Daryl Levinson

It matters what the balance of power is between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, between the United States and China now, because that's going to affect the prospects for peace in the world and mutual deterrence and things that are obviously important. Why does it matter whether Congress is more powerful than the president or the other way around?

It matters what the balance of power is between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, between the United States and China now, because that's going to affect the prospects for peace in the world and mutual deterrence and things that are obviously important. Why does it matter whether Congress is more powerful than the president or the other way around?

A counter proposal would be what matters is how powerful different groups and interests are in society, which determines who's getting their way politically, whether they're getting their way politically or through Congress or through the president or through some combination of both. So we want to protect countries from being invaded and destroyed.

A counter proposal would be what matters is how powerful different groups and interests are in society, which determines who's getting their way politically, whether they're getting their way politically or through Congress or through the president or through some combination of both. So we want to protect countries from being invaded and destroyed.

We want to protect groups from being dominated and exploited. But protecting groups has nothing to do with empowering Congress or the president, because we don't know whether it's going to be Congress or the president that represents these groups, if either.

We want to protect groups from being dominated and exploited. But protecting groups has nothing to do with empowering Congress or the president, because we don't know whether it's going to be Congress or the president that represents these groups, if either.

That's what it suggests to me. So no one is surprised when people's views on whether the president should have more power or the courts or Congress just simply align with whichever party controls the institution at any given time.

That's what it suggests to me. So no one is surprised when people's views on whether the president should have more power or the courts or Congress just simply align with whichever party controls the institution at any given time.

So there's no mystery about why all liberals have it in for the Supreme Court at the moment, whereas liberals used to love the Supreme Court when it was the Warren Court. Like no one's missing what's going on there.

So there's no mystery about why all liberals have it in for the Supreme Court at the moment, whereas liberals used to love the Supreme Court when it was the Warren Court. Like no one's missing what's going on there.

The interesting and kind of puzzling thing is that people seem to have these more enduring views about whether presidential power is good or presidential power is bad or whether they're pro-Congress or anti-Congress or pro-court or not pro-court.

The interesting and kind of puzzling thing is that people seem to have these more enduring views about whether presidential power is good or presidential power is bad or whether they're pro-Congress or anti-Congress or pro-court or not pro-court.

And they seem to have those views not just for sort of proceduralist reasons or good government kinds of reasons, but because they really believe that they'll get more of what they want politically by empowering some institutions and not others. And I'm not sure where those ideas are coming from. you know, what is it? Is there some consistent political slant that the administrative state has?

And they seem to have those views not just for sort of proceduralist reasons or good government kinds of reasons, but because they really believe that they'll get more of what they want politically by empowering some institutions and not others. And I'm not sure where those ideas are coming from. you know, what is it? Is there some consistent political slant that the administrative state has?

So if you empower agencies, you'll consistently get somewhat more liberal results. Well, you know, possibly like if it's true in some long-term way that people who select for jobs in bureaucracy or in some agencies like the EPA are kind of committed liberals or environmentalists, then you might have some reason to think it's at least a somewhat long-term

So if you empower agencies, you'll consistently get somewhat more liberal results. Well, you know, possibly like if it's true in some long-term way that people who select for jobs in bureaucracy or in some agencies like the EPA are kind of committed liberals or environmentalists, then you might have some reason to think it's at least a somewhat long-term

Phenomenon that if you give the EPA more autonomy or power, you'll get more liberal or pro-environmental results. Maybe there are other structural things like that. Maybe there's a reason why presidents want to go to war more often than Congress does. But it's hard to think of really long term differences among the branches.

Phenomenon that if you give the EPA more autonomy or power, you'll get more liberal or pro-environmental results. Maybe there are other structural things like that. Maybe there's a reason why presidents want to go to war more often than Congress does. But it's hard to think of really long term differences among the branches.

You've probably seen a paper by David Posen and Jonathan Gould that's called Structural Biases, which tries to identify some long term differences. Democrat versus Republican kinds of differences between the institutions of government that might lead those on both sides of the partisan divide to kind of have their preferences one way or the other. And

You've probably seen a paper by David Posen and Jonathan Gould that's called Structural Biases, which tries to identify some long term differences. Democrat versus Republican kinds of differences between the institutions of government that might lead those on both sides of the partisan divide to kind of have their preferences one way or the other. And