One American on International Politics

by milligal 64 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  Bottom line, parliaments are better because they have more parties represented... If you're a Republic like the one we live in, there's too much pandering. Our forefathers we're scared of this very thing and we're trying to avoid it (Federalist #10).

  The UK somehow managed to be the second partner to the Iraq war even with a parliament.

  No, the problem is you goddamn Independents If Independents would do their job, instead of being cynical egofreaks who imagine themselves above politics, the politicians of the two parties would be a much higher class of people by now.

  dawg, you, of course, are an exception, but I think you can see my point.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Bottom line, parliaments are better because they have more parties represented... If you're a Republic like the one we live in, there's too much pandering. Our forefathers we're scared of this very thing and we're trying to avoid it

  I fail to see how the constitutional differences between the US and the UK affect the number and behavior of political parties. My understanding is that the UK has more than two parties, but that these additional parties are very weak. In the US, divergent political views coalescedinto two parties, and divergent viewpoints within those parties tend to not leave. Vote-splitting tends to weaken minority views. Political equilibrium also tends to create a two party state of affiars. Different factions tend to stay withing the existing (big) parties to retain a voice. Incidentally, in the US we have other parties, they just don't wield much power. Even the Republican party was once a third party, formed out of those politicians opposed to slavery, Lincoln of course being it's first President.

  Even with many parties, pandering can and does exist. Pandering is the result of democratic politics, and not in these cases the particular structure of the government. Also, with too many parties, it becomes more difficult to form a governing coalition. Such a deliberative body may find itself too fragmented to govern effectively. This is what happened int he Weimar Republic before Hitler and Spain before the civil war.

  Of course, as one who finds it difficult to resist the pull of Anarchist political and economic philosophy, an impotent government is a very appealing idea.

  BTS
• 

  dawg

  I hear you six...LOL! Digeadoo (hope I spelled that right) thanks for those great points.
• 

  hillary_step

  milligal,

  I know the Iraq war is a sore point to the international community and no one likes Bush-guess what? 84% (in the last poll I saw) of Americans feel the same. Our political system of voting does not leave the Presidency merely to the popular vote of the citizens, as with the case of Bush, politicians weighed in more heavily than the citizens did. It was our politicians who put him into office. So what would you have the American public do?

  Well, a start would be to recognize that a country that feels that somehow it has a monopoly on the concept of 'democracy by seeing fit to export it by foul means or fair, has deep political failings and should concentrate on putting its own house in order.

  Perhaps a start would be to commit to a true democratic process so that they are then better able to serve as an example of such to other nations who are are obviously panting to become Americans.

  HS
• 

  quietlyleaving

  Dawg, you make some great points
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Perhaps a start would be to commit to a true democratic process so that they are then better able to serve as an example of such to other nations who are are obviously panting to become Americans.

  Should I take this as advocacy for direct democracy? If not what are you talking about?

  BTS
• 

  doofdaddy

  In Australia we have the Washminster system. No House of Lords, rather a Senate but the rest is basically Westminster, Upper House, Lower House etc. As far as the Queen intervening in 1975, it's true to a point. The Judges on the High Court were all old conservatives who despised the elected Labour Gov. who brought in massive sweeping changes like land rights for Aboriginies. They found an ancient law that gave power to the Queen's representative the Governor General to dissolve parliament and appoint an interim Government in times of crisis like when the Senate cannot decide an issue. Guess who they chose? The conservative opposition. There was massive protests and the GG died a despised rambling drunk. That legal loophole has been patched.
• 

  digderidoo

  As far as the Queen intervening in 1975, it's true to a point. The Judges on the High Court were all old conservatives who despised the elected Labour Gov. who brought in massive sweeping changes like land rights for Aboriginies. They found an ancient law that gave power to the Queen's representative the Governor General to dissolve parliament and appoint an interim Government in times of crisis like when the Senate cannot decide an issue. Guess who they chose? The conservative opposition. There was massive protests and the GG died a despised rambling drunk. That legal loophole has been patched.

  Thanks doofdaddy, i didn't know the details just remember it being mentioned when i was at college many years back.

  Paul
• 

  doofdaddy

  They were wild times Didg. Got me protesting in the streets as a young feller.
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  HS - Perhaps a start would be to commit to a true democratic process so that they are then better able to serve as an example of such to other nations who are are obviously panting to become Americans.

  BTS - Should I take this as advocacy for direct democracy? If not what are you talking about?

  Here are a few definitions of the political concept of 'democracy'. Try to read any of them into the US political system and you will very quickly hit obstacles.

  1) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
  2) A political or social unit that has such a government.
  3) The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
  4) Majority rule.
  5) The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

  The instigator of this thread proves my point. He asks that the World not judge the American people harshly because President Bush was elected into power and that it is the flawed US political system that was to blame! Recognizing this fact and that the US holds itself up proudly as the bastion of a democracy confident enough to be exported around the world by trigger and bomb, should give the American people a clue as to why their international prestige is at an all time low.

  HS