| Login |
This one-time registration is for participation in this blog.It
also enables you free access to all newnations.com reports and to receive newsletters.
If you are already registered with newnations all you now need to do is log-in.
Click Here to login/register
|
|
|
|
|
| Mission |
We tell
the world about the world
Our mission is to further the promotion of liberal democracy and the safeguarding
of the environment by the actions of accountable governments. To advance this
cause we report, without fear or favour, the affairs of nations that are in
transition, their politics, economics, business, finance and human rights -
and we tell it how it is, consistently, calmly, and objectively.
 |
|
|
Other Topics: Has US democracy lost its way? |
Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 08:20 AM
|
|
|
TOPIC : “HAS US DEMOCRACY LOST ITS WAY?”
Our newnations.com Special Report, "The Ministry of Truth" asked this
question from which comes this extract:
DEMOCRACY AMERICAN STYLE
This presidency may be judged as having achieved something many would have previously
have thought of as impossible. The USA, which despite its less than full respect
for human life, and uneven record on domineering foreign policy - Central and
Latin America in particular come to mind - had managed to hold to an image as
a model of what democracy could be, a beacon of light for an oppressed world.
Because this coincided with being the militarily most powerful nation on earth,
the leader of the winning side in the cold war, America could be and was represented
as being the national equivalent of the moral high ground. There was always an
ugly side, but by straight comparison with that half of the world led by the USSR,
given the balance of good versus evil in the rival systems, the US was then undoubtedly
a long way ahead. But Bush/Cheney have radically altered this perception of America.
HAS US DEMOCRACY LOST ITS WAY?
In the field of US elections, on recent form it appears to the outside world that
in order to get the presidential nomination of one of the two parties of power,
it comes down very largely, not as one might expect to a declared policy program,
but to the campaigning money that a candidate can deliver. That is either because
he or his family are personally ultra-rich, or because his name is dynastic, or
otherwise has a resonance with the voters (the new cult of celebrity is relevant
here), who as a result will contribute the money.
The reason for the big money is that the key to success with an electorate is
TV advertising, so it is possible that one candidate could have zero hours of
political advertising, whilst his opponent could have mega-hours. Yeltsin in Russia,
with US campaign managers, won his second term that way. Advertising exists because
it works, but it is a free market product and in the US, political slots have
to be paid for. An interesting revelation recently was that Donald Rumsfeld intended
to run for president back in '86/'87, but had to give up that aspiration because
he couldn't raise the money!
The UK system is that the candidates must have equal time for their free TV and
radio commercials. The broadcasters are bound by law to provide this (and are
carefully monitored). This, more or less is the norm in European democracies,
precisely to avoid the critical criterion in election for high office, to be favouring
the candidate with the most money. [The present US presidency is the best example
of what you get if the qualification is a famous (family) name backed by mega-
bucks and a highly (paid) professional team to manage the campaign].
Because the elections are conducted on a collegiate basis, the presidential candidate
favoured by the popular vote does not necessarily win. Leaving aside the shady
business in Florida, it is not disputed that Al Gore had nation-wide, totaled
hundreds of thousands more votes than Bush in the 2000 election, but to no avail.
The Electoral College takes representatives from all of the states, each mandated
to vote according to the results in their own state. The nature of self-interest
being what it is, the opposing political parties have gerrymandered electoral
boundaries to the point where the great majority of constituencies are likely
to remain entirely predictable, so apart from the ballyhoo, the actual contest
is fought out in just a handful of states and there, in just a small number of
constituencies. The skills of the professional election managers and the unlimited
resources available for such swing-states, means that the winner of the most powerful
office in the world may then be determined by the clever manipulations of the
election hucksters, of whom Karl Rove is the apotheosis.
The USA with 300 million citizens, with a pre-eminent military, the leading economy
and seemingly imperial pretensions, is never going to be insulated from problems.
Surely the President as Chief Executive for at least four years, probably eight,
no matter from which party, should come from the ranks of the brightest and the
best; a first class mind - a man or woman who has already 'achieved', in a competitive
world? There is in the US an abundance of such tried and talented individuals
available (all presidential cabinets are put together this way). Proven judgement
and executive ability in the president including the choice of his team, are the
most important factors, but as long as the candidate is chosen by the criteria
of raising the TV campaigning war-chest, then the system has indeed lost its way.
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
I do not think democracy has gotten "lost" but democratic states do tend to wander around with unshappened ideas. The WCTU and the rise of Prohibition is a classic example.
Democracy's classic weakness is poorly chosen candidates. The most horrific examples were the election of Italian facists and German Nazis.
The best benefit of democracy is the abscense of a true "political nobility" every candidate must pass the electorate's collective decision making. But even here, jingoism and popularism become deciding factors.
This article, op-ed piece or “report” as the author chooses to call it, is simply a rehash of countless other op-ed articles that have flooded the nation’s newspapers and internet for the past four years. Any American who follows political news and foreign policy knows our system of American Democracy is broken. The almighty dollar buys votes and votes elect people who are mercenaries for big business. The trouble is our elected officials cannot fix the problem because they ARE the problem!
New ideas to fix our broken democracy are in painfully short supply, both in this report and in others like it. What shall we do? Pass a Constitutional amendment? Riot in the streets, or emigrate to another country? Personally I think the nation’s governors need to get together and flex the muscles of the States. After all, this country was founded on the premise that the Federal Government serves at the pleasure of the States, performing those tasks that States cannot do individually – like fight a war or print money.
It is with pride that most Americans can say the US is the first true democracy. Being first means making mistakes. Other countries have laws which strictly govern how elected officials are selected, measures that cut down the influence of big money. Our Constitution is in need of a 200 year tune up, and our system for electing government officials needs to be cleaned up.
Journalism should have a law…you can’t complain unless you offer a solution.
Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in