Sassenach wrote:I think it has more to do with the international perceptions of the Republican party than anything else.

That does have quite a bit to do with it, I guess.

I think a lot of us see Obama as well-meaning, if not massively effective. Back in 2008 I was comparing him to Clinton and Blair, in that when I was young I'd seen Clinton as a great hope and been disappointed, and then saw Blair idolised but felt ambivalent towards him (and so was not disappointed with him, so much as with his followers when things did not turn out well). I had lower expectations of Obama than many. He's exceeded them, to be honest - I never thought healthcare reform would get through, even as watered down as it was.

I actually preferred McCain to Obama back in 2008, although I didn't really mind either way and I much preferred Obama to Romney.

I don't really buy into DF's hatred of the man by any means and I do agree with Dan that he's well meaning. That said, it's quite clear that his presidency has been a flop. His foreign policy in particular has been a disappointment. You can give him a pass to some extent with domestic policy because he's been thwarted by Congressional gridlock, but the President has a free rein with foreign policy and his approach has been woefully ineffective and weak. He came to power with a truly epic amount of international goodwill and seems to have squandered it all with essentially nothing to show for it.

And don't get me started on Hillary. When she sold us out over the Falklands for the sake of a cheap headline in South America I realised that we could never count on the Obama administration.

I will say this about the Republican Party and the international community. Yes, some of them are quite bastards from my point of view and for obvious reasons. But it almost sounds like the international press has missed some of the nuances of American politics. As a voter who is now Unaffiliated, I find the Democrats to be just as much bastards here and there as their counterparts across the aisle. I think people in countries that are supposedly more "liberal" than ours assume that, because the Democratic Party is "on the American left" then it must be the more "like us" than the Republicans, who therefore must be neo-fascists.

While the latter is true in some cases, it still misses the mark quite a bit. And the Tea Party, however the American OR international press may cover it, does NOT control the Republican Party. As a gay man I admit that, while the Democrats have recently done more than anyone in the GOP has done for us, the "image" of the Democratic Party as the one that stands up for "the little man" is exactly that--an image and not a reality. Hell, at least the GOP who are anti-gay are saying what they think; they aren't coming as the wolf in sheep's clothing, and that to me is far more valuable than a politician who SAYS he's on my side standing up for me, but I really do not know that for sure.

And, call me crazy, assuming that the international press is so much more intelligent than its American counterparts, such assumptions sound to me like "famous last words". I've never met a reporter without an opinion, and their opinions are likely no less fallible around the world than those in the United States exclusively. I'm willing to bet a euro (or a pound) that the world's perception of any part of the American body politic is quite...off. In the very least, it sounds like what you're being fed by the "international community" (and media) is coming from people who, as some human beings have the tendency to do, see the rest of the world through the eyes of their own country and culture. We all do it at times.

I tell my lefty friends that I have done a "179" (not an actual 180) politically, over the past 15 years. Perhaps, some time from now, I will actually go 100% over to the Democrats. Perhaps I will think differently some day about the Democratic Party (and parties in general here) than I do now.

But that day is not today, and for some damned good reasons.

sass

That said, it's quite clear that his presidency has been a flop. His foreign policy in particular has been a disappointment.

Evaluating Obama on foreign policy can't be done for some time. With the benefit of time, it will become apparent that technology and the changing nature of the world has made it a much more complex "problem" for everyone. In time "not doing stupid stuff" might seem like a fairly intelligent plan.
Moreover, the Middle East is in turmoil but its hardly Obama's fault. And the lesson of Iraq, is that the US can't occupy a country and make people do what they want them to do ...

If he's judged, a decade from now, on anything it will be for Health Care Law which is proving to be successful and becoming popular in States where it hasn't been oppossed by republican governors. And the disparity between Republican governed states and others is becoming increasingly apparent. He'll also be judged on the recovery from the crash of 08 (fairly successfu) and judged on his failure to actually fix the causes of the crash.... (fairly ineffectual)

How do you detach his Presidency from the stangling effect of an intransigent House anyway? Is it his fault that they decided to just stop everything?

hacker

But it almost sounds like the international press has missed some of the nuances of American politics.

What Nuance? And where on American media does one go to find this suppossed nuance?
Polarization and extremism are reported in the foreign press because thats what is happening.....

hacker

And the Tea Party, however the American OR international press may cover it, does NOT control the Republican Party

.
Money controls the Republican Party.
And your system of governance and elections has made it easy for energized and highly motivated extremists like the TP to exert outsize control over the agenda and policies of the Republican Party. Its only the inability of these extreme positions to gain traction with more than a third of the electorate that has given the rest of the republican Party the courage and wisdom to begin standing up to the most extreme. Getting elected as a majority being more important than anything else.

JimHackerMP wrote:I will say this about the Republican Party and the international community. Yes, some of them are quite bastards from my point of view and for obvious reasons. But it almost sounds like the international press has missed some of the nuances of American politics.

Some of it. Of course, some of us are aware, simply because American media is more prominent outside the USA than international media is in the USA.

As a voter who is now Unaffiliated, I find the Democrats to be just as much bastards here and there as their counterparts across the aisle. I think people in countries that are supposedly more "liberal" than ours assume that, because the Democratic Party is "on the American left" then it must be the more "like us" than the Republicans, who therefore must be neo-fascists.

That may be a perception of some, but I don't see the Democrats as being very 'left' at all. They are centrists and a big tent. So there is a radical wing, and a conservative wing. The conservatives would not be out of place in our Conservative Party (and there's scant difference between them and the moderate Republicans, other than tribalism or location).

While the latter is true in some cases, it still misses the mark quite a bit. And the Tea Party, however the American OR international press may cover it, does NOT control the Republican Party. As a gay man I admit that, while the Democrats have recently done more than anyone in the GOP has done for us, the "image" of the Democratic Party as the one that stands up for "the little man" is exactly that--an image and not a reality. Hell, at least the GOP who are anti-gay are saying what they think; they aren't coming as the wolf in sheep's clothing, and that to me is far more valuable than a politician who SAYS he's on my side standing up for me, but I really do not know that for sure.

The Democrats are a machine, and historically (back in the 19th C) they were of course the establishment and conservative party, who were more prone to back slavery, while the Republicans came out of a range of opposition movements, some radical (right or left), some less so.

What I see as having happened was that post-Civil Rights, the Democrats jettisoned their southern Dixie base in exchange for support from African Americans (who until then were often Republicans pace Lincoln). And the Republicans made the opposite swap after a lot of them opposed Civil Rights laws on 'libertarian' kind of grounds. the Democrats then attracted a left wing radical fringe in the 1960s, which did both it and them harm.

To this day, I don't trust the Democrats to be 'left' or 'progressive' much. but what has happened is that the Republicans have moved away from the Reagan alliance towards an attempt at a conservative ideological movement. The problem is that the Republicans are not all the same kind of conservative. Some are economic conservatives (classically liberal), but also socially liberal. Others are socially conservative but economically protectionist (which is not classically liberal). And a chunk of them are both, but to differing degrees.

So what we see in Republican politics now seems to be a debate between the various wings as to who the 'true' conservatives are. The Tea Party are not in any way dominant, but they are a populist insurgency, and while they vary a lot appear to be largely socially as well as economically conservative. You'd think that would put them at the centre of things, but their tactics and potted hardline views make them hard to deal with. Mainstream Republicans are still in charge, but keep having to look over their shoulders and throw hunks of red meat out to the Tea Party, because if they don't they get a furious campaign against them for any failure (see John Boehner).

but ricky is wrong - there is a lot of nuance. It often gets missed in the polarisation, but in many ways the parties are a lot closer than they seem, but they can't admit it where it applies, and internally shout down those who would make it more obvious.

And, call me crazy, assuming that the international press is so much more intelligent than its American counterparts, such assumptions sound to me like "famous last words". I've never met a reporter without an opinion, and their opinions are likely no less fallible around the world than those in the United States exclusively. I'm willing to bet a euro (or a pound) that the world's perception of any part of the American body politic is quite...off. In the very least, it sounds like what you're being fed by the "international community" (and media) is coming from people who, as some human beings have the tendency to do, see the rest of the world through the eyes of their own country and culture. We all do it at times.

believe me, it's actually quite easy to see America through American eyes. You guys won't see it, because you are there, but we get to see a lot of American media, and some news. Our media does have a lens, and there is a kind of "wow, look at what them crazy Yanks are up to now!" sensationalism from time to time. But those of us who pay attention, and the media outlets that go a little deeper do show us the difference.

I tell my lefty friends that I have done a "179" (not an actual 180) politically, over the past 15 years. Perhaps, some time from now, I will actually go 100% over to the Democrats. Perhaps I will think differently some day about the Democratic Party (and parties in general here) than I do now.

Sometimes people change, sometimes what happens is that the political world swirls around them. The American system of two parties that are usually more tribal machine than ideological fixed point means that happens more, and those in the squidgy middle might find they agree more or less with one or the other over particular issues (or rather parts of one or the other) and then suddenly find that they don't any more.

But that day is not today, and for some damned good reasons.

Maybe so. Frankly I think that Americans should try and break the duopoly as much as they can. But the system has been set up by them for their own interests - gerrymandering etc is most effective when it creates safe seats for both parties.

I suppose I should add at this point that the people involved in this thread are very unusual. We're all political junkies who actually take an interest in politics around the world, but particularly in politics on either side of the Atlantic. Dan and myself both have a very good understanding of American politics and Hacker is probably the only American I've ever come across who was actually interested in British politics and keen to learn more. I'd say that our understanding of the American scene is superior to your understanding of ours Hacker, but that's to be expected since we're a) older than you and b) have access to a much less insular media that covers things in greater depth. That said though, we're all weirdos to some degree, but it makes for an interesting thread that I've enjoyed (which is a rarity at Redscape).

WARNING: The following is a long, ADHD-style post; ignore as much as you want to

Well thank you buddy, I appreciate that. I feel like I am in the company of other smart people (I hope I'm smart, but it depends on who you ask ) here and have also enjoyed this. Another part of the reason you may know things I don't about my own country is that, to be blunt, some of it bores the hell out of me. Have you ever watched a congressional "debate"? If you ever get seats in the House or Senate visitors' gallery, bring a pillow. Listening to the debate yesterday on airstrikes in the House of Commons, well, that was way more lively than the the U.S. House of Reps. or the Senate. I never watch C-SPAN's coverage of the House or Senate, but I've definitely tuned in to Prime Minister's Questions here and there (which believe it or not they air on C-SPAN once a week). Like I said my "political science" classes were mostly international relations/comparative politics courses.

While it's gotten slightly heated at times, we've all managed to keep it pretty "adult" so to speak. I have to admit one thing about us: the average American cannot have a civil political debate these days. If you watch CNN or any American cable/satellite news station and they're "debating" (if you want to call it that; I sure don't) it's disrespectful, they try to interrupt and talk all over each other and so forth. A political "conversation" between two Americans, especially of opposing parties, always has to end in hurt feelings or "you're an idiot" or "obviously you don't get it".....etc, etc. I think the old people--er, senior citizens--have got it right: we just don't have the respect for each other that we used to. We've often mentioned the polarization in American politics: quite frankly, I wonder whether it's top down (the parties/congress/white house are shaping the people's attitudes) or bottom up (the government's polarization is a result of the American people themselves becoming idiotically polarized). My theory is that it's a mixture of both.

There's another reason you might know things I don't about my own country...which sounds pretty sad but someone pointed this out to me once: we're in the news all the damn time. And naturally, the superpower doing this, or that, will be reported. If Guinea Bissau has a crooked election it might make a minor footnote on page 7 of The Sun or the Style Section of the Le Monde (just throwing that one out there), but EVERYBODY knows what's going on in the U.S., or at least what the U.S. is doing vis a vis their own country. "The President of the United States announced today that....", "a spokesman for the American Defense Department said...", etc. Not to disparage our allies down under, but this Aussie I met, heavily involved in their politics, told me that more Australians know George Washington was the first President of the United States, than know that Edmund Barton was the first Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. Obviously not because Australians are self-ignorant or anything, but because, being the superpower, well, we're a "bigger" story on the evening news in other countries than....hell I dunno, Belgium. (Nothing against Belgium; been there; it's great.)

Now, about judging Obama. I cannot hit on all the points you just discussed guys, but I have to admit that Ricky is partly accurate in his assessment of "history" judging Obama, and it's too early for us to judge him yet. Look at Harry S Truman (whose--phun phact--middle initial "S" has no period after it, because it literally doesn't stand for anything, it's just an S). A maxim [I think that is the right word] was coined during his presidency: "To err is Truman." He was considered uncouth (just ask Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov!), uneducated compared to the rest of the political establishment (high school diploma was his highest!), and a whole host of other things people didn't like about him. Like "losing China" and of course it was not a popular move to fire MacArthur. Of course, people are usually judged like that when they follow a "better act" on stage (e.g., FDR).

Years later, Truman is regarded as, if not the best president we've ever had, at least as one of the better ones. I still fear, however that he'll be remembered (not because we're racist or anything) the first minority in the White House. I did the same thing in high school (not because I was gay, I didn't even know back then) but I was far from one of the "cool kids" and I got elected SGA President (like a student council...basically the student president for the whole school, I had to go in front of 600 or more of my fellow students and make a 2 minute speech to do it) anyway, a totally "normal" kid getting elected, for once, not a popular kid who wanted his or her picture in the yearbook. That's a pretty crude comparison I admit, but I think that's what he'll be remembered for: getting elected. Say what you will, most Americans think Obamacare is a mess (and that was mostly the White House, not the "congressional sausage" as some of you put it, although a few--very few--key members of Congress participated in a minor way), they don't like his foreign policy (there's the Truman comparison again) and the economy, while on the rebound, did not recover in a timely enough manner for our tastes (it's easy to say "give him time" but that does not make anyone feel any better who is still unemployed, does it?). Personally I thought he was going to be voted out for the same reason he was voted in: economic reasons. Data covering the last 100+ years confirms that the Party in the White House NEVER retains it during an economic crisis or recession (McKinley apparently is the exception but he is only remembered for being whacked because his Veep was a far more memorable prez.) The economy had far from recovered by 2012, and I figured, yeah, the guy doesn't have a prayer. He'll go the way of George H.W. Bush (the elder), I thought. I thought wrong, but his re-election was only by a slim majority, popular vote-wise.

The Republican party and money: it seems that nothing makes both parties join hands than any cubs on campaign finance. If you think that's just the GOP, well, you gave me a bit of a lecture on campaign finance, and from what I've gathered, it ain't just the GOP from what I have found. In the words of the Watergate reporters: follow the money.

The Democrats, while there is still a fairly significant "blue-dog" faction, are most definitely on the Left---not entirely, but for the most part, at least. Trust me. I live in a Blue State, lol. Your are correct about machine politics. And speaking of machine politics, to me, one of the disadvantages to Obama's style of leadership is that he is, most regrettably, from Chicago. I hate to be bigoted against people because they come from a particular part of the country, but the phrase "Chicago-Style Politics" seems to apply. Might as well call our president the "Ward Boss-in-Chief". Yes, the parties do act a little differently as far as their organization. Actually, the Republican Party is very much responsible, well at least in a pretty good measure, for delivering the votes on Civil Rights legislation back in the 1960s. The Democratic Party alone NEVER would have got the votes to do it. The conservative (even reactionary) faction back then was far too large and too powerful. While my theory is a bit "chicken or the egg", I at least know that what upset the pre-1970's party arrangement was Strom Thurmond's defection to the Republicans...and bringing the South into the GOP with him. Prior to that, "Republican" was a four-letter-word in the South. You may be partly right, Dan, but it isn't that black and white here.

We should not necessarily break the "duopoly", but at least return it to the old arrangement. In 1968, thanks to a certain third-party candidate who was strong enough to pick up several whole southern states (and therefore 45 electoral votes). Nixon (and a lot of other Americans as well) were probably terrified that Wallace would sweep a shitload of southern states and deadlock the Electoral College. That done, he could deal his electors to either Nixon or Humphrey, if they promised to do his bidding, or (at worst) tell his electors to vote the way they were supposed to (for him), thus throwing the election into the House, and gumming up the words for God knows how long. The word "@#$!" doesn't cover it. So I imagine that Dick Nixon was so afraid of that happening (as were most Americans) that he put a southerner on the ticket for VP (Spiro Agnew of MD, still a "southern" state back then) and tried to appeal to southern states so they wouldn't go over to Wallace (or HHH). The GOP candidate appealing to southern states for once, still quite novel at the time, probably accelerated the process already begun by Strom's defection (and that of Ronald Reagan as well).

And yes, Ricky, getting elected with a majority (and by extension, political survival) is usually pretty important to politicians.

hacker

We should not necessarily break the "duopoly", but at least return it to the old arrangement.

breaking the duopoly, that is a multiparty system, would be a permanent change.
Changing the relationship between the two parties would be a temporary measure. As soon as one side or the other thought they could gain significant electoral advantage the relationship would be changed.

hacker

And yes, Ricky, getting elected with a majority (and by extension, political survival) is usually pretty important to politicians

No. Getting elected personnally is most important. Thats why extreme positions, that help a congressman thrive in a gerymandered district, are hived to .... And why they are afraid to compromise on legislature and be outflanked by party opponents at the primary stage ....
Generally most congressman are willing to sacrifice party success for personal success...At least thats whats happened with the republican party in the last decade since the TP arose.
The longer a congressional career the greater the financial rewards....

danivon

but ricky is wrong - there is a lot of nuance

.
You'd never know it by the inability of congress to function. Or by listening to talk radio in the States.
Or by listening to a regurgitation of talking points by politicians one after the other, with little to no apparent understanding of the need to resolve issues...
In fact, with a dupopoly and the system of goverenance, every issue is whittled down to two postions. The need to demonstrate the differences rather than emphasize the similarities of the posiitons is down to the ever present election cycle.
In parliamentary systems there's a let up in this behaviour for periods of governance. In the States the politicians are always in electioneering mode. And electioneering is not about nuance. (Well seldom)

While I sympathize with your views on talk radio in the United States (see the point I made above about Americans don't seem to know how to argue in an adult-like fashion) you are wrong about the multiparty system. There has not always been a two party system in the United States. Feel free to look at the composition of the House and Senate:

House: http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/1st/
Senate: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Looks like breaking the first duopoly was NOT a permanent change. Nor the second time. Nor the third time. Nor the...you get the point. The party system is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers were rather surprised when they developed in the first place. However, they didn't, until the Fourth Congress (1795-97).

As soon as one side or the other thought they could gain significant electoral advantage the relationship would be changed.

Um...isn't that called an "election"? Not entirely sure what you mean, though.

Generally most congressman are willing to sacrifice party success for personal success.

I would hope so. Screw their party, I want my members of Congress to be loyal to ME!

And at the end of the day, if politicians are unwilling to compromise, they won't. It all comes down to the character of the people in office. No constitution or constitutional structure can protect its citizens from the day when they all cry "f*** it." Again, I think you're trying to see the United States through the view of another country's politics.

TP? Tea Party? Yeah, I'd like to wipe my.....

The longer a congressional career the greater the financial rewards....

I think these retirement schemes should be stopped, too. Like, those retirement bonus for being in Congress for longer than 20 years. All that does is encourage the same particular @#$! to be in Congress for longer than 20 years. Flat annual salary, and make your own retirement arrangements.

The only difference as per "electioneering mode" is the timing of the elections. Every new Congress, each congressman, and a third of the senators, know that there's an election in two years time. In parliamentary democracies you have no way of knowing: it could be at the maximum required time (5 years in the UK, refresh my memory as per Canada if you would) or, for all any member of Parliament knows, the PM could announce tomorrow that the House is dissolved and there's going to be an election. I don't know whether that would be better or worse for us. Although it would give the President a little too much power to hand him the authority to dissolve Congress for a new election. Prime ministers of various countries (Japan under Ichiniro Koizumi comes to mind) have been known to pull shenanigans via the timing of snap elections.

So it sounds like either system has a possible flaw, there. In the presidential, constant electioneering; in the parliamentary, handing a crap load of power to the person timing the election to perpetuate his own party's (and his own) hold on power. The flaw in the former seems to be the preference of the American People. I really do not see how it's actually worse than the latter. It's a matter of personal choice. Again it's a different road to the same goal as far as I am concerned (parliamentary or presidential that is).

And electioneering is not about nuance.

No? Well, it's about winning it, at least...

P.S. about the polarization: can you quantify that?

Flat annual salary, and make your own retirement arrangements.

I guess that depends on what those 'retirement arrangements' turn out to be. I do understand the sentiment that politicians are public servants and shouldn't be too well paid, but the problem with that is obvious. If you make the terms too unattractive then it discourages people from less affluent backgrounds from entering politics in the first place (not to mention successful people who would have to take a massive cut in their salary) and encourages corruption for personal gain.

hacker

There has not always been a two party system in the United States

For the most part, there has. And there has been, essentially. for the past 100 years.
we are discussing whether meaningful change can be achieved by moving back to the system where American party members were more independent and more willing, individually, to compromise with the other side of the house...(Before Newt essentailly) If the punishment for this independence out weighs the rewards for independent action.... thats not likely.
The primary system offers either the Party establishment or a party caucus like the TPs the chance to punish independent actors every election cycle. Even winning a hard fought primary can be very costly to a congressman. Both financially and in personal terms. What does independent action provide in the way of a reward? Only if it excites the local voters .... would there be a reward. And the local voters most likely to be excited about any thing are the ones with the most extreme positions.
Those in the middle, willing to compromise, aren't quite so excitable...about anything.

A permannent multi party system. Or at least one where there is usually 3 ore more parties with sizable and effective representation ...institutionalizes deal making and compromise . (Unless there is a governable majority, which is also just fine. For governance...)

Hacker

It all comes down to the character of the people in office. No constitution or constitutional structure can protect its citizens from the day when they all cry "f*** it." Again, I think you're trying to see the United States through the view of another country's politics.

Well, if I only saw the US political scene through a limited knowledge of the US political scene and had nothing to compare and contrast it with - I would have a much more limited term of reference...
This happens in the US, I think, because of the politicization of your media since FOX news and talk radio abandoned any sense of journalism in their endevours... and perhaps because of your education system.
As for the character comment.... What does that say about the character of the average congressman of today then?
Its instructive to read Kearns or watch the movie Lincoln about the battle in Congress to eliminate slavery in early 1865... An enormous moral batlle, won in large part by greasy bribes and political favors....

Its instructive to read Kearns or watch the movie Lincoln about the battle in Congress to eliminate slavery in early 1865... An enormous moral batlle, won in large part by greasy bribes and political favors....

That's right Ricky, in 1865. Neither you nor I can say for sure exactly what goes on in the backrooms of the Capitol Building...because neither you nor I have been in the backrooms of the Capitol Building. Although I have been more than just a hair closer than you have. I haven't worked on the Hill, however, I know people who have worked there and in Annapolis. Some of the people I have come into contact with in working in local politics know things, and have told me things, that you could only guess at.

Well, if I only saw the US political scene through a limited knowledge of the US political scene and had nothing to compare and contrast it with - I would have a much more limited term of reference...

You do have a limited knowledge--a very limited knowledge--of the U.S. political scene, if you're only listening to our talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) and Fox news. My advice: diversify a bit. You all know an impressive amount of facts about the American political system, Ricky, I've said that before about all of you. But Ricky, you still seem to have difficulty grasping a few basic truths about politics in general; especially **American** politics in general. Now I don't mean that as an insult, that's why we all have these frank and open exchanges of views. I've learned a great deal from this thread I didn't know before.

A permannent multi party system. Or at least one where there is usually 3 ore more parties with sizable and effective representation ...institutionalizes deal making and compromise .

Really? Tell that to Germans in the 1920s and 1930s. Or Italians from.....always. Or the French, before General De Gaulle came out of retirement. Or the Egyptians prior to Nasser. Or...dude, the list could be ENDLESS. You're still stuck to this idea that parliamentary and/or multiparty systems can't fail. (Reminds me of the bankers who say they're "too big to fail"...same kind of "famous last words".) A constitutional structure must fit the political culture (and its requirements) of the People it is designed to govern. You don't seem to quite grasp that.

Did you actually bother to look at some of those profiles of the House and Senate via the website links I gave you above? You'll see that we have quite often had a very fluid party situation, at least until after the first world war. Last 100 years...well if you mean from 1914 to 2014 there's been only a two party system, well, almost true. In fact, there is still evidence of a > two party system in the american government--though not a strong one I admit--after 1914 (if that is the terminus ante quem you're sticking with). If you want to go by just the presidential elections as evidence, 1924, there was still a huge "Populist" party back then (as well as Socialists) and the Populists actually won electoral votes that year (not many but they had quite a presence still). And of course, the parties were hardly "cohesive"...as evidenced by the elections of 1948 and even 1968.

Newt did not cause the polarization in the House of Representatives. I'm fairly sure his Speakership was more a symptom than a cause. And this is one of the reasons the Senate is still such a critical apparatus of the American Government (which you conveniently wrote out of your ideal American constitution). The members are less polarized in the Senate. The Senate actually has some control over foreign affairs, or at least a great deal of oversight to the Executive Branch's conduct within that realm. If you look at actual data from each senator (not asking you to, but I looked at quite a few of them) many of them seem to vote with their party not a heck of a lot of the time, versus their counterparts in the House. I looked through the source of info I have on how often the senators vote with or against their party, and even a few go down to just over 50% (also depends on when during a session of Congress you take the data, of course).

As far as primaries, I have to admit, even though they are more "democratic" than the old "convention system", the convention system did have an advantage. If two or more complete whack jobs, with great popular support, seemed to be the front runners in a nomination for president or some other such office, the more influential members of the convention could put forth a "compromise candidate" and totally snuff the others out. Someone more moderate for example. Like in the 1860 Republican Party Convention, for example. There were some more extreme front runners, but Lincoln was put forth as a compromise candidate. That's an advantage of the old system primaries don't offer. But there are advantages to the present system of course, it just needs some....tweaking....in my opinion to make it work better.

Besides, how could you create a "permanent" multiparty system in the United States? The Constitution doesn't even mention parties. Not only that, a multiparty system would only polarize politics further. Multiparty parties have far stronger "party discipline" within their members. It would be a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire" Ricky. A "medicine" whose effects would be worse than the disease.

And as for the character of the average congressman....how many have you met?

hacker

Neither you nor I can say for sure exactly what goes on in the backrooms of the Capitol Building...because neither you nor I have been in the backrooms of the Capitol Building

Oh come on .... Try and read a little.

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ClwPPldX4Y
http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/11 ... aft/44928/

hacker

You do have a limited knowledge--a very limited knowledge--of the U.S. political scene, if you're only listening to our talk radio

When I illustrate the polarization of American politics by pointing to the monstrosity that is American talk radio ... I'm not saying thats a regular source of information. Just that I'm familiar with the noise.
A hefty percentage of Americans actually listen to talk radio loyally. Right? How well informed re they?

Newt did not cause the polarization in the House of Representatives

Most scholars disagree. and many put the polarization of the Senate as his door too.
here:

The political parties in the Senate are almost as polarized at they are in the House.
Nevertheless, the explanations for party polarization work better in the House than they do in
the Senate. In this article, argue that the polarization in the House has directly contributed to
polarization in the Senate. We find that almost the entire growth in Senate party polarization
since the early 1970s can be accounted for by Republican senators who previously served in
the House after 1978 – a group we call the “Gingrich Senators.” While our analysis indicates
that part of this effect has its roots in the senators’ constituencies, the experience of these
representatives serving in the House continues to exert a real and substantial effect on their
voting behavior in the Senate

http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/apw/archi ... e_2011.pdf

hacker

You're still stuck to this idea that parliamentary and/or multiparty systems can't fail.

I've never been stuck to that idea. I've just said that there are advantages and disadvantages of different systems. None are perfect.
The disadvantages of a duopoly are pretty significant ... especially as the primary system has developed ... That is, if you think that the current atmosphere and productivity in Washington is a failure. You may think things are hunky dory.

hacker

Besides, how could you create a "permanent" multiparty system in the United States?

I don't know that you can at this point. I'm simply pointing out that without a genuine multi party system, which you seem to misunderstand if you point to outlier independents and minor parties getting elected occassionally ...
Then you don't have compromise at the party level that often occurs in Parliamentary systems where formal and informal coalitions are often a natural part of the process. Intransigence when your party can be out numbered by a group of parties that are willing to compromise is often the road to permanent minority status in situations like that...
Right now, intransigence by a minority, is being considered a successful strategy by Republicans...