American Politics

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Fragly, I am much more interested in what happens to America's solidarity should the Republicans take over both houses in this week's tally.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Fragly, I am much more interested in what happens to America's solidarity should the Republicans take over both houses in this week's tally.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'd imagine it wouldn't be much different from all the other times the White House has been controlled by a different party than the Capitol (which is more often than you might think).

That said, I don't think the Republicans will take the senate this year. Flipping a nine seat majority in one election is a long shot.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'd imagine it wouldn't be much different from all the other times the White House has been controlled by a different party than the Capitol (which is more often than you might think).

That said, I don't think the Republicans will take the senate this year. Flipping a nine seat majority in one election is a long shot.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'd imagine it wouldn't be much different from all the other times the White House has been controlled by a different party than the Capitol (which is more often than you might think).

That said, I don't think the Republicans will take the senate this year. Flipping a nine seat majority in one election is a long shot.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

They would only have to win five of them, right?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

They would only have to win five of them, right?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

They would only have to win five of them, right?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Fragly, I am much more interested in what happens to America's solidarity should the Republicans take over both houses in this week's tally.quote>

Americans like divided government.  This is especially true with regards to the economy; Wall Street hates it when the federal government passes major spending bills, and divided governments don't generally pass major spending bills.

[SC4BOY 21]

What "solidarity"? The Dem's like to rail at the "say no" Republicans, but they had a 60 seat (means it can't be stopped by any means) majority for most of the last 2 years. So whatever they didn't do, they can lay strictly at the feet of their own party. In fact they even had a few Republicans at their disposal on most issues, so even more so it's at the Dem's own feet.. hardly the "say no" Republicans. Further the fact that they are losing their majorities, to the degree they do, is also layed squarely at their own party's failures.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Looking more like Rick "The Hair" Perry is going to be elected govenator again in Texas

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Americans like divided government.  quote>

Sharing power is good.   It's bad when too much of it is concentrated in one place / person / party / whatever.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If Americans like divided governments they should scrap the present two party system and adopt the Canadian Parliamentary System.  I don't think we have had a majority government since Brian Mulrooney of the old Progressive Conserative party (now defunct) got a landslide that let him get cozy with Ronnie Regan.

Minority government is the usual thing here.  We have four main parties and some rumps, splinters, independents and the Greens.  The two main contenders haven't been able to elect a majority in quite a while, but the guy with the most seats and the confidence of the House gets to be Prime Minister.  He serves at the pleasure of the Governor General or until the House passes a non-confidence vote or for five years, whichever comes first.  The Governor General is like a honey bee.  If he stings, it is fatal, and he has to resign.

The most interesting feature is the Parti Québecois, who are dedicated to taking their province out of confederation.  They usually have enough seats for this tail to wag the dog.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

If Americans like divided governments they should scrap the present two party system and adopt the Canadian Parliamentary System. quote>

It's not about division of the Legislative branch, but between the Executive and Legislative branches.  Both at the state and federal level, Americans are generally comfortable with one party controlling the Legislative branch.  (In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Americans actually prefer the Legislative branch to be unified.)  The problem is when one party controls both the Legistive and Executive branches of the government, as this disrupts the general division of power laid out by the Constitution.  When one party controls these two branches, they tend to collude with each other instead of acting in the "checks and balances" manner that the Founding Fathers intended.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, I know where you are coming from, but your President doesn't sit in the House of Representatives either, as our Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons.  You can't get at him every day, as he is totally insulated by the Executive Branch.  Our check/balance device is the Crown.  If the PM really misbehaves, it doesn't take a vote of anyone to unseat him, but it has to be really serious.  Happened in Austrailia a few years back, and it caused a real flap when the Governor General down there fired the PM.  (This, of course, causes a general election.)

Your fixed periodicity is one of the things that those of us who care see as a problem.  If you can, sometime, watch the question period which occurs daily when the House sits.  Usually a circus, but when the PM is present, the ringmaster (Speaker of the House) really has his problems.  You should also look at the rules (Bourdon's, not Robert's) and see all the nice loopholes and exceptions you can navigate through.  Our system does the same job as yours, but with fewer complications and many fewer ego-trips.  Being a member of the house is pretty much a burden.  I don't know why people do it.

The power of the GG over the PM is carefully limited, but, if for example, Clinton had been PM, there is a good chance the GG would have had a serious talk with him after his sexual improprieties.  The position of the Crown is "advise and consent".  Look out if you don't get consent.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Parliaments are fine but the American system is set up for a county of our size and values. The people elect everyone except judges and staff members. Impeachment occurs but some people resign before they can be impeached. It is not an impeachable offense to have an affair, but it is a minor impeachable offense to lie under oath. President Clinton might not have been up to your moral standards but he was the most competent and did a better job at running the country than many others.

The American Constitution has changed very little in the past 200 years (the amendments do not significantly alter the constitution, at least the main part) but has been updated and amended. Our country is very young but very stable. The British system was set up for imperialism and industrialism and it worked well for a long time until the United States wanted self-rule. Now, most if not all colonies of the British Crown have become independent countries or commonwealths. That means that the original system was flawed or became outdated.

Appointing Officials:

USA: electoral college (at founding), voting through the electoral college (now)

England/UK: appointed by other powerful people [royalty or preexisting lords] (in the 18th century), mandatory voting (now)

Ruling areas:

USA: federal government with power split between the national and state/territorial governments (at founding), power shifted towards national government a little bit but still pretty much the same (now)

English Empire/UK (and commonwealth): King and Parliament control all areas of the Empire with "virtual representation" for areas outside of the island of Great Britain (18th century), each country's national government has control over their entire land mass with a sharing of resources between independent countries (now)

Civil Rights:

USA: Bill of rights added the month of ratification of constitution (founding), further amendments (now)

England/UK: nothing (18th century), copycat rights (now)

The United States set the standard when it ratified the constitution and now all countries that want to seem as modern as us, copy us.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Well, I know where you are coming from, but your President doesn't sit in the House of Representatives either, as our Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons.  You can't get at him every day, as he is totally insulated by the Executive Branch.quote>

Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way.  When leaders from both branches are interested in advancing the same agenda, they will find ways to make the two branches work together, instead of working as separate branches.  If this means Obama needs to keep in continual contact with Harry Reid to ensure that the Senate will vote the way Obama wants, you had better believe that Obama will summon Reid to the White House as often as he feels necessary.  Case in point: Back in December, when it was looking like the health care reform bill might die in the Senate, Obama summoned Reid to the Oval Office at least 3 times in less than a month.

Your fixed periodicity is one of the things that those of us who care see as a problem.quote>

Conversely, there are Americans who feel that your ability to call an election before a term has expired is a problem.  It really depends on which system you prefer as both have significant advantages and disadvantages to them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yes, there is good and bad in both systems.  It is all a matter of what you grew up into, I suspect.  Nurture strikes again.

[Duke87 1,070]

There's also a bit of a culture clash here in terms of way of thinking that seems to show up fairly often.

Most of the Western world: "conforming to international standards is important so people aren't confronted with confusing, unfamiliar things when they travel"

America: "we do things our way, and if it's inconvenient for foreigners that's not our problem"

This is also, for instance, why we do not use the metric system.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Duke87:  That's why the culture(?) in the United States is often called brash.  Travelling Americans usually don't make any attempt to "fit" into wherever they are.  I guess you have never heard the adage "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Your government has always tried to export American "democracy" abroad.  Your people think that the Constitution and State Papers are God's gift to statesmanship.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  People want to be governed the way they always have been, and are not much interested in new systems or systems imposed from without.  A good example is the failure of the Soviet Union.  Currently they have a sort of chaotic despotism, but this will eventually result in something more viable, invented in Russia.

The Commonwealth of Nations has had a Parialmentary form of government since the Stuarts, and perhaps a little before.  We are not about to change our socks for a set of funny rules full of divisions and antagonisms.

You, on the other hand, after abandoning the mother of Parliaments in a revolution are lucky to have maintained your union.  Look at the French.  They are now on their, what is it now, fifth republic since the French Revoution in the same time frame?  Americans should get over the revolution and the subsequent civil war, and get on with being world citizens.  Civis Romanus Sum doesn't work anymore.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Americans should get over the revolution and the subsequent civil war, and get on with being world citizens.quote>

I can see three big things preventing that.  One reason is simply that there are Americans who aren't interested in being a "world citizen."  No further explanation needed there.

Another obstacle is the international community itself, or more specifically, the actions of some of those nations.  Over the years, international response to some of America's international involvement has given many Americans a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" attitude towards international involvement.  If we get involved and things don't go as other nations want, we get blamed for the problems, and if we don't get involved, we get blamed for not sending money/aid/whatever.  To paraphrase Obama in a message partly directed to the international community, "You don't get to pick and choose when you want us involved in international affairs.  You either have to accept that we are a part of the international community or we aren't."  You don't get the option of kicking us off a UN humanitarian panel and then telling us that we have to pay the membership dues anyway.

A third problem is significant cultural differences.  It is fairly common belief in the United States that nothing, including international law, trumps the Constitution as far as the United States is concerned.  While this kind of idea is viewed as extreme in Europe, it is perfectly normal in the United States.  That document is our guarantee of freedom, and the idea of letting anything supplant the Constitution is discomforting to many Americans.

I could go on, but I think the above gets the idea across.

EDIT:

Allow me to make some clarifications/revisions to what I said earlier, as I realize my earlier comments might not accurately communicate the intended message.  A major obstacle to the whole "Americans as world citizens" idea is the American psyche and the gap between it and much of the rest of the world.  This isn't because "Americans are stupid" or the rest of the world is run by "godless Commies."  To much of the world, the government is an integral part of life, while to many Americans, the government should have as little involvement in people's lives as possible as government expansion comes at the expense of personal freedom.  This idea isn't simply a topic that only gets discussed at academic seminars; it's a very real part of life for many Americans.  Personal example: A year ago, I had the opportunity to spend my Spring Break with friends along the East Coast and we spent time in DC and some of the areas around it.  While it is a nice part of the US, I could never live there because I felt like I was under the shadow of the federal government and it was very unnerving.

Another problem is the idea of international regulations and ruling bodies.  Few Americans have any problems with the US agreeing to sign international treaties, but suggesting that the US is subject to the rulings of an international court or some other regulatory body makes many Americans uneasy at the very least.  Then there are also the issues surrounding the status of the Constitution.  We have established our Constitution as the highest law of the land, and to many Americans, if we're following international law over the Constitution, we're effectively saying that our Constitution is no longer the highest law of the land.  This is why John Bolton, the United States ambassador to the UN, stood up before the international community and said, "International law does not trump the United States Constitution."  You can find European courts that will rule that Party X has to do something because international law says so.  You'll never find a US court issue such a ruling as US courts do not recognize international law as legally binding inside the United States.

Now you can argue that this is simply an example of American arrogance, and maybe it is, but the reality is that it isn't going to change because the Constitution is very dear to many Americans (myself included).  This respect for the constitution isn't merely the result of ideology, but also from a healthy dose of pragmatism.  The UN United Declaration of Human Rights may provide many or all of the same freedoms that the Constitution does, but it's a worthless document because the UN has no power to enforce it.  The Constitution is nothing less than the most important document we have as a nation.

[hamsterTK 93]

I think to have a functional capitalist economy of the sort that creates broad-based wealth, there needs to be rules and a framework for it to happen. Formal systems for property ownership, balanced currencies, standards for doing business, a reasonable tax code, etc. Without these things it becomes difficult to run a business. On some things you could extend this rule of law concept to things that go towards the betterment of society, that's where my political leanings come in. I also think it recognizes Machiavellian reality.

The thing is, I might be a terrible person for thinking this way, but some of the goofy culture war garbage really does matter. Its ironic, if you stripped away the things like religion, the abortion controversy, racial views, tolerance and diversity, etc, then what you would find is many Republicans and Democrats actually do sit close to each other on various issues. Most Republicans I know of here in Texas, when their ideologue tendencies are removed, tend to have simple, easy to understand stances. Most tend to support government for things like public education, infrastructure, defense, etc. Ironically, many are involved in all kinds of porky "job creation" initiatives.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The interesting thing about Americans in general is they tend to be pretty insular.  This may be a long term effect of the Monroe Doctrine or the long isolation being one of two "civilized" countries with big oceans isolating the continent.

Anyway, while you might be able to get away with this a little longer, one day a wake up call is going to come that will unite Americans with others very closely to weather some crisis that affects the enitre globe.  Maybe it will be a climate crisis, or maybe we will find ourselves facing a possible ELE from something like an NEO with very short warning.  There is also the possibility of a major catastophe like a major eruption of the Yellowstone pocket.  If that happens, you will find you are not alone.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[blade2k5 1,523]

I voted and got a few dozen others to do so as well who were going to skip the mid-terms.

[Duke87 1,070]

Google Maps has a feature up where you can type in your address and it shows you where your polling place is. Useful, I suppose.

We get cards in the mail a few weeks ahead of time telling us where to go, but hey, if you missed it or misplaced it...

I was expecting that, it being a big year, I might have to wait on line. But nope, I walked right up, told them my name and address, showed them my ID, and got handed a ballot, waiting for only one person in front of me.

Then again, it was 6:30 in the morning when I showed up...

(and hey, I got to work early!)

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The USA was part of the 2 "Civilized Countries" (England was other one), and the 2 Superpowers (USSR was the other one). Now, China is moving towards being a new Superpower but we are still the only full fledged one. The USA and USSR both looked after their own areas but once the USSR collapsed, the USA (by necessity and default) became the world's police.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

The USA was part of the 2 "Civilized Countries" (England was other one), and the 2 Superpowers (USSR was the other one). Now, China is moving towards being a new Superpower but we are still the only full fledged one. The USA and USSR both looked after their own areas but once the USSR collapsed, the USA (by necessity and default) became the world's police.quote>

And a poor job of it too.  More like a bull in a china shop than a friendly beat cop.  Too quick with the force, and not enough admonition. 

The two "civilized countries" I had in mind were the United States and Canada, since I was talking continentally.  I don't know how others feel, but I consider the Commonwealth of Nations, the relict of the British Empire, to really be a single civilized organization notwithstanding cultural diversity.  We may squabble, but attack one and see what happens.  I think this keeps China out of India, for example.  India is one of our few republics, but you'll notice the Commonwealth Games were just held there.

As for international bad boys, we have many of the nations of Africa and the Middle East as well as some of the "communist" outfits in the far east.  The "communist" outfits haven't got the message yet that Marxism is a bust.

Anyway, returning to our friends to the south, I guess this mid-term election is a wake-up call of some kind for the Democrats.  They were acting a little over-confident, and have only been in for half a term.  It shows that the American people may not be charmed with the way things have been going.  However, there is no second-guessing the way an electroate will act.

[Meg 368]

 A few of the lesser seen headlines from the 2010 election:

Rhode Island will remain "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations".

Dead Senator Re-elected in Calfornia

Governor Moonbeam Shines Again

Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law

Denver Rejects Extra-Terrestrial Affairs Commission

May you live in interesting times.

[Larks2242 251]

When are we gonna know the final results?

Washington and Alaska still don't have a new Senater.

No one has officially won governor in Oregon, Minnesota, Vermot and both canidates think they won in Illinois.

And there are still 11 house seats not officially called.