03-10-2003, 03:17 PM
Is, and has always been different than our Congressional system, for its own logic. I rather suspect that your system's evolution is more akin to the British system than my own, and as I said, we will keep ours, thank you, and by all means, go ahead and enjoy yours. The vote of not confidence creates instability. Our term limits provide stability, of a sort, while requiring change. It all depends on where you want your checks and balances.
What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in my view, is that you do not have the national leader opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we have frequently experienced. That forces consensus, which in most domestic matters is a good thing. The safety valve of the "vote of no confidence" is a mercurial tool, IMO, as much a method of chaos as of reason. What made Kohl, whose system you mark as most similar to yours, so remarkable is that he was able to stay on top, with his party and his coalitions, for 17 years. Our term limits don't permit that, even if the leadership is good and popular. (See both Reagan and Clinton for examples of guys who would probably have gotten third terms had there not been term limits).
Maybe that is better, and maybe it is better that once in, the "ins" don't get bogged down by a majority opposition.
Insofar as the international leadership on progressive agenda, and my original assertion, it is very much a case of being everywhere, and getting the message out everywhere: all over the world. The feminist movement has been exported, for better or worse. It comes with being global in influence, and with sustained movement forward at home that gets intertwined into foreign policy abroad, as well as being spread via non official means of influence, including missionary movements, media, and a dozen other ways that the snipers always whine about: what America does gets to be at sometimes inescapable, unless you change the channel! :o.
Our influence is global, both the positive, such as the moving forward on a variety of human rights issues, (no, we are not alone, the whole West is involved) and the not so great, such as McDonalds everywhere. The down side to that is that propagation of social change makes enemies. Back to the top of the thread for why that matters.
You resent me asserting that plain truth that the influence of American culture is global. Why do I claim it is the model? Besides the fact that our internal policies get woven into our foreign policy, the simpler explanation is that our model is in front of the whole world's face.
If you choose to ignore that simple reality of the information age, so be it.
What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in my view, is that you do not have the national leader opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we have frequently experienced. That forces consensus, which in most domestic matters is a good thing. The safety valve of the "vote of no confidence" is a mercurial tool, IMO, as much a method of chaos as of reason. What made Kohl, whose system you mark as most similar to yours, so remarkable is that he was able to stay on top, with his party and his coalitions, for 17 years. Our term limits don't permit that, even if the leadership is good and popular. (See both Reagan and Clinton for examples of guys who would probably have gotten third terms had there not been term limits).
Maybe that is better, and maybe it is better that once in, the "ins" don't get bogged down by a majority opposition.
Insofar as the international leadership on progressive agenda, and my original assertion, it is very much a case of being everywhere, and getting the message out everywhere: all over the world. The feminist movement has been exported, for better or worse. It comes with being global in influence, and with sustained movement forward at home that gets intertwined into foreign policy abroad, as well as being spread via non official means of influence, including missionary movements, media, and a dozen other ways that the snipers always whine about: what America does gets to be at sometimes inescapable, unless you change the channel! :o.
Our influence is global, both the positive, such as the moving forward on a variety of human rights issues, (no, we are not alone, the whole West is involved) and the not so great, such as McDonalds everywhere. The down side to that is that propagation of social change makes enemies. Back to the top of the thread for why that matters.
You resent me asserting that plain truth that the influence of American culture is global. Why do I claim it is the model? Besides the fact that our internal policies get woven into our foreign policy, the simpler explanation is that our model is in front of the whole world's face.
If you choose to ignore that simple reality of the information age, so be it.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete