The System Isn’t Broken, Our Politics Are

The debate over constitutional amendments and institutional reforms tends to focus on whichever party holds power at the moment. But my deeper concern has always been this: “Is it even possible to change one branch of government without destabilizing the other two”? The entire American constitutional structure was built on equilibrium, and every time we tug on one rope, tension shows up elsewhere. That balance is not an accident; it is the operating system of our constitutional republic.

The Fragile Equilibrium of Our Constitution

This is why I’m wary whenever either side proposes sweeping structural changes. People talk about abolishing the filibuster or adding Supreme Court seats as if these are isolated adjustments. They’re not. Each would ripple outward, reshaping the incentives and behavior of Congress, the White House, and even future courts. And the reality is simple: whatever tool you hand your side today will be used with equal or greater force by the other side tomorrow. That is the one constant in American politics.

The Fragile Equilibrium of Our Constitution

I’m not siding with Democrats here, far from it. But I do think their long-term frustration is worth acknowledging because it helps explain the political mood we’re living in. When the Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to retire during the Obama administration, expecting Hillary Clinton (first woman president) would win and appoint her successor, that miscalculation fundamentally altered the balance of the Supreme Court. It hardened partisanship across the country. Whether we like it or not, that was a hinge moment in modern American political history.

Then came the 2016 election. A large segment of voters expected Clinton to win and when she didn’t, anger and disbelief poured into institutions, the media, and daily political life. That pressure intensified again when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 race. I’m not defending the reaction, but I am observing it: the disappointment from those two pivotal elections continues to fuel a demographic that is impatient with constitutional constraints and increasingly willing to embrace aggressive reforms that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.

That frustration is feeding the “No Kings” mindset or Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) we’re seeing emerge today. It’s not really a policy movement, it’s a release valve. It’s a reaction to the sense that political outcomes aren’t aligning with expectations. When that happens, people stop trusting the slow, grinding work of constitutional governance and start looking for shortcuts. They begin imagining that the system is failing because it isn’t delivering their preferred outcomes, rather than asking whether the outcome might reflect the will of a much larger, more diverse country.

But this is exactly why structural reforms demand caution, humility, and a deep respect for unintended consequences. The more one party tries to entrench power through rule changes, the more the other will retaliate when the pendulum inevitably swings, which is exactly what Proposition 50 just did for California and our Nation.

Frustration, Miscalculation, and the Rise of Shortcuts

Sadly this is setting up the elimination of the filibuster, this might feel like progress until the other side uses that same power to shred everything you just passed. Expanding the Supreme Court might seem like a solution until the next majority expands it again. We cannot keep escalating without eventually collapsing the very system that protects us from unrestrained political swings.

If our goal is stability, and it should be, then our political energy must not be spent engineering permanent advantages for whichever party holds temporary power. That’s political adrenaline, not governance, and it’s a recipe for long-term instability.

A healthier, more responsible approach is to focus on issues that actually demand bipartisan cooperation and broad national agreement. Whether we lean left, right, or somewhere in between, we all live in the same nation, balance the same household budgets, pay the same medical bills, and share the same stresses from a broken immigration system. None of these problems can be solved through procedural warfare.

Balancing the federal budget will require real sacrifice from every constituency. There is no version of fiscal reality where we can fix the deficit without someone feeling the pinch. But healthcare reform and immigration reform, done responsibly, can soften those impacts by reducing costs, increasing workforce participation, stabilizing labor markets, and reducing the administrative chaos that overwhelms our social services.

To get there, though, we need something we haven’t had in a long time: elected officials who tell the truth about trade-offs.

Our leaders owe their constituents an honest explanation of what balanced budgeting actually means, what we can afford, what we can’t, and what will happen if we keep pretending the math will magically fix itself. The same is true of healthcare reform: they must stop promising solutions with no costs attached. And immigration reform requires the courage to speak plainly about the need for both humane treatment and firm enforcement: not one or the other.

But constituents have responsibilities, too. We must encourage our elected officials to stop chasing procedural power grabs and start doing the slow, often unglamorous work of governing. We have to reward honesty, not theatrics. We have to push back against the political influencers and party strategists who profit from division. And most importantly, we must insist that our representatives work across the aisle, because the problems that matter most cannot be solved by one side alone.

If we are going to be partisan about anything, let it be this:

A balanced federal budget. Real healthcare reform. Serious, humane, enforceable immigration reform.

Those are the issues that would strengthen American democracy—not weaken it. Those are the issues that demand seriousness, not opportunism. If we want a democracy that lasts, those are the issues where our energy must go.