Is the American political system doomed?

[ManaMan]

Over at Vox (a wonky, center-left news site started by The Washington Post's Ezra Klein) there's a series going on about the future of the American political system.

It started with "American democracy is doomed") by Matthew Yglesias. He says that the US Presidential system was established a long time ago before we knew better and that virtually every other nation that has tried it has failed. The system sets up the president against the legislature, both with a mandate from the public to govern. Most of the time this works but eventually a conflict arises where neither side has sufficient clout to overcome the other by legal means and the government falls apart (usually by a coup). He says that the US has survived this long because either the country hasn't been as polarized or the parties haven't been very ideological. Now this has changed and the system is gridlocked and it's only a matter of time before our presidential system fails too. He supports moving to a Parliamentary system.

This was followed up by Dylan Matthews "This is how the American system of government will die". He doesn't think a coup is likely. Instead he posits that the current congressional gridlock will lead, incrementally, to the President taking on more and more powers. "The best-case scenario is that we wind up with an elective dictator but retain peaceful transitions of power" and "This won't be a fast process. But if I had to guess, I'd say that the Congress of 2050 will largely serve to ratify policy decisions the president made unilaterally."

Ezra Klein has his say with the cynical "America's political system isn't going to collapse. It's going to muddle through.". He thinks that we shouldn't underestimate the ability of people to put up with crappy government in the interest of avoiding difficult changes. The federal government will stumble from confrontation to confrontation and will only reform things after they cause a serious crisis (debt ceiling, government shutdowns, etc.). The government will limp on serving us poorly while other nations with better functioning governments will pass us. Everyday citizens will just grow jaded with politics and increasingly ignore them.

What are your thoughts?

[Shrinweck]

Nothing's going to change quicly unless something really, really terrible happens. Too much time and money invested in the status quo.

The gridlock won't last forever if the GOP doesn't change. They're too old, too male, and too white and the more they embrace the Tea Party the more that will never change. The proliferation of minorities throughout the country, if they ever choose to eventually register to vote, will swing things out of the middle/in favor of the GOP. They've done such a good job of suppressing the immigrants that the half or so of them that would end up prospering into conservatives/republicans will hold all this crazy shit in their memories and likely the memories of their children.

[Eric]

Nothing's going to change quicly unless something really, really terrible happens. Too much time and money invested in the status quo.

The gridlock won't last forever if the GOP doesn't change. They're too old, too male, and too white and the more they embrace the Tea Party the more that will never change. The proliferation of minorities throughout the country, if they ever choose to eventually register to vote, will swing things out of the middle/in favor of the GOP. They've done such a good job of suppressing the immigrants that the half or so of them that would end up prospering into conservatives/republicans will hold all this crazy shit in their memories and likely the memories of their children.

And yet they control both the House and the Senate at the moment, and will probably control the White House if Jeb decides to run.

Problem with our system is money, straight up, the Koch Brothers spent something ridiculous like 400 million on campaigns for mid-term elections, I couldn't go on youtube without seeing an ad about how Mary Landrieu(Louisiana Democratic senator for 18 years) had to go 3 months before the elections. People are sheep and don't actually do research so if you bash them over the head with enough campaigns they'll eventually just vote for whoever they saw advertised hard enough. There's a reason you can literally buy the presidency if you get enough support.

It can go both ways, obviously, but I'm honestly at the point where I think ideology doesn't even matter, just whoever has the bigger bank account(backing them) and campaigning.

[Julius Seeker]

Yeah, that's somethimg that needs to end. Campaigning on private donations. That's not a proper democracy when money is controlling election outcomes, and the actual needs of the people are not. Look at the crap that happened to New Orleans and Detroit while big businesses and big banks got hundreds of billions of "bail out" dollars. Not to mention that no one seems to want to cut military costs, or make it more efficient. Why are people like the Moch brothers allowed so much sway?

Not just guys with money, but foreign politicians as well are getting up and demonstrating that they can push the American government around in front of the US government, RIGHT where the entire world public can see. That should have been an embarassment for the US, and yet I see US news stations praising that guy's speech as though oblivious to the insult to the strength of the US government that occurred, there are even guys who got criticized for not clapping enough. What happened is a foreigner was allowed to come in and speak against the US President in front of the government, and was applauded as though he were your King. Then he went back to his country and said "Hey, look at me, I'm the guy you want in power because I can control the US government."
This isn't just any politician either: he's an incredibly questionable leader of an even more questionable political party responsible for numerous atrocities. He's still getting voted out though according to the latest polls; sure he can have the US government begging at his feet for commands to do tricks, but the Israeli people don't really want this guy or his party speaking for them.

All I can say is that it really is a shame Obama's presidency was largely squandered due to all of these political roadblocks.

[Eric]

That's because the people who benefit that system are voted right back into office to keep it going. If you get into office and go against it, the money flows the other way and you'll find yourself out of that position. I honestly don't know how you stop the cycle.

[Replay]

It's more than JUST the GOP. Their descent into militarist extremism is just the most visible symptom of a system that has become completely controlled by money.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase do more to select the candidates we are given than anything else...which is why, despite the clear qualms about Hillary on the Democratic side and the outright opposition to Jeb on the Republican side, you will notice you're not seeing articles about just about any other candidate on most mainstream media.

Warren, Sanders, and Rand Paul have far more actual support than either Hillary or Jeb; but mark my words, come primary season, they'll systematically drop out of the race or be quietly cheated out of the primaries.

[Julius Seeker]

Warren is really intelligent. She'd make a great leader.

[ManaMan]

The gridlock won't last forever if the GOP doesn't change. They're too old, too male, and too white and the more they embrace the Tea Party the more that will never change. The proliferation of minorities throughout the country, if they ever choose to eventually register to vote, will swing things out of the middle/in favor of the GOP. They've done such a good job of suppressing the immigrants that the half or so of them that would end up prospering into conservatives/republicans will hold all this crazy shit in their memories and likely the memories of their children.

I hear that from many liberals. This won't happen. Many latinos and asians will become right-wing "true 'mericans" (Christian Conservatives) and vote GOP (George Zimmerman anyone?). Meanwhile, many white folks will join the demographic freakout of "losing their country" and move to the GOP. There enough powerful money buying pollsters and PR people to craft messages to attract at least a 51% majority in midterm elections for decades to come.

[Shrinweck]

Maybe you're right but I just don't see it. It isn't the democrats getting shit for voter suppression and it largely isn't the democrats with all the xenophobic, insulting legislation. And the times I've been in frightening situations based off nothing but the color of my skin, those definitely weren't blue staters. The people already voting out of fear of losing their country are already doing so, we have a black president and there was basically no reason to vote for McCain in 2008 other than "I don't want a black president" or "I drink Fox News koolaid," so we got a good look at the people who come out to vote based on that kind of thing already. I've heard a bunch of conversations with people who say they lied and said they voted Obama in that election haha.

While there's definitely going to be a segment of minorities moving to the Republicans based largely on religious grounds, I don't think it's going to be all that many in the long run. I don't see the current Hispanic minority voting religion with all the other things on the table. I don't think they're to the point with all the immigration reform and economic stability issues where they would vote based on the social issues that voting religious seems to take precedence over.

[Julius Seeker]

Perhaps religion needs to change in the US. Instead of having a religion based on constantly angry assholes selectively quoting Genesis, Revelation, and Leviticus. Focus on getting people to actually read the bible, espcially books like Luke and Acts. Studies have shown actually reading the bible will drive people to liberalism. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfu ... u-liberal/

As an example, about 100 years ago here in Canada, a group of people who actually read the bible formed a political party based on socialist values. That party resonated with a lot of people and became the NDP, a party founded by a reverend, and currently Canada's far left party and the official opposition. I can only imagine how confused Christian Canadians who watch American Christian TV must be.

Conservatism blows my mind a little. How they so-called embrace Christianity, which centers around a few books a about a guy and his ministry, whose primary goals are to establish a community where people give their wealth to the leaders (the apostles) for redistribution, and then go out and help as many people as possible; preach love and peace, and how everyone deserves compassion no matter how different they are; and teaches the wrongness of violence - and yet form a political ideology whose main goals are the complete opposite of all of that. Another thing, they seem to love social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and yet completely reject Darwin - I will note that Social Darwinism in itself is a corruption of actual Darwinism/natural selection, and no one should embrace it.

[Replay]

The overwhelming majority of both liberals and independents I know think Warren would be a better leader than Hillary by far.

But - for some reason, possibly the thuggishness of Hillary's own base - they're afraid to say it. And they're afraid that Warren's "not as popular" as Hillary, because Hillary gets more media coverage.

In reality, Warren has far more legitimate support.

But I saw something very unpleasant in the 2012 election - Ron Paul was, far and away, the leader in the Republican primaries. I do not support the Pauls; but I DO feel that a party's primary choice should reflect its votership. Well, I saw the Iowa vote count "changed to a secret location" because the rot in the GOP couldn't even admit that Santorum lost his own state that year - saw Ron Paul literally cheated out of the race. There was CHEERING at one of the primary debates when Ron Paul spoke in the South early on - and every major media network censored it out - censored all but ninety seconds of his presence there.

[Replay]

David Rockefeller, the head of Exxon, and board member of Morgan Chase, John D.'s grandson - who finances both the Bushes and the Clintons - is old, murderous, embittered, and won't let anyone that he and the CIA and FBI don't approve of past the primaries.

It's this guy, people. I promise you with every fiber of my being, and everything I know of from being the grandson of an FDIC Chairman, that this old, embittered man is the problem. Like Cheney and Rumsfeld, he was - I believe - a "friend" of my grandfather. Like Cheney and Rumsfeld...he lied to my grandfather deeply to get his support for the Iraq War. He should be serving out his remaining years in a prison cell in Supermax.

[Replay]

That quote is legit from one of his memoirs. He's been very open about the fact that he wants the United States to relinquish its sovereignty to the United Nations and the Bilderberg Group.

[Julius Seeker]

Wow. If something like this happened in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and probably any other democratic nation in the world, everyone involved would be kicked out of office at the very least.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world ... .html?_r=0

This is a very unprofessional way to conduct yourself in a business, let alone in foreign affairs of entire countries.

US-Iranian politics are beginning to look a lot like a lame version of the plot of Star Trek 6, the Undiscovered country.

[Replay]

I think you all do very well in Canada, Seek...but remember that Harper supported every bit of what Bush did. Yes, corruption can happen in your country too.

Don't be TOO blind to ANY nation's potential sins in the name of patriotism....especially the one you live in.

[ManaMan]

Concerning conservative, or "Evangelical" religion in the US:

Conservatism blows my mind a little. How they so-called embrace Christianity, which centers around a few books a about a guy and his ministry, whose primary goals are to establish a community where people give their wealth to the leaders (the apostles) for redistribution, and then go out and help as many people as possible; preach love and peace, and how everyone deserves compassion no matter how different they are; and teaches the wrongness of violence - and yet form a political ideology whose main goals are the complete opposite of all of that. Another thing, they seem to love social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and yet completely reject Darwin - I will note that Social Darwinism in itself is a corruption of actual Darwinism/natural selection, and no one should embrace it.

You're thinking of it too rationally. Think of it instead as a tribal religion: There's the angry god who needs to be placated, the array of sexual taboos, and there's the reinforcement of the patriarchy. The whole thing isn't rational but it is coherent if you step back and look at it. First you must understand the tribe of people whose tribal religion this is. There's a group of people in the US, they consider themselves the "True Americans". They can be identified generally as older, white, Christian, native-born, English speaking, conservative, and rural. They're the single largest group of people in the US. In their tribe's mythology, the United States was given to them by their God, who favors them over all others, and that they are the best people in the world.

They believe that they are under constant threat. This threat comes from a variety of sources, but basically they believe that all other "tribes" envy their position and are out to destroy them, steal their influence, take their money, and corrupt their culture/values. They especially don't trust African Americans who they see as criminals out to steal their money via "welfare" programs. They also fear immigrants (primarily Mexicans) who they think are only here to corrupt their culture and steal money from them, again via "welfare" programs. Mix in a bit of white-supremacy: the belief that whites are superior and rarely, if ever, require any assistance and you get their far-right views on social welfare (i.e.: they hate any and all redistributionist programs). While social welfare programs certainly benefit their fellow countrymen, they don't care. They don't consider many Americans to be "True Americans". These others are viewed on about the same level as foreign occupiers and aren't trusted. They are forced by the law and society to accept them as "Americans" but they sure as hell don't want them to get any of their money. Their fears are kept well cultivated by the wealthy 1%ers who view all non-wealthy Americans as moochers.

They fear foreign ideologies which are counter to their own: Communism and Islamism. Communism they fear because it both denies their tribal deity and favors wealth redistribution (THEIR wealth to the untrustworthy "others"). Islam they dislike because it asserts a different tribal deity in opposition to theirs and, they think, seeks to destroy them. Both of these ideologies are expansionist and are viewed as existential threats. To counter them, they think a ridiculously large military makes sense. They are greatly encouraged in this belief by military contractors and other war profiteers. As a side effect of all this military spending, the US has far higher tax rates than it would otherwise. Tax rates which conservatives erroneously blame on "welfare" programs, feeding back into their sense that they're being robbed by those on welfare.

Ironically, this hatred of social welfare and insistence on wasting tax money on the military leads to a scenario where these same "true Americans" feel far less financially secure than they would if the US had a bigger safety net. This financial insecurity feeds into their general sense of insecurity. It also causes them to turn to religion for a sense of security, leading the US to have some of the highest levels of religiosity amongst modern first-world nations. It's a downward spiral (from a liberal point of view).


Concerning the letter to Iran:

Wow. If something like this happened in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and probably any other democratic nation in the world, everyone involved would be kicked out of office at the very least.

That's because those countries have parliaments. In those countries, the executive powers are vested in a prime minister who is elected based on whichever party (or parties) form the government. If we had a parliamentary system, Obama would be out of office as of the 2014 election, replaced by a Republican prime minister. In a parliamentary system, the current "will of the people" as determined at the ballot box is reflected in the legislature and in the chief executive after every national election. This isn't the case in the US where a wave of one party is thwarted in their attempt to control the government because a President, elected years earlier, can stop virtually all their legislation. You end up with situations where both the President and the legislature feel they have a mandate from the people and have no way to resolve it. Both are held accountable and neither can accomplish their agenda (as opposed to a parliamentary system where a single party or coalition has control and is held responsible). This leads to both Presidential overreach (see: numerous iffy executive orders from Bush and Obama) and Legislative overreach (see the impeachment of Clinton over an affair & the recent Iran letter). That's what the vox articles were pointing out. As for kicking them out of office, that won't happen. They did what their constituents wanted: they stood up to a president they don't think should be in charge anymore.

[Replay]

You're thinking of it too rationally. Think of it instead as a tribal religion: There's the angry god who needs to be placated, the array of sexual taboos, and there's the reinforcement of the patriarchy. The whole thing isn't rational but it is coherent if you step back and look at it. First you must understand the tribe of people whose tribal religion this is. There's a group of people in the US, they consider themselves the "True Americans". They can be identified generally as older, white, Christian, native-born, English speaking, conservative, and rural. They're the single largest group of people in the US. In their tribe's mythology, the United States was given to them by their God, who favors them over all others, and that they are the best people in the world.

Please don't ever accuse me of intolerance again, Mana.

[Julius Seeker]

Let's consider redrawing the map using Shadowrun as a guide.

[Shrinweck]

The idea that only one state would decide to become independent, and that that state would be California, makes me think that map was drawn up by a Californian :D

[Julius Seeker]

Haha, the team is actually from Chicago. They also seemed to have an unhealthy obsession with Seattle.

Notice how NYC is de-emphasized =P

[Replay]

The idea that California would leave the Union is a fantasy of much of the rest of the Union, not California itself. Most Californians are - contrary to popular opinion - decently patriotic and happy to be Americans.

Fox News has been saying otherwise for decades now; mostly because California has 55+ electoral votes a cycle that stood as a pillar against both Bush Administrations, helped elect Obama - it has literally been said that the Republican Party is done for, maybe permanently, in California. They statistically more or less cannot win the state anymore.

[ManaMan]

I dig the map. Reminds me of the Canada/Jesusland map from the Bush years.

Here's what I think needs to change if American democracy is to thrive (or maybe even just survive) and avoid many of the scenarios laid out in the Vox articles:

• The filibuster should be eliminated. We need to reduce the power of the Senate. The primary national legislative body should be the House of Representatives, a minority in the Senate (or single senator) shouldn't be able to stop everything. The Senate, as the "upper" house should be more like a sanity check on the rowdier more democratic House and reviewer of presidential nominees. Almost all legislation should originate in the House and the senate should only do an up or down (simple majority vote) on presidential nominees and house legislation.
• End gerrymandering: require districts for representatives to be drawn by non-partisan commissions like in Iowa, California, and (I believe) all Canadian provinces.
• The Debt Ceiling should be permanently eliminated. This is the biggest weapon we have against ourselves. Having this laying around is like having a loaded firearm lying around during a drunken argument.
• Give the president the ability to dissolve the legislature and call for new elections if they can't reach a budget.
• Give the legislature the ability to call a "vote of no confidence" with the President leading to a new Presidential election without impeachment.

Here are some others to reduce corruption. These are just as important IMO:

• We need to a constitutional amendment to overturn "citizens united". When money is no longer "speech" we can have sensible campaign finance laws.
• Limit political fundraising to only, say, two months a year. That way politicians can focus on their jobs for the rest of the year instead of raising money.
• Have a 5 year moratorium on legislators taking jobs a lobbyists after they leave office

Thoughts?

[Julius Seeker]

Two really awesome posts here by you Manaman.

Good to have you back!