Valley Oak
08-31-2008, 07:04 PM
I will vote for Obama in November. But at the same time, I'm not going to delude myself into believing that he is going to be another FDR, JFK, Lincoln, etc. Obama will (and on some issues already has) disappoint the voters who will elect him to become the future occupant of the White House.
Sure, it's certainly grand to see that a country elects an African-American president when that same country used to enslave human beings because they were black, not considered human, and did so as recently as 143 years ago. But when he starts executing his powers as the executive of the federal government, don't be shocked at the things that he does and the things that he doesn't do. Remember something important, a person in this country cannot become president if he or she is not conservative enough in the eyes of Americans. That's why Denis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, etc, never stood a serious chance of even coming close to reaching the Oval Office.
In the US, a very undemocratic country because of its two-party system, it's always a matter of voting for the lesser of TWO evils. I'm 47 y/o and it's always been that way, even when I voted for the first time in 1980 in the Reagan-Carter election. In other more democratic nations people have real choices of voting their conscience because there are SEVERAL political parties to choose from that do indeed represent people's interests across the political spectrum.
Edward
Zeno Swijtink
08-31-2008, 09:17 PM
I will vote for Obama in November. But at the same time, I'm not going to delude myself into believing that he is going to be another FDR, JFK, Lincoln, etc. Obama will (and on some issues already has) disappoint the voters who will elect him to become the future occupant of the White House.
Sure, it's certainly grand to see that a country elects an African-American president when that same country used to enslave human beings because they were black, not considered human, and did so as recently as 143 years ago. But when he starts executing his powers as the executive of the federal government, don't be shocked at the things that he does and the things that he doesn't do. Remember something important, a person in this country cannot become president if he or she is not conservative enough in the eyes of Americans. That's why Denis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, etc, never stood a serious chance of even coming close to reaching the Oval Office.
In the US, a very undemocratic country because of its two-party system, it's always a matter of voting for the lesser of TWO evils. I'm 47 y/o and it's always been that way, even when I voted for the first time in 1980 in the Reagan-Carter election. In other more democratic nations people have real choices of voting their conscience because there are SEVERAL political parties to choose from that do indeed represent people's interests across the political spectrum.
Edward
There seems to be an unexplained contradiction in your post: on the one hand you say that Obama will disappoint the voters since he will be more conservative than the voters. On the other hand you say that the voters are conservative and would not elect a progressive president.
The other point you bring up - that in a two party system many voters are forced to choose for a candidate who does not represent their own point of view - forgets that in a representational form of government, where one usually can chose between many parties - some larger, some rather small, the prime minister - the political equivalent of the president since what they call "president" or "king" is mostly a ceremonial function - is chosen by a majority coalition of parties, and may reflect equally badly the point of view of the individual voter.
Both systems are ways to aggregate individual preferences, and the two party system does not necessarily do a worse job as the representational parliaments.
In the US the influence of campaign contributions and lobbyists seems to me have the more detrimental consequences.
Valley Oak
09-01-2008, 02:35 PM
Well, the contradiction is there but it’s not that black and white, no pun intended. Of all of the voters that have supported Obama so far, some have already expressed disappointment and there have been newspaper articles about this in the New York Times and other news sources. In the articles, and I can seek them out if you wish, it is reported that many of the most progressive voters within the original Obama electorate (let’s say as of March of this year, for example) have already expressed dismay with some of the positions that Obama has expressed since then as well as positions that he has changed since Clinton was no longer in the race. I could go on here about this particular point but these same disaffected voters stated that they would no longer support Obama and were thinking of supporting the Green Party candidate or some other person for president, or even abstaining. Obama is more conservative than only SOME of his original voting base. However, in the way I wrote my post it sounds like EVERYONE who votes for Obama will be disappointed and that’s not true. So I take your observation to heart because I did contradict myself.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
What is still completely true is that the average American voter is too conservative to vote for a truly progressive/liberal/socialist candidate. That is a constant and this is visible when we look at the election results of people like Kucinich, Nader, Shirley Chisolm, Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, and many other candidates throughout US history.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Nonetheless, how untrue or contradictory is it to say that BOTH the American electorate AND the political candidate (Obama) are not progressive or liberal enough to meet social needs? In any case, perhaps the question might be how one wishes to define ‘conservative.’ And not that a person has to choose either the candidate OR the people as not being progressive or liberal enough. I say this because those two (the candidate and voters) are not mutually exclusive (one negating the other).<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Regarding the two-party system, a candidate is forced to speak in ambiguities in order not to alienate some group of such a wide base of voters who amongst themselves strongly disagree on issues such as same sex marriage and so on. Obama deliberately hedges his words carefully regarding gay marriage, for example, in order not to lose swing voters (swing voters are relatively uninformed and conservative). This dynamic obligates the gay community to vote for Obama despite the fact that he is mealy mouthed about an issue that is critical for them.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
In a two-party system, a candidate has a tougher job than someone walking a tightrope because he or she has to keep 50% + 1 voter happy during the whole campaign, without ever pissing off too many people that they risk losing the general election. Critical issues such as abortion and others are often death knell topics that force a political candidate to commit suicide in public by taking a clear stance—something that rarely happens in a multi-party system. In a multi-party system, political parties and candidates can almost always boldly and clearly state their honest positions in public and WIN because of this. In the US, however, the reverse is true because candidates are forced to ‘live in the closet’ about their true positions on the issues and speak in vague generalities. This inverted political dynamic in the US demonstrates how perverted and undemocratic the two-party system is. I often have to wonder how many times Obama, or any other candidate for that matter, is saying what they’re saying because it is electorally convenient or cautious because the truth would be suicidal or the issue is not important enough to risk losing an election over. Do you see what I mean? Often time, American politics is more like a circus act than it is the serious civic duty and responsibility that it should be.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Both systems (two-party and multi-party or proportional representation) are not equal at all and there is an enormous, qualitative superiority on the part of the multi-party system. I strongly recommend that you read at least some material published by the French political theorist Maurice Duverger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)) where he researches the various anti-democratic dynamics in the two-party system and the plurality voting process (first-past-the-post) that creates it.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Regarding what you refer to as a representational form of government, let’s call it a multi-party government for a little more clarity; there are many different models in Europe. We could speak of a multi-party government in generic terms but it’s also important to talk about two or three real governments, such as France, the UK, and Germany, being that they are among the most influential governments in Europe.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
A common form of multi-party government has a prime minister (or some such title), which is the head of the government or the nation’s administration. Also, this model typically has a President of the Republic, which in some ways has authority over the government and prime minister but not in administrating the country, except only indirectly. In countries such as the UK or Spain, the equivalent of the President is the monarch (historically, the position of king or queen precedes the more modern invention of a president). This model is difficult to compare with the US president because many European countries are bicephalous (meaning two heads for the offices of president and prime minister). Also important, the US presidency has very few institutional or constitutional limitations on its foreign policymaking. The US president is more checked in domestic policy by Congress, the Supreme Court, and other factors. European governments (president and prime minister) have greater limitations in their power over foreign policy.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
The French president is strong, not ceremonial like the German president (the German Chancellor has the real power) and also unlike the UK monarch, which is also ceremonial because the prime minister (Blair, Brown, etc) has the real power. I am not envious of the undemocratic system in the UK because it still has a monarchy and does NOT have proportional representation; the UK still practices first-past-the-post like in the US (the UK was the source of that tradition here in the States).<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
In France, the president is voted into power directly by the French people. That is the model that I subscribe to. Not all European countries do this so I’m referring to this particular feature of the French presidency, not necessarily all aspects of their highest public executive office. However, if I had to choose between what we have here in the US as opposed to having a parliament that votes in the president then I’d rather have the latter. You and I can amicably part company here, if you wish.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Finally, I very strongly disagree that the influences of campaign contributions and lobbyists have more detrimental consequences to US society than the two-party system. There are many good reasons for this but in a multi-party system, the influence of campaign contributions and lobbyists is greatly reduced. As a matter of fact, what do you know about lobbyists in Europe? A multi-party system would effectively neutralize most of the influence of contributions and lobbyists. By the way, how much influence do European lobbyists have in Europe, anyway?<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
I have a lot more to say but this will do for now.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Edward<o:p></o:p>
There seems to be an unexplained contradiction in your post: on the one hand you say that Obama will disappoint the voters since he will be more conservative than the voters. On the other hand you say that the voters are conservative and would not elect a progressive president.
The other point you bring up - that in a two party system many voters are forced to choose for a candidate who does not represent their own point of view - forgets that in a representational form of government, where one usually can chose between many parties - some larger, some rather small, the prime minister - the political equivalent of the president since what they call "president" or "king" is mostly a ceremonial function - is chosen by a majority coalition of parties, and may reflect equally badly the point of view of the individual voter.
Both systems are ways to aggregate individual preferences, and the two party system does not necessarily do a worse job as the representational parliaments.
In the US the influence of campaign contributions and lobbyists seems to me have the more detrimental consequences.