US politics for non US citizens

Remove all ads!

I am following the american election a bit. Not so much as an american but still, more that the common european person int the street. So I made this tread for non americans.

We think that americans have only two options. US citizens will disagree and gives us many examples but we are stuck whit either a democrat or a republiken. And I know for sure that once you are a big person in a party, you will stick whit the general views of that party whatever you say on tv.

We, the rest of the world have seen the US going down the drain for the last 8 years. we have seen the powe of your currency going down by almost a 100%. during the clinton one us dollar was worth 1,4 Euro. Now one euro is worth 1,5 dollar. That is an insane amount of inflation.

for me as a duthcman, living in a social housing whit a below average paycheck i find myself still living on a high standard because I am protected by laws and regulations made by a government. If I am fired I am protected and receive wellfare in such an amount that it keeps me going until I get the next job. The wellfare is not enough to live the high life, but I will not lose the house or starve. Every day I thank all the gods I can think off that I am not an US citizen.

They really have to believe that the war in Iraq is not on the top off the agenda. They really must do 3 things: Health care, social security and environment. those are the top 3 issue's for the US.

In my opinion, almost all my co-workers, all the polls, the man in the street, gool old USA need;s a democrat. Black or female makes it even better. I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

To be honest, the only thing I really have to say here is that I totally agree with you.

 

Lol, and I couldn't agree less. Here's the thing, the first two of the three issues you listed depend entirely on who makes them for what effect they'll have. If caring, careful geniuses make them, they will benefit the people of the US enormously. If idiots make them, they will harm us enormously. Looking at the US history, especially recent, on these things I have to assume that, whoever gets elected, idiots would end up writing and enforcing any legislature proposed along these lines. To that effect, I would much rather have everyone hand their own retirement, investments, and insurance so that, if anyone seriously messes up, it will only harm them.

Now I'll agree that health care is an issue that needs to be addressed, but a universal health care system is not the way to go in the US (for the above stated reason). I would much rather have some kind of optiona gov't health insurance program, where one can 'purchase' it if they want, but don't have to and it doesn't become the standard.

As for the environment, I agree that it is an issue that needs to be addressed, I don't agree that any of the candidates to date look at all capable of doing so. Maybe Huckabee, but that's being generous. Understand, please, that I work at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, so I know something about what's going on, what's been done to change it, and who's done so, and I truely believe that the environment is something we'll probably have to take care of ourselves.

I realise I am a US citizen, but this topic does kind of seem to point at us.

 

That doesn't change the fact that they are issues, that something needs to be done about these issues, and that no one is willing to make either of them a priority. Which is exactly the point Merlanni was making.

 

NOG, I can't really agree on you there. The USA does not have a monopoly on idiots being in power - never has and never will. The Netherlands, Germany, Bulgaria, Russia, Zimbabwe - people in power everywhere tend to make decisions that strike us, the citizens, as bad - and that paint them as self-serving ******* or complete nitwits. Yet somewhere, it tends to work - as Merlanni herself testifies. I doubt the Dutch people are so universally better than the Americans or that their electoral procedure is that much more effective.

I doubt I have the eloquence or the time to convince you - but I would urge you to consider at least the possibility that you are wrong. Of course, a top-down approach has its problems, and they are very serious ones - but a few elements of it could, imo, make a difference for the better.

 

Well I'm going to buck the trend and dirsagree, partly

First, party politics is completely different in the states than in Europe. As a result, despite their system been a bipartisan system, there are many choices. I think the republicans are the best example. Compare Huckabee to Ron Paul - one very conservative and one very non-conservative (trying to avoid the word liberal there, as it has 101 meanings). When it comes to the actaully presidential elections, yes, there are only two real choices - republican or democrat - but until the primaries have decided who those two will be, there are still many options on the table.

As to what would benefit the states the most, I half agree with what you say, although I don't think you are completely correct with a few of those assumptions. Big reforms are needed (like in most places...), as you said, which a democrate might be good at pushing through. But likewise, I wouldn't rule out all republicans either. What I think should be avoided at all costs is someone with strong conservative values, both socailly and economically.

However, of the Republicans the only one who I feel would do the country a great amount of good would be Ron Paul - unforunately, he has no chance at all of getting in. So in that sense, I agree with you that a democrate is the best choice. But then, of the democrates, the one whom I feel would really do a world of good, Edwards, has pulled out. So that, like you said, Merlanni, leaves Clinton and Obama.

Going back a month or so ago, I would have said Clinton would be the best choice (not just because she is female). However, having read over her policies in some detail - that is, where there is actaul detail on them! - I am really starting to doubt she is a wise choice. I really feel with Clinton, although things will certainly be stable, there won't be any major changes, for good or bad. Things will quietly tick over for four years, with no major change in course, until the next election. To add to that, your main issue, Merlanni, seems to be a focus on the poor (unless I'm misreading you). From what I can see, that is not really a high priority with Clinton. She's clearly aiming for the middle class votes. I doubt there will be many reforms in that area from her.

Obama: I don't know. I've placed a big question mark next to his name for a while now. He could be bloody brilliant, he could be absolute crap. Some of his policies are really good, and I think he'll focus much more on the lower social-economic groups than Clinton, but I think after a couple of terms with him, the economy may very well be in ruins.

On a slight side note : One thing that does disappoint me is the education policies. None of the three real candidates - McCain, Obama and Clinton - have any education policies worth throwing a tuna sandwich at. No Child Left Behind? Please. I feel sorry for the kids.

Anyway, back to what I was saying before, I really don't think it's a good idea to look at the elections in a partisan fashion. Unlike what occurs in a westminster system (and probably most other European systems), partys are very weak. The moderates of both party will be more similar to each other than to an extreme of their own party. Heh, and even extremes of the parties differ, as with Paul and Huckabee. But yeah, thinking in terms of parties is not a good move

[Edit]On a selfish note, someone who promotes free trade, and strongly supports multilateral organisations, such as the UN and WTO, would be ideal. Would be great to see the Doha round successful.

 

This isn't really true. Ron Paul was never a serious contender for president within the republican party. At least in recent times, the distinguishing feature of the republican party has been social conservatism. Starting with Reagan, the republicans ceased to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul leans too far to the right (no small feat for a republican) economically and too far to the left socially to ever be a serious contender for the republican nomination. There may be lots of choices during the primary, but for at least the last 30 years, the republicans have always run a hard right, deficit spending, big government social conservative in the end. McCain will be a slight departure from this. Slight.

 

Completely agree, Drew. But the option IS still there, should enough people be of similar thought. My thought still stands though, that the variety in the parties is massive.

 

Here's the problem with this. Not every social conservative is economically conservative. Many social conservatives want to see universal health care and other public initiatives to help the poor. Not all economic conservatives want to see a conservative social agenda. In our bi-partisan system, you get to choose between socially and economically conservative and socially and economically liberal. You cannot mix and match, and there is usually no in-between choice available on the federal level (once in a while, a moderate will slip through the cracks).

It simply makes no sense to think that every economic conservative supports further eroding our church-state separation or wants to ban abortion. It makes no sense to think that every economic liberal is pro-choice and pro-gun control. This is the problem with our system. In the republican party, there are many who are there despite disgust with the party's economic or social platform. The same can be said of the democrats. In the end, only a small percentage of Americans are spoken for in our bipartisan system.

To get an idea of just how limited the range of ideas discussed in American politics really is, I'd recommend visiting this site. Take a look at the range in which American politics lie, and compare it to Europe. To give you an idea of where I sit, my score was -8 to the left on the economic scale and -5.5 on the Authoritarian scale. I'd fit right in with the UK's green party, but in the US, I really don't have a voice.

 

Drew, to be honest though there's a a green party in the US and they are pretty much as influential as the one in UK, as in they are both equally irrelevant. Of course I am aware that the green party is not even represented in many states and I'm not sure if they are even planning to set up a candidate this time. UK politics is not that much different from US really. The simple majority pretty much ensures that either labour or tories will be the only parties relevant in policy making. While the liberal democrats get a nice amount of the popular votes their actual representation is quite small.

Also there is also around the argument that a huge amount of small parties in the parliament greatly distorts the representation. You only need to look at Italy to see how things can go under such circumstances. Small parties with only a few MP:s are given great amount of influence over the cabinet because if they choose to leave the cabinet it will lose the support it would require in the parliament. This leads to a lot more collapses of the government and pre-mature elections and greater difficulties in assembling governments after elections.

 

The green party currently has no seats in the US house or senate. Given that the UK green party actually has some seats in parliament, I'd argue that they are a hell of a lot more relevant over there than they are over here. I'd also point out that, as confirmed by the site I listed in my above post, the UK green party is rather more liberal than the American Green party, which was the other part of my point. Americans who share my world view simply aren't invited to the party. The same holds true for the libertarians.

 

Well you are half right. The green party is represented in the house of lords, but has not a single seat in the house of commons. The house of lords though is largely powerless and their representant is a life peer anyhow and not elected by general elections. So to put it short, no they are not hell of a lot more influential but rather equally irrelevant unless you see that seat in the house of lords as something of importance which I certainly don't.

 

I agree, but I'm going to post the counter argument, or rather why I don't think things will change (yet).

To keep the economy and the US dollar up you need to curb public spending (like in shops) and increase local investments. Ways to halt public spending include increasing tax or interest rates - this makes a lot of people poorer (as they have less to spend) and they don't spend quite as much in shops (this drives down the price of goods and presto - a US $1 bill will buy you more loaves of bread/euro/yen).
In a universal health care system the opposite happens - the poor-middle class get health care for cheaper (as the bulk of it is payed by taxes, and rich people contribute more to this). Hence more people have more disposable income and shops can afford to put the price of bread/yen/euro up and you get inflation. The same can be said for things such as social security.

Funding for the environment is largely paid by rich tax payers, or people who would normally offer jobs to people or invest in the country, hence it is seen as bad for the economy. I mean its more complicated than that (most European countries are testament to this), but the general perception is that welfare/healthcare/environment schemes will hurt the economy.

I think what needs to be done is increase healthcare/welfare, but not in a way that greatly promotes spending, perhaps only offering it only to those earning extremely poor, or increasing the tax paid by the lower-middle/middle class to help cover it would be a good way.

Any economist would label the above as grossly inaccurate or at best a huge oversimplification, but my point is that this is how people react to libertarian ideas such as universal health care and social welfare schemes.

 

Shaman, I don't doubt for a second that our government is not the only mass collection of idiots out there. From the Health Care vs Health Insurance topic, however, it seems that health care is not universally effective. May of the people posting there have said they are unhappy with their form of universal health care. If other people can mess it up, so can we.

Well, I'm not an econimist, but this seems counter to everything I know about the economy. Everyone seems to say that increased personal spending stimulates the economy (though I don't know if that's true).

Anyway, you all probably don't want to hear my idea to boost the US economy, but I'm going to tell you anyway. It's pretty simple, actually. All you have to do is suspend free trade.

Seriously, we have a massive trade deficit because we are sending lots of raw materials to places with cheap labor (China, India, etc.) and then buying the finished goods for a small fortune. The companies that do this do so because it is cheaper to build the product in (China, India, etc.) and ship it back than it is to build it here. It is cheaper to do so because the US has no terriffs. If we re-institute terriff, especially on finished goods and the like (or on China, India, etc.), then more companies will build things here in the US and thus remove much of our trade deficit, possibly even give us a trade surplus. Now I know, you all think but if you suspend free trade, who will want to trade with you? The answer is all the people that want to trade with us now. Especially if we keep tarriffs low for nations that don't have terrible, cheap working conditions. You see, our tarriffs wouldn't be on the things we export, only on the things we import, and if you guys want to tax us the same way, that's perfectly fair. But the truth is, the US economy has been very hurt by free trade with (China, India, etc.). Well, that's my plan, any comments?

As for the environment, it really isn't as economically disadvantagous as you may think. In fact, a number of companies here are 'going green' specifically because they've found ways to do it cheaper than not. Imagine if all the electrical power in the US were coming from burning ethanol, ethanol derived from wastewater-grown algae (it's being developed right here, right now). Electric power would be cheaper, because everywhere you need it you have people and the profits would offset the cost of sanitary infrastructure, which is a lot more than around here. All the CO2 is 'carbon neutral', because it was just in the air about a month ago. Oh, and you know those de-oxygenated zones right outside all of our bays and river deltas and such (or maybe you don't, they're there)? The number one most effective way to deal with them also happens to be the cheapest: put fences and grasses around rivers that run through farmland. The reason it hasn't been done yet? No one wants to give it the it needs because it isn't a major, visible initiative.

Y'know, sometimes I really hate politics.

 

All kinds of spending be it public or private give a short term stimulation to the economy. However consumtion is allways away from investments in the macroeconomic circulation of resources so a stimuli in consumption is not allways a good thing. Also consumtion may also be done through debt (which the US seems to be doing right now with them having a big trade deficit and increase of foreign debt) which of course will come to haunt at some point in the future.

Now as for your suggestion about tariffs. It would have several possible side effects. First of it would mean an increased inflationary preassure, countries would still sell to the US but the prices would increase accordingly, no one will trade with you if they get less in return. It would also most likely result in counter tariffs and start a trade war between US and other countries. This sort of wars are typically of the type with no winners with the consumers paying the price. So in general I'm not overly supprotative of your idea for trade policy and I think most economists would agree with me here.

 

Humm, I'm not going to say anything about foreign countries policies. But as private individuals I think we owe it to ourselves to make the world as such that we and our children can live enjoyable and peaceful lives.

But on the primaries, from up here it seems that the democrats have more memorable candidates, well the top two at least, since as candidates they're quite historical in what they represent. First woman and first africanamerican candidate? Pretty interesting...and from those two Obama seems to be more charismatic, as a speaker and as a person.

 

The problem is that the only memorable thing about the candidates is one's gender and the other's ethnicity. As soon as either opens his/her mouth and starts talking about politics, economy, the world, anything really, I always get this distinct "heard this many times before" impression. Aside from the historical factor (first woman president, or first non-white president), I seriously doubt either of them will do anything truly novel once in power. Call me a fool, but the only democrat who really sounded fresh to me was Kucinich, and while I never expected him to make it very far in the primaries, after seeing just how few supporters he had I wonder if people truly want change on a major scale.

 

Some Americans don't want a large government taking care of them. This is sometimes referred to as the Nanny State, i.e. you're too stupid to save for your own retirement, too stupid to take care of your own health, and too stupid to save money in case you lose your job and, therefore, the government will step in and do these things for you.

Some Americans resent this attitude and would prefer to make decisions about their own lives, i.e. whether to smoke, to wear a seatbelt when driving, to invest their money however I wish.

You could argue that America's founders left England and created the USA because they were fed up with the King of England telling them how to live their lives and how to spend their money.

I'm sure you have a wonderful life in the European Union, just be sure to eat your vegetables or some government officer might kick down your front door and force a vitamin pill down your throat.

 

@Ziad: Hey that's just politics and pre-election speeches for you. The big ships of the states turn slowly. Only dictators make fast changes and usually for the worse.

@Sir Fink: Oo, umm...nice..argumentation there, just nice. But fairly enough your words do seem to reflect the rather fierce attitude quite a few americans seem to have towards, well, anything that has even a whiff of "protectionism".

If only the U.S. would have the same fervor of protecting individual liberties when it practices it's foreign policy...But then again we'd be living in a perfect world if every damn nation (including and/or especially my own) would start to do that..

It is rater confusing how strong ideals of individual liberty seem to give a mandate on how other people should run their businesses and lives.

 

Well, if we do it so free trade is maintained with contries that have what we would consider fair working practices (i.e. no sweatshops, workers chained to their stations, etc.) and place tarriffs on those that don't it would encourage such things and mitigate any trade wars.

Secondly, most of the point of such a thing would not be to get money from other nations, but to bring production jobs back into America. If Nike no longer has any benefit from making their shoes in Indonesian sweat shops due to high tarriffs, they may just bring those jobs back to the US for less paperwork, less overhead, and better PR. Let's face it, the vast majority of goods imported into the US are made from materials exported from the US. We still have most if not all the materials we need right here (one of the benefits of living in a massive nation). I'm not actually trying to preach isolationism, I swear, but the current situation is several other nations buy materials cheap from us and then sell us the finised product for several (hundred) times the materials + labor costs. This is the classic business model for them (buy low, sell high), but the reverse of it for us.

Not really, not when you consider that man is a social creature. By that nature, for any one man to live the way he wants (individual liberty), everyone else has to live the way that one man wants, too (mandates on living). I mean, if you don't want to smoke, you don't want to live or work in a room filled with tobacco smoke either, therefore you don't want anyone else to smoke.