, repeal of judicial policy mistakes is extremely difficult.
Wallison instead prefers a judiciary with the fortitude to tell Congress what’s what when it passes unconstitutional legislation. More importantly, executive branch agencies issue thousands of regulations, guidance documents, and other regulatory “dark matter” outside of required legal processes. These policies lack transparency, democratic accountability, and in many cases are unconstitutional. The judiciary needs to gain the fortitude to strike such policies down when cases present the opportunity. Wallison also draws heavily on my colleague Wayne Crews’ research in developing this argument, which is a plus.