Pick a side

[Butters]

I am not an American, but like a lot of people outside of America, it is the country besides my own whose politics I am most exposed to in the media. The thing I have noticed, that does not seem to be the case in Australia is the extreme passion with which people devote themselves to a particular party. The 'us and them' thing in American politics seems very strong.

 

Democrats are 'socialist criminals' and Republicans are either corrupt fat cats or brainless hicks. Why is it that in America, people seem so much more willing to pick a political tribe and devote themselves to it and its media advocates SO absolutely on both sides. I mean, I know this happens in other countries as well, but the extreme violence of the language that separates the two parties is far stronger there than in many others I have visited.

What is it about America that gets people so worked up? Why do a lot of people seem to offer alliegance to one party for life, regardless of the issues?

 

Or am I completely wrong about this and does it just seem that way because the extremists are the ones who get the airtime outside of America?

[Mr Skeptic]

Everyone is annoyed because our voting system basically forces us to pick one of the two parties to vote for. Voting for a third party is usually wasting your vote since they probably won't win. Also this has a lot of people voting against the people they like less rather than for the people they like more.

[JohnB]

Butters I think one of the main differences is the voting system. The Americans use the first past the post system where only primary votes matter where we use the preferential system which is more flexible.

 

With FPTP the major party candidate will always trounce the candidates from 6 minor parties, but with PV the minor parties can gang up and trounce the major candidate. Political co-operation is not a part of their system. You must crush your opposition to win in FPTP, but you can win by co-operation in PV.

 

The voting system directs the political mindset.

[Pangloss]

I agree with the two posts above. The primary system has combined with the 24-hour media and pundit system to produce a very acidic and discordant environment -- much more so than we've been used to in modern times. It's not that we agreed more in the past, it's just that we were more polite about it (most of the time, anyway -- some of that early-America political rhetoric is pretty nasty!).

 

This has lead to the rise in power of independent voters -- people who are willing to vote for the candidate, and don't care about the party. These "swing" voters, if grouped together, are not more numerous than loyal Democrats or loyal Republicans. It was these swing voters who put President Obama in office, and they swung back the other way in the 2010 mid-term election. It's not an ideological shift -- they're not proclaiming a sudden awakening to socially conservative causes. It's more an expression of their frustration and ire at the way things are currently done, especially with regard to the economy. And even then it's not so much a demand for a specific economic ideology, as it is a demand for jobs and general improvement.

 

The two parties can never quite seem to figure that out.

[JohnB]

Pangloss, would you say that FPTP engenders divisionism?

 

It's been put forward a few times down here and I've always gone against it on the grounds that it fosters division (and is rediculously undemocratic). Since only the primary vote counts then each party (large or small) is out to maximise that vote, there is no benefit for co-operation with other partys. Under PV each party still trys to maximise their own primary vote but can also co-operate on the distribution of preferences.

 

Simply having co-operation as an option lessens partisanship (and the more extreme rhetoric) on the grounds that you might be looking to do a preference deal with your opponents at the next election.

[Pangloss]

Such discussions are interesting, but on the whole I think we're more hampered by party protectionism, gerrymandering, and party-voter registration.

[ParanoiA]

I do agree with the FPTP indictment, and Mr Skeptic has been all over that for a long time.

 

However, I'm not sure I have a problem with divisionism. Well, maybe I should back up and refine that to "contentionism" - is that a word?

 

I used to think our division came from the romance of our country's birth; the philosophical ideas that were part of the plot. It's easy to see how some could revere and exalt this history and find insult in any ideology that doesn't embrace those original tenents utterly. Hence, republican passion for Constitutional authority and Democratic passion for legislative hegemony.

 

I do believe our ferocity in debate and lack of tendency for compromise is good. Too much focus is on compromise - even right now. Some are probably saying "WTF?" But we know our government is not built for efficiency, it's built for inclusion and thorough debate. Missing that point is what I think drives this insistence on compromise.

 

Also, if you consider the time congress spends in sessions, and the lack of *need* to make law, after law, after law - then it should make sense that they have the time to fight about most everything.

 

 

Americans are resolute. An american will never let ignorance stop them from drawing a conclusion. Trust me on this. And when people are certain of themselves, and are accustomed to doing this when in complete ignorance of a given subject, you get passionate divisionism.

 

Well that's my one cent...not quite worth two, sorry.

Edited December 17, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

Americans are resolute. An american will never let ignorance stop them from drawing a conclusion. Trust me on this.

 

I'm not quite sure what that means, but I am absolutely convinced that you're wrong!

[Marat]

I agree with some of what has been said above regarding the philosophical origins of the peculiar intensity of American political debate. America began as a messianic country committed to liberty, and this strong ideological identity is in glaring contrast to the kind of muddled self-understandings of most other countries. For example, Canada's motto, instead of 'Give me liberty or give me death,' is 'Peace, order, and good government,' and who is going to go over the top of the trenches to defend that? But a country with a strong ideological self-understanding will always have strong political debates, since they can be related to the ideological underpinnings of the nation.

[JohnB]

For example, Canada's motto, instead of 'Give me liberty or give me death,' is 'Peace, order, and good government,' and who is going to go over the top of the trenches to defend that?

 

Well in WW 1 Canada had some 67,000 killed and 173,000 wounded. They and the other members of the Commonwealth were going over the tops of the trenches for better than 3 years while the Americans sat on their collective arses. Commonwealth forces were fighting against the greatest tyrants in history for two years, fighting for "Peace and Democracy" before the Americans turned up slightly more than "fashionably late". Face it, if the Japanese hadn't booted you in the backside on Dec 7, 1941, you'd still be prevaricating.

 

Other nations may not wave as many flags as you do or feel the urge to tell everybody (often) how wonderful we are. But when the chips are down and the sh*t hits the fan, we're there. Doing the job. Words like Freedom, Peace and Democracy aren't things we wear on our sleeves, we feel them deep within our bones and hold them dear in our hearts where they can never be taken away.

[John Cuthber]

The thing I don't understand about US politics is that you think that you have a left wing party.

[CaptainPanic]

The thing I don't understand about US politics is that you think that you have a left wing party.

LOL

So true.

 

But I assume that left/right is a relative scale, which has its center in the middle of the national political landscape.

Compared to European countries, the USA's left is quite right-wing.

 

However, compared to most European governments, the USA is already more center (or: less right-wing). What I mean to say is that the left wing parties are often not part of a government... Why that is is something that I would discuss later (when I have also taken a better look at all the coalitions in Europe - my statement here is somewhat of a guess rather than a fact).

 

The main difference then between the USA and the European democracies is that European countries often have coalition governments (because of the different voting system). Left wing parties will get seats in the parliaments where they are able to represent their voters - but mostly in oppositions.

Edited December 20, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[Marat]

There are left and right parties in the US, but they oppose each other around a focal point shifted far to the right of European politics. Just consider these data: The total amount of GDP taken in taxation in the US is 28%, but in France it is 46%, in Germany it is 40%, and in the UK it is 39%. I think this is the clearest objective measure of the position of countries on the left-right spectrum, at least with respect to economic issues.

[Pangloss]

The thing I don't understand about liberal politics is the concept of measuring taxation against GDP.

[Butters]

This is very interesting, but I think I'm going to have to side with the idea that it's the first past the post system that contributes to this attitude the most. I guess if your vote is an all or nothing bet then you have to get more passionate about it. Speaking of which actually, what is the voter turnout recently? It's compulsary to vote where I live. I wonder if that is a factor as well, because a lot of people see it as a chore to be done rather than a fundamental right.

 

Also, we have nothing even CLOSE to the Fox News Network. I've seen that a fair bit whilst travelling in south america in dodgy hotel rooms, and it is like a 24 hour a day propoganda frenzy machine. It uses emotions rather than facts, even in the supposedly non-opinion based news bulletins.

 

Is there an equivalent for the Democrats?