Its beginning to increasingly look as thought Pres. Barack Obama will win November's US Presidential elections.
The Republican opposition is seemingly hopelessly split between the barely electable but flawed Mitt Romney, and the equally flawed, but totally unelectable (and last champion of the far right), Newt Gingrich. Oh, and the outsider coming up on the rails, Rick Santorum, who believes in 'Intelligent design' (aka creationism) which he supports being taught in schools, but who surely has lost the 'Gay' vote .... as if he cares.
 |
| US Presidential Contestants 2012 |
The Republican opposition is seemingly hopelessly split between the barely electable but flawed Mitt Romney, and the equally flawed, but totally unelectable (and last champion of the far right), Newt Gingrich. Oh, and the outsider coming up on the rails, Rick Santorum, who believes in 'Intelligent design' (aka creationism) which he supports being taught in schools, but who surely has lost the 'Gay' vote .... as if he cares.
In the latest round of voting for the Republican ticket in South
Carolina, the primary winner was Newt Gingrich, who convincingly beat
Mitt Romney in a spate of negative campaigning, and the scene is now
apparently set for a long, hard, and bloody fight this spring. It seems
unlikely that the winner of this will be in any state to seriously
challenge Obama, who will even have been shown all his opponents
weaknesses. Unless there's a serious down-town in the US economy and
employment figures, then the general easing of the recession and 'green shoots' of recovery will also be in the incumbents favour.
I am by and large a big admirer of the USA and its institutions, but I think that the process of electing a US President is hopelessly archaic and actually damages democracy there:
Even at the end of the process, the President may only have two years in which to try and 'bribe' the Congress and Senate into backing a few major pieces of legislation before the regime becomes paralysed by local politics (often governed by 'pork barrel' considerations). In some cases, the President may be hog tied from the start if his party fails to control either house.
I understand that historically this system was meant to encourage consensus politics and national polices arrived at via negotiation, but increasingly in the US, the politics has become confrontational, with both parties unwilling to give any concession to the other. This leaves the executive in deadlock for long periods, or for bad legislation being passed through, which is worse than no legislation at all.
I have no idea what would cause the US to consider amending the political process, but its obvious that after two hundred years, the current system is not really fit for the 21st century and needs at least a major overhaul, if not a complete replacement.
Maybe the economic, military, and political challenge posed by the Chinese in this century may act as a spur. The Chinese are playing a long game of decades, or even centuries in order to gain their geopolitical goals, while US policy is only consistent for four or five years.
In the long-term there will only ever be one winner in that contest unless the US can start setting long-term economic , foreign and domestic political goals.
- It occupies the top politicians of the worlds most powerful democracy for up to two years out of every four, and
- Allows for absolutely no long-term policies to be put in place.
Even at the end of the process, the President may only have two years in which to try and 'bribe' the Congress and Senate into backing a few major pieces of legislation before the regime becomes paralysed by local politics (often governed by 'pork barrel' considerations). In some cases, the President may be hog tied from the start if his party fails to control either house.
I understand that historically this system was meant to encourage consensus politics and national polices arrived at via negotiation, but increasingly in the US, the politics has become confrontational, with both parties unwilling to give any concession to the other. This leaves the executive in deadlock for long periods, or for bad legislation being passed through, which is worse than no legislation at all.
I have no idea what would cause the US to consider amending the political process, but its obvious that after two hundred years, the current system is not really fit for the 21st century and needs at least a major overhaul, if not a complete replacement.
Maybe the economic, military, and political challenge posed by the Chinese in this century may act as a spur. The Chinese are playing a long game of decades, or even centuries in order to gain their geopolitical goals, while US policy is only consistent for four or five years.
In the long-term there will only ever be one winner in that contest unless the US can start setting long-term economic , foreign and domestic political goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.