我省是台风、暴雨等自然灾害频发省份，每年山...

Editor's note: Below is an authorized excerpt of a commentary by "Chairman Rabbit", a popular Chinese independent commentator.

On July 4, as Americans celebrated Independence Day, President Donald Trump signed into law what he calls the "One Big Beautiful Bill", a piece of legislation that encapsulates many of the systemic problems plaguing US governance. The bill's passage, by the narrowest of margins in both chambers of Congress, offers a revealing case study in how the US' legislative machinery has evolved from a deliberative body into a vehicle for partisan warfare and interest-group bargaining.

The OBBB, formally H.R.1, was passed by the House of Representatives by just four votes (218-214) and squeaked through the Senate only after Vice-President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

The very structure of the bill reveals the first of many institutional pathologies. Rather than representing a coherent policy vision, the OBBB is what legislative scholars might call a "Christmas tree bill" — a framework onto which various interest groups and political factions have hung their preferred ornaments. The result is a document that lacks philosophical coherence, combining supply-side tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy with populist gestures like tip tax exemptions which appeal to Trump's working-class base.

This ideological incoherence reflects a deeper problem: the absence of what political scientists call "programmatic governance". Unlike parliamentary systems where governing parties typically present comprehensive manifestos, US legislation increasingly emerges from a bottom-up process of interest aggregation rather than top-down policy design. The OBBB contains provisions ranging from increased defense spending to Medicaid cuts, from fossil fuel subsidies to a peculiar $50,000 tax break for Alaskan indigenous whaling captains — the latter included solely to secure the vote of Alaska's senator.

The OBBB's passage illustrates how US politics has evolved into what scholars term "negative partisanship" — a system where opposing the other side matters more than advancing one's own agenda. The bill garnered virtually no Democratic support, not because Democrats necessarily oppose all its provisions, but because supporting any Republican initiative has become politically toxic within their party. Conversely, Republicans who might have reservations about specific elements felt compelled to support the package to avoid Trump's wrath and maintain party unity.

This dynamic has transformed Congress from a deliberative body into what resembles a parliamentary system without the accountability mechanisms that make such systems functional. In Westminster-style democracies, governing parties face regular confidence votes and can be removed if they lose legislative support. US legislators, by contrast, face no such immediate consequences for poor governance, creating what economists call a "moral hazard" in political decision-making.

The bill's reliance on budget reconciliation procedures, which require only a simple majority in the Senate rather than the usual 60-vote threshold, further illustrates the system's dysfunction.

Perhaps most troubling is how the OBBB's complexity undermines democratic accountability. At nearly 1,000 pages, the piece of legislation is incomprehensible to not only ordinary citizens but also many of the legislators who voted on it in an incredibly short time. This represents what political theorists call the "democratic deficit", the gap between the complexity of modern governance and citizens' capacity to understand and evaluate their representatives' decisions.

The OBBB's structure creates what scholars call "diffusion of responsibility", a situation where no single actor can be held accountable for the legislation's consequences.

This accountability vacuum is particularly problematic given the bill's fiscal implications. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the OBBB will add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade — a figure that would have horrified traditional fiscal conservatives. Yet Republican legislators who once positioned themselves as deficit hawks now support the measure, illustrating how partisan loyalty has superseded ideological consistency.

The bill's "sunset clauses" — provisions that automatically expire in 2029 — further exemplify short-term thinking. These clauses exist not for policy reasons but to comply with Senate budget rules, creating a system where legislators need only consider immediate political benefits rather than long-term consequences.

Traditional democratic theory assumes that legislative debate serves an epistemic function; that the clash of ideas helps identify optimal policies. The OBBB's passage suggests this assumption no longer holds. The bill was introduced in May and passed within weeks, leaving insufficient time for meaningful analysis or debate. This rushed timeline was not accidental but strategic, designed to prevent the kind of scrutiny that might have derailed the bill.

Such tactics reflect what political scientists call the "agenda-setting" power of legislative leaders. By controlling the timing and framing of debates, leaders can manipulate outcomes regardless of the underlying merits of their proposals.

The OBBB's chaotic passage highlights broader concerns about institutional design in a rapidly changing world. The system of checks and balances was created for a simpler era, with fewer partisan divisions and a more limited role for the government. Today's complex governance challenges, ranging from climate change to digital transformation, require responsive institutions and long-term strategic thinking. Yet the US system increasingly rewards short-term calculations over national cohesion.

Without mechanisms to ensure genuine accountability, bipartisan cooperation and policy continuity, the risk is not just legislative inefficiency but erosion of public trust.

The OBBB is neither big in vision nor beautiful in execution. Instead, it represents the triumph of political expediency over policy coherence and long-term benefits, of partisan advantage over national interest, of short-term thinking over long-term planning. Its passage demonstrates how the US' vaunted system of checks and balances has devolved into a mechanism for avoiding accountability rather than ensuring good governance.

Regardless of future economic outcomes, the OBBB's passage has already inflicted damage on US democracy by further eroding public trust in institutions and deepening partisan divisions. The tragedy is not that US democracy is imperfect, for all political systems have flaws. The tragedy is that Americans may be losing the capacity for institutional self-reflection and reform that once made their system adaptive and resilient.

Until that capacity is restored, bills like the OBBB will likely become more common, each further weakening the foundations of democratic governance.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.