Visco my poor friend. I just read you blog of the 29th and i feel obliged to submit my post. Since i actually have some time right now and there is internet available. Here's the deal about gov't and elections as i see it.
Generally speaking, be it good or bad, the US is pretty alone in the world when it comes to government. The parlimentary system, as you say has many advantages. One is that there are more than two parties, so you might actually be able to find one that suites you. What a concept. On the flip side, sometimes the biggest party isn't a majority so they have to form a coalition government with another party that can agree on some issues. On the one hand this can temper the big parties by forcing them to make concession to smaller ones to get a majority. Nice. On the other hand, if there is a rift between members of a coalition the governemnt collapses and nothing happens. At all. Like worse than in Washington.
On the issue of two party system I actually have to throw something out there. The morons in the coporate media (and even the alternative media to some degree) claimed up and down that the last election ('04) showed a deeply divided country. Any vote not 100 to 0 shows division. Duh. What they meant was that the country was polarized (but most people don't know what that means so they used Roget's to find a substitute.) Au contraire, mon frere. I hold that it's actually the opposite. When a vote goes close to 50/50 it actually signals that there is little real difference/argument amongst the voters. To re-word what most people have been saying: "The country is split right down the middle." How deeply divided does that sound? Not very. A polarized election would be one where the candidates where not functionally similar; one where there were actual debates about war, the use of force, torture, environment, corporate welfare, social reform, education, etc. A divided election would be where more than two people get votes.
Oh, and the two-party system in the US is self-reinforcing. (Read "it's bullshit") Neither party wants more than one adversary. That would mean actually having to get something done; actually having to fight the status quoe. With only two even the minority party is still very powerful. (Still getting corporate money, still taking advantage of tax payers and constituents, still getting their friends rich.)
I'm with Visco; maybe parliementary systems aren't so bad. But when you have even the chosen one of the Dems (Barak Obama) trumpeting around about our duty in Iraq you've got to be pretty sure nothing's gonna change.
No comments:
Post a Comment