Does the US need to be fundamentally transformed?

[grumbler]

The focus should be on problems that are real and which can be fixed. 

Why? As if our banter here on Languish will actually lead to anything.

  Touche

[garbon]

Not especially.  The states had to be sized such that they could be conveniently governed.  Population wasn't the only factor in granting statehood, nor should it have been.  Also, most of the micro-states came in at the creation of the country, so there wasn't much that could be done.

I'm not talking about micor-states formed at the creation of the country. Hell, even Rhode Island is more populous than Wyoming.

[Neil]

Not especially.  The states had to be sized such that they could be conveniently governed.  Population wasn't the only factor in granting statehood, nor should it have been.  Also, most of the micro-states came in at the creation of the country, so there wasn't much that could be done.

I'm not talking about micor-states formed at the creation of the country. Hell, even Rhode Island is more populous than Wyoming.

They really didn't have much of a way of knowing which states would hit it big when they were carving the west into territories in the mid-19th century.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, they had some unwieldy-large territories that they knew they'd need to carve up into States. I'm not sure if you could have predicted back then that Wyoming would end up having dramatically less population than say, Idaho, Colorado or Utah. Wyoming does have the potential to eventually outgrow smaller eastern states like Rhode Island or Vermont just because of all that land...never know when an economic boom could happen. New England you can be pretty sure will grow at new stagnation levels probably forever, there's not much that could happen there that would lead to massive influx of people.

[Viking]

The US doesn't need fundamental transformation.. ripping out the foundations by the roots or in latin radii, such a thing that a radical would do.

There is a change going on, it's just not the change the US observers think it is. It's not the instutitions you have that have changed or really need change. What is happening in the US is that US politics are europeanizing, becoming party or cause focused rather than person focused as they were before.

Grover Nordqvist and his tax hating nutjobs along with the Abortion hating nutjobs sort of started it. By making it clear that they would destroy any republican candidate which did not pass their purity test they made sure that every candidate did his level best to pass the purity test. Remember the 10-1 question from the republican debates where every candidate (including my man Huntsman) stated that they would not agree to 10 dollars in tax cuts if they had to increase taxes elsewhere by 1 dollar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc

This is a case of manifesto writing not by committee of party insiders, but rather by think tanks and special interests. This is what the Tea Party is and why I hate it so much. It specifically produces candidates which are prevented from thinking or negotiating.

If you agree to any tax increase, or limitation on free gun access, or vote the wrong way on abortion etc.etc. you get creamed. Note, this is not a purely Republican phenomenon, moveonistas tried to screw over Joe Lieberman (and only succeeded in making him a republican caucusing with democrats); the only real difference is discipline and staying power.

Most european countries have done away with the executive and legislative branches as checks and balances, the upper houses in most parliaments have effectively been done away with (britain by making them irrelevant except as a means of delay and norway where the parliament always sits in joint session and nobody knows who is in which house except politics nerds).

The US still has the institutional checks and balances while it is adding the partisan checks and balances that europe has.

All countries need institutions that fit their politics and vice versa. The US does need to choose though; if you are going to have political parties then you need to learn how to run them for the good of the country; if you are going to return to your older system you will have to figure out how to muzzle your radicals and extremists that are ruining your process. 

[DGuller]

Otto's long post

Why on Earth would you want to cut down on gridlock? You'd have those morons actually up there doing things to us if you did that.

Because the purpose of the government is to govern, and not to fail to govern.  And you'd be amazed how much better people perform once they actually have some responsibility (i.e. governing).

[PDH]

The Senate is an august body that gives Wyoming its just due.  Who cares that this state has only 500k people (less than the county I was born in)? Wyoming deserves the representation since the US government owns half of the land here, and we only get to use our ATVs and guns on it.

[Admiral Yi]

Because the purpose of the government is to govern, and not to fail to govern.  And you'd be amazed how much better people perform once they actually have some responsibility (i.e. governing).

The absence of new legislation renders it impossible to govern?  The government is not a doctoral candidate you know.

[PDH]

The government is not a doctoral candidate you know.

But both don't really have jobs outside of the service sector...

[crazy canuck]

The US doesn't need fundamental transformation.. ripping out the foundations by the roots or in latin radii, such a thing that a radical would do.

There is a change going on, it's just not the change the US observers think it is. It's not the instutitions you have that have changed or really need change. What is happening in the US is that US politics are europeanizing, becoming party or cause focused rather than person focused as they were before.

Grover Nordqvist and his tax hating nutjobs along with the Abortion hating nutjobs sort of started it. By making it clear that they would destroy any republican candidate which did not pass their purity test they made sure that every candidate did his level best to pass the purity test. Remember the 10-1 question from the republican debates where every candidate (including my man Huntsman) stated that they would not agree to 10 dollars in tax cuts if they had to increase taxes elsewhere by 1 dollar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc

This is a case of manifesto writing not by committee of party insiders, but rather by think tanks and special interests. This is what the Tea Party is and why I hate it so much. It specifically produces candidates which are prevented from thinking or negotiating.

If you agree to any tax increase, or limitation on free gun access, or vote the wrong way on abortion etc.etc. you get creamed. Note, this is not a purely Republican phenomenon, moveonistas tried to screw over Joe Lieberman (and only succeeded in making him a republican caucusing with democrats); the only real difference is discipline and staying power.

Most european countries have done away with the executive and legislative branches as checks and balances, the upper houses in most parliaments have effectively been done away with (britain by making them irrelevant except as a means of delay and norway where the parliament always sits in joint session and nobody knows who is in which house except politics nerds).

The US still has the institutional checks and balances while it is adding the partisan checks and balances that europe has.

All countries need institutions that fit their politics and vice versa. The US does need to choose though; if you are going to have political parties then you need to learn how to run them for the good of the country; if you are going to return to your older system you will have to figure out how to muzzle your radicals and extremists that are ruining your process.

the phenomenon you are speaking of a is largely a creature of the American primary system.  A good place to start if you want reform.

I think you mispoke in the bolded part.  If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government.  Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority.  Is that what you meant?

[Sheilbh]

I think you mispoke in the bolded part.  If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government.  Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority.  Is that what you meant?

Bagehot's 'efficient secret' of the British constitution.

My transformation's rather less dramatic.  I suspect we're at a period like the early seventies when the previous governing ideology is failing, and visibly so, in both the UK and the US.  I think there'll be a transformation as profound as Thatcherism/Reaganism.  I don't know what it'll be or who or when.

Europe is on the edge of an even more profound transformation almost regardless of what happens in the Eurozone crisis.

[DGuller]

Because the purpose of the government is to govern, and not to fail to govern.  And you'd be amazed how much better people perform once they actually have some responsibility (i.e. governing).

The absence of new legislation renders it impossible to govern?  The government is not a doctoral candidate you know.

Because clearly there is no need for any legislation right now.    Seriously, if there is one flaw in the American society that would prove to be its undoing, it would be the infantile desire to sabotage their own government, which then results in self-fulfilling prophecy.  The rest of the world wouldn't be shooting itself in both feet forever, so we can keep shooting ourselves into one foot for only so long.

[Admiral Yi]

Because clearly there is no need for any legislation right now. 

You know Guller, the way normal people express the point you're trying to make is "there is some legislation I wish the Congress would pass."

[DGuller]

Because clearly there is no need for any legislation right now. 

You know Guller, the way normal people express the point you're trying to make is "there is some legislation I wish the Congress would pass."

  Good to know.

[Viking]

Most european countries have done away with the executive and legislative branches as checks and balances

the phenomenon you are speaking of a is largely a creature of the American primary system.  A good place to start if you want reform.

I think you mispoke in the bolded part.  If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government.  Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority.  Is that what you meant?

Note the full text of what I said. They have been done away with as checks and balances; they have not be done away with as existing institutions. When the majority in the legislative branch picks the executive and the legislative is a civil service which and be hired, fired and promoted sideways you don't have checks and balances from any side other than the electorate. e.g. you don't do stupid things because you want to be re-elected.

The primary system works fine when the purpose of the parties is not to implement a party program but rather as a sorting mechanism to make each first past the post contest as interesting as possible. In the british sense doing away with safe seats. It didn't quite work as intended but it did produce conservative democrats and liberal republicans. Once conservative and liberal become synonymous with republican and democrat this no longer works as a sorting mechanism since in "safe seats" the primary becomes the election mechanism.