4 ms·

While I agree with you, I can also see where the accusations come from. The system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when decisive

by mtts 17y ago

While I agree with you, I can also see where the accusations come from. The system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when decisive action needs to be taken. It's up to debate, of course, but if you think health care in the US is a mess that needs to be cleared up decisively, all those checks and balances are making it extraordinarily difficult to achieve that. It would be a lot easier to achieve in less balanced democratic systems such as the ones that exist in mainland Europe, where once a government is elected it can pretty much do what it wants to do without having to worry about partisan issues at least until the next elections come around. Such a system can and does, of course, lead to legislation being enacted that most people don't actually want, but at least it's, usually, clear and workable, unlike the outcomes of the American political process which often (to me, as an outsider, at least) seem hopelessly convoluted and kludgy, which is a result of their having passed through a lengthy process of deliberation among wildly incompatible political interests.

lionhearted 17y ago
> such as the ones that exist in mainland Europe, where once a government is elected it can pretty much do what it wants to do without having to worry about partisan issues at least until the next elections come around. The biggest difference is, the European Union has 500 million people spread under 29 different countries' national governments. The United States has 300 million people under 1 country's national government. The decisive action you're talking about would be more like the entire EU decisively getting something across than a particular nation. Things do happen faster on the state level.
andrewcooke 17y ago
europe is much more complex than you seem to think. the government in the netherlands has just fallen apart because consensus could not be reached over military intervention in afghanistan. and italy is very like the usa in some ways, with the lack of a central majority leading to an increasingly extreme right that relies on jingoistic, misinformed propaganda...
- mtts 17y ago
  I'm Dutch ;-) The government in the Netherlands fell because it was a terribly mismatched coalition to begin with and the issue of military intervention in Afghanistan was the last in a series of internal conflicts that made it unworkable. (IMHO). Generally speaking, the Dutch form of government, where people vote once every four years for parties they think should be part of a coalition government which then, basically, gets to do whatever it wants until it's voted out, is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my original comment. Once a government is in place, there's hardly any checks and balances to speak of, but once in a while you get the chance to vote out parties that have really made a mess of things. () yes, I know that according to the constitution parliament has the last say in government. in practice, however, several parties commit to a coalition government and will defend it no matter what, even if said government does something they're absolutely against.
barrkel 17y ago
The US arguably has a more unbalanced system than parliamentary democracies. The US system places the head of state and the head of the executive in the same person, the president. This can lead to a kind of reverence around the president, where directly and harshly criticising them leads to accusations of unpatriotic behaviour. European governments, meanwhile, are not easily placed into a single bucket. For example, a government can fall over a vote of no confidence, which is much less involved than impeachment. Governments made up of coalitions - which are more likely with e.g. single transferable vote election systems - are often forced to be centrist to some degree, because they would fail a vote of no confidence should they anger one of the coalition parties too much.
cookiecaper 17y ago
>The system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when decisive action needs to be taken. That's the point of it, though. The system was intentionally designed to make it difficult to get a law passed, on the theory that any bill that can survive the process to become a law and then withstand reviews from the judiciary regarding its constitutionality must be pretty good and important, or it wouldn't get passed. The Constitution and the form of government it establishes is there to abrogate the powers of the ruling class. The whole point is to make it difficult for the government to do things. There are some exceptions; for instance, the President is Commander-in-Chief and generally is granted at least some leeway in the unauthorized usage of force if there is an imminent danger to American citizens, though technically only the Congress can authorize a full-on war. Some other emergency powers are reckoned to the President or his municipal equivalents in the case of martial law, etc. Our government makes some allotment for extraordinary powers when the exclusion of them would cause significant destruction, but in general the idea is for things to go slow. This isn't really compatible with the way our government is used today, which is sad condemnation of our generations, imo.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Let me say here, though, that the above regards the federal government. The United States of America is a group of independent states on the American continent, just as the European Union is a group of independent states on the European continent. As such, these things are imposed upon the federal government in part because the majority of laws are intended to be enacted by local governments, like states and cities. Each state in the United States has its own constitution and is free to make its own legislative procedures insofar as such procedures do not contradict the Bill of Rights contained in the federal Constitution. For instance, if Kansas wanted to do away with free speech, they would have to withdraw from the union to do so (theoretically), as such a prohibition is contrary to the constitution of the union of independent American states. Or by contrast, if the federal government wanted to impose a law which said all people must wear a seat belt while riding in a car, this would be violate of the federal Constitution and the independent states are free to reject such a law (theoretically). The federal Constitution is clear that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are within the purview of the state. Now, that's the idea. In reality, states make laws and operate under procedures that circumvent fundamental rights frequently, and the federal government enforces its will by withholding funding or imposing other forms of ostracization upon any state that doesn't comply (see age 21 drinking age). Things are even worse now, and constitutions are rarely upheld -- the congresses and legislatures at both federal and state levels just pass whatever they like with complete disregard for its legality, and the public lets them do it -- as long as the public can get their American Idol and Zoloft there are no problems there. The whole thing is just really sad.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
We seemed to act quite decisively in real emergencies: financial collapse, wars, terrorist attacks. In most cases, we act badly, but we do act decisively. Health care isn't something you want to rush. Getting it right is more important than getting it now. The main reason Obama was trying to push it through quickly was so to prevent the opposition from reading it and publicizing the bad parts. I.e., to prevent a public debate.
- jbooth 17y ago
  It was initially proposed in early summer with a goal of passing something by the fall, that's not exactly a rush. If the opposition were interested in good policy, they'd be well-served to point out bad things that are actually in the bill, (of which there are plenty), rather than wild-eyed slogans about death panels and sidetracking about abortion.

by mtts 17y ago

lionhearted 17y ago

> such as the ones that exist in mainland Europe, where once a government is elected it can pretty much do what it wants to do without having to worry about partisan issues at least until the next elections come around. The biggest difference is, the European Union has 500 million people spread under 29 different countries' national governments. The United States has 300 million people under 1 country's national government. The decisive action you're talking about would be more like the entire EU decisively getting something across than a particular nation. Things do happen faster on the state level.

andrewcooke 17y ago

europe is much more complex than you seem to think. the government in the netherlands has just fallen apart because consensus could not be reached over military intervention in afghanistan. and italy is very like the usa in some ways, with the lack of a central majority leading to an increasingly extreme right that relies on jingoistic, misinformed propaganda...

mtts 17y ago
I'm Dutch ;-) The government in the Netherlands fell because it was a terribly mismatched coalition to begin with and the issue of military intervention in Afghanistan was the last in a series of internal conflicts that made it unworkable. (IMHO). Generally speaking, the Dutch form of government, where people vote once every four years for parties they think should be part of a coalition government which then, basically, gets to do whatever it wants until it's voted out, is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my original comment. Once a government is in place, there's hardly any checks and balances to speak of, but once in a while you get the chance to vote out parties that have really made a mess of things. () yes, I know that according to the constitution parliament has the last say in government. in practice, however, several parties commit to a coalition government and will defend it no matter what, even if said government does something they're absolutely against.

barrkel 17y ago

The US arguably has a more unbalanced system than parliamentary democracies. The US system places the head of state and the head of the executive in the same person, the president. This can lead to a kind of reverence around the president, where directly and harshly criticising them leads to accusations of unpatriotic behaviour. European governments, meanwhile, are not easily placed into a single bucket. For example, a government can fall over a vote of no confidence, which is much less involved than impeachment. Governments made up of coalitions - which are more likely with e.g. single transferable vote election systems - are often forced to be centrist to some degree, because they would fail a vote of no confidence should they anger one of the coalition parties too much.

cookiecaper 17y ago

>The system works fine for day to day politics, but it breaks down horribly when decisive action needs to be taken. That's the point of it, though. The system was intentionally designed to make it difficult to get a law passed, on the theory that any bill that can survive the process to become a law and then withstand reviews from the judiciary regarding its constitutionality must be pretty good and important, or it wouldn't get passed. The Constitution and the form of government it establishes is there to abrogate the powers of the ruling class. The whole point is to make it difficult for the government to do things. There are some exceptions; for instance, the President is Commander-in-Chief and generally is granted at least some leeway in the unauthorized usage of force if there is an imminent danger to American citizens, though technically only the Congress can authorize a full-on war. Some other emergency powers are reckoned to the President or his municipal equivalents in the case of martial law, etc. Our government makes some allotment for extraordinary powers when the exclusion of them would cause significant destruction, but in general the idea is for things to go slow. This isn't really compatible with the way our government is used today, which is sad condemnation of our generations, imo.

cookiecaper 17y ago
Let me say here, though, that the above regards the federal government. The United States of America is a group of independent states on the American continent, just as the European Union is a group of independent states on the European continent. As such, these things are imposed upon the federal government in part because the majority of laws are intended to be enacted by local governments, like states and cities. Each state in the United States has its own constitution and is free to make its own legislative procedures insofar as such procedures do not contradict the Bill of Rights contained in the federal Constitution. For instance, if Kansas wanted to do away with free speech, they would have to withdraw from the union to do so (theoretically), as such a prohibition is contrary to the constitution of the union of independent American states. Or by contrast, if the federal government wanted to impose a law which said all people must wear a seat belt while riding in a car, this would be violate of the federal Constitution and the independent states are free to reject such a law (theoretically). The federal Constitution is clear that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are within the purview of the state. Now, that's the idea. In reality, states make laws and operate under procedures that circumvent fundamental rights frequently, and the federal government enforces its will by withholding funding or imposing other forms of ostracization upon any state that doesn't comply (see age 21 drinking age). Things are even worse now, and constitutions are rarely upheld -- the congresses and legislatures at both federal and state levels just pass whatever they like with complete disregard for its legality, and the public lets them do it -- as long as the public can get their American Idol and Zoloft there are no problems there. The whole thing is just really sad.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

We seemed to act quite decisively in real emergencies: financial collapse, wars, terrorist attacks. In most cases, we act badly, but we do act decisively. Health care isn't something you want to rush. Getting it right is more important than getting it now. The main reason Obama was trying to push it through quickly was so to prevent the opposition from reading it and publicizing the bad parts. I.e., to prevent a public debate.

jbooth 17y ago
It was initially proposed in early summer with a goal of passing something by the fall, that's not exactly a rush. If the opposition were interested in good policy, they'd be well-served to point out bad things that are actually in the bill, (of which there are plenty), rather than wild-eyed slogans about death panels and sidetracking about abortion.