2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

nimh wrote:

Except the Schroeder government doesnt have a majority in the Bundesrat, so it cant pass whatever laws it wants. And, like the Koehl government, its a coalition government, which preordains an inherent acceptance of compromise and negotiation lacking in the British/American-style democracy with its "winner takes all" system.

But that's really just a matter of degree isn't it? Once a coalition government is formed they have the majority and then that coalition government is in the same position as a single party would be here. They'd have the majority in the Parliment and can push through whatever legislation they may prefer. It seems to just shift tjhe process from being party based to being based on whether you are a member of the governing coalition or not.

Even in the US, having a single party majority doesn't guarantee that the party will or can get things through. Representatives within the parties can decide on their own how they will vote and they can choose to go against their own party.

It seems that in a PR system the compromises have to be made with the coalition where in a non-PR government the compromises are made within the parties. But doesn't that end up at the same point in the end with either the ruling party or ruling coalition controlling the ball?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The tables are turned that is why the republicans are squealing like stuck pigs. No doubt if the shoe was on the other foot it would be the democrats turn to squeal. Let's face it the shoe only pinches when it is on your foot.

I don't remember squealing, but then I can't speak to what you hear. Rolling Eyes

And no, for some of us, the shoe always pinches when our system of government is not operating as it should, whether that is convenient to us personally or not. I realize this is a hard concept for some to grasp, but it is no less real for the failure of some to grasp it.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

nimh wrote:
Now Dean, of all Democratic candidates, shouldnt be an unknown person anymore to Americans who intend to vote.

This is probably some "wishful thinking". Not to be negative or anything here nimh but it was just a few months ago where the majority of registered Democrats couldn't identify any of the 9 candidates running (that was prior to Clark entering the race and Graham dropping out..). The numbers who can ID a few of the candidates has probably gone up some but I doubt it's by much at this point. As much as we'd like to think otherwise the American public is pretty apathetic and they'd rather watch re-runs of "Friends" than the evening news and read "Us" or "People" magazine rather than a newspaper.

Some good news on this count (in relative terms):

A CBS News poll of 10-13 November asked, "From what you have heard or read, can you name any of the candidates running for the 2004 Democratic nomination for president?", and 55% said, yes, I can name a candidate.

If you look at what turnout will probably be that likely means that most of the people who will vote have by now heard of at least one of the candidates. And the one name that comes to mind soonest, is Dean's.

0 Replies

Scrat
I have yet to meet anyof these "some of us" you are talking about. Can you point one out. Rumsfeld,Bush,Chaney anyone?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I have yet to meet anyof these "some of us" you are talking about. Can you point one out.

I am one such, though I fully expect you to tell me that I'm not.

0 Replies

Scrat
I wouldn't think of disputing you opinion of yourself.

0 Replies

Fishin',

Matter of degrees, yes. The coalition government has as much power vis-a-vis the opposition as the US administration does against its opposition. Well - wait. First off, thats not actually true. Because thats where the other point I made comes in. The US executive is much more powerful versus Congress than governments in Europe usually are versus parliament (Berlusconi's Italy being the most notable exception). And parliament will likely be more pluralistic, factionalist and independent-minded than the executive, divisions of the Powell-Rumsfeld kind notwithstanding.

But, to go back to the influence of PR, even if the coalition government as a whole should have the same kind of leverage towards the opposition as the US administration does, a coalition government is a different beast altogether. First off, a coalition government starts out from the very beginning hammering out formal compromises - in Holland the coalition parties sign a coalition program, for example. Second, the PM / Chancellor / etc cant pick his own ministers as he wishes. He will have to equitably divide minister posts among the different participating parties - a process guaranteed by formal negotiations between the leaders of each party. And whenever controversial decisions are taken, too, the PM and his party will have to counsel and compromise with the leaders of the coalition partners beforehand.

Now of course theres a lot of compromising going on in the Bush and Blair governments too. Blair vs Brown, Cheney vs Powell, etc. But each of those ministers has nothing to throw into the fight but his own personal prestige. And in the end, the President decides - Powell's bad luck if it happens to be against him. Wouldnt happen here. If the coalition partner vehemently disagrees, you just have to compromise, period, or its MPs will vote against your proposal. Powell has no Congressmen of his own - at most, he can threaten to resign, rather an emergency-only strategy.

Bush and Blair usually take the range of views within their parties into account, for sure, but will also ignore it if they and their closest allies personally deem it necessary. Unlike in coalition governments, they are under no obligation to give minister posts to the different groups within his "coalition", nor to counsel them when taking important decisions.

All of this strengthens the situation in which Bush has much less incentive or need or urge to compromise on the radical agenda he feels it is his mission to implement - regardless of whether he came in with 48% or 56% of the votes - and thats where the continental-European and Anglosaxon systems differ. (Berlusconi again being one notable exception).

One extra, relevant thing about coalition governments is the possibility of a coalition partner stepping out mid-way, if its views are not taken into account enough, and then the government falls. (There may be dissenting voices within a party, too, but to do what Jeffords (sp?) did, and leave the party, is a much more drastic and unlikely step.) This means - and in that respect Germany and France are exceptions - that a coalition government will usually be extended to cover quite a bit more than that 50,1% of the seats. That, too, makes the "48%-majority rules" scenario even more unlikely.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

All of this strengthens the situation in which Bush has much less incentive or need or urge to compromise on the radical agenda he feels it is his mission to implement - regardless of whether he came in with 48% or 56% of the votes - and thats where the continental-European and Anglosaxon systems differ.

Of course, it isn't clear whether a need to compromise is desirable or not. For illustration, one might argue that Thatcher's uncompromising reforms in the 80s were a good thing for Britain. This goes to show that while a system that requires a high degree of compromise can be a barrier against Bush-style radicalism, it can also be a barrier against necessary reforms, even against having controversial topics decided on at all. I believe that Germany, in particular, could use a few years under a majority voting system.

0 Replies

Quote:

All of this strengthens the situation in which Bush has much less incentive or need or urge to compromise on the radical agenda he feels it is his mission to implement - regardless of whether he came in with 48% or 56% of the votes - and thats where the continental-European and Anglosaxon systems differ. (Berlusconi again being one notable exception).

Ok nimh, but I think you are side-steping the main point there. In both systems everyone has to compromise In the PR system there is more compromise up front and in our system it has to come on each bit/piece of legislation but that's just moving the chairs.

Our parties aren't as monolithic as it appears you are implying. There are Liberal Republicans and there are Conservative Democrats that often buck the party line and they have to be dealt with much the same way the coalition partners are dealt with in a PR system.

Bush has no more power than your PM does if all of the ruling coalition agrees. Bush has to get all of teh members of his own party to agree with him where your PM has to get all of his coalition members to agree. Once that is done they are both in the same position of power of their opposition.

Quote:

One extra, relevant thing about coalition governments is the possibility of a coalition partner stepping out mid-way, if its views are not taken into account enough, and then the government falls. (There may be dissenting voices within a party, too, but to do what Jeffords (sp?) did, and leave the party, is a much more drastic and unlikely step.)

I don't see how a single member leaving their chosen political party is a more serious situation that the collapse of an entire government... In one case there can be a slight shift in power of one house of the Congress. In the other the ruling government ceases to exist and must be reformed. How is the collapse of government less drastic here? Can you elaborate your thoughts on that one for me?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Of course, it isn't clear whether a need to compromise is desirable or not. For illustration, one might argue that Thatcher's uncompromising reforms in the 80s were a good thing for Britain.

Yes, of course, all of this little discussion was pinned on my initial, wholly personal, submission that a penchant for compromise is indeed more desirable. We continued on from there, discussing to what extent the European / PR system does or does not spur on consensual politics more than the Anglosaxon system, but the basic submission was still totally one of personal preference. I know full well that georgeob1 won't agree, for example. I didnt like Thatcher either. But then, as I said - "See, I like [consensual politics]. Because I dont like revolutions - I'm the real "conservative" here." ;-)

As for "barriers against necessary reforms" and the example of Germany - as I already posted up there - it's true, "sometimes the consensus can become stifling, of course - but the same is true for the deadlock of polarisation, in the end." A penchant for continuous compromise may weaken the impact of necessary reforms. But strident unilateralism does so no less - deadlock and polarisation will lock opposing camps into unproductive stances. One could even say the lack of reforms in Germany stems not from too much compromise, but from too much polarisation, as the CDU/CSU-FDP camp and the SPD/Green camp begrudge each other the chance to 'score' with their respective reform plans.

I can only say that in the Netherlands, the years of polarisation in the 70s and 80s may have yielded some Thatcherite results, but many others had to be pulled back in face of strident demonstrations etc. Whereas in the 90s, liberalisation and privatisation got to storm ahead when, consensual politics reaching its apex, Labour was tied into the left-center-right government along with the pro-market VVD, and (extraparliamentary, trade union, etc) oposition to the reforms was thus largely neutralised. Yeh, the "small left" complained, but without the Labour machine on its side, there wasnt much it could accomplish. I may not have liked some of the resulting (a)social reforms, but these were the most prosperous years in decades, and our economic "polder"model of reform-through-consensus got to be held up as example - in your (German) magazines, for example.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

In both systems everyone has to compromise In the PR system there is more compromise up front and in our system it has to come on each bit/piece of legislation but that's just moving the chairs.

Our parties aren't as monolithic as it appears you are implying. There are Liberal Republicans and there are Conservative Democrats that often buck the party line and they have to be dealt with much the same way the coalition partners are dealt with in a PR system.

Not quite the same way. I didnt say your parties are monolithic - in fact, I pointed out the factionalism in your parties, too - Rumsfeld vs Powell and all that. But these are merely amorphous "currents", that have no solid voting blocks, no formal leaders, no organisational structures, no ministers of their own - or vice versa, no parties/electorates of their own - to rely on. Just fluid coalitions of individuals that may change from topic to topic, proposal to proposal, and that can thus be more easily divided, broken down, persuaded.

To illustrate this: imagine Powell had his own party. He was the party leader. He had 15% of the votes in Congress behind him, members of his party, bound, in principle, to heed his advice - and those votes were necessary to get any foreign policy law adopted. Do you really think Bush would have had the degree of freedom he now has to decide in Rumsfeld and Cheney's favour if he thinks that's better?

fishin' wrote:

Bush has no more power than your PM does if all of the ruling coalition agrees. Bush has to get all of teh members of his own party to agree with him where your PM has to get all of his coalition members to agree. Once that is done they are both in the same position of power of their opposition.

Here we risk going into repeat, I'm afraid. First there is the question of formal powers, and the US President and his administration have considerably more than your average European PM and his government. For example, the Dutch parliament can vote out any individual minister. Imagine Congress demanding Bush to sack this or that member of his administration. If Congress votes for a new law, your president can veto it, and an increased majority is necessary to adopt it after all. None of that here. Et cetera. So even if the coalition members agree, they are still forced to listen a little bit more to the opposition than the Bush Administration is.

Then, of course, what if all of the ruling coalition does not agree? Bush has to get the members of his own party to agree - sure. But he can deal with these members individual by individual - use the appeal to loyalty to their party and his leadership - use promises (and threats) regarding advance within the party - use elements of 'pork' that cater to the individual's constituency. In the UK, you have the Chief Whip, I believe (?), to keep party members in line. But with the leader of a coalition partner, the PM has to negotiate as equals. See the example of 'what if Powell had had his own party'. See also below.

fishin' wrote:

nimh wrote:
One extra, relevant thing about coalition governments is the possibility of a coalition partner stepping out mid-way, if its views are not taken into account enough, and then the government falls. (There may be dissenting voices within a party, too, but to do what Jeffords (sp?) did, and leave the party, is a much more drastic and unlikely step.)

I don't see how a single member leaving their chosen political party is a more serious situation that the collapse of an entire government... [..] How is the collapse of government less drastic here? Can you elaborate your thoughts on that one for me?

Less drastic a step for the individuals concerned. To desert your party - the party you've often worked for all your working life - whom you owe your seat (and career) to - you will only do that in the most extreme of cases - thats why there are few Jeffords (sp?). But for a coalition partner to "break" away from a government if it doesnt meet its interests or demands sufficiently, is fully legitimate. It may cost them some at the next elections ("who breaks, pays"), but the party will survive, and hey, might even go straight on governing, this time with a coalition party from the former opposition. The individual repercussions are incomparable, and thus this opportunity of dissent can be used in cases other than the ultimate extreme, too. And the PM and his party know that, too, which encourages more (and more early) compromises ... etc.

0 Replies

OK, a few hours later and a little more on-topic:

It does look like the Bush admin is making life hard for the Democrats this week, doesn't it? (apologies for again relying on the same sources, MSNBC and TNR).

First, there's the new Republican prescription-drug plan. The Democrats fiercely denounce it for how it benefits "the Republicans' special-interest cronies" in "giving millions of dollars in windfall profits to the pharmaceutical industry ... and billions of dollars as a slush fund for HMOs" (Pelosi). "It keeps drug prices high, causes two to three million retirees to lose drug coverage and coerces seniors into HMOs", said Daschle. Yet the AARP will actually endorse it, and even spend 7 million dollars on promoting it: "The bill is not perfect, but the country can't afford to wait for perfect. On balance, it's the right thing."

Most Democrat candidates reprimanded the AARP harshly for that 'betrayal', but the TNR blogargues that this bill is in fact unexpectedly good and actually proposes " -- better sit down -- liberal social policy". Breaking some of the numbers down, it submits:

Quote:

the Republican plan seems very generous to the poor and sick, and only somewhat helpful to the comfortable middle-class senior--that is, to the core Republican voter. Whatever else you may think of the plan, bear this in mind.

Then, there's the energy bill. This one the TNR blog scathingly rejectsas "a huge disappointment, 1,700 pages devoted to maintaining the status quo and indefinitely postponing every important energy-policy decision":

Quote:

The best way to understand the energy bill is by reciting what isn't in. What isn't in it is, basically, anything remotely controversial or progressive. Higher mileage standards for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks--terrible MPG is biggest single defect in current U.S. energy policy, both from the national-security and environmental perspective--isn't in. Meaningful goals for renewable energy aren't in the bill. Global warming action isn't in. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) isn't in the bill. An inventory of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf isn't in the bill.

On these points the left and right wiped each other out, netting preservation of the status quo.

But precisely because it is this "grab bag of special interest projects" (dubbed so by New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg), it's giving the Democrat Congressmen the hardest time: there's just enough teasers in there to make it very hard for Democrats from this or that region to vote against it. Yes,

Quote:

the bill would exempt makers of the fuel additive MTBE from defective-product lawsuits. MTBE is blamed for fouling drinking water in more than 1,500 communities. [..] Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin said the waiver for MTBE, formally named methyl tertiary butyl ether, was "the single biggest give-away to an interest group" he had seen. The waiver would be retroactive to Sept. 5, voiding suits filed recently.

- but then, there's also incentives for ethanol, biodiesel and wind power. That means even Daschle himself might have to vote for it. "It's hard to figure out how much subsidy is in the bill for ethanol. It's huge" (Judd Gregg again).

Two bills, which each give the Bush donors and backers the goodies they want - financially, in particular, too - but both also include enough good (or at least tempting) stuff to divide the Democrats, or at least put them in a very difficult position. Nifty politics. <nods>

------------------------------------

Oh, and if you people allow me, for a mo' ...

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Speaking of awfull, nimh: 1:0

WWWHHHHAAAHAAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Quote:
the bill would exempt makers of the fuel additive MTBE from defective-product lawsuits. MTBE is blamed for fouling drinking water in more than 1,500 communities. [..] Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin said the waiver for MTBE, formally named methyl tertiary butyl ether, was "the single biggest give-away to an interest group" he had seen. The waiver would be retroactive to Sept. 5, voiding suits filed recently.

- but then, there's also incentives for ethanol, biodiesel and wind power. That means even Daschle himself might have to vote for it. "It's hard to figure out how much subsidy is in the bill for ethanol. It's huge" (Judd Gregg again).

I'm still trying to decipher the complaints from the left on the MTBE issue. The enviromentalists (who are almost all on the left side of the spectrum) were the ones that pushed the Congress to mandate the use of MTBE's to begin with in order to improve air quality. So the Congreess passed legislation mandating that the gasoline producers use MTBEs. Then, MTBEs are found to be in the ground water and are a health hazard and now they want to sue the gas producers for doing what the law told them they had to do.

Now this bill comes along and says you can't sue the gas companies for following the law (you can still sue for things like mishandling, etc..) and the left paints it as a give away and a reason this bill shouldn't pass as is.

0 Replies

fishin', I agree with you.

0 Replies

nimh

See you in Portugal :wink:

0 Replies

fishin', I agree with you.

0 Replies

While I can't but agree w/fishin', who states pretty much what I said Here, I gotta say I'm unsurprised by the effort of a partisan faction to spin a screwup of their own to their advantage. Its a practice not exclusive to any ideology.

0 Replies

I dont really know nothing about the MTBE stuff ... although, just for reasons of stylistic curiosity alone, I would have loved to be the fourth person in a row saying, "fishin', I agree with you" ....

0 Replies

Yeah, but I said it last Saturday (albeit in a different discussion), so THERE Razz

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

While I can't but agree w/fishin', who states pretty much what I said Here, I gotta say I'm unsurprised by the effort of a partisan faction to spin a screwup of their own to their advantage.

I especially enjoyed the irony of Ted Kennedy championing the Patients' Bill of Rights, necessitated to protect consumers from abuse at the hands of HMOs, entities created by legislation championed by (drum roll, please) Ted Kennedy.

Ted creates HMOs. HMOs cause problems. Ted comes to rescue us from HMOs. Cool

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know