by Duns Scotus
Increasingly it seems that America is on the brink of civil war, or at least constitutional collapse. Right now, we are only a few months away from an election year in which the President is a frail and elderly old man with a dubious family background, faced by a challenger nearly as old, who seems mentally unhinged and operating under the stress of what looks like a weaponized legal persecution. Even better, if this guy wins, it looks like the first guy could become the subject of a weaponized legal persecution himself!
Apparently, no one else in US politics has the name recognition, personality, or talent to interpose him-or-herself in order to prevent this weird, geriatric "cage match" taking place. This may be because both candidates have become totems for their polarised tribes that have a stranglehold on their respective parties, and have been invested with all the partisanship of their respective bases.
Needless to say, this is creating an extremely volatile situation that won't be resolved by a mere election.
The American bipolar political system always had the seeds of such polarisation within it, but it also had a long history of working things out in a cross bench sort of way, with divisions being cosmetic and mainly used to energise the voters. But now the inherent divisions of that system have become increasingly toxic.
The main thing driving this appears to be the exaggerated power invested in the position of president. Without that, there is every chance that things would simmer down and we would switch back to a system where Red Party guys and Blue Party guys did a little rhetorical sparring but then sat down and did cosy deals with one another in the interests of their constituents, donors, and -- possibly! -- even country.
In European terms, the American system is highly reminiscent of the French Fifth Republic, set up under the aegis of Charles de Gaulle in 1958 to replace a system dominated by parliamentary squabbling and party divisions.
When this happened, France was in the throes of chaos and revolution caused by the pressures of unsuccessful colonial wars and the nation's reluctance to take its allotted place in the post-war international system designed by the Americans and the British.
The French government in those days had a lot on its plate and needed a strong, decisive hand on the rudder to be able to make quick and effective decisions. In the "Olympian" person of De Gaulle they found somebody who could successfully navigate the ship of state between the Scylla and Charybdis of French politics.
Since then, the French have seen no real need to change the system, because, unlike America, the French parliamentary system is multipolar instead of bipolar. This means that the president can have kingly presidential powers without being associated too much with one side of the political see-saw, quite unlike modern America.
If the switch to the first Republic was the answer to France's problems in 1958, isn't something like a "reversal" of this a suitable way to resolve the problems building up in the American political machine?
Shouldn't America seek salvation in breaking away from the old Republican vs. Democrat two-party system, while also weakening the overweening powers of the president, and instead place much of the executive role in the hands of relatively disposable Prime Ministers?
Such ideas may sound radical, but if this American political shitshow keeps going on and getting worse and worse, then something will have to be done. History, remember, doesn't need to just move in one direction. De Gaullism in reverse could well save America.
Needless to say, this is creating an extremely volatile situation that won't be resolved by a mere election.
The American bipolar political system always had the seeds of such polarisation within it, but it also had a long history of working things out in a cross bench sort of way, with divisions being cosmetic and mainly used to energise the voters. But now the inherent divisions of that system have become increasingly toxic.
The main thing driving this appears to be the exaggerated power invested in the position of president. Without that, there is every chance that things would simmer down and we would switch back to a system where Red Party guys and Blue Party guys did a little rhetorical sparring but then sat down and did cosy deals with one another in the interests of their constituents, donors, and -- possibly! -- even country.
In European terms, the American system is highly reminiscent of the French Fifth Republic, set up under the aegis of Charles de Gaulle in 1958 to replace a system dominated by parliamentary squabbling and party divisions.
When this happened, France was in the throes of chaos and revolution caused by the pressures of unsuccessful colonial wars and the nation's reluctance to take its allotted place in the post-war international system designed by the Americans and the British.
The French government in those days had a lot on its plate and needed a strong, decisive hand on the rudder to be able to make quick and effective decisions. In the "Olympian" person of De Gaulle they found somebody who could successfully navigate the ship of state between the Scylla and Charybdis of French politics.
Since then, the French have seen no real need to change the system, because, unlike America, the French parliamentary system is multipolar instead of bipolar. This means that the president can have kingly presidential powers without being associated too much with one side of the political see-saw, quite unlike modern America.
If the switch to the first Republic was the answer to France's problems in 1958, isn't something like a "reversal" of this a suitable way to resolve the problems building up in the American political machine?
Shouldn't America seek salvation in breaking away from the old Republican vs. Democrat two-party system, while also weakening the overweening powers of the president, and instead place much of the executive role in the hands of relatively disposable Prime Ministers?
Such ideas may sound radical, but if this American political shitshow keeps going on and getting worse and worse, then something will have to be done. History, remember, doesn't need to just move in one direction. De Gaullism in reverse could well save America.
It depends whether you want a stable system controlled by billionaires as an oligarchy or a dynamic system that could achieve the populist reforms sought by many voters. While the US is nominally a presidential system like France, in practice it is a "vetocracy" where it is extremely difficult for the President to pass major, reformist, legislation without widespread bi-partisan (read: billionaire oligarch) support--something closer to the parliamentary system you described. This is why Trump governed like a RINO (mostly) and Obama failed to close Gitmo or pass single payer. Note that France aligns legislative elections to happen a few months after the Presidential election and gives the legislature the same term length to prevent a different party controlling it (although this still sometimes happens). France also lacks US style judicial review. I don't think that have US style primaries for legislative races either.
ReplyDeleteFor a populist POTUS to pass major reforms (something like the RAISE Act on the right or Medicare for All on the left), he needs to have his allies win hundreds of primary AND general elections in Congress, then keep these allies in Congress with a majority for several years while he stacks the federal courts with allies. Winning all these (primary and general) elections over several cycles of campaigns is incredibly expensive, too expensive for a self-funded enemy of his class billionaire (Trump) or a populist with millions of small donors (Sanders, Ron Paul, Trump to an extent) to afford. Only billionaire oligarchs have the money to effect the political process in this way, and they generally oppose populist policies like immigration restriction or universal healthcare. So what happens is that a populist wins the Presidency but is unable to get the down ballot support to govern as a reformer (Trump) or he never wins in the first place (Sanders), or he campaigns as a populist without really trying to be one (Obama). Media attention on the Presidency distracts from the office's weakness.
Only a total monarchy can save America at this stage.
ReplyDelete