Whose to blame....Republicans or Democrats....let the fireworks begin!
We don't really need to intentionally incite partisan bickering, do we?
We don't really need to intentionally incite partisan bickering, do we?
Neither. From the British side of the pond the USA seems to be in semi-permanent election mode with both main parties more interested in scoring points off one another than co-operating. The system is to blame. Our coalition is quite a new idea in the UK, but it is the political equivalent of Republicans and Democrats deciding they can work together in the national interest.
LOL. Yet another seizing of a dubious opportunity to blow the nationalistic horn and dig at the sorry Yanks. A truly impressive sustained effort.
Foster's Daily Democrat said:"Today, we're united by our concern for America," Romney said. "Four years ago we gave someone new a chance to run the country. At the time we didn't know what kind of president he'd make ... Barack Obama has failed America."
SilverTrain, you know you I agree with you on most things and I respect your viewpoint, so this isn't a dig at you or your comment. I just want to give you a different perspective.
I lived in the UK and worked for another UK-based outfit for a few years after I returned to the States. I still spend two or three weeks over there every year and I worked out of London on a project for a little over a month last fall. What Jason is expressing is the general attitude among the Brits who 'watch' US politics. I don't perceive it as an opportunistic dig. In the last 24 hours, I had four different connections on LinkedIn who are all Brits and live in the UK and Europe send me messages with a copy of the NYT editorial from yesterday titled "Playing with Matches on the Debt".
They all said more or less the same thing: 'when are your political parties going to learn to work together?' [The editorial is worth a read if you didn't see it.] At the same time, my friends note (like Jason) that cooperation between two parties is still a new thing in the UK. After experiencing both systems, I can tell you the biggest difference between the UK and the US when it comes to politics is one of marketing: we're just much better at it. (Well, that and the fact that election processes are more sane in the UK.) Unfortunately, I think it will be worse than ever this election cycle because of the Citizens United v FEC ruling by the Supreme Court in January 2010.
So, Jason is merely pointing out what those outside of the United States see pretty clearly: our election cycle is so long that it seems semi-permanent and nearly every major action, misstep, speech, court ruling, and election result is cast and recast in terms of the upcoming election regardless of how far away the election is. Since we have that much visibility on those events, every one of them becomes 'significant' to someone because of the competition between the parties. So, with that much rhetoric going on, is it any surprise very few elected officials have time to find common ground and work collaboratively?
I appreciated Jason's comment and this is when I wish more Americans could see how we're viewed overseas. (It's not positive and I'm sure that doesn't surprise any of us in this Forum.) But if the average American could just see the political sphere from outside of it instead of participating in it, I think we'd get change. I think that 'different viewpoint' might cause us to collectively ask our elected officials to grow up and do the job they were hired to do.
Just this morning, I watched Mitt Romney's announcement that he was running for President... and the speech highlights that get published as well as broadcast? His ideas? His message of 'hope'? No. It was his trashing of President Obama:
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
So it was just a personal shot eh?I don't disagree with any of that at all.
My previous comment, however, stands. It had nothing to do with the issue at hand, per se.
So it was just a personal shot eh?
Perhaps since you yourself take many opportunities to let us all know how little you think of the US, my comment was especially egregious.
Right, whatever. Going off topic to take someone to task for his past comments when what he wrote in this thread is completely germane to the issue, is what? How would you characterize your reply to Jason? As you wrote-Is that your mod hat you're wearing when you make a sarcastic comment like that? Were you "moderating", or were you just acting as a member?
You want to characterize my comment as a "personal shot"? I find that rather interesting, in that I was commenting on the latest in a long line of posts that are blatantly "the UK is so wonderful and the US sucks muchly". Many of said posts falling in the midst of threads that concern neither British nor American societal developments.
Perhaps since you yourself take many opportunities to let us all know how little you think of the US, my comment was especially egregious.
Whatever.
What else are we suppose to take away from that?It had nothing to do with the issue at hand, per se.
I think SilverTrain and Jason have a bit of history on these points.Back to Hhuck for a second... I think you're right; I think Vince is afraid for America. I'm not trying to provide an alibi for SilverTrain's earlier posts -- I haven't even talked to him about them. But, I also don't know what other Threads he had just been in when he commented and I don't know any of your histories. I do know that its easy to misread a post or a response.
[emphasis added]From the British side of the pond the USA seems to be in semi-permanent election mode with both main parties more interested in scoring points off one another than co-operating. The system is to blame. Our coalition is quite a new idea in the UK, but it is the political equivalent of Republicans and Democrats deciding they can work together in the national interest.
{snip}
There's nothing very arguable about any of that, imo.
{snip}
I think our distinct form of democracy makes us an easy target. Most other democracies in the world are parliamentary in nature whereas we have very separate executive and legislative powers. As a result, we have a lot more conflict and that conflict manifests as hostility between the executive and legislative branches of government and it generates a lot of press. Sometimes, a lot of press for years.
< snip >
In the parliamentary democracies around the world, if you have conflict between the executive and legislative powers, you just dissolve the government, hold new elections, and the issue is resolved (sometimes). It's nothing if not expedient. Is it better? Hard for anyone to say. And that's where I think some of the territorial defensiveness comes from. Who has the audacity to pronounce judgment like that?
It's easy to criticize the United States, but that's largely because the 20th century was the American century and we were the most visible, most successful, and most influential country in the world. Sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes for the wrong ones. And let's face it, we still are all of those things. Yes, the BRIC countries are rapidly emerging, as I think Vince loves to point out. Does that minimize the importance or influence or relevance of the US? Of course not.
Imagine having this discussion in 1911 and saying that the UK was irrelevant -- in 1911 -- because the US was rapidly becoming a world power. Ridiculous, right? Here we are 100 years later and it would still be a ridiculous statement to make. The UK remains one of the most powerful countries in the world.
So, news of our demise is premature. The one thing Americans are, if nothing else, is resilient.
Too often though, "working together" means accepting every single Republican demand. Say what you want about both parties- they both certainly play politics- but the Democrats have ALWAYS been willing to compromise- ALOT. Unfortunately, it's the Republicans who have been unwilling to compromise. Sorry, their idea of compromise involves accepting all of their demands- the New Deal social safety net gets neutered, while their big bank/pharma/military-industrial complex pals sacrifice nothing. Sorry, but when Republicans refuse to put modest tax increases and defense cuts on the table, and even start railing against the estate tax, it's not the Democrats' fault that there is no compromise in our system- there is no equivalency, and saying there is a kind of equivalency is downright dishonest, and allows the Republicans to continue to be batshit crazy.
The best way to obtain Republican compromise, however, might be to stop characterizing everything they do or want as 'batshit crazy'. They're fighting for what they believe in and they do it -- shall we say -- with fervor.