Doom? :hmm:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidentialist-democracy-failing/2016/02/10/37fa9ec8-d018-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html
Quote
Is U.S. 'presidentialist' democracy failing?
By Charles Lane Opinion writer February 10 at 9:17 PM
Perplexed by today's turbulent American political scene? Not to worry: A distinguished political scientist wrote an essay 26 years ago that anticipated our predicament with eerie explanatory power. The only downside is that its author specialized in the causes of democratic collapse.
"The Perils of Presidentialism," by Yale University's Juan J. Linz, compared the Westminster-style parliamentary system with "presidentialist" systems that divide executive and legislative power between separately elected presidents and assemblies. The former, he concluded, were inherently more stable than the latter.
Charles Lane is a Post editorial writer, specializing in economic policy, federal fiscal issues and business, and a contributor to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive
This was an unlikely argument for an academic in the United States — a presidentialist nation deeply attached to separation of powers as a constitutional principle and equally confident of its political stability.
Yet Linz, a Spaniard, had closely studied his native country's 20th-century journey from democracy to dictatorship and back again, as well as the chronically unstable presidential systems of Spain's former colonies in Latin America.
Drawing on that history, Linz identified comparative disadvantages of "presidentialist" democracy. The fundamental one: Whereas a prime minister owes his power to the same majority that produces parliament, the president and legislature in a presidentialist democracy can both claim to represent the national majority, a source of competition that can spawn conflict, even chaos, when rival parties control the two branches.
Presidential systems include a fixed term for the chief executive, to add predictability and to curb dictatorial tendencies. However, this intended stabilizer actually makes politics "rigid," Linz warned. Whereas a parliamentary system can oust or, alternatively, fortify, controversial prime ministers through a vote of confidence, the only way to get rid of a wayward president before his term ends is by risking an impeachment crisis.
The rise and fall of prime ministers might give parliamentary countries such as Italy and Japan an almost comic appearance of political instability; but, Linz cleverly argued, their revolving door is actually a source of stability, since short-term kerfuffles help "avoid deeper crises." Governments come and go; democracy remains.
In contrast, the fixed presidential term adds a "winner take all" element to presidential elections, since parties and voters know that they're likely to be stuck with the victor for years. This "raises the stakes in presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization," Linz wrote, as if reporting from New Hampshire on Tuesday.
Adding to the drama, presidentialism makes the chief executive a personal repository "for whatever exaggerated expectations his supporters may harbor. They are prone to think that he has more power than he really has or should have." For his part, a president may "tend to conflate his supporters with 'the people' as a whole," making the "obstacles and opposition he encounters seem particularly annoying."
Americans have seen this dynamic at work in such episodes as Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempted "packing" of the Supreme Court and President Obama's use of executive action to counter Republican naysaying on guns, immigration and other issues.
Among Latin American failures of presidentialism, perhaps the most dramatic was the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende in a 1973 military coup, after he tried and failed to swing his nation sharply left against center-right opposition, in parliament and in the streets.
For Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
Accordingly, he saw the United States' system as a stable exception because most voters were middle-class centrists and its two parties differed only "within a larger, moderate consensus."
This assessment seemed plausible when Linz wrote it in 1990. Nevertheless, he failed to address the growing polarization and political crisis that led to the Civil War in 1861, the proximate cause of which was Southern panic at what Abraham Lincoln would do with presidential power after the "winner take all" election of 1860.
When you consider that precedent, Linz's argument for exceptionally stable American presidentialism gets ever so slightly less reassuring.
In the quarter-century since he published his essay, the centrist Cold War-era political consensus has broken down. Decaying, too, are the two ideologically flexible "big tent" party coalitions that subscribed to that consensus.
Rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans are polarizing along ideological lines while further sorting themselves into subgroups ominously correlated with race, region and identity.
Long-standing establishments in both parties risk losing control to men — Donald Trump for the GOP, Bernie Sanders for the Democrats — whose first major acts of party membership were to launch insurgent presidential nomination bids.
The intense following each arouses recalls Linz's concerns about "the interaction between a popular president and the crowd acclaiming him," which "can generate fear among his opponents and a tense political climate."
By contrast, establishment politicians are wishy-washy, thoroughly compromised if not corrupt and, perhaps worst of all, boring. We may miss them someday.
I often opine on the similarities of the U.S., Spain and Latin America.
One aspect of American democracy that seriously needs fixing is the budgeting process. There has to be some kind of default in the absence of agreement.
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
All systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Sounds about right.
The Res Publica was doomed when Marius was elected to multiple terms as consul in a row.
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2016, 08:08:55 PM
The Res Publica was doomed when Marius was elected to multiple terms as consul in a row.
Sadly, Sulla never got to butcher the old fart. Or Cinna either.
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2016, 08:08:55 PM
The Res Publica was doomed when Marius was elected to multiple terms as consul in a row.
Nah, it wasn't really doomed until Sulla marched on Rome and proved that he was more powerful as a general than any elected official. Marius helped the situation get to that point, but Sulla pulled the trigger. The Republic could have survived Marius.
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2016, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2016, 08:08:55 PM
The Res Publica was doomed when Marius was elected to multiple terms as consul in a row.
Nah, it wasn't really doomed until Sulla marched on Rome and proved that he was more powerful as a general than any elected official. Marius helped the situation get to that point, but Sulla pulled the trigger. The Republic could have survived Marius.
:rolleyes: Just because you lost your farm because you were declared an enemy of the state doesn't mean that the collapse didn't start before Sulla.
It was doomed when the Senate murdered the noble Tiberius Gracchus. :mad:
PM John Boehner.
:(
Yet the UK is moving towards an ever more presidential way of doing things :(
1. I wish people would stop comparing Trump to Sanders as if their (still nascent) successes are mirrors of one another. Sanders is a career politician. Trump is a pandering demagogue.
2. America's biggest 19th century problems were in fact solved with a civil war, and most of America's biggest present-day problems could be solved with another. So, if that's what "American presidentialism" leads to, why is that bad?
QuoteAmericans have seen this dynamic at work in such episodes as Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempted "packing" of the Supreme Court and President Obama's use of executive action to counter Republican naysaying on guns, immigration and other issues.
Oh, no, two Democratic presidents used their legal authority. (But at least their FDR example actually involved the potential exploitation of a terrifying constitutional loophole that, if used, would essentially destroy the SCOTUS in the presence of a united front from the other two branches of government. Are executive actions even
remotely on that level of dirty pool?)
What loophole are you talking about?
:huh: The lack of any constitutional limit on number of justices at any one time. The number of SCOTUS members is fixed by statute, not Article III. If Congress and the President wished, they could amend the statute (as FDR planned to do), and put more justices on the court. Presumably, these new appointees would be creatures of the President and to a lesser degree the Senate, and do their bidding, effectively destroying the Supreme Court's power of judicial review over governmental actions. Obviously, in the short run, this could be beneficial (if Obama and the Democratic Senate had appointed a couple of new justices to counterbalance our shitty ones, for example), but it would eviscerate one of the cornerstones of our constitutional democracy. YMMV, then, on whether you'd ever want this to happen--it would basically depend on whether you like American constitutional democracy, which I more-or-less do even if there are a lot of parts of the constitution I don't actually like.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2016, 05:20:39 AM
:huh: The lack of any constitutional limit on number of justices at any one time.
It doesn't say how many there are supposed to be? I was unaware.
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2016, 08:08:55 PM
The Res Publica was doomed when Marius was elected to multiple terms as consul in a row.
:yes: You should never make decisions when angry.
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.
In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.
Quote from: PDH on February 11, 2016, 10:30:18 PM
:rolleyes: Just because you lost your farm because you were declared an enemy of the state doesn't mean that the collapse didn't start before Sulla.
:rolleyes: You were in the East, dude. You have no idea what we were dealing with in Rome.
I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other. Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 07:45:05 AM
I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other. Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.
this is interesting and have never heard this before. is it pretty widely accepted, or a plausible theory?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 12, 2016, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 07:45:05 AM
I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other. Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.
this is interesting and have never heard this before. is it pretty widely accepted, or a plausible theory?
More plausible and accepted than Jimmy Carter being a traitor, I should think, but what do you care.
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 07:18:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.
In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 07:45:05 AM
I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other. Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.
I think the deification of the US Constitution means that we will never really be able to solve problems like this.
It's been amended 27 times. Nothing's impossible.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 07:45:05 AM
I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other. Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.
Maybe this just reframing the same point, but didn't a lot of the folks around in the 18th century
not actually want the government to work quickly, except in cases of massive consensus (i.e., in times of foreign emergency?)--or, at least, never foresaw the massive reliance upon the federal government that would inhere to the 21st century? I mean, the checks-and-balances system is designed for a lot of inefficiency--theoretically for the benefit of fairness and protection of the individual--but was not obviously invented with the modern state in mind.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
It's been amended 27 times. Nothing's impossible.
Yeah but that last amendment took 200 years for the States to ratify.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
I disagree. Consider the budgetary system in the US compared to a Parliamentary system when the governing party does not have majority control. In a Parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote on the budget the government falls and there are elections. Opposition parties need to carefully consider the political consequences of forcing such an election. Normally there is a significant political incentive to compromise in order to pass the budget. Recent experience in the US is the reverse where politicians can threaten an unfunded government without the risk of triggering an election.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2016, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
I disagree. Consider the budgetary system in the US compared to a Parliamentary system when the governing party does not have majority control. In a Parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote on the budget the government falls and there are elections. Opposition parties need to carefully consider the political consequences of forcing such an election. Normally there is a significant political incentive to compromise in order to pass the budget. Recent experience in the US is the reverse where politicians can threaten an unfunded government without the risk of triggering an election.
Failing to pass a budget doesn't trigger an election in our parliamentary system - the government would lose a lot of political capital and might feel forced to bring a motion of confidence, but it would not be mandatory.
The US system could also adopt this kind of provision and still be a presidential democracy. So I don't think that's an inherent trait of a parliamentary democracy.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 12, 2016, 10:14:19 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 07:45:05 AM
I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other. Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.
Maybe this just reframing the same point, but didn't a lot of the folks around in the 18th century not actually want the government to work quickly, except in cases of massive consensus (i.e., in times of foreign emergency?)--or, at least, never foresaw the massive reliance upon the federal government that would inhere to the 21st century? I mean, the checks-and-balances system is designed for a lot of inefficiency--theoretically for the benefit of fairness and protection of the individual--but was not obviously invented with the modern state in mind.
A Parliamentary system has many of the same checks and balances. I think the main difference was that at the time the experience was that Parliament ruled over a unitary rather than a federal State and the King was still more than just a figure head. Not a very good model for a new country concerned about States rights and getting rid of a king.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 12, 2016, 09:04:16 AM
this is interesting and have never heard this before. is it pretty widely accepted, or a plausible theory?
It is from the writings of the founders themselves. Madison warned them against this, but the Constitution, for instance, made the runner-up in presidential votes the Vice president, under the assumption that there was only one political party and the VP would thus not have competed with the winning president except on the basis of personal prestige.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
It's been amended 27 times. Nothing's impossible.
When was the last time it was amended in any meaningful way?
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:23:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2016, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
I disagree. Consider the budgetary system in the US compared to a Parliamentary system when the governing party does not have majority control. In a Parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote on the budget the government falls and there are elections. Opposition parties need to carefully consider the political consequences of forcing such an election. Normally there is a significant political incentive to compromise in order to pass the budget. Recent experience in the US is the reverse where politicians can threaten an unfunded government without the risk of triggering an election.
Failing to pass a budget doesn't trigger an election in our parliamentary system - the government would lose a lot of political capital and might feel forced to bring a confidence motion, but it would not be mandatory.
The US system could also adopt this kind of provision and still be a presidential democracy. So I don't think that's an inherent trait of a parliamentary democracy.
I see. Under the Westminster Parliamentary system a budgetary vote is by definition a vote of confidence.
I am interested to how your system defines what is and is not a matter of confidence. Is it something the government can decide? That would seem to defeat the notion that the government must have the confidence of Parliament.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 12, 2016, 09:04:16 AM
this is interesting and have never heard this before. is it pretty widely accepted, or a plausible theory?
It is from the writings of the founders themselves. Madison warned them against this, but the Constitution, for instance, made the runner-up in presidential votes the Vice president, under the assumption that there was only one political party and the VP would thus not have competed with the winning president except on the basis of personal prestige.
That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.
Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:23:13 AM
Failing to pass a budget doesn't trigger an election in our parliamentary system - the government would lose a lot of political capital and might feel forced to bring a motion of confidence, but it would not be mandatory.
The US system could also adopt this kind of provision and still be a presidential democracy. So I don't think that's an inherent trait of a parliamentary democracy.
If we had confidence votes in the US that is all the Republicans have done in the eight years since Obama was elected.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.
Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.
The parties had a reputation of being sources of corruption and patronage from their experiences with the British system, thus something the new republic should reject.
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2016, 10:26:40 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
It's been amended 27 times. Nothing's impossible.
When was the last time it was amended in any meaningful way?
Depends on what you mean by 'meaningful'.
The recent ones just seem to concern voting rights and codifying things that had already been unofficial tradition anyway.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:23:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2016, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
I disagree. Consider the budgetary system in the US compared to a Parliamentary system when the governing party does not have majority control. In a Parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote on the budget the government falls and there are elections. Opposition parties need to carefully consider the political consequences of forcing such an election. Normally there is a significant political incentive to compromise in order to pass the budget. Recent experience in the US is the reverse where politicians can threaten an unfunded government without the risk of triggering an election.
Failing to pass a budget doesn't trigger an election in our parliamentary system - the government would lose a lot of political capital and might feel forced to bring a confidence motion, but it would not be mandatory.
The US system could also adopt this kind of provision and still be a presidential democracy. So I don't think that's an inherent trait of a parliamentary democracy.
I see. Under the Westminster Parliamentary system a budgetary vote is by definition a vote of confidence.
I am interested to how your system defines what is and is not a matter of confidence. Is it something the government can decide? That would seem to defeat the notion that the government must have the confidence of Parliament.
We have two distinct motions that involve confidence.
- Cuestión de confianza (Motion of confidence): the government brings it to the parliament, asking if it still has confidence in the government. If the motion passes, the government stays.
- Cuestión de censura (Motion of no confidence): started by the parliament, who votes whether it still has confidence in the government. If the motion passes, the government falls and a new one is elected (it doesn't trigger an election, the parliament elects a new government).
Both are entirely discretionary and not triggered by any failed vote. So both government and parliament can decide when there's a matter of confidence.
However, for several reasons it's very difficult to pass a motion of no confidence (the one brought by the parliament), so our setup favors government stability. In general, our Constitution favors stability (which is not surprising given how volatile were our previous attempts at democracy).
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 07:18:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.
In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2016, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.
Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.
The parties had a reputation of being sources of corruption and patronage from their experiences with the British system, thus something the new republic should reject.
Yeah but while they wanted to reject them, I think it makes all the framers seem incredibly naive if they didn't think we actually ever have them. After all, some of the framers basically went on to form parties post-Washington - as well as what c noted about parties forming prior to the constitution.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2016, 10:49:02 AM
Yeah but while they wanted to reject them, I think it makes all the framers seem incredibly naive if they didn't think we actually ever have them. After all, some of the framers basically went on to form parties post-Washington - as well as what c noted about parties forming prior to the constitution.
I am well aware of that. They immediately started doing all the bad things they chastised the Westminster parties for doing almost immediately after the new order was established. Which is why I have said in the past that the real architect of our system of government was Robert Walpole.
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 07:18:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.
In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.
Absolutely, but all that relates to the people that form the system, not the system itself. The Second Republic was a parliamentary democracy (the president was a figurehead) and we started shooting at each other pretty soon, with both left and right completely unwilling to cooperate in creating anything that wasn't a bloodshed. Fast forward to a half a century later and we have another parliamentary democracy and despite our problems we're kinda past that.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:53:04 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 07:18:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.
In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.
Absolutely, but all that relates to the people that form the system, not the system itself. The Second Republic was a parliamentary democracy (the president was a figurehead) and we started shooting at each other pretty soon, with both left and right completely unwilling to cooperate in creating anything that wasn't a bloodshed. Fast forward to a half a century later and we have another parliamentary democracy and despite our problems we're kinda past that.
I guess my petty, but in my opinion important, point is that political systems aren't in the one size fits all category. Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief. Which again is weird, since most of studies in comparative politics are done at American universities.
Then again, politicians do seem to want to know better than scholars, so why bother studying stuff.
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 11:19:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:53:04 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 07:18:14 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2016, 07:24:32 PM
Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.
The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.
QuoteFor Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.
All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.
Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.
In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.
Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.
You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.
Absolutely, but all that relates to the people that form the system, not the system itself. The Second Republic was a parliamentary democracy (the president was a figurehead) and we started shooting at each other pretty soon, with both left and right completely unwilling to cooperate in creating anything that wasn't a bloodshed. Fast forward to a half a century later and we have another parliamentary democracy and despite our problems we're kinda past that.
I guess my petty, but in my opinion important, point is that political systems aren't in the one size fits all category. Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief. Which again is weird, since most of studies in comparative politics are done at American universities.
Then again, politicians do seem to want to know better than scholars, so why bother studying stuff.
Fair enough, I can get behind that.
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 11:19:22 AM
Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief.
Huh? What did we do this time?
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.
Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.
Indeed, the debate over ratification of the document demonstrated that the document was wrong to assume that there would be no distension. The Constitution was amended twelve times before it was fifteen years old.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2016, 11:22:35 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 11:19:22 AM
Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief.
Huh? What did we do this time?
First of all, am I normally one to blame the US for the world's ills? No.
I'm thinking of the Wolfowitz experiment of democracy in Iraq. And Afghanistan. While the actual war was won easily, peace still isn't won.
And I am not saying it's the fault of the US or the coalition's actions. It's because you can't translate "liberal democracy" overnight.
The rule of law, freedom of religion, meritocracy, they're all good, but developed in a specific historical context which is very Western.
Korea and Taiwan both seem to have found value in democratic elections if not rule, after long periods of autocratic rule. Latin America still struggle to uphold democratic rule, except in Brazil, where socialism has brought millions out of poverty and illiteracy.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2016, 11:22:35 AM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 11:19:22 AM
Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief.
Huh? What did we do this time?
I am not even sure what a USA/CIA is.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 11:57:39 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2016, 10:28:12 AM
That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.
Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.
Indeed, the debate over ratification of the document demonstrated that the document was wrong to assume that there would be no distension. The Constitution was amended twelve times before it was fifteen years old.
It'd be an interesting case study; American and Norwegian constitutional conservatism compared. Both countries have amended their 18th century/early 19th century constitutions at fairly regular intervals when needed, yet constitutional conservatism is a major factor when mobilising voters.
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 11:59:22 AM
First of all, am I normally one to blame the US for the world's ills? No.
I didn't say that you did :P just I didn't get the context of what it was you were talking about.
QuoteI'm thinking of the Wolfowitz experiment of democracy in Iraq. And Afghanistan. While the actual war was won easily, peace still isn't won.
And I am not saying it's the fault of the US or the coalition's actions. It's because you can't translate "liberal democracy" overnight.
The US even knew this and the politicians who led this effort even pointed out the folly of trying to do this in the past. So God knows what we were thinking, but this is not standard US or CIA procedure this was a pretty radical departure. At the time I was like 'huh...well...maybe they know something the rest of us don't' well they didn't. I will point out we implemented systems more similar to the Parliamentary model than ours.
QuoteThe rule of law, freedom of religion, meritocracy, they're all good, but developed in a specific historical context which is very Western.
Korea and Taiwan both seem to have found value in democratic elections if not rule, after long periods of autocratic rule. Latin America still struggle to uphold democratic rule, except in Brazil, where socialism has brought millions out of poverty and illiteracy.
Spanish and Portuguese cultures are not western? Huh. Anyway the US used socialism to lift millions out of poverty and illiteracy as well, with our public school system. But I have no idea what 'Socialism' is anymore. Does Brazil have widespread nationalization of industries or do they simply have robust public services?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
It's been amended 27 times.
The first 10 were a package deal.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
I am not even sure what a USA/CIA is.
Some kind of insurance company I think.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
I am not even sure what a USA/CIA is.
Some kind of insurance company I think.
I thought it had to do with labor unions.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:57:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
I am not even sure what a USA/CIA is.
Some kind of insurance company I think.
I thought it had to do with labor unions.
Aren't you a bit busy explaining how climate change isn't man-made these days?
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:57:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
I am not even sure what a USA/CIA is.
Some kind of insurance company I think.
I thought it had to do with labor unions.
Aren't you a bit busy explaining how climate change isn't man-made these days?
Wait a minute, when did Grumbler go Hansy on us?
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2016, 12:08:36 PM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 11:59:22 AM
First of all, am I normally one to blame the US for the world's ills? No.
I didn't say that you did :P just I didn't get the context of what it was you were talking about.
QuoteI'm thinking of the Wolfowitz experiment of democracy in Iraq. And Afghanistan. While the actual war was won easily, peace still isn't won.
And I am not saying it's the fault of the US or the coalition's actions. It's because you can't translate "liberal democracy" overnight.
The US even knew this and the politicians who led this effort even pointed out the folly of trying to do this in the past. So God knows what we were thinking, but this is not standard US or CIA procedure this was a pretty radical departure. At the time I was like 'huh...well...maybe they know something the rest of us don't' well they didn't. I will point out we implemented systems more similar to the Parliamentary model than ours.
QuoteThe rule of law, freedom of religion, meritocracy, they're all good, but developed in a specific historical context which is very Western.
Korea and Taiwan both seem to have found value in democratic elections if not rule, after long periods of autocratic rule. Latin America still struggle to uphold democratic rule, except in Brazil, where socialism has brought millions out of poverty and illiteracy.
Spanish and Portuguese cultures are not western? Huh. Anyway the US used socialism to lift millions out of poverty and illiteracy as well, with our public school system. But I have no idea what 'Socialism' is anymore. Does Brazil have widespread nationalization of industries or do they simply have robust public services?
Iraq pretty much had the "verzuiling" system implemented, but the elites are rather determined not to cooperate or be co-opted, it seems.
There's also a plethora of evidence of defeat in war instigating regime change. Like Argentina after the Falklands war, to pick a relatively recent example. I don't think the models we used back in the 90s are good enough to predict what happens after authoritarian collapse in countries outside of the west. Apparently civil war is one possibility.
Spain and Portugal are on the Latin fringe, like Italy. They're sort of civilised, yet not, with their huge gap between citizen and elite.
I can't speak for Portugal, but I'd say Spain and Italy were influenced by a powerful paternalistic elite (and the violent reactions against it) more than other Western countries.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2016, 01:45:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:57:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 12:01:16 PM
I am not even sure what a USA/CIA is.
Some kind of insurance company I think.
I thought it had to do with labor unions.
Aren't you a bit busy explaining how climate change isn't man-made these days?
Wait a minute, when did Grumbler go Hansy on us?
I think that that was just a drive-by troll.
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 01:44:08 PM
Aren't you a bit busy explaining how climate change isn't man-made these days?
You are way behind the times. These days it's being made by Chinese coal mining robots.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2016, 10:54:43 PM
Quote from: Norgy on February 12, 2016, 01:44:08 PM
Aren't you a bit busy explaining how climate change isn't man-made these days?
You are way behind the times. These days it's being made by Chinese coal mining robots.
grumbler and the Koch brothers probably would say emitions are good.
Food for plants and whatnot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
One aspect of American democracy that seriously needs fixing is the budgeting process. There has to be some kind of default in the absence of agreement.
If I was rewriting only this narrow portion of the Constitution, I'd probably make it so the Presidential veto cannot be used against the annual budget.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 13, 2016, 02:40:26 PM
If I was rewriting only this narrow portion of the Constitution, I'd probably make it so the Presidential veto cannot be used against the annual budget.
Then you'd get things like unfunded Obamacare.
I think the way to go is default to last year's budget in the absence of agreement.
yi, what harm have these budget problems caused? or is it the potential for harm? I don't know enough about it
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2016, 03:55:40 PM
yi, what harm have these budget problems caused? or is it the potential for harm? I don't know enough about it
Government shut downs and near shut downs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 03:27:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 13, 2016, 02:40:26 PM
If I was rewriting only this narrow portion of the Constitution, I'd probably make it so the Presidential veto cannot be used against the annual budget.
Then you'd get things like unfunded Obamacare.
I think the way to go is default to last year's budget in the absence of agreement.
That's how it works over here. It's not ideal mind, since it discourages budgeting debate in tough times. Our governments usually extend last year's budget instead of bargaining with the opposition or pass unpopular budgets (if they lack a parliamentary majority, that is).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 03:59:49 PMGovernment shut downs and near shut downs.
yeah, I remember the temporary government shutdown awhile back ago. and I know about the near shut downs. I'm asking if these actually harmed the country in a lasting way. if the government has scares every now and then, but the politicians eventually get together and find a solution in the eleventh hour (or a few minutes after the twelfth hour), then what's the problem? is there something more than just the risk of a lasting shut down?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
yeah, I remember the temporary government shutdown awhile back ago. and I know about the near shut downs. I'm asking if these actually harmed the country in a lasting way. if the government has scares every now and then, but the politicians eventually get together and find a solution in the eleventh hour (or a few minutes after the twelfth hour), then what's the problem? is there something more than just the risk of a lasting shut down?
Apart from the impact on our credit worthiness and government not doing things for extended periods, I can't think of anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 04:24:04 PMApart from the impact on our credit worthiness and government not doing things for extended periods, I can't think of anything.
I remember the credit thing. did that ever recover? re: "not doing things for extended periods." how long? and what things weren't done versus a non-near shut down.
while the shut down scares sound bad, I don't know just how bad it really is. seems like the country always recovered, but is that not the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States
seems like it happens somewhat often, with the occasional gap.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2016, 04:30:01 PM
I remember the credit thing. did that ever recover? re: "not doing things for extended periods." how long? and what things weren't done versus a non-near shut down.
while the shut down scares sound bad, I don't know just how bad it really is. seems like the country always recovered, but is that not the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States
seems like it happens somewhat often, with the occasional gap.
The US has recovered from every bad thing that ever happened. I don't think that's very helpful in deciding what things should be avoided.
AFAIK US debt is still AA+.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 03:27:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 13, 2016, 02:40:26 PM
If I was rewriting only this narrow portion of the Constitution, I'd probably make it so the Presidential veto cannot be used against the annual budget.
Then you'd get things like unfunded Obamacare.
I think the way to go is default to last year's budget in the absence of agreement.
That's fine--the American President is unaccountable and vastly too powerful. The power of the purse is the ancient power to defund the King's nonsense, and is how Parliament over generations eroded the monarch into the caged songbird it is today. It's a fine system.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 13, 2016, 04:50:19 PM
That's fine--the American President is unaccountable and vastly too powerful. The power of the purse is the ancient power to defund the King's nonsense, and is how Parliament over generations eroded the monarch into the caged songbird it is today. It's a fine system.
It might be a little off point, but Obamacare hardly qualifies as Barry's whim. It did pass in both houses.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 04:46:57 PMThe US has recovered from every bad thing that ever happened. I don't think that's very helpful in deciding what things should be avoided.
AFAIK US debt is still AA+.
if the system works, it works. there are cons to using the prior year's budget (political schemes to purposely shut down the government). right now, the system de facto
forces cooperation to save the nation. the country hasn't collapsed from this system.
The country hasn't collapsed from anything.
signicantly hampered the country* or some similar language
Quote from: Norgy on February 13, 2016, 02:31:20 PM
grumbler and the Koch brothers probably would say emitions are good.
Food for plants and whatnot.
:lmfao: Are you drunk?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2016, 05:38:07 PM
The country hasn't collapsed from anything.
Part of did in 1865.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2016, 05:32:29 PM
the country hasn't collapsed from this system.
That is an interesting standard by which policy should be judged.