What is the problem with American politics?

[Freiheit Reich]

Ron Paul represented an ignored solution to the problem of American politics.

Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.
Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?
No one has a right to medical care.
We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care.
I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade.
The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.
I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse
But we’re already in such a mess that the only way to have a real impact on the money supply is to increase interest rates so that people pay back their loans and borrow less money from the banks, which decreases the amount of money in circulation. However, higher interest rates might very well crash the economy.
Ron Paul has been an advocate of the gold standard and open competition in currencies for many years.

I dunno, all in all that just doesn't make for very convincing policies to me. His fiscal policy is "gold standard" and "the free market will fix it" and the rest of his platform is a mixture of "just have faith and follow the bible" and "just get a job, you lazy unemployed people".

Politicians shouldn't force businesses to provide medical care, hospitals are businesses and should have the right to accept or deny medical care to anybody they choose.

Technically, abortion is murder although I think it should be legal for utilitarian reasons (it helps reduce poverty and crime). However, I can understand those that are against it.

Money should be backed by something besides 'the faith and trust of a corrupt government.' What is to stop the USD from becoming like Zimbawbwe's currency should our economy collapse? Imagine all of that money in savings accounts and it becomes nearly worthless in a few short years. Printing excess money devalues currency.

Global warming is happening but this is a natural cycle (much as the ice age was) and humans are not causing most of it. The govt. should not be heavily involved in this area. Eventually, oil supplies will drop and prices will rise making alternative fuels more popular and decreasing pollution. The free market solution will eventually work and even better, corrupt oil nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will go back to being poor like they deserve to be.

Politicians should only focus on essentials. National defense (not offense like foreign invasions-Iraq is a prime example), certain infrastructure (although tolls could pay for this), limited safety regulations, and law enforcement (although less than now, many laws could be repealed).

American government is too powerful and politicians create new and often unnecessarary laws to increase their power. A libertarian govt. equals less jobs and less benefits for politicians. Not many politicians are selfless enough to do the right thing for the American people and streamline American govt.

[Shilya]

Politicians shouldn't force businesses to provide medical care, hospitals are businesses and should have the right to accept or deny medical care to anybody they choose.

I believe in a right to live. And this includes a right to medical service.
I also believe that a healthy population makes for a better country than sick people ravaged by diseases because they can't afford expensive treatment, and that everyone should have equal odds, and should not be denied because the sickness he has, of no fault of his own, is too expensive to treat.

Money should be backed by something besides 'the faith and trust of a corrupt government.' What is to stop the USD from becoming like Zimbawbwe's currency should our economy collapse? Imagine all of that money in savings accounts and it becomes nearly worthless in a few short years. Printing excess money devalues currency.

What stops that is everyone who currently holds money or debt, i.e. the rich and powerful. Those people who you, and Ron Paul, claim engineer and profit from Inflation are also who stand to lose the most in hyperinflation. The average american, who is laden with debt, would stand to profit from large inflation, because inflation reduces debt. Hyperinflation would remove all debt the rich hold over the poor.

That aside, backing the dollar with gold would require insane amounts of gold, or an insane gold price. Now please remember that gold is used in more than just pretty rings and gold bard lying around.

Global warming is happening but this is a natural cycle (much as the ice age was) and humans are not causing most of it. The govt. should not be heavily involved in this area. Eventually, oil supplies will drop and prices will rise making alternative fuels more popular and decreasing pollution. The free market solution will eventually work and even better, corrupt oil nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will go back to being poor like they deserve to be.

By that time we will know if you were right. And I don't think you are, but damn, I hope it. Because if you are not, we are in for some HUGE trouble.

[Libertarian California]

Meg.

[Estado Paulista]

I don't see how the two-party system is a problem. A lot of countries de facto have it.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I don't see how the two-party system is a problem. A lot of countries de facto have it.

It's only an issue if the parties are very similar in nature, especially when it comes to economics. The Soviet Union is a prime example of why using only one economic system constantly is doomed to fail and America is slowly repeating this.

[Empire of Narnia]

No monarchy. Canada has the Queen and America can have her as well.

[Brickistan]

[...]
So here's the question we need to ask ourself about the Romney campaign in 2012: What did they do to persuade people who voted for OBAMA in 2008 to vote for Romney in 2012 INSTEAD?

Political analysts and observers are not used to thinking of elections in these terms (i.e., "What do I need to do to get the other guys' supporters to change sides"). They think in terms of their OWN base, their OWN supporters, their OWN strengths, but never in terms of taking voters AWAY from the other candidate. Any sane observer of politics would grasp immediately and intuitively that taking votes AWAY from the incumbent is the only way to keep the incumbent from repeating their success, yet seldom if ever does a challenger actually approach a campaign in this way.

This is why many of us openly wondered if there was ANYTHING Romney could do to be Obama in '12. Obama was elected by supermajorities of blacks, Latinos, Asians, and gays; he won the women's vote by a full 12 points in a Nation where women outnumber (and outvote men); he did very well among young voters, who both turned out and voted for him in great numbers; and he enjoyed a greater level of support among registered Democrats (who outnumber registered Republicans Nationwide) than most recent Presidential candidates, suffering minimal defection to McCain.

So what did Romney do to win back women? What did he do to appeal to gays and minorities? What did he do to win over young voters? And what did he do to try and persuade registered Democrats to bolt their Party and vote Republican?

The answer to all of these questions is "little or nothing". Romney spent the entire campaign speaking to his base, rallying the same voters who cast their ballots for McCain in '08. Those 59,950,323 voters had given McCain 45.60% of the popular vote; yet as impressive as that is, it's not as good as 50.01% — which has to make any sensible observer wonder how on Earth Mitt Romney thought that would be ENOUGH.

Consequently, Mitt Romney won the support of 60,932,235 votes, and increase of 981,912 votes over McCain's tally. That's an increase of 1.64% in absolute terms — pretty good for a year in which overall turnout went down. It's likely that few if any McCain voters failed to vote from Mitt Romney as well, which means that Romney did indeed achieve his objective: He won over the people who voted for John McCain, and who were that group most heavily predisposed to support him in the first place. Bravo![...]

Interesting observation.

I do wonder, however. Considering how entrenched the political parties are, outright hating each other and refusing to take part in bi-partisan work, how would you suggest that a candidate "steals" votes from his opponent. In effect, you have two large cores of voters who will always vote along party- and religious-lines regardless of how bat-shit insane the candidate is (point in case - the last two republican candidates).

[...]The funny thing is that the large number of political Parties did nothing to temper or moderate the debate, nor did it do anything to stabilize the system. If anything, it probably increased the paralysis and instability of the Federal government in the face of the growing National crisis over slavery and its place within American society.

Today's levels of political polarization are as sharp as any since the 1850's. Your tone suggests that you see no historical parallel or lesson to be drawn from our previous experience with having multiple Parties in play at a time of grave National division. Instead, you seem to believe as a matter of faith (for you really have no historical evidence whatsoever to support your position, when push comes to shove) that having more Parties will make compromise and governance easier.

I don't believe this is so.

I think part of the reason so many people here on NSG feel that having multiple Parties would make things better is because so many here subscribe to hipster thinking and think that the lack of cooperation in Washington is a consequence of MUTUAL stubbornness. I don't agree, and neither do neutral political scientists like Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (who are not, BTW, political liberals); Mann, Ornstein, and neutral observers see clearly that it's the Republican Party that absolutely refuses to cut ANY deal with Democrats, no matter how far Democrats bend. If you're a hipster, the natural response to gridlock is to curse both Parties and wish that we could send two different ones in there to replace them; but if you're looking at things objectively, it's clear that the problem lies with a GOP whose philosophy is that if THEY can't get their way, NO ONE can.[...]

Interestingly enough, multiple-party systems seem to work fairly well in Europe.

I would suggest that part of the explanation is to be found in the "soul" (for lack of better word) of the American people. Even in today's international world they seem hellbent on maintaining their individualism and an inflated sense of ego. Coupled with a fierce need to be the winner, you get a situation where you simply cannot form a functioning coalition government as that would imply that others are equally important.

[Death Metal]

Authoritarian nationalists who cozy up to corporate interests and use misinformation and cult status to hide their theocratic agenda.

So basically, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, the Tea Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and all their cronies.


Mind you the left has tons of nutters too (The Green Party), but their scope of influence is limited.

The insane right, preaching tyranny under the guise of revolution? They can buy their way to influence, and jam up the gears to manufacture discord, thus gaining more influence.

[Death Metal]

No monarchy. Canada has the Queen and America can have her as well.

Canada's royalty isn't allowed to so much as sneeze if elected officials tell them not to, so.

[Estado Paulista]

It's only an issue if the parties are very similar in nature.

Except they aren't very similar.

No monarchy. Canada has the Queen and America can have her as well.

How about no.

[Estado Paulista]

Authoritarian nationalists who cozy up to corporate interests and use misinformation and cult status to hide their theocratic agenda.

So basically, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, the Tea Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and all their cronies.


Mind you the left has tons of nutters too (The Green Party), but their scope of influence is limited.

The insane right, preaching tyranny under the guise of revolution? They can buy their way to influence, and jam up the gears to manufacture discord, thus gaining more influence.

Basically, this.

[Alien Space Bats]

There's no doubt in my mind that if the US Populace was both Intelligent, Non-Complacent, and Informed there wouldn't just be an end to gridlock, but an end to the two party system.

Right. Because intelligent, well-educated people couldn't POSSIBLY believe that a two-party system was adequate for the Nation's needs.

<eyeroll>

Listen, when I was young (i.e., college age) in the mid-to-late-70's and the GOP had not yet gone insane, I studied political science at the university level. Back then, political scientists recognized — as others, including myself have stated in this thread — that coalition building occurs within the American political system just as it does under European parliamentary systems; it just comes at a different point in the political process.

In European parliamentary systems, voters choose a program or agenda by voting for their favorite Party; once representatives are awarded based on Party popularity, the various Parties scramble to organize themselves into two broad coalitions: The government and the opposition. It is at THAT level where compromise enters into the political system, unless one Party so dominates at the ballot box as to be able to form a government without having to accept any outside partners.

In America, coalition building comes BEFORE the election, during the Party platform-building process. The rival coalitions then present themselves to the voters as multi-faction Parties, and the voters choose the coalitional Party they want to see empowered. Same basic results, but through a different process.

Either system can fail if society becomes too politically fragmented; either system can fail if a single large Party (even a Party that cannot command a majority) refuses to compromise and demands absolute power without dealmaking (an example of this under a parliamentary government can be seen in the rise to power of the NSDAP in Weimar Germany, which — in spite of being able to win only 30-35% of the popular vote through thr late 1920's and early 1930's — was able to prevent any ruling coalition from forming in which it was not a member, and unwilling to enter into any coalition unless it was given the Chancellory. There's nothing magical about multiparty politics, and it is not a given that intelligent people will prefer such a system; there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I, personally, would simply like a greater diversity in my options to vote for.

But you're still going to end up with the same results. You'll no doubt feel good and pure and holy voting for the Green Stoplight Feminist Gunowners Party, whose platform appeals EXACTLY to your idea of how things ought to be done; but unless a majority of the voters share your opinion, you're going to end up seeing your Party make a deal with several other Parties to amass the votes they need to organize a government, and then that government is going to be as much of an amorphous "big tent" as our present American Parties.

Worse, under the American system, you can generally see what you're getting in the way of a deal BEFORE the election, based on what each Party writes into its platform and the themes it sounds on the campaign trail; in contrast, under the system YOU propose, you have NO idea what deal your Party will end up having to make in order to win a place at the table. It's very much a case of, "Vote Now and See What Happens", which — as I stated in the previous paragraph, allows you to feel nicely sanctimonious because YOU didn't have to compromise YOUR ideals, but still ends up producing some kind of Rube Goldberg ruling arrangement in the end anyway.

Me, I'm enough of a big boy to be willing to make my OWN compromises. I don't end up feeling like I've betrayed my beliefs if I end up having to vote for someone who believes that the death penalty is acceptable as the price of making sure that the poor get fed; choosing my own poison doesn't make me feel cheap. Indeed, I see making such choices as the price I pay for being a citizen with the right to vote.

Interestingly enough, multiple-party systems seem to work fairly well in Europe.

... And there've been long periods of time during which the two-party system worked quite well in America as well — especially during the Rayburn Era (1940-1961), as well as for several decades thereafter (specifically, from 1962-1994). Indeed, as Mann and Ornstein have argued, the biggest problem with the two-party system isn't so much the lack of choice (because there's always some basis on which to choose between the two Parties) as the increasing degree of difference between the two Parties.

IOW, as long as there was overlap between Republicans and Democrats, such that there were things both were interested in doing (and people on both sides interested in doing those things), Washington worked. It was only when the two Parties found themselves too far apart to cooperate that the system suddenly ground to a halt.

[Alien Space Bats]

Politicians shouldn't force businesses to provide medical care...

Actually, I don't think businesses should be providing health insurance at all. That's why I'd prefer to see government-funded universal health care, preferably delivered by a public health system augmented by private specialty providers, and paid for through some kind of social insurance program, either on the French or German model (the tax that pays for the German model is shared by employer and employee alike, which is similar to the American model for Social Security; the French funding model [which I would prefer] is paid for by the employee alone). Private insurance should be available as an add-on, but it should not be needed for most individuals.

Requiring businesses to provide health insurance reduces worker mobility; health coverage should be portable, so that individuals can retain their coverage even as their employment circumstances change. This is one of the positive benefits of the ACA: Businesses that essentially turn their employees loose to buy health through the State and Federal exchanges are doing their workers a favor, because those workers can choose the plan that best suits their needs and then take it with them when they go someplace else.

Another drawback of requiring employers to provide health insurance is that is distorts the labor market in all sorts of ways that are undesirable. For one thing, it fosters age discrimination (even with the ACA, it costs more to insure an older worker than a younger one), which is highly undesirable in any society. Better that employees and society in general bear the cost of health care, and labor cost be kept free of complications.

... hospitals are businesses and should have the right to accept or deny medical care to anybody they choose.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the story of Harry T. Moore.

Moore was Executive Director of the Florida NAACP in the late 1940's and early 1950's. On Christmas Night of 1951, he and his wife were mortally wounded by a bomb that had been planted in the floorboards underneath their bed.

Moore was taken by neighbors to the nearest hospital, where he was refused treatment. He subsequently died en route to a second hospital that was over an hour away.

Granted, Moore was refused treatment because he was a black man who had been targeted for death by the KKK in the Jim Crow South; but the mere idea that a person who is fighting for his or her life can be refused treatment "for any reason" is morally repugnant. Private property is all very well and good, but once you've accepted a public license to practice medicine, you owe something to society for allowing you to hold a position of such great responsibility and high esteem.

[Lebanon Christian Republic]

I believe America is too Secular.

[Nervium]

I believe America is too Secular.

Change that to "not secular enough" and we'll call it a deal.

[Lebanon Christian Republic]

I believe America is too Secular.

Change that to "not secular enough" and we'll call it a deal.

No America is too secular, America lacks religion.

example go for a walk and see how the children behave, see how the churches are empty, see how the state brainwashes with evolution.

[Nervium]

Change that to "not secular enough" and we'll call it a deal.

No America is too secular, America lacks religion.

example go for a walk and see how the children behave, see how the churches are empty, see how the state brainwashes with evolution.

Evolution is a fact... But that's for another thread!

Children not behaving has nothing to with religion, and everything to do with children. (And by extent their parents)
God has no place in the goverment.

[Luveria]

No America is too secular, America lacks religion.

Yeah, Wicca should be the state religion. Then America would be religious enough for you. Oh, what's that? It has to be your religion?

[Vetalia]

Requiring businesses to provide health insurance reduces worker mobility; health coverage should be portable, so that individuals can retain their coverage even as their employment circumstances change. This is one of the positive benefits of the ACA: Businesses that essentially turn their employees loose to buy health through the State and Federal exchanges are doing their workers a favor, because those workers can choose the plan that best suits their needs and then take it with them when they go someplace else.

Well, sure, so long as they are getting additional compensation for losing their coverage, which is certainly not going to happen unless you've got a very generous employer or you are in an industry short of workers, neither of which are very common these days.

I myself would not be very happy paying an additional $700/month for health insurance, which is what my firm currently pays for my high-deductible plan, nor will I enjoy the inevitable massive premium increases that will result from PPACA.

[Death Metal]

Change that to "not secular enough" and we'll call it a deal.

No America is too secular, America lacks religion.

Lacking amoral religious brainwashing is a very good thing.

[Death Metal]

I myself would not be very happy paying an additional $700/month for health insurance, which is what my firm currently pays for my high-deductible plan, nor will I enjoy the inevitable massive premium increases that will result from PPACA.

I'm not worried myself. I tend to not worry about imaginary things like this though.

[Divair]

No monarchy. Canada has the Queen and America can have her as well.

The Queen has little impact in the UK, and even less so overseas. The USA's problems have nothing to do with the lack of a figurehead.

[Divair]

I believe America is too Secular.

No such thing.

[Rurmastadt]

Partisan gridlock due to mass media induced radicalism.

[Death Metal]

Partisan gridlock due to mass media induced radicalism.

Corporate-induced. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.