Plan B Forum

No right wing? That explains why we fly in circles.

Asking our American members: Do you think that we in the rest of the world get a distorted view of US politics?

Hard to say right now that article seems to be spot on as far as the republicans go. THis mid term will be interesting and depending how that goes I'll forecast on the next. I'm hoping what'll happen is the "New Republicans" will go down in flames and some true independents will get elected.

That could be interesting!

Gob wrote:Asking our American members: Do you think that we in the rest of the world get a distorted view of US politics?

I think it is more like you get a distorted view of our lives from our politics and the news. And our movies. And our tv shows.

Gob wrote:Asking our American members: Do you think that we in the rest of the world get a distorted view of US politics?

I think that the American political system distorts American politics. Voting for either a Democrat or a Republican almost always entails holding my nose while doing so. And I am far from alone. Republicans generally favor what can (broadly, and therefore less than perfectly accurately) be described as "economic freedom," whereas Democrats generally favor what can (same) be described as "personal freedom" (i.e., freedom in areas that are not principally economic).

But what if one favors both? What if one believes that private enterprises should largely be left alone to pursue their own potential for profit (and to assume their own risk of failure) and also that a woman should be free to decide for herself whether or not to play host to a fetus that has taken up residence in her body? And that people should be free to put into their own bodies whatever substances they please (without the presence of those substances being any excuse for whatever behavior they might engage in while under the influence of those substances)? And that public libraries have no business censoring the works that they will make available?

And the other way around. What if one believes that because private enterprises' making money depends on the social structure in which they are embedded, they should pay to maintain that social structure; but one also believes that a fetus is a living human being whose life no one has a right to terminate (except in cases where refusing to terminate that life is tantamount to terminating the mother's life)?

This is not an abstract concern. In fact, there are "pro-life" Democrats, as we just saw in the health-care business in the Senate. In fact, there are Republicans who vote Republican because of the Republican party's stance on the regulation of the activities of private enterprises, but who also believe that what one chooses to put into one's own body is none of the government's business. (I know that they exist, because some of them are friends of mine.)

So what is one to do? If one is with the Republicans on "economic freedom" and with the Democrats on "personal freedom," which party should one vote for? If one is with the Democrats on "economic freedom" and with the Republicans on "personal freedom," what should one do?

The truth of the matter, as I see it from both survey data and my own observations of the world around me, is that neither agglomeration of positions in either party would garner a majority of votes if presented to Americans in a sort of referendum that allowed Americans to vote separately for the parties' various positions, instead of having to take each party's positions as an indivisible lump. I think that there would not be a majority in favor of the Republicans' pro-economic-freedom-and-anti-personal-freedom position. And I think that there would not be a majority in favor of the Democrats' pro-personal-freedom-and-anti-economic-freedom position either.

The upshot is that due to how the American political system is structured, tens of millions of Americans are condemned to a choice among:

(a) voting for the party that one agrees with on one thing that one considers very important but disagrees with on another thing that one considers very important;

(b) voting for the party that one disagrees with on the first thing but agrees with on the second thing;

(c) voting for a third party, which, given the history of American elections, is tantamount to either (i) throwing one's vote down the crapper (viz., the Peace and Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party, etc.) or (ii) helping bring about a worse result than if one had just voted for the major party whose stench is less redolent (viz., the votes for Nader, whose effect was to help install Shrub as the alleged President of the United States); and

(d) not bothering to vote at all, because the available options amount to "should I vote to get ass-raped in manner X by party A, or should I vote to get ass-raped in manner Y by party B?"

Until we discern and implement a mechanism that does not condemn voters to a Hobson's choice between voting for the party whose positions are great on issues A, B, and C but suck on issues X, Y, and Z but are great on issues A, B., and C, no one is going to have an undistorted view of American politics -- not just people in the world around the U.S. but people within the U.S. itself. And the people who are making the most money off of the system as it is have the biggest interest in maintaining it. And they also have the most power. I am not expecting meaningful change any time soon.

Interesting perspective Andrew, your post reflects the dilemma I have in my UK postal vote.

From another thread;

Gob wrote:
I share your dilemmas. I'm strong on law and order, and punishment for crimes. I'm also strong on equality and equal opportunity. I'm for a strong welfare state for those in GENUINE need and for the sick, disabled and elderly, I'm very anti-scroungers and career dole recipients. I believe that you should have to pay into the system for five years before you get a penny out.

I'm pro police, but expect them to hold impeccable standards. I'm pro-British unity and anti-uncontrolled immigration, Aus's points system or similar should be instigated in the UK.

I'm for state schools being highly funded and anti-private schools getting any state money.

I'm anti-religious. I'm highly pro the NHS, and would hate us to end up like the bloody Yanks.

I'm by instinct, and have always voted, labour, being from Llanelli. But now question if they have the interest of me and mine at heart any more.

There is no party for me these days. I should start my own.

If there is no right wing in the US political spectrum, then there is a hole where the left would normally be.

Politically, the US is the most conservative leaning among the developed countries.

I have said it before and I will reiterate that US politics suffers from 2 basic problems. For one, it is a two party system and over the years, voters have become more polarized then the people they elect.

The other problem is the freedom that interest parties have in swaying political favour.


Not too far behind these problems (as I see it) is the fact that the president is not accountable. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister must face the House of Commons and respond to the intensive interrogations that are a daily routine.

Actually as it stands right now the parties are more polarized than the people. The Reps are diving to the right. And every time the Dems run a party insider they get spanked. (not that they'll learn)

If there is no right wing in the US political spectrum, then there is a hole where the left would normally be.

I guess from an alien perspective there is only ONE wing in US politics.

The WRONG wing.

And as Andrew pointed out that is usually the only choice we have...

tyro wrote: Not too far behind these problems (as I see it) is the fact that the president is not accountable. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister must face the House of Commons and respond to the intensive interrogations that are a daily routine.

I've always found that interesting/amusing too.

It's like, once elected the President walks on water, untouchable by the common throng.

It was so obvious that when Chimpy was in charge the US was being led by a moron, yet there was no parliamentary debacle over this. Blair as was PM in the UK and Howard as was PM in Aus. regularly had to face televised grillings by the parliament, and press, where as Chimpy pontificated but was never questioned.

Yeah but what's the difference, really?

Bliar still got you all involved in our illegal occupation, didn't he?

Oh sure he did, but he democratically got us involved.

Bush asked/invited Canada into that same fiasco.


Our then illustrious leader concluded that since we followed the US into Afghanistan (where the enemy was hiding) that it was enough. Attacking a different nation because they had better targets was a hard sell.

Gob wrote:

tyro wrote: Not too far behind these problems (as I see it) is the fact that the president is not accountable. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister must face the House of Commons and respond to the intensive interrogations that are a daily routine.

I've always found that interesting/amusing too.

It's like, once elected the President walks on water, untouchable by the common throng.

It was so obvious that when Chimpy was in charge the US was being led by a moron, yet there was no parliamentary debacle over this. Blair as was PM in the UK and Howard as was PM in Aus. regularly had to face televised grillings by the parliament, and press, where as Chimpy pontificated but was never questioned.

The fundamental difference is the independence of the President from the Congress in the US as against the non-independence of the Prime Minister from the Parliament (by whatever name) in the UK and other parliametary systems. In the UK, if one party has a majority -- not just a plurality but an outright majority -- in the House of Commons, someone from that party will be the Prime Minister.

But in the US, that is not the case. It is entirely possible, and it has happened many times, that both Houses of Congress are in the control of one party, but the President is of the opposite party. As far as I know, that cannot happen (with, perhaps, some short-lived exceptions in extraordinary circumstances) in the UK or in any other government with a parliamentary system.

Andrew D wrote:
The fundamental difference is the independence of the President from the Congress in the US as against the non-independence of the Prime Minister from the Parliament (by whatever name) in the UK and other parliametary systems. In the UK, if one party has a majority -- not just a plurality but an outright majority -- in the House of Commons, someone from that party will be the Prime Minister.

But in the US, that is not the case. It is entirely possible, and it has happened many times, that both Houses of Congress are in the control of one party, but the President is of the opposite party. As far as I know, that cannot happen (with, perhaps, some short-lived exceptions in extraordinary circumstances) in the UK or in any other government with a parliamentary system.

In the UK the PM is the leader of, or chosen by the party, with the largest number of MP's. In a "hung Parliament", that would still apply.

If circumstances arose which made a minority Govt, a split in a shared power agreement for instance, then the UK woudl normally face an election.

Gob wrote:In the UK the PM is the leader of, or chosen by the party, with the largest number of MP's.

Exactly. In the US, who the President is does not depend on which party has how many seats in the Congress. The President is independently elected -- or, as in the case of Shrub, judicially appointed without ever having been elected -- so we can have a Republican President even while having Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress or the other way around.

Gotcha! So seeing as he is independanty elected, he does not face parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as a PM does.

What if he decides to do something, say like invade Iran, and your house of reps and senate tell him; "go screw yourself", what happens then?