The "marble-layered cake" analogy regarding America's government is a reflection of how intertwined our three levels of government are. Those three levels of government are national, regional (or state) and local. Of course there is also the executive branch, the legislative and judicial branches, which serve to convolute things even more, since all three of these functions are also represented in each level of government.
Much of what the "two-party" system thinking is based on is actually quite erroneous. By looking at history and seeing the inflation and deflation of the federal government in response to individual (or communal) satisfaction or dissatisfaction, one sees that in the big picture, by inflating the federal government, the state and local government are deflated. When the federal is deflated, the state and local governments are inflated.
So which would you prefer? The federal government is concerned with supporting and funding those services which support and provide things that American democracy calls "certain inalienable rights." The state has the job of dividing up those funds amongst various groups and lobbies that can be sub categorized in order to fit under those "banners" of justice and liberty, but often actually serve to make pot bellied pigs fatter while continuing to starve dying children.
The federal government has the most resources, but is less concerned with micromanaging, so to speak. It allocates resources to serve its general priorities. Those priorities shift according to current events. When things are smooth and seem easy, things like beautification and science seem like good areas to invest in. When things are tumultuous, values shift to safeguards and securities.
When the federal budget is loose, programs for education and research abound. When the federal budget is tight, those programs suffer or are eliminated in favor of things like infrastructure development and protection of resources.
The states are free to allocate the funds fairly freely. However, in so doing, they create far more "red tape" and micromanage a lot more than the federal government.
For instance, the federal government puts 50% of its revenue into Medicaid, the federal medical insurance program for the disabled or single head of household families. The states decide how to manage those funds, by deciding on parameters for need, amount of reimbursement for specific goods and services, etc. The federal government gives the states their "allowance" and the states figure out how to use it.
I see it all in the pyramid of Maslow's hierarchy of need. If things are tight, we focus on what we need to survive. When resources abound, we focus on advancement.
In just the first week and a half in my first Public Administration class, i am overwhelmed with how complex our systems of government are. At the same time I feel they are far simpler than i had ever imagined.
The marble-cake analogy makes sense. Basically, it is what makes America unique. I find it interesting that other countries that are considered "parliaments" instead of democracies, that have much simpler government structures, are generally considered to have better all around "social" services and less turbulence in the communities.
The basis for the marble cake structure, or the analogous "flour" is the inherent "checks and balances" that our founding fathers so dearly clung to and wove into the basic fabric of our Constitution.
I find it interesting that our country has had such intense battles. All of our wars have been bloody. We are by no means a peace loving nation. We started out in total rebellion, and felt so justified that we took it upon ourselves to overwhelm other populations and cultures, absorbing them into ours.
It is America's "manifest destiny" that has led to the alluded "melting pot" culture that we find ourselves in. The fact that we have the flag of "liberty and justice for all" as our emblem instills a sense of righteousness and purpose in our actions against other nations.
Without the checks and balances and separation of powers, we could have and might have become something akin to Germany in WWII. We did not because of our Constitution and the integrity of the men who wrote it.
These were men that had paid the cost of "one way thinking" government. These were men that understood the fallibility of humanity. They understood the psychology of power. They understood the importance of social order, and the need for unity. They saw the power in numbers, in the individual. They understood the need to set firm boundaries that could not be crossed, but also a need for flexibility to allow for adjustments as events altered the needs of the nation. These were their core values.
Our government is blueprinted the way it is in order to provide a distribution of power. It also holds the ideals of individuality within unity. Our government's history has not always reflected these ideals, but because these were the goals set forth in the beginning, it has had to respond to demands by the people to keep working toward those goals.
The cobweb we see is the fiber that keeps us together. Without it we would likely have suffered a similar fate as Germany in WWII, or we would be in a similar situation to what is going on in Gaza.
America was built against the grain. It is a rebel. We would not likely have repeated the kind of "socialistic" peace and neutrality we see in Europe in countries like Norway and Sweden. America was founded on a separation from her parent monarchy, and made it her mission to protect the rights of the individual.
How it is that America is fairly primitive in learning about *tolerance* and bears the curse of racism and slavery is a provocative question. If it was not for Hitler, America could have very well come to a similar crossroads, I think.
Either way, our government and our constitution forces us to continually reevaluate and establish new goals. This is what makes America progressive. The Constitution by no means has ever actually been exacted. Instead it is framework that we strive to live up to.
