5 ms·

> The US has an unusually large degree of local democracy by international standards. But, do people from other rich Western countries which have weaker local g

> The US has an unusually large degree of local democracy by international standards. But, do people from other rich Western countries which have weaker local governments feel jealous of America over this? In my experience, largely no. Which calls into question how valuable it really is Which, I suppose, depends largely on whether you're an American or not. Having created a polity that broke completely from the European monarchic traditions, the whole idea was to have a vigorous collection of local democratic entities. For the most part it has proven to work well over the past 200-plus years. Do we care that those who don't share this level of local democracy don't miss having it? Do they know what they're missing? No, and probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable.

skissane 3y ago
> Having created a polity that broke completely from the European monarchic traditions The US system is actually more monarchical than the parliamentary systems found in most of Europe and the Commonwealth, whether we are talking about constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics such as Germany, Austria or Ireland – https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king" (The Knoxville Journal, 9 February 1896) > For the most part it has proven to work well over the past 200-plus years When you look at various measures on which the US performs below average compared to comparable countries – such as police brutality – you have to ask to what extent this contributes to that. > Do we care that those who don't share this level of local democracy don't miss having it? Do they know what they're missing? No, and probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. What percentage of Americans think the way you do? Surely, it isn't 100%. Indeed, I wonder what percentage have ever seriously thought about this issue at all.
- themadturk 3y ago
  I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. If anything, the parliamentary republics we see today were products of the mid-19th century revolutions that sought to overturn those monarchies, with some inspiration from the example of the American revolution. As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs; they vote on local taxation for schools, libraries, and city, county and state services. Police behavior and oversite are definitely a problem, but not a good example of the whole of local democracy. It's unfortunate, of course, that there are parts of the U.S. that use the democratic process to remove services as well as fund them. Locally elected legislatures, school boards and city councils use their delegated powers to defund libraries, restrict voting rights and medical services and, of course restrict abortion rights. Democracy means decisions are made you don't agree with. I would contend that not many Americans think much about this because they haven't needed to. This is the way the country has always worked. On the other hand, you're right, it's not 100%, since there's a growing number of Americans who are using the tools of local democracy to remove and restrict rights and services to citizens.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. Well, as I pointed out in another comment – the UK already had a parliamentary system by the 1770s. George III was no absolute monarch, Parliament called the shots. He did have somewhat more real power than Charles III does, but already by then the Prime Minister was the real ruler of the UK, and the monarch was reduced to playing second fiddle. The last monarch of the UK who tried to stand up to Parliament was James II/VIII, who was overthrown in 1688 and replaced by new monarchs of Parliament's choosing (with his daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange as co-monarchs). Before him, James' father Charles I had lost his head due to a dispute with Parliament over who was boss. And then, when Mary's sister Anne died childless, Parliament chose to import Germany's Hanoverian dynasty, as the closest Protestant relatives, and George I's great grandfather became King. It was during the reign of George III's grandfather and predecessor, George II, that the decisive transfer of power from King to Prime Minister took place. Against that background, George III knew very well who was boss–not him. > As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs We have local democracy in Australia too. We have local governments, who are elected by popular vote; mostly the voters elect councillors who then elect the mayor, but some parts of Australia have directly elected mayors; local governments have various functions, the most important of which is planning (or "zoning" to use the American terminology), but also maintain non-major roads, operate public parks, swimming pools and libraries, are responsible for stray dogs, beach patrols, food safety inspections, parking enforcement, etc. They also commonly run the water and sewerage systems, especially outside of major cities (in major cities, water and sewerage are often controlled by state governments instead.) Probably the biggest difference is that a lot of things in the US which are run by local governments are in Australia run by state governments instead – law enforcement, the court system, jails, elections, public schools, public hospitals, public transport (rail and bus services). Constitutionally, in both Australia and the US, only states are sovereign and towns/cities/counties/shires/etc are mere delegations of the sovereign power of the state, wholly subject to its laws. But in practice, US states create a lot more local governments, and delegate them a lot more power, than Australian states do. One big difference is the idea of electing judges and prosecutors – in Australia (and also I think most of Europe), that is viewed as fundamentally unjust. Democratic election of judges and prosecutors compromises their independence, and hence calls into question the fairness, impartiality and justice of their decisions. Instead, judges are appointed by the government, as is the chief prosecutor of each jurisdiction – and their appointment is far less politicised than in the US, indeed few people here other than lawyers pay much attention to those appointments
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The US system is actually more monarchical than the parliamentary systems found in most of Europe and the Commonwealth, If you redefine “monarchy” to refer to concentration of power and not the proprietary, hereditary, personal character of paramount leadership, strong Presidential systems are more “monarchical” within their scope of power than most parliamentary systems. OTOH, the US federal government has a narrow scope of authority than most national governments, which makes the overall concentration of power less even though the concentration of that power actually held by the feds is greater. Really, ignoring the essential proprietary factors of both monarchy and feudalism, the decentralization of feudalism is probably a better comparator to the US system than the centralism of monarchy (whereas European countries were more centralized in the 18th Century and have generally gotten even more centralized since, with a little but of recent backoff.) Its probably more significant that many European (but mostly not Commonwealth) countries, are more effectively democratic than the US, but parliamentarianism is less important than proportionality there.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > If you redefine “monarchy” to refer to concentration of power and not the proprietary, hereditary, personal character of paramount leadership, strong Presidential systems are more “monarchical” within their scope of power than most parliamentary systems. Historically, elective monarchies have been a real thing. The Holy Roman Empire is the most famous example, even though for a significant period of its history it became de facto hereditary. Several Roman Emperors chose their own successors from non-relatives, and retained the hereditary fiction by legally adopting them. In Saudi Arabia, there has never been formal rules about who will be the successor to the throne – instead, each King chooses his own successor. King Salman has broken with the tradition of passing the Kingship among the sons of King Saud (albeit discretionally, since some sons were skipped due to being politically out of favour, or too elderly by the time it was their turn), by appointing as his successor his sixth son. If a King of Saudi Arabia wanted to appoint someone completely unrelated to him as his successor, he could, assuming his family let him get away with it. > OTOH, the US federal government has a narrow scope of authority than most national governments, which makes the overall concentration of power less even though the concentration of that power actually held by the feds is greater. That's nothing to do with the parliamentary versus presidential issue, that's due to the US being a federation – so are federal parliamentary republics such as Germany and Switzerland, and federal parliamentary constitutional monarchies such as Australia and Canada. Presidential-versus-parliamentary and unitary-vs-federal are orthogonal dimensions and neither has much to do with the other.
defrost 3y ago
> Having created a polity that broke completely from the European monarchic traditions, I've got to agree with skissane here on this. Do you know who else broke from European monarchic traditions? Most of Europe, the UK in particular started in 1066 and by WWI (say) had a monarchy that was almost entire symbolic in power and fully deferred to the elected Government to make decisions. The bulk of the European monarchies were overtaken internally by governments that preserved the ideal of a crowned head of state but didn't allow them to hold any significant reins of power. The US "breaking away" from the King's taxes was a good example of UK investors protecting their investments and further weakening the ability of UK monarchy from raising taxes for petty family disputes (ie. wars much larger than the American Revolutionary War) While the US made a radical jump for the time in which it was founded, it didn't really politically evolve much since - as noted in the peer comment "the United States is a monarchy with an elective king", evidenced by all the Presidental moves taking the US to war, etc. without full approval, the apparent inability of the US government to successfully prosecute a President, etc. Australia, for example, came along to independence later and established a "Washminster" system of Government, one that drew from both the UK Westminister system and the US Washington system. What you call a "vigorous collection of local democratic entities" much of the G20 would see as a backwards assembly of petty fiefdoms with local sheriffs imagining themselves a little king.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Most of Europe, the UK in particular started in 1066 and by WWI (say) had a monarchy that was almost entire symbolic in power and fully deferred to the elected Government to make decisions. Even by the time of the American Revolution, the British monarch was largely a figurehead, and Parliament held the majority of the real power The American rebels blamed all the policies they hated on King George III – that made good propaganda, but if they'd directed their anger at Lord North (the PM) instead, it would have been more accurate The historian David Cannadine [0] even argues "the founding fathers gave to the American presidency just those powers they erroneously believed King George III still possessed" – possibly suggesting that it wasn't just propaganda, but rather that on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean they'd failed to understand how the British system actually worked > The US "breaking away" from the King's taxes was a good example of UK investors protecting their investments and further weakening the ability of UK monarchy from raising taxes for petty family disputes (ie. wars much larger than the American Revolutionary War) While the Seven Years War did involve some "petty family disputes", they weren't what it was really all about, any more than the First World War was really about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The Seven Years War arguably started in North America, as a war between France and Britain (that sub-theatre is generally known as the "French and Indian War")–a war which the Americans wholeheartedly supported, on the British side–and one of the complaints of the Declaration of Independence was that the British had conceded too much to France in the peace negotiations (e.g. agreeing to allow newly conquered Quebec to keep the French legal system) [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 – same source as I linked in my other comment

skissane 3y ago

> Having created a polity that broke completely from the European monarchic traditions The US system is actually more monarchical than the parliamentary systems found in most of Europe and the Commonwealth, whether we are talking about constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics such as Germany, Austria or Ireland – https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king" (The Knoxville Journal, 9 February 1896) > For the most part it has proven to work well over the past 200-plus years When you look at various measures on which the US performs below average compared to comparable countries – such as police brutality – you have to ask to what extent this contributes to that. > Do we care that those who don't share this level of local democracy don't miss having it? Do they know what they're missing? No, and probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. What percentage of Americans think the way you do? Surely, it isn't 100%. Indeed, I wonder what percentage have ever seriously thought about this issue at all.

themadturk 3y ago
I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. If anything, the parliamentary republics we see today were products of the mid-19th century revolutions that sought to overturn those monarchies, with some inspiration from the example of the American revolution. As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs; they vote on local taxation for schools, libraries, and city, county and state services. Police behavior and oversite are definitely a problem, but not a good example of the whole of local democracy. It's unfortunate, of course, that there are parts of the U.S. that use the democratic process to remove services as well as fund them. Locally elected legislatures, school boards and city councils use their delegated powers to defund libraries, restrict voting rights and medical services and, of course restrict abortion rights. Democracy means decisions are made you don't agree with. I would contend that not many Americans think much about this because they haven't needed to. This is the way the country has always worked. On the other hand, you're right, it's not 100%, since there's a growing number of Americans who are using the tools of local democracy to remove and restrict rights and services to citizens.
- skissane 3y ago
  > I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. Well, as I pointed out in another comment – the UK already had a parliamentary system by the 1770s. George III was no absolute monarch, Parliament called the shots. He did have somewhat more real power than Charles III does, but already by then the Prime Minister was the real ruler of the UK, and the monarch was reduced to playing second fiddle. The last monarch of the UK who tried to stand up to Parliament was James II/VIII, who was overthrown in 1688 and replaced by new monarchs of Parliament's choosing (with his daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange as co-monarchs). Before him, James' father Charles I had lost his head due to a dispute with Parliament over who was boss. And then, when Mary's sister Anne died childless, Parliament chose to import Germany's Hanoverian dynasty, as the closest Protestant relatives, and George I's great grandfather became King. It was during the reign of George III's grandfather and predecessor, George II, that the decisive transfer of power from King to Prime Minister took place. Against that background, George III knew very well who was boss–not him. > As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs We have local democracy in Australia too. We have local governments, who are elected by popular vote; mostly the voters elect councillors who then elect the mayor, but some parts of Australia have directly elected mayors; local governments have various functions, the most important of which is planning (or "zoning" to use the American terminology), but also maintain non-major roads, operate public parks, swimming pools and libraries, are responsible for stray dogs, beach patrols, food safety inspections, parking enforcement, etc. They also commonly run the water and sewerage systems, especially outside of major cities (in major cities, water and sewerage are often controlled by state governments instead.) Probably the biggest difference is that a lot of things in the US which are run by local governments are in Australia run by state governments instead – law enforcement, the court system, jails, elections, public schools, public hospitals, public transport (rail and bus services). Constitutionally, in both Australia and the US, only states are sovereign and towns/cities/counties/shires/etc are mere delegations of the sovereign power of the state, wholly subject to its laws. But in practice, US states create a lot more local governments, and delegate them a lot more power, than Australian states do. One big difference is the idea of electing judges and prosecutors – in Australia (and also I think most of Europe), that is viewed as fundamentally unjust. Democratic election of judges and prosecutors compromises their independence, and hence calls into question the fairness, impartiality and justice of their decisions. Instead, judges are appointed by the government, as is the chief prosecutor of each jurisdiction – and their appointment is far less politicised than in the US, indeed few people here other than lawyers pay much attention to those appointments
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The US system is actually more monarchical than the parliamentary systems found in most of Europe and the Commonwealth, If you redefine “monarchy” to refer to concentration of power and not the proprietary, hereditary, personal character of paramount leadership, strong Presidential systems are more “monarchical” within their scope of power than most parliamentary systems. OTOH, the US federal government has a narrow scope of authority than most national governments, which makes the overall concentration of power less even though the concentration of that power actually held by the feds is greater. Really, ignoring the essential proprietary factors of both monarchy and feudalism, the decentralization of feudalism is probably a better comparator to the US system than the centralism of monarchy (whereas European countries were more centralized in the 18th Century and have generally gotten even more centralized since, with a little but of recent backoff.) Its probably more significant that many European (but mostly not Commonwealth) countries, are more effectively democratic than the US, but parliamentarianism is less important than proportionality there.
- skissane 3y ago
  > If you redefine “monarchy” to refer to concentration of power and not the proprietary, hereditary, personal character of paramount leadership, strong Presidential systems are more “monarchical” within their scope of power than most parliamentary systems. Historically, elective monarchies have been a real thing. The Holy Roman Empire is the most famous example, even though for a significant period of its history it became de facto hereditary. Several Roman Emperors chose their own successors from non-relatives, and retained the hereditary fiction by legally adopting them. In Saudi Arabia, there has never been formal rules about who will be the successor to the throne – instead, each King chooses his own successor. King Salman has broken with the tradition of passing the Kingship among the sons of King Saud (albeit discretionally, since some sons were skipped due to being politically out of favour, or too elderly by the time it was their turn), by appointing as his successor his sixth son. If a King of Saudi Arabia wanted to appoint someone completely unrelated to him as his successor, he could, assuming his family let him get away with it. > OTOH, the US federal government has a narrow scope of authority than most national governments, which makes the overall concentration of power less even though the concentration of that power actually held by the feds is greater. That's nothing to do with the parliamentary versus presidential issue, that's due to the US being a federation – so are federal parliamentary republics such as Germany and Switzerland, and federal parliamentary constitutional monarchies such as Australia and Canada. Presidential-versus-parliamentary and unitary-vs-federal are orthogonal dimensions and neither has much to do with the other.

defrost 3y ago

> Having created a polity that broke completely from the European monarchic traditions, I've got to agree with skissane here on this. Do you know who else broke from European monarchic traditions? Most of Europe, the UK in particular started in 1066 and by WWI (say) had a monarchy that was almost entire symbolic in power and fully deferred to the elected Government to make decisions. The bulk of the European monarchies were overtaken internally by governments that preserved the ideal of a crowned head of state but didn't allow them to hold any significant reins of power. The US "breaking away" from the King's taxes was a good example of UK investors protecting their investments and further weakening the ability of UK monarchy from raising taxes for petty family disputes (ie. wars much larger than the American Revolutionary War) While the US made a radical jump for the time in which it was founded, it didn't really politically evolve much since - as noted in the peer comment "the United States is a monarchy with an elective king", evidenced by all the Presidental moves taking the US to war, etc. without full approval, the apparent inability of the US government to successfully prosecute a President, etc. Australia, for example, came along to independence later and established a "Washminster" system of Government, one that drew from both the UK Westminister system and the US Washington system. What you call a "vigorous collection of local democratic entities" much of the G20 would see as a backwards assembly of petty fiefdoms with local sheriffs imagining themselves a little king.

skissane 3y ago
> Most of Europe, the UK in particular started in 1066 and by WWI (say) had a monarchy that was almost entire symbolic in power and fully deferred to the elected Government to make decisions. Even by the time of the American Revolution, the British monarch was largely a figurehead, and Parliament held the majority of the real power The American rebels blamed all the policies they hated on King George III – that made good propaganda, but if they'd directed their anger at Lord North (the PM) instead, it would have been more accurate The historian David Cannadine [0] even argues "the founding fathers gave to the American presidency just those powers they erroneously believed King George III still possessed" – possibly suggesting that it wasn't just propaganda, but rather that on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean they'd failed to understand how the British system actually worked > The US "breaking away" from the King's taxes was a good example of UK investors protecting their investments and further weakening the ability of UK monarchy from raising taxes for petty family disputes (ie. wars much larger than the American Revolutionary War) While the Seven Years War did involve some "petty family disputes", they weren't what it was really all about, any more than the First World War was really about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The Seven Years War arguably started in North America, as a war between France and Britain (that sub-theatre is generally known as the "French and Indian War")–a war which the Americans wholeheartedly supported, on the British side–and one of the complaints of the Declaration of Independence was that the British had conceded too much to France in the peace negotiations (e.g. agreeing to allow newly conquered Quebec to keep the French legal system) [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32741802 – same source as I linked in my other comment