Debt, Default, and Democracy

Debt ceiling, default, and democracy. Many in our country would add another “D”– dysfunction.

The recent debt ceiling debate in Washington DC had many lamenting it as “crazy” and a mis-guided process. In fact, the concern about the debt ceiling and the political process surrounding it is not new. You can go all the way back to 2006 when then-Senator Barack Obama opposed raising the debt ceiling during a Senate floor speech:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Obama’s opposition to raising the debt ceiling in 2006 has morphed, 17-years later, into a desire to get rid of it:

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen: “I’d like to see it go.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell: “The debt ceiling is counterproductive.”

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jaime Dimon: “I would love to get rid of the debt ceiling.”

Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi: “It’s just creating all kinds of havoc.”

Former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Roger Ferguson: “It is an antiquated mechanism that brings the country to the precipice of default every few years.”


And this concern not only with respect to the debt ceiling itself but also the political process that delivers debt ceiling deals extends to the American public.

The apparent view within the American polity is that the nature of the political debates in Washington DC whether it be about the debt ceiling or something else – from the rancor, to the posturing, to the brinksmanship – is a reflection of a dysfunctional political system.

In fact, in a Gallup poll published just one-year ago, confidence in American institutions hit the all-time low of 27-percent (lowest since the measure began being tracked in 1979). Moreover, when looking at the three branches of government, each had sharp declines in the same polling:

US Presidency – Dropped 15-percentage points to 23-percent confidence
US Supreme Court – Dropped 11-percentage point to 25-percent confidence
US Congress – Dropped 5-percentage points to 7-percent confidence.


Equally notable, Americans have lost confidence in themselves.

Gallup found in a 2021 poll that trust among Americans to make good decisions within the US political process declined to just 55-percent. While still a majority of Americans, it is significantly down from the more than 80-percent confidence the other times Gallup conducted such a poll and the 78-percent confidence the American public had in itself following 9/11.

If Americans have not only lost confidence in US political institutions but also themselves to make good calls within the political system, this may well explain the anxiety the public has when it comes to issues like the debt ceiling.

Our adversaries – from Russia to China – could not write the story of decline of the United States any better – they revel in our crisis of institutions and lack of confidence in ourselves because it puts into question the viability and durability of the US political system itself.

Much of what is at issue is that the American public does not value the system itself. It views debate, the deliberateness (i.e. slowness) of the process, and the role of politicians to aggregate political perspective as a flaw of the system rather than a feature. Indeed, we tend to characterize that which is the usual machinations of democracy as dysfunction.

But what if the debate could be seen as actually a feature of the system – a reflection of a healthy system?

To begin to test this, let’s do a bit of a thought experiment.

What if our elected leaders were not debating one-another – and, yes, even yelling? Could the will of the people be properly reflected in the US political system? It is often pointed out that politicians are doing all this yelling and debate for votes. A response to such an observation could be: that’s exactly the point. It is a core, positive feature of our system to have politicians vying for the will of the American people. Yet, many in our country view the posturing of politicians as actually an attempt to represent narrow special interests and/or the machine of each political party.

The key point no matter whether one views debate, posturing, and fighting in our system as a flaw or a feature is that, for political debate to work, it requires participation. The people must directly participate in our political process to ensure the debate is a healthy debate as defined by a reflection of the will of the American people. The most tangible element of our participatory democracy that we all (over 18 years) have is, of course, the vote.

The most powerful aspect of our system is the fact that our leaders must regularly stand for election. It was one of the core revolutionary rallying-cries that our Founders ultimately fought for in opposition to the absolute power of the British monarchy. And this revolutionary rallying-cry – that the people could govern themselves – was ultimately enshrined in the US Constitution (and modified, over time, to ensure participation by all).

The vote – not to mention also the first amendment protections of free speech, free association, and free assembly – indeed, participation in our democratic process – is, in fact, the difference between our political debate being a flaw or a healthy feature of our system.

Perhaps the flaw in our system is not the way democracy unfolds – but instead whether we actually value the system itself.

We, as a country, must believe in our elections. We must also directly participate in the democratic process – as a guard against dysfunction and a guide towards a healthy process.

Therefore, what may be needed in our system is an appreciation of the role of citizen within the system itself.

What citizenship must be reflective of is a citizen-culture. We must re-build the culture in our country towards a concept of a healthy citizen-culture.

Perhaps some of the elements of a healthy citizen-culture could include understanding the system itself and the purposes behind its design. It may also include ways to get involved and engage in the political process. And it most certainly should include more pathways for public and national service – serving our country, serving our states, and serving our fellow citizens.

This combination of understanding the design of our system, directly engaging in the political process, and serving fellow citizens could go a long way towards building a citizen-culture that would renew our modern democratic Republic.

If we had a culture within American society that actually valued the features of our system – rather than seeing them as flaws to be controlled for or done away with – we may well be able to solve many of our problems in society through our system.

Including future debt ceilings….



Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security,
foreign policy, politics, and society. Alex also serves as the Executive Director of the Common
Mission Project, a 501c3, that delivers an innovation and entrepreneurship program, Hacking
for Defense®, which brings together the government, universities, and the private sector to solve strategic challenges. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.