Will there ever be a decent opposition party?

maybe, but you'd have to settle for a socialist party and i don't think most americans would go for that

in canada we have a party called the new democrats who are very into socialy concious causes, and they help to keep the libs and consevatives in check

oops, never noticed you were from the uk, i thought you were discussing the us

Wolf, my fear is that the middle ground is now getting so congested, the Lib Dems will lose out in a big way and eventually fold.

Then we will be down to pure two party politics, and back to the old days when one leader swings everything to the left, followed by the next, who re-writes every policy and swings us all to the right. In the end, we disappear up our own arses whilst everything gradually runs down.

Such a waste of energy and potential.

If they all stopped mooing at each other in an effort to score schoolboy points in the house of commons, and actually got together to thrash out some real policies for the future, we might get somewhere.

You may think Parliament is stale, but when I see PM's Question Time on CSPAN here, it sure seems lively. At least compared to the proceedings here. And the MPs are articulate.

Can you imagine Bush having to field that kind of questioning?

D'Art, you are spot on.

I mentioned this in a thread a while back, regarding Galloway.

Bush would last about two minutes on any live Q and A programme over here, before falling into one of his famous "Cow watching a train go past" trances, methinks.

Why don't you have this sort of thing over there? It's good to see a politician earning their keep now and then, especially when they have to change their trousers half way through.

I thought you were talking about the US up until you mentioned the house of commons....

Everything old is new again.

Is that your sprogling in the avatar, DD?

She's a little sweetie. I bet she'll wrap you round her little finger for the next forty or so years.

when I was younger there was an expression that a good politician was one that could "think on his feet". Since the era of Reagan (in the US of A) this has changed to "he can think." from there the standard has been lowered. Reagan's claim to fame was that he could read a script and now we wonder if Bush can read. Entrophy perhaps.

Is this really the case, Dys? I did wonder.

I saw a definite chasm between the sharp, instant responses from Galloway (he is no different, in arguing skills, to the majority of our politicians) compared to the stunned silence and amazement of his accusor.

Give most of our politicians someone to argue with, and they would relish the occasion. It seems that it is not the done thing in America. Most political programmes I see concerning Senators, seems to be what seems like hours of monotone drivel, delivered at a snails pace.

Are they all on Prozac?

They cater to their audience here. Any politician thought to be intellectual is doomed. That's the way it's been in the U.S. for a while. Now I fear it's even worse: Any politician though to be intelligent is doomed.

There was a tradition of rhetorical power in this country, but that went the way of the steam engine.

This is interesting, the focus of this thread has once again shifted to become US-centric, albeit with a twist of US-UK comparison. It would seem we can't get away from the US. It's culture is dominating even topics meant to discuss things that aren't American.



Well, I'll bite. It's still something interesting to talk about, I suppose. I can't help but wonder whether the American audience distrusts an intellectual politician because they might be intelligent enough to screw the public over?

From some of the stuff I heard about the US Senate, I thought the rhetoric was equally as vicious as over here in the UK. You're saying it isn't? What kind of an opposition party do you have over there, if their rhetoric against the ruling party isn't as viciously sharp as that of our opposition party (which is still a lameduck party?)

Of course, you can take arguments a bit too far. I get Chinese and Taiwanese news over here.

Sometimes I see the politicians in Taiwan actually break out into fights and exchange punches.

Sorry to have steered the topic to the US, Wolf. I'll be brief in answering your question, then step aside:

While US Senators and Congresspeople can be vicious with each other, only few rise to any level of smart, spontaneous repartee. That's what tends to impress me about British MPs...

Well, it would seem that the Liberal Democrats have been hit with a scandal by a candidate that wasn't going to win the Leader Race.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4627798.stm

I find it quite strange that the right wing "News of the World" was the paper to break this "exclusive" story on Mark Oaten.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4638642.stm

Will the third party be done in by Labour and the Tories? It seems to me that we are close to the time of two-party politics.

Vote for the centre-left-in-name only but centre-right in practice Labour or the centre-right Tory. Your choice.

It is greatly simplified, but useful, to think of group political structures in just a few basic forms. A group is either governed by a one or a few, or by the group as a whole.

Totalitarian Systems. When one or a few governs a group, there are a number of sub-set systems/philosophies that describe the particular system referred to. Some of those labels are God-king, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Nazism and Bolshevism, etc. Each of these political systems is distinctly different from the others, but all are antithetical and hostile to even the idea of opposition.

Of course, hostility to opposition is never totally effective. Humans have disturbing characteristics like thinking for themselves, forming opinions, and asserting themselves. Opposition to totalitarian systems is a constant threat, and all opposition/dissent has to be crushed before it can become effective. It is an ancient axiom that slave masters never sleep soundly for fear of slave rebellion, and all totalitarian systems are ultimately slave systems.

Absolutists have a number of ways of dealing with the natural opposition of individuals, and preventing individuals from forming organized opposition groups. Naked force and terror is an ancient method that is still in use at the beginning of the 21st century. Secret police and armies of informers watch for the least deviation from the Party line, and hope to prevent any expression of dissent by fear. Modern technology is totally controlled by the ruling Party and pressed into service to mold public opinion to a single mind-set. The media is fully controlled and must foster love for the ruler, hatred for opposition, and fear of external forces. Cultural norms are encouraged that stress total allegiance to the ruler and his Party. Some cultures are naturally less resistant to totalitarian systems because they have never known an alternative. After enough time has passed under the whip, organized opposition will only form when conditions become so intolerable that group survival is threatened … and our species are hardy and able to endure extreme conditions. Cultures that have known individual liberty are much more difficult to subjugate. It is hard to imagine any successful attempt to impose a totalitarian regime over the United States, Britain or most of the Commonwealth countries.

No matter how completely a regime tries to suppress individual opinion they are doomed to failure. People's actions can be monitored for deviation, but not their dreams. Oppression tends to forge tighter family bonds, where the risk of betrayal is less and support is most likely. Without a word being spoken a group's attitudes are formed, almost unconsciously. The oppressed will find numerous ways of resisting. They will be prone to unproductive behavior, and the opportunities for anonymous sabotage are almost infinite. As the regime's responses and frustrations become heightened, the ruled will become more resistant and oppressive. If the regime ever displays weakness, individual dissent will spread and secret societies become stronger. For a totalitarian regime to remain in power it must never, ever sleep or relax its hold over all aspects of life within the structure.

Chinese history is largely defined by the Dynastic Cycle. A strong military leader begins a dynasty, ruling by brutality and harsh repression of every sign of dissent. The Emperor claims to have the Mandate of Heaven and be the rightful leader of the entire nation. The chaos that brought the Emperor to the throne is replaced by order, and order improves the daily lives of the People. Productivity increases which increases taxation and the wealth resources of the Emperor. After a generation, or two, the Emperor relaxes and begins to spend the nation's wealth. Culture and art flourish, but as taxes increase so does the resistance of the peasant farmers who support the whole system. Things still run pretty smoothly because the Emperor has firm control over the army, and the Mandarins who administer justice and collect the taxes. After another generation or so the corruption among the Mandarins increases, diversion of tax revenues result in reduced public projects, roads and flood control systems fall into neglect, and surplus reserves are eaten away. The peasantry begins to rejoin ancient secret societies, and find ways of providing for themselves and their families. Eventually, the Emperor is forced to use really harsh measures to obtain the resources he needs to run the nation. That alienates more people and secret opposition may become less secretive. A national disaster frequenty occurs (flood, famine, epidemic, foriegn invation) and the weakness of the central government is revealed. Outright rebellion breaks out, but is put down by the army. Resistance spreads, as local revolt leaders combine forces and coordinate attacks on the ruling dynasty. The conscript soldiers of the military shift from complete allegiance to the regime, to sympathy for the rebellion in which members of their family may be involved. Wide spread warfare rages, and the dynasty crumbles into chaos. Now the various leaders of the revolt try to consolidate their power, and gain supremacy over other warlords. Eventually one warlord succeeds by one means or another to seize national power. He declares that he has the Mandate of Heaven, and ruthlessly suppresses all opposition to his power. Chaos is reduced to enforced order, and the cycle repeats itself over and over and over.

Ultimately all totalitarian regimes disintegrate, though they may never evolve into a political system where opposition is legitimized.

On Opposition Parties, Part II

The second sort of over-simplified political structures legitimize opposition. These systems include pure democracy, representative democracy, social democracy and constitutional monarchy. Anarchism and Nihilism, which aim at the destruction of ordered society, might be said to be the absolute extreme in theoretical opposition party systems. However, if every person is their own arbiter of what is permissible were to replace social order the result would be chaos, a condition that most avoid as being antithetical to their own well-being.

Pure democratic systems have many of the faults associated with anarchism, though social order can be obtained by obtaining the consent of the majority of citizens. In the past such systems failed after a brief trial more often than they succeeded. At least theoretically, in pure democratic systems there is no Party system. Each citizen is expected to vote his freely arrived at convictions. Of course, in reality that never happens. Our convictions aren't formed in a vacuum, are the result of finding commonality with others on various issues. Those who are most persuasive (a whole range of persuasive techniques are available), tend to prevail. Wanting to have our own convictions as the foundation of policy, we naturally join with others and a political party is formed. In a pure democracy, it is possible to pass into a totalitarian regime pretty easily.

There are other problems with pure democratic systems. These systems presume that all citizens will be fully informed and interested in every issue that confronts the State. How many of us are fully informed about immigration? How informed are you about the balance of trade between the U.S. and, say, China? Which of the many policy choices should be adopted in dealing with foreign policy, either in general or in some specific? Many national policy questions/decisions would be disastrous if all of the information required to form fully informed convictions were made public to the world. Even if every bit of information necessary to make complex decisions were available, who would ever have time to do anything else? Goodness knows that for many of our People just making ends meet is a full time preoccupation. If the great majority of people are relatively uneducated, should their lack of ability to process complex information trump the opinions of those who have dedicated their lives to understanding the issue under consideration? How much of a majority of any plebiscite should be required? Simple majority, 75%, or 100%? The more unanimous the requirement for adoption of a law or policy, the more difficult it is to obtain. The smaller the number of votes required to adopt a law/policy the faster and easier it is to adopt, but the number of those who cry foul and oppose the law/policy will increase.

Suppose we turn back the hands of time to December 7, 1941. Pearl Harbor is in flames, many of our fighting ships are sunk with great loss of life. We all know what happened after that, but let us further suppose that at the time there was a pure democratic system in place. What should our response be to the attack? All the information needed (and who is to decide that) to form an opinion, has to be published to the entire electorate. Then have some reasonable time to study the information and form opinions must be provided. Some one has to frame the alternative choices that the public will vote upon, and those choices to be exhaustive must be a very long list and framed in without bias. Say the number of choices is limited to the 100 most probable expected policies. The people vote (we allow here the sort of instant communications technology available only in the 21st century), and find that some percentage want to impose trade sanctions against Japan. Some want to fight the Japanese alone, while others insist we fight all the Axis Powers. Some want peace at any price, and some want to enter negotiations with Japan. Some want to wait until the nation is on a war footing before making any overt effort, while others insist that we must respond immediately. Some vote to respond, but don't want to increase neither their taxes nor the national debt. Some want to limit the fighting to a limited time frame, or number of casualties. Don't enter a war with Japan, or the Axis Powers, without a clear exit strategy. After all the votes are tabulated (and argued over), what strategy will the nation follow? When various events and circumstance change, as is most often the case in war, should there be new plebiscites? Should there be a plebiscite taken before entering into the Manhattan Project? Should the public, and the world, be fully informed as to progress in developing the atomic bomb?

Representative Systems. Representative democracy, social democracy and constitutional monarchy systems still struggle with many of those questions. How much open-ness can a political system afford? How are important laws, policies and decision-making to be made, and by whom? How is the Will of the People and the welfare of the nation to be balanced? What priorities should the State pursue, and how should they be weighted by decision-makers? Who gets to make the decisions?

The answer to most of those questions is found in the sort of Party system adopted by each individual State, and the Constitutional constraints that define the national political structure. For our limited purposes here, there are two primary systems to be considered, both of which represent the Will of the People, though in different ways.

In the United States Model, there are two primary political parties in an eternal power struggle with one another. One party is in some degree "In Power", and the other is the "Loyal Opposition" party. Sometimes the Republican Party is "In Power", and sometimes it is the "Loyal Opposition". Both Parties are in contention for the votes that will determine who will control the Executive Branch and the bi-cameral Congress. Both hope to control the representatives elected under their Party banner, but are prevented from absolute control over members of their Party. Party discipline is a will-o'-the wisp, but it is always sought anyway. The People's votes determine how much power each Party will wield in the struggle to enact laws, form policies, and carryout programs. That means that both Parties and all incumbents are perpetually looking for ways to capture votes.

They do that by adopting political philosophies that they believe are fundamental to the nation, and that will appeal to the voting public. They promise the moon, though all are aware that many of those promises are unrealistic. The public treasury, Executive Budgets controlled by Congress, is used to reward some districts/business/individuals, etc., whose political support is deemed important to being elected. Campaign contributions and other "donations" by interest groups buys access to policy and decision-makers. The media is utilized by both Parties to spread their own version of what has happened, or will happen. The most outrageous lies can be told about any public figure with little legal consequence, or regard for the Truth, whatever that might be. Both Parties tend to demonize and diminish the opposition at every opportunity. Compromise, often in relative secrecy, almost always is required to formulate a law, a policy, or a budget. The Opposition is hardly ever publicly acknowledged as being anything more than an obstruction to the high values of one's own party and philosophical leanings.

Turn and turn about. No Party has a complete lock on power, nor are they ever able to win every election. The vast majority of Americans only nominally belong to either Party, but make their voting decisions on their own. Voters care about themselves and their families first. They want fiscal and physical security and opportunity for their children. Voters tend to vote for those that they believe hold the same views about the world that they do themselves. American voters tend to be idealistic, and really are dedicated to the humanistic values of Western Civilization. They expect impartial justice, freedom of speech and assembly, and that each individual has certain inalienable rights. They don't much like fools, scoundrels, or politicians who get above themselves. "Throw the scoundrels out!" is American folk wisdom, and is often applied to representatives of their own Party. The American voters can, and have, made some really terrible choices and mistakes, but the system is so robust that we can have a great deal of faith in its continuation.

Other Representative Systems. The other sort of representative system utilizes many political parties, each appealing to a much narrower interest group. There might be an Environmental Party, a Socialist Party, a Reform Party, a Religious Party, a Party of Conciliation, etc., etc. The more Parties encouraged and written into the system, the more difficult it is for any single Party to dominate, and the more likely that all parties are minority parties. Just to occupy the Executive Branch requires forming alliances with other minority parties. The compromises necessary to form a government dilute the ability of the government to form lasting and effective policies. Clarity is lost, and politicians are constrained by the need to hold together groups with dissimilar interests and philosophies. Every major issue has to be weighed against the likelihood that the government might be brought down. Of course, every party in the system dreams of holding the reigns of power itself and is a fragment of opposition even when in alliance with the sitting government.

Many of our European friends believe this is an even better system than that followed in the United States, as it allows almost ever special interest group to claim some small handful of power over government law and policy. Each of those minority special interest parties, in order to gain the votes needed to advance their quest for total government power, is essentially doing the same thing as is done by the Two-Party System in the United States. The voters have the same personal concerns, but may be more focused on increasing the power of their Party than on "throwing out the scoundrels". Parties still have to influence the voters, and they use essentially the same "tools" to raise money and attract votes that American politicians do. They have to provide their supporters with at least some small part of the promise, or their constituency will drift away to some other minority party that does serve the voter's perceived needs. It is that need to build constituencies that has driven so many European nations into socialistic systems that promise much, but that ultimately cost a lot … especially in terms of individual initiative and liberty.

Whether one representative system is superior to the other is largely a matter of individual perception, and the system of their own nationality. In both cases, opposition is legitimized and counterbalances any attempt of a single person or party siezing total and perpetual power. It is my firm conviction that representative systems are far superior than any totalitarian regime. Indeed, totalitarian regimes present a constant threat to the more democratic systems and humanistic values of Western Civilization. We may, for a time, shut our eyes to the despotism of allies and those upon whom we depend. Ultimately, those alliances must be shucked off because they are antithetical to our core beliefs. However, only in an ideal world that may never exist would it be possible to abandon Real Politic strategies completely and immediately. We should be careful of our allies and move as quickly as possible to reduce our dependance upon all totalitarian systems.