(no subject)
Continuing my series dealing with political rants nobody gives a fuck about, I offer the following cutting insights...
Recently I have been thinking about the role of political parties in an electoral system; but more specifically, the role of the opposition in any given model. This is, in part, impacted by different numbers of political parties in the system: take for example virtually any European country (save England). There, legislatures frequently feature multiple political parties. This usually leads to no one party holding absolute power (i.e., a majority of the seats in the House), and hence encourages coalition governments and a more consensual decision-making process. Even so, the parties in the governing coalition hold positions in the Cabinet, to the exclusion of the other parties in the legislature. This latter unfortunate minority still represent their constituents and their values, and stand as a principled yet loyal opposition to the Government.
Under the Westminster model, which Canada (as well as England, clearly, and other Commonwealth nations) follows, this premise is reflected in the title of the leader of the second party in the House of Commons: The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is her/his job to stand in principled opposition to the Government's policies, thus (hopefully) achieving a Hegelian balance between Thesis and Antithesis. The argument goes that this debate will strengthen the outcome of the issue in question. Under both this model and the European one, some votes are occasionally unanimous (or nearly so), however this is by far the exception to the rule.
In the US, however, there is constantly the rhetoric of "reaching across the aisle" to achieve goals. While this teamwork and statesmanship is no doubt admirable, the element of principled opposition is lost. In many ways, the American republican system (not the party, but the system itself) relies upon systemic checks and balances to provide the fetter to absolute power that the Opposition provides in Canada and elsewhere. The problem becomes, however, that when the House, Senate and the Presidency are all held by members of the same party, those checks and balances are mitigated by common objectives. Moreover, when some catastrophic event like 9/11 happens, for example, the marginal opposition that exists within that system has been shown to evaporate almost entirely.
This leads me to ask why Americans seek bipartisan cooperation, then? Haven't we seen over the course of the last seven years that a clearly defined Opposition is necessary to the proper functioning of an evolved government? Why are Obama and McCain both touting their bipartisan records, and implying (and often explicitly stating) that they would continue same if elected President? Perhaps it's foreign to American sensibilities, but I (for one) would be much more responsive to a message that goes something along the lines of, "Fuck the other dude, I have the right ideas and they can sit the hell down for the next four years if I win." But that's just me.
Recently I have been thinking about the role of political parties in an electoral system; but more specifically, the role of the opposition in any given model. This is, in part, impacted by different numbers of political parties in the system: take for example virtually any European country (save England). There, legislatures frequently feature multiple political parties. This usually leads to no one party holding absolute power (i.e., a majority of the seats in the House), and hence encourages coalition governments and a more consensual decision-making process. Even so, the parties in the governing coalition hold positions in the Cabinet, to the exclusion of the other parties in the legislature. This latter unfortunate minority still represent their constituents and their values, and stand as a principled yet loyal opposition to the Government.
Under the Westminster model, which Canada (as well as England, clearly, and other Commonwealth nations) follows, this premise is reflected in the title of the leader of the second party in the House of Commons: The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is her/his job to stand in principled opposition to the Government's policies, thus (hopefully) achieving a Hegelian balance between Thesis and Antithesis. The argument goes that this debate will strengthen the outcome of the issue in question. Under both this model and the European one, some votes are occasionally unanimous (or nearly so), however this is by far the exception to the rule.
In the US, however, there is constantly the rhetoric of "reaching across the aisle" to achieve goals. While this teamwork and statesmanship is no doubt admirable, the element of principled opposition is lost. In many ways, the American republican system (not the party, but the system itself) relies upon systemic checks and balances to provide the fetter to absolute power that the Opposition provides in Canada and elsewhere. The problem becomes, however, that when the House, Senate and the Presidency are all held by members of the same party, those checks and balances are mitigated by common objectives. Moreover, when some catastrophic event like 9/11 happens, for example, the marginal opposition that exists within that system has been shown to evaporate almost entirely.
This leads me to ask why Americans seek bipartisan cooperation, then? Haven't we seen over the course of the last seven years that a clearly defined Opposition is necessary to the proper functioning of an evolved government? Why are Obama and McCain both touting their bipartisan records, and implying (and often explicitly stating) that they would continue same if elected President? Perhaps it's foreign to American sensibilities, but I (for one) would be much more responsive to a message that goes something along the lines of, "Fuck the other dude, I have the right ideas and they can sit the hell down for the next four years if I win." But that's just me.