In praise of US democracy

[J-10]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3162715.ece
From The Times January 10, 2008
In praise of US democracy
The world is gripped by a remarkable American election

An election, in H. G. Wells's wonderful phrase, is “democracy's ceremonial, its feast, its great function”. And no country celebrates its liberty with more ritual and idealism than America.

The gasps have echoed around the world. The extraordinary upset victories of the two “comeback kids” in New Hampshire have not only galvanised the American election campaign; they have impressed and intrigued millions of people beyond America's shores, ensuring that every future twist and turn of this most crucial and unpredictable of elections is followed with rapt fascination until the final contest in November.

The New Hampshire primary has drawn surprise at the impressive victories of Hillary Clinton and John McCain and a malicious delight in the comprehensive confusion among the pollsters. In addition, however, they have also evoked an emotion that recently has been all too rare in outsiders' assessments of the United States: open admiration for a political process that, more than anywhere, is a triumph of the democratic ideal. For all the patronising foreign commentaries on the influence of money, interest groups and sectarian fundamentalists, for all the sneering by cynical Europeans at American politicians' clichés and voters' naivety, this election is proving to be as robust and searching as any democratic contest anywhere in the world.

As Matt Drudge, the internet's most restless political junkie, put it: “Now it gets fun!” Indeed. It is not simply the array of the candidates that has excited outsiders as much as Americans, raising the prospect of the first black, the first female, the first Mormon or the oldest contender to enter the White House; it is that in their diversity, the candidates have represented all hues of American opinion, with all its crude vigour, commitment and engagement in the political process. How many other countries can engage their electorates in this way? How much hope, passion and commitment were generated by the non-election to pick Tony Blair's successor, the stultifying contest for the non-post of Labour Party deputy leader or the bickering to chose a successor to Sir Menzies Campbell?

To some extent, global interest in the race for the White House is guaranteed. Almost no issue determining global peace and prosperity - from climate change, trade and economic growth to nuclear stability and regional security - is unaffected by the American voters' choice. European statesmen, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Chinese manufacturers are all watching to see how their world will be changed. But the election of 2008 is particularly crucial. For much of the world yearns to see the return of an America that it can admire. Millions of outsiders, from the villages of Kenya to the teeming cities of India, have pinned individual hopes on candidates that they believe embody this hope. This is possible because the open nature of the protracted election process has made many of the contenders familiar. Their views have been heard, their positions debated. So little of all this can find free expression in other countries claiming to be democracies. In the US, outsiders find the vicarious debate they long for.

As the debate moves across the country and the issues multiply, Americans and outsiders alike will be hooked by this unprecedented debate of the future - of the world. To those hungry for liberty, democracy is indeed a feast. The next few months promise to satisfy even the hungriest: in the US, the helpings are bigger.

[muck]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3162715.ece
From The Times January 10, 2008
In praise of US democracy
The world is gripped by a remarkable American election

An election, in H. G. Wells's wonderful phrase, is “democracy's ceremonial, its feast, its great function”. And no country celebrates its liberty with more ritual and idealism than America.

The gasps have echoed around the world. The extraordinary upset victories of the two “comeback kids” in New Hampshire have not only galvanised the American election campaign; they have impressed and intrigued millions of people beyond America's shores, ensuring that every future twist and turn of this most crucial and unpredictable of elections is followed with rapt fascination until the final contest in November.


I'm following the US elections with interest not because the ridiculous fuss made about it or the praisen democratic system but because the US electorate will unfortunately vote for more than only for a new president. As George W. Bush has proven, they will decide about issues which affect far more nations than the United States.

As a German, for me only four elections have importance: Of course the elections to the German Bundestag, the presidential elections in the US, the presidential elections in France and the elections to the European Parliament.

[Basillicus]

Umm, OK. :roll:

But I got to say that I'm not a big fan of US political system. IMO two huge parties just doesn't work very well.

[muck]

Umm, OK. :roll:
Yes, what is up? p-)

[Basillicus]

Yes, what is up? p-)

Oh, I was referring to the first message. It's "American Democracy and Freedom **** Yeah!" spirit is sort of hilarious. :)

[CMNot]

It's a British paper, writing from the viewpoint of Britain and in particular it's British readership.

Bear in mind we (Britain) are being led by a man now that we (the British) did not elect. So at the moment America looks positively overflowing with democratic values in this election year in comparison to ourselves.

Which is about as far from the 2000 election commentary as we could get.

Personally, as someone keen on politics (and currently a student residing within a politics department) I am looking forward to it. I like the very American air of drama and theatre that surrounds their - it must be said - hideously expensive campaigning and rhetoric bashing. Plus some interesting candidates as opposed to the last time out. Yeah, John "Captain Charisma" Kerry, bring it...

[Ordie]

Quick Civics lesson:

1) The United States is not a democracy. Its a republic.
2) The US has a Federal form of governance as opposed to the English Parlamentary form of governance adopted by most democratic societies.
3) Unlike most countries, the day to day governence of the US is devolutionized and deferred to the local States in terms of policymaking duties.

Sometimes I wish Civics can be taught on a more broader scale. So many people are unaware how things get done and buildling coalitions.

Most expect things to get done at a click of the button.

[TheBelgian]

Quick Civics lesson:

1) The United States is not a democracy. Its a republic.
2) The US has a Federal form of governance as opposed to the English Parlamentary form of governance adopted by most democratic societies.
3) Unlike most countries, the day to day governence of the US is devolutionized and deferred to the local States in terms of policymaking duties.

Sometimes I wish Civics can be taught on a more broader scale. So many people are unaware how things get done and buildling coalitions.

Most expect things to get done at a click of the button.

1) The United States is a Republic and a democracy. The two arent mutually exclusive.

2) Being federal or not has little to do with Parliamentary systems. You're mixing vertical division of power with horizontal division of power. A parliamentary democracy in British style can be found in many federal states. Federalism just means devolution of sovreignty from the central government to political subunits, be they states, regions, provinces, lander etc etc...

3) Many, many countries entrust a large share of power to the aforementioned political subunits, eg states.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

As the debate moves across the country and the issues multiply, Americans and outsiders alike will be hooked by this unprecedented debate of the future - of the world.

Unprecedented? We've done this every 4 years for like the last 230 years.



But I got to say that I'm not a big fan of US political system. IMO two huge parties just doesn't work very well.

Well that's fair enough - but it doesn't work very well as compared to what? Americans aren't exactly clamoring to exit the country.

[Basillicus]

Well that's fair enough - but it doesn't work very well as compared to what? Americans aren't exactly clamoring to exit the country.

The parties can't really have much of an agenda other than oppose each others, and the voters become highly polarized making it difficult for new parties to gain any kind of support. Since these two parties basically stand for nothing they can absorb any kind of ideology they think can give them over 50% of the votes, without actually going to have make any changes if they get into power. If a party has a specific agenda the voters can demand it to act accordingly and if this fails they can decide not to vote them next time. In two party system there isn't much choice, one just has to select from two bad alternatives that consist of misc politicians who pursue whatever they happen to want with little control from the party.

IMO better system is a multiparty system, where the parties at least in theory stand for something and have some control over their people, and in which practically anyone can start a new party if necessary and gain votes if the cause is supported by the people. This makes the system more dynamic and peoples opinions propagate better. Two party system is like trench warfare where the two sides exchange shots and bodycount is rising but nothing ever changes, while multiparty system is like blitzkrieg where openings can be flexibly exploited and situations change dynamically.

[Wall]

while multiparty system is like blitzkrieg where openings can be flexibly exploited and situations change dynamically.
Like we have in Finland that partys ideologys really are different from other?
Atleast 3 (Keskusta SDP Kokoomus) are same ****. And those smaller partys dont get support so that they can achieve something.

[Basillicus]

Like we have in Finland that partys ideologys really are different from other?
Atleast 3 (Keskusta SDP Kokoomus) are same ****. And those smaller partys dont get support so that they can achieve something.

Yeah, they are largely the same nowadays since there isn't much large topics to debate in Finland currently. But I would say the situation would be much worse if we e.g. only had two parties such as SDP and Kokoomus.

Historically there has been a lot of things that have lead to this situation. Keskusta used to be a agricultural party but since agriculture hasn't got any significance anymore they are just a center party nowadays. IMO it's a pretty useless party for people who wear gray pullovers and don't have any opinions, but I guess there has to be a party for them too. When SDP got started Finland wasn't even remotely the welfare state it is today; during the years they have archieved almost all of their goals since people wanted it, and also gave a good counterpart for the commies who would have destroyed the country for good. Of course they aren't very far left anymore since it's only common sense that markets need freedom and socialism isn't the ansver to all problems. Kokoomus on the other hand has noticed that hardly nobody in Finland wants a fully capitalistic society so they got along this welfare stuff with a small right wing twist, can you really blame them. So as a result they are all somewhat similar, but for natural reasons and reflect the opinion of the people. And if you have a radical left or right stance there are other parties you can vote.

What comes to smaller parties; at least Vihreät have gotten some of their environmentalist stuff trough, and RKP has managed to keep the status of Swedish language the same. So they have achieved at least some of their agenda. The other smaller parties don't have enough support from the people so it's only right that their opinions don't count much.

[Wall]

I have noticed too, that if people would have elections about something, and goverment too, peoples would vote different, so goverment opinions really arent so same as people opinions. (Example most of "Matti meikäläinen [average joe] would vote differently than goverment, especially in cases like how long inprisonments, immigration politics, etc.)

RKP is in goverment only because they even sell their souls to evil, if they then can "support" our 5% minority...
I dont see, that our system is so different than US system. These 3 majority partys will be in power, and a lot of things wont change.

And what is my own opinion? I vote Kokoomus or http://www.liberaalit.fi/
BTW, there is nice book about how SDP was counterpart for communism, demokratiaa dollareilla. http://www.demari.fi/Article.jsp?article=8830&category=3&main=3

But this is offtopic, is there better topics for this?

[kosse]

I have noticed too, that if people would have elections about something, and goverment too, peoples would vote different, so goverment opinions really arent so same as people opinions. (Example most of "Matti meikäläinen [average joe] would vote differently than goverment, especially in cases like how long inprisonments, immigration politics, etc.)


I think this is one of the biggest problems of our democracy. The parties don't really represent their voters but live their own life without listening what people want. Of course this is mainly the voters' fault since we could easily let them know in the elections that we don't approve their politics..but then there's the problem that there aren't any credible alternatives. But I guess that too comes down to people's will or it's lack in the end.

[TheBelgian]

This two party system if often a problem that emerges in countries with a presidential system (as opposed to eg prime minister), where a "first past the post" mentality means the winner of the executive election takes all the spoils. Thefore voters feel they have to vote for a party that actually has a chance of winning the presidental elections, lest they feel their vote is wasted.

I do think its a big problem. If I were a US voter, I'd have a lot of trouble deciding between Democrats and Republicans. Each party has standpoints that appeal to me. After all, the political spectrum should be wider than just two ideologies.

[Hollis]

This two party system if often a problem that emerges in countries with a presidential system (as opposed to eg prime minister), where a "first past the post" mentality means the winner of the executive election takes all the spoils. Thefore voters feel they have to vote for a party that actually has a chance of winning the presidental elections, lest they feel their vote is wasted.

I do think its a big problem. If I were a US voter, I'd have a lot of trouble deciding between Democrats and Republicans. Each party has standpoints that appeal to me. After all, the political spectrum should be wider than just two ideologies.


I agree with you. It has it's pros and cons, a multi-party system has it's own set of pros and cons. It still all comes down to the voters, Good well informed voters and it all works. Apathy, partisan politics, ect... and it does not work as well.

[tomonator]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Sir Winston Churchill.

[stonecutter]

I do think its a big problem. If I were a US voter, I'd have a lot of trouble deciding between Democrats and Republicans. Each party has standpoints that appeal to me. After all, the political spectrum should be wider than just two ideologies.

I used to think that too. But then, isn't that what the primaries are all about? Within each of the party's candidates, you have at least *some* political spectrum represented. Obama would run the country differently than Clinton (the former being more liberal), just as Romney would approach things differently than McCain, etc.