What do you think?
Rate this book
Relic: How Our Constitution Undermines Effective Government--and Why We Need a More Powerful Presidency
Our government is failing us. From health care to immigration, from the tax code to climate change, our political institutions cannot deal effectively with the challenges of modern society. Why the dysfunction? Contemporary reformers single out the usual suspects, including polarization and the rise in campaign spending. But what if the roots go much deeper, to the nation's founding?
In Relic , William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe point to the Constitution as the main culprit. The framers designed the Constitution some 225 years ago for a simple, agrarian society. But the government they created, with a parochial Congress at its center, is ill-equipped to address the serious social problems that arise in a complex, postindustrial nation. We are prisoners of the past, burdened with an antiquated government that cannot make effective policy, and often cannot do anything at all.
The solution is to update the Constitution for modern times. This can be accomplished, Howell and Moe argue, through reforms that push Congress and all its pathologies to the periphery of the lawmaking process, and bring presidents -- whose concern for their legacy drives them to seek coherent policy solutions -- to the center of decision making. As Howell and Moe reveal, the key to effective government for modern America is a more powerful presidency.
Relic is a provocative and essential book for our era of political dysfunction and popular despair. It sheds new light on what is wrong with our government and what can be done about it, challenging us to reconsider the very foundation of the American experiment.
In Relic , William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe point to the Constitution as the main culprit. The framers designed the Constitution some 225 years ago for a simple, agrarian society. But the government they created, with a parochial Congress at its center, is ill-equipped to address the serious social problems that arise in a complex, postindustrial nation. We are prisoners of the past, burdened with an antiquated government that cannot make effective policy, and often cannot do anything at all.
The solution is to update the Constitution for modern times. This can be accomplished, Howell and Moe argue, through reforms that push Congress and all its pathologies to the periphery of the lawmaking process, and bring presidents -- whose concern for their legacy drives them to seek coherent policy solutions -- to the center of decision making. As Howell and Moe reveal, the key to effective government for modern America is a more powerful presidency.
Relic is a provocative and essential book for our era of political dysfunction and popular despair. It sheds new light on what is wrong with our government and what can be done about it, challenging us to reconsider the very foundation of the American experiment.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published April 26, 2016
11 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 3, 2021
The ideas proposed are thought provoking and I like the idea of being creative with institutional reform however the evidence is really weak and rife with contradictions. The book does not adequately go through why campaign finance reform is a solution and writes it off without much explanation. Also claims that presidents are concerned with legacy/how to be remembered so they can be trusted to make better long term decisions. However, I think that is a problem not an advantage because legacy is more of an incentive to choose flashy policies rather than substance. Also, crafting presidential legacies is not as simple any more as history is now recorded by many people rather than a few individuals who side with the victor so I am not sure what that means for legacy. Claims Congress is parochial by design and that that is a bad thing but like,,,isn't that the point. Overall the book takes the stand that some action, even if not well supported, is better than no action which I am not sure if I agree with.
August 24, 2016
a 1 only because I can't rate it any lower
July 5, 2016
theory that original constitution with separation of powers, parochialism of confined interests not up to task of governing today's modernized and industrialized country
this book was intriguing, informative and engaging, and also had me questioning some of my long held assumptions about how removal of outside money would help our government. undoubtedly it would but i think the authors would counter that inherent problems with our constitution would still remain. i thought their counterarguments to some of the possible problems with their proposals were a bit thin, in particular whether their designs would like to huge new instabilities if laws are immediately overturned whenever the president and same party have majorities. also, the whole proposal is unworkable since congress would seemingly never give up that much power (despite the author's counter assertions that they did so with trade)
founder's different views on political equality
progressivism helped in 1880's to 1920's but modern bureaucracy not up to task, how bureacracy is not immune from politics since congress governs it
increased inaction due to follow on congressional activities like filibusters, committees, sub-committees
recommendation of increasing executive power with fast track authority
failed or weakened policy with school lunches, family assistance welfare, tax law, immigration, farm subsidies, model city plan, health care with overspending, failed no child left behind that was not successful but kept in place for years
i thought it might have been interesting for the authors to explore why they think a parliamentary system would work better, even though they acknowledgment it's impossibility of taking place in the u.s.
this book was intriguing, informative and engaging, and also had me questioning some of my long held assumptions about how removal of outside money would help our government. undoubtedly it would but i think the authors would counter that inherent problems with our constitution would still remain. i thought their counterarguments to some of the possible problems with their proposals were a bit thin, in particular whether their designs would like to huge new instabilities if laws are immediately overturned whenever the president and same party have majorities. also, the whole proposal is unworkable since congress would seemingly never give up that much power (despite the author's counter assertions that they did so with trade)
founder's different views on political equality
progressivism helped in 1880's to 1920's but modern bureaucracy not up to task, how bureacracy is not immune from politics since congress governs it
increased inaction due to follow on congressional activities like filibusters, committees, sub-committees
recommendation of increasing executive power with fast track authority
failed or weakened policy with school lunches, family assistance welfare, tax law, immigration, farm subsidies, model city plan, health care with overspending, failed no child left behind that was not successful but kept in place for years
i thought it might have been interesting for the authors to explore why they think a parliamentary system would work better, even though they acknowledgment it's impossibility of taking place in the u.s.
May 12, 2016
A nonpartisan eye-opener that flips the consensus reasons for congress' dysfunction (inability for parties to work together) on its head. Their premise is that congress' parochialism and pleasing their constituents is the root cause of congress' inability to address the large problems that effect the country as a whole. Due to the 535 congress members' divergent views based on local special interests, jobs, corporations, lobbyists, etc., nothing of substance (national debt, social security, health care, energy and environmental policies) can be addressed and rectified. The proposed solution is to amend the constitution to allow "fast-track" authority, which would give the President the ability to propose a bill, and have congress vote up or down without changing it, within a specified time period. No mark-up, no filibusters. The concept being that the President is concerned with his legacy, and is the only elected official that is concerned with the welfare of the entire country.
July 8, 2022
3.5 stars. There was a lot I liked about this book and the authors viewpoints and a lot I disliked or found frustrating
The good first
1) the authors make excellent points regarding the flaws of the constitution and how vastly different society was at the time of its writing. They do a good job of detailing this and discussing the flaws of following such an old document but move quickly onto the main focus: the constitution sets up an ineffective government.
2) I felt they laid out a good argument for not only how our government is ineffective but how the constitution and separation of powers is the reason for this. That said they also emphasize the extreme importance of that separation of powers so I felt they struck a good balance
3) The solution of a more powerful presidency: when I first read this in the title I felt it sounded extremist but was surprised that what they are suggesting isn’t all that extreme but actually rather reasonable. Their ideas maintain checks and balances while trying to eliminate the issues that cause good policy to fail as a result of too many cooks in the kitchen. The point that stuck out was that they recognize the idea may seem radical but only because we are used to a system that maintains a failing status quo. We complain government is ineffective but any idea to address that is called radical. Not sure if their solution would work but I’m convinced it would be worth trying given the current state of things
Now the negatives (and there were a few)
1) Repetitive: the authors are so repetitive at times. Annoyingly so
2) Too much credit given to the president: the authors give so much credit to the position of president and almost makes it seem as though presidents never make parochial decisions or have agendas that don’t represent americas current issues. I’m wondering if they would have changed their opinions after 4 years of trum
3) not enough time exploring money in politics: easily the most frustrating part of this book is the authors don’t spend nearly enough time exploring this. It practically jumps out at you as your reading. MONEY IS CORRUPTING POLITICS. yet they don’t seem to address it at all. I feel most of the issues they laid out could be improved by taking money out of politic. forcing congressmen to freeze stocks etc. Very frustrated that they didn’t even devote a chapter to exploring this
Overall some interesting viewpoints and rather reasonable suggestions, though definitely some major flaws present.
The good first
1) the authors make excellent points regarding the flaws of the constitution and how vastly different society was at the time of its writing. They do a good job of detailing this and discussing the flaws of following such an old document but move quickly onto the main focus: the constitution sets up an ineffective government.
2) I felt they laid out a good argument for not only how our government is ineffective but how the constitution and separation of powers is the reason for this. That said they also emphasize the extreme importance of that separation of powers so I felt they struck a good balance
3) The solution of a more powerful presidency: when I first read this in the title I felt it sounded extremist but was surprised that what they are suggesting isn’t all that extreme but actually rather reasonable. Their ideas maintain checks and balances while trying to eliminate the issues that cause good policy to fail as a result of too many cooks in the kitchen. The point that stuck out was that they recognize the idea may seem radical but only because we are used to a system that maintains a failing status quo. We complain government is ineffective but any idea to address that is called radical. Not sure if their solution would work but I’m convinced it would be worth trying given the current state of things
Now the negatives (and there were a few)
1) Repetitive: the authors are so repetitive at times. Annoyingly so
2) Too much credit given to the president: the authors give so much credit to the position of president and almost makes it seem as though presidents never make parochial decisions or have agendas that don’t represent americas current issues. I’m wondering if they would have changed their opinions after 4 years of trum
3) not enough time exploring money in politics: easily the most frustrating part of this book is the authors don’t spend nearly enough time exploring this. It practically jumps out at you as your reading. MONEY IS CORRUPTING POLITICS. yet they don’t seem to address it at all. I feel most of the issues they laid out could be improved by taking money out of politic. forcing congressmen to freeze stocks etc. Very frustrated that they didn’t even devote a chapter to exploring this
Overall some interesting viewpoints and rather reasonable suggestions, though definitely some major flaws present.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 13, 2022
Howell and Moe pose strong arguments over the effectiveness of Congress, arguing that it is in its nature to be parochial and myopic. They advocate for further Presidential leadership to meet the needs of our complex society through their proposed amendment of adding a fast-track proposal that can push through legislation in a far more effective manner.
Despite them showing the plethora of policies that congress has enacted that have been a burden on our nation. They fall short on the downside of a further increase in Presidential power. Although they argue that this solution is highly focused and poses few risks in exchange for high gains, they paint a relatively rosy picture of the intentions of Presidents. Howell and Moe focus largely on the good intentions of Presidents in pushing forward a positive legacy, but the extent to which these powers can be exploited by a President is largely minimized.
Despite some holes in their proposal, the book is a fantastic piece of writing that alongside being a solution to a governance issue, also serves as an interesting and insightful piece of Congressional and Presidential history.
Despite them showing the plethora of policies that congress has enacted that have been a burden on our nation. They fall short on the downside of a further increase in Presidential power. Although they argue that this solution is highly focused and poses few risks in exchange for high gains, they paint a relatively rosy picture of the intentions of Presidents. Howell and Moe focus largely on the good intentions of Presidents in pushing forward a positive legacy, but the extent to which these powers can be exploited by a President is largely minimized.
Despite some holes in their proposal, the book is a fantastic piece of writing that alongside being a solution to a governance issue, also serves as an interesting and insightful piece of Congressional and Presidential history.
September 30, 2024
one of these books where you're not too terribly thrilled by the arguments either way, but the critics of the book are far worse.
I don't think the problem is the president or the constitution, but too many lousy people in congress and special interests, and how much funding is a part of their job rather than policy at times.
You need good politicians with good personalities and good policy. Good luck with that one.
There's some strange thoughts about the constitution in here though, and it feels like the solution is far far worse than the problem.
I don't think the problem is the president or the constitution, but too many lousy people in congress and special interests, and how much funding is a part of their job rather than policy at times.
You need good politicians with good personalities and good policy. Good luck with that one.
There's some strange thoughts about the constitution in here though, and it feels like the solution is far far worse than the problem.
October 25, 2017
I believe that many of Howell's arguments are weakened by our current political climate. In addition I found the book generally repetitive and straight forward.
April 30, 2020
Really thought-provoking, but definitely a little nuts.
March 9, 2017
First of all, if at some point if your life you feel that you did something and it backfired you, or maybe the timing was not the best, remember that Howell and Moe published this book just right before trump was elected....
This is a clear example of how you can totally disregard one tail of the distribution. This book would have been more accurate if for any word ""president"" you could read ""good president"". Authors' arguments are based on the fact that all presidents are good by nature—which we now know, surprise! surprise! is not the case—and that regardless of who is in charge, the office will look for the Nation's greater good. Even further, they assume (both implicitly and in several paragraphs) that greater good is an universal concept, and that is homogeneous and truthful across individuals—in matters so complex as healthcare, social rights, and so on.
Coming from a country where presidential power is almost infinite, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the root of US' problems is precisely not having enough presidential power. In other words, authors have a clear case of we-are-so-good-that-this-will-not-happen-to-us, the eternal superiority complex that has destroyed entire countries across history. No country is exempt from tyrannic and authoritarian regimes.
Howell, by the way, was my professor. I really enjoyed his classes, and I think of him as a very intelligent person. I wonder what he thinks nowadays about this book.
This is a clear example of how you can totally disregard one tail of the distribution. This book would have been more accurate if for any word ""president"" you could read ""good president"". Authors' arguments are based on the fact that all presidents are good by nature—which we now know, surprise! surprise! is not the case—and that regardless of who is in charge, the office will look for the Nation's greater good. Even further, they assume (both implicitly and in several paragraphs) that greater good is an universal concept, and that is homogeneous and truthful across individuals—in matters so complex as healthcare, social rights, and so on.
Coming from a country where presidential power is almost infinite, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the root of US' problems is precisely not having enough presidential power. In other words, authors have a clear case of we-are-so-good-that-this-will-not-happen-to-us, the eternal superiority complex that has destroyed entire countries across history. No country is exempt from tyrannic and authoritarian regimes.
Howell, by the way, was my professor. I really enjoyed his classes, and I think of him as a very intelligent person. I wonder what he thinks nowadays about this book.
December 6, 2016
Although short, it could have been even shorter. A long magazine essay would have sufficed. The ideas are interesting, and I agree with most of them. The presidency should have more power to set the agenda and propose laws. Most importantly, there is far too much Constitution worship in our country. It was written 200+ years ago, and the world, and our politics have changed. Where it falls flat a bit, is in light of the recent election. The whole premise is that the president, much more so than the parochial Congress, has much more incentive to keep the national interests in mind. That's fine, and probably true, but doesn't work if the person in the office is self-serving and profoundly unqualified (and possibly also has mental deficiencies...).
January 7, 2017
The ideas behind this book are great. By criticizing the constitution instead of congress, this book has started an important discussion. The constitution has only been updated twenty-seven times since it was first created which means that our government is horribly outdated.
Nevertheless, the argumentation in this book is not as strong as it could be. The book is extremely repetitive and could be streamlined into a hundred pages or less. Moreover, the authors could further elaborate on their proposal for a constitutional amendment to increase presidential authority.
I would recommend this only to those extremely interested in politics and government. The repetition alone would have make most other readers put the book down.
Nevertheless, the argumentation in this book is not as strong as it could be. The book is extremely repetitive and could be streamlined into a hundred pages or less. Moreover, the authors could further elaborate on their proposal for a constitutional amendment to increase presidential authority.
I would recommend this only to those extremely interested in politics and government. The repetition alone would have make most other readers put the book down.
January 10, 2017
An interesting and fun read, the book loses some of its impact due to the long and winding road it goes down to propose the very simple idea of extending fast-track policy proposal to all government matters as to enhance the president's capability of enacting change.
The argument is well thought out, well written, but could fit just as well in a 5 page paper.
Maybe I've been reading too many books that criticize Congress, so much of the book sounded a bit redundant (eventhough I have to admit the book does a good job of providing various interesting examples of the problems in place)...
The argument is well thought out, well written, but could fit just as well in a 5 page paper.
Maybe I've been reading too many books that criticize Congress, so much of the book sounded a bit redundant (eventhough I have to admit the book does a good job of providing various interesting examples of the problems in place)...
November 28, 2016
This book pinpoints the underlying cause of the failure of government in the United States. Namely, the constitutional government set up in the late 18th century (which has not been adopted by any other Democracy in the world) created a government that simply can not accomplish virtually anything in a modern world.
January 6, 2017
Brilliant examination of our present Constitutional system with a recommended amendment that will make anyone interested in politics, political science, or policy think very seriously.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews