Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

You people have people whose job it is to criticize the government?
That could make a ton of jobs here

(Neat idea, but how does it usually end up working?)

[scriver]

It is an awesome name, at least. Very evil.

[nenjin]

Compromise IS the basis of government in a Madisonian system which is what the US has.  Checks and balances, filibusters, all that.  It's hard for one side to get stuff done unilaterally.  The appeal of a parliamentary system is precisely the fact that it removes the need for compromise once your in power.  If you control the government then you control the government.

You're right. Except the parties in America have recasted the notion to mean, either your party has dominant control over government and faces no meaningful opposition....or you have a divided house were gridlocking any legislation is the only thing legislators are willing to do.

The popular notion was that Congress would always be divided and thus compromise was necessary...the reality is that, once parties were handed dominant control of government by voters, it's the only kind of government they're interested in having.

And Americans have been all too willing to egg them on to seek that kind of government. Because a large segment of American voters don't want compromise either...even if it's the thing that's produced the lives they enjoy today.

[RedKing]

You people have people whose job it is to criticize the government?
That could make a ton of jobs here

(Neat idea, but how does it usually end up working?)

From my (distant but interested observer) observation, it works pretty well. Because each department has its own expert critic, so government waste and outlandish decisions tend to get noticed and railed about pretty quick. BUT, because it's a Shadow Minister's job to complain about everything that gets done, the public tends to take it with a much bigger grain of salt than they do in the US when the opposition party rants about "gub'mint done evil".

There's also the fact that when government inevitably switches hands, you've had a chance to see how various MPs performed and you have ready-made candidates for the real Cabinet posts.

I was lucky enough to host an Australian MP for an afternoon several years back, and he was a Shadow Minister (at that time) under the Howard government. When Labor won in 2007, he became a Minister in the Rudd government with the same portfolio he had been "shadowing" for years. We had some good conversations about the Australian political system vs. the American system, especially given the fact that Congress at the time was essentially a rubber-stamp. One point that he made was that an institutionalized system of dissent like the Shadow Cabinets tends to blunt the use of charges of "being unpatriotic" to quash dissent from the opposition party, like it was being used after 9/11 and especially in the run-up to the Iraq War.

[Aklyon]

One point that he made was that an institutionalized system of dissent like the Shadow Cabinets tends to blunt the use of charges of "being unpatriotic" to quash dissent from the opposition party, like it was being used after 9/11 and especially in the run-up to the Iraq War.

We could really use that, then.

[mainiac]

And Americans have been all too willing to egg them on to seek that kind of government. Because a large segment of American voters don't want compromise either...even if it's the thing that's produced the lives they enjoy today.

Um, sauce plz?  The last time I am aware of when American politics ran on compromise and had no parties was the "era of good feelings", nearly 200 years ago.  Are you saying that the world we live in was largely created during the Monroe administration?

By comparison it was bitter, bitter partisans who ended slavery, oversaw the industrialization of the US, got us out of the Great Depression, won WWII and brought us the rapid personal income growth and social changes of the 60s and 70s.  Every one of those changes was rammed through the political process leading to backlashes up to an including assassinations and a civil war.

[nenjin]

Social security, the GI Bill? Not all parts of American society were created by overriding the naysayers. And I don't exactly recall bitter partisans being the one's that got us into WWII and won it. I recall us as an entire country advocating non-involvement until we were attacked.

[Nadaka]

Compromise IS the basis of government in a Madisonian system which is what the US has.  Checks and balances, filibusters, all that.  It's hard for one side to get stuff done unilaterally.  The appeal of a parliamentary system is precisely the fact that it removes the need for compromise once your in power.  If you control the government then you control the government.

You're right. Except the parties in America have recasted the notion to mean, either your party has dominant control over government and faces no meaningful opposition....or you have a divided house were gridlocking any legislation is the only thing legislators are willing to do.

The popular notion was that Congress would always be divided and thus compromise was necessary...the reality is that, once parties were handed dominant control of government by voters, it's the only kind of government they're interested in having.

And Americans have been all too willing to egg them on to seek that kind of government. Because a large segment of American voters don't want compromise either...even if it's the thing that's produced the lives they enjoy today.

I have to object here. When the democratic party controlled senate, house and president Obama were in power all at once, they utterly failed to push anything through. Instead they sought consensus. There is only one party in the US that will ram through its policy when in power, obstruct everything when not in power and hold the very future of the country hostage in order to destroy their opponents.

The republican party in its current state is a vile and corrupt entity. One destructively feeding off of its host until there is nothing left but a shriveled shell. Nothing left but a mockery of the liberty, justice and strength that we once aspired to. The democratic party is no savior. It is corrupt and festering with corporate interests, ignorance and apathy. But it is a far cry from the absolute horror that is currently being inflicted by the traitorous fools who are seeking to tear down not only American liberty, but the world economy and all the social progress of western civilization for the last thousand years.

[mainiac]

Social security, the GI Bill? Not all parts of American society were created by overriding the naysayers. And I don't exactly recall bitter partisans being the one's that got us into WWII and won it. I recall us as an entire country advocating non-involvement until we were attacked.

Not even remotely.  Social security was denounced as treasonous socialism at the time.  I'll give you the GI bill, but is that really a world changing pivotal policy compared to the new deal, social security, medicare and medicaid abolition, etc?  The interstate highway system was bipartisan too, but it wasn't the sort of major reform that really shakes things up, just cements the status quo.  Major reforms that made the world we live in were all very, very partisan at the time.

And it was bitter partisans who got us into the war.  Read about some of FDR's foreign policies regarding the Japanese in Asia.  He was fighting an economic war against them long before pearl harbor because he (very rationally) feared a japanese empire in China and southeast Asia.  There is a reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place.  Or how about the atlantic war and lend lease to fight Nazi Germany?  These were flagrantly violating the terms of neutrality that were termed into law but he got them through because he had a very, very partisan congress on his side and he could intimidate the supreme court into submission.

[nenjin]

I have to object here. When the democratic party controlled senate, house and president Obama were in power all at once, they utterly failed to push anything through. Instead they sought consensus. There is only one party in the US that will ram through its policy when in power, obstruct everything when not in power and hold the very future of the country hostage in order to destroy their opponents.

The bailout and financial reform was done entirely behind closed doors. So, even his administration hasn't always sought compromise. If he'd compromised with the rest of the Senate, there would have been far larger penalties imposed.

I'll admit maniac, you've got a better grasp of it than I do. But I don't think the opposite of the democratic process is what defines our current quality of life. In some instances, it certainly did(abolition most noticeable IMO) And I certainly don't think it's the way forward. Lately it seems like ramming things through has been the cause of most of our ills, and the ones that do it try to don the mantle of Lincoln.

[RedKing]

Should be noted too that the National Highway System (the "Eisenhower" Highway System) was sold to Republicans as a national defense infrastructure -- there was a need to be able to move large quantities of men and materiel across the country in the case of a Soviet invasion.

The fact that Americans could now travel across the country (and buttloads of jobs were created) were just a side benefit.

[mainiac]

The bailout and financial reform was done entirely behind closed doors. So, even his administration hasn't always sought compromise. If he'd compromised with the rest of the Senate, there would have been far larger penalties imposed.

The bailout was "done behind closed doors" in the sense that it was a quickly passed bandage to an urgent problem.  I'd be the first to admit that there were tons of problems with it.  But there is basically nothing the the world worse for a democratic and capitalist society such as ours as massive bank failures.  Massive bank failures is what turned the peaceful, democratic germany of the 1920s into the Nazi Empire.  You need to react QUICKLY to head off massive bank failures and one of the world's largest banks had already gone under.  There simply isn't time for transperancy under those conditions.  It would be like demanding transparency about the response to a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.  Sure, you can have a settling of accounts later but at the time the duly elected leaders need to react quickly so damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead.

As for the financial reform bill, I'm pretty sure that's just a matter of it being too complicated for the media to understand it.  So they decided that because all the republicans but one voted against it, it must be evil and partisan.  But that's just political posturing.  The financial reform bill still left things much less regulated then they were under Reagan.

[Zrk2]

Yes, but eventually us disaffected moderate independents will reach a critical mass, forcing one party or the other (whichever is weaker) to realign.

I was thinking it's a prime opportunity for a demagogue to take power, when reasonable people are at their least reasonable because they're just so tired of the current system.

Spoiler: One already has (click to show/hide)

Sorry for being the immature one, but, that was sorta his platform...

[RedKing]

Yes, but eventually us disaffected moderate independents will reach a critical mass, forcing one party or the other (whichever is weaker) to realign.

I was thinking it's a prime opportunity for a demagogue to take power, when reasonable people are at their least reasonable because they're just so tired of the current system.

Spoiler: One already has (click to show/hide)

Sorry for being the immature one, but, that was sorta his platform...

Response.

[eerr]

Barack Obama, Superhero!

By Sanjaya no less.