World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Alternation of Power
You might get different answers from the UK vs the US, at least. In the US, presidents are limited to two terms, then they're out. Not so in the UK - we can keep the same person in power as long as we keep voting for their party, and as long as they keep leading that party. We had Margaret Thatcher for 11 years, Henry Pelham for 11 years, Lord Frederick North for 12 years, and William Pitt the Younger for 18 years. There's a great deal to be said for stability - what incentive does a leader have to lead well, if they know they can institute policies that look good in the short term but are catastrophic in the long term, because they will never have to deal with the consequences?
We've seen a lot of that in the UK: politicians institute major changes (e.g. in the NHS), then the next lot of politicians come in and make more changes - without waiting to see if the first lot of changes worked, or even to get them properly finished - and then complain that the NHS is inefficient. (Actually, the UK spends less on healthcare per head than most other European countries, and on a percentage-of-GDP basis, I think we're about level with Afghanistan, last time I looked.) If governments stayed in power longer, we might be able to break the cycle of continual change - which isn't just inconvenient, it's dangerous. (Read the Francis Report, if you're interested. Don't, if you're not!)
On the other hand, alternation of leadership does stop people getting too comfortable!
With America, though, I think it's not an issue of "is alternation of power real or not", but more an issue of money. Only a limited number of people have the money to mount a presidential campaign in the US, so, effectively, the US is not a democracy: it's an oligarchy. Although poor people are allowed to vote, they are only allowed to vote for which rich person should be in charge. The system is designed to ensure that only rich people can achieve political power, presumably because they are the ones who have most to lose by changing the status quo. In an oligarchy, you are bound to get the same names coming up repeatedly, simply because you have only a small pool of people to choose from - and, societies being what they are, many of those names will be related in some way, because people tend to partner up within their own social class.
Of course, in the UK, we don't have a property qualification in the same way, but the rich still have the advantage due to "soft" factors like social connections, and the ability to take unpaid or low-paid intern jobs that pave the way for better (political) things. Still, it is possible to reach high political rank even without wealth - John Major was the son of music-hall performer, and left school at 16 and worked as an insurance clerk (though not as a bus-conductor, as he was too short); Margaret Thatcher was a grocer's daughter; Theresa May is a vicar's daughter.
But, to get back to the original point... I don't think alternation of power has anything particular to recommend it other than the ability to get rid of the incompetent or corrupt quickly. Running the country is not a sort of game where everybody has to be allowed their turn to play, and it's not fair to hog the best seat.
Of course, the UK is still a monarchy, and one of the best monarchs we had was Elizabeth I, who ruled (not just reigned!) for 45 years, so I may be biased... :-)
Wow, some very interesting insight into the UK system and its counterposing with that of the US!Yes, there is a dilemma of 'stability vs usurpation and abuse' and the fine balance is important. I heard there is a theory that whenever an employee masters his/her position the best, he/she gets promotion, so you never really get a chance to do your best as you 'move' elsewhere -:)
Don't know whether you can find 'simple or poor' people (no matter the origin) in high political echelons anywhere these days and those who lack something might be prone to change that, but the absurd is that in the less wealthy countries, the politicians (even the communists) seem to be much wealthier than their peers in rich countries...
The move-up-or-move-out culture is certainly there. It's even worse, though, in that in many workplaces, an employee who enjoys doing their job and is really good at it is viewed as dead wood if they want to carry on doing that job instead of getting promoted into (usually) a management job... which they have no liking or talent for. Doesn't make sense. Why not leave the talented technicians in technical jobs, if that's where they want to be? I've worked for enough people who were doubtless good technicians... but as managers they were awful.As for "simple or poor" people in high positions. I'd say that if you get to high position, you might be poor but the simple will not survive. Modern politics is not simple, and anyone who thinks it is will crash and burn.
One should also not confuse corruption with politics; although they may occur together, this is not necessarily so. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But then, how do you place the man who might be described as the world's last absolute ruler: Pope Francis?
Don't know much about how Vatican's hierarchy works...Agree with you that the described 'dead wood' approach is so often erroneous. Someone good, where he/she is, is always prompted upwards (even by social stigma), which may render ineffecient previously good specialist and cause moral suffering to him/her.
Management and production require a different set of skills and mindset. You don't take your best metal worker and appoint him/her the factory's manager.
Even in football, it's relatively rare when the best player is also a good manager afterwards and arguably people with much less impressive record as players, prove to be excellent managers...
T.K. Wrote: "Only a limited number of people have the money to mount a presidential campaign in the US, so, effectively, the US is not a democracy: it's an oligarchy. Although poor people are allowed to vote, they are only allowed to vote for which rich person should be in charge."I have to respectfully disagree on these points. Personal wealth has less to do with the ability to run for presidency than one supposes. A candidate's war chest is a reflection of confidence placed in his chances by lobbyists, big business and state political machinery. They hold the purse and if you were a humble schoolteacher from Anywhere, USA and they wanted you in office you would have unlimited funds with which to mount a campaign. This trifecta, while representing a locus of wealth and power, will back a candidate that is most appropriately vetted, despite his own level of wealth. This is more a reflection of soft power than a state of oligarchy. Case in point, Hillary Clinton, anointed by the liberal elite, out financed Obama by tens of millions of dollars, with more millions pouring in weekly, in addition to the fact that her personal wealth also eclipsed Senator Obama's. But when it became clear that Hillary was losing her grip on the constituency the money changed hands alarmingly fast. The trifecta doesn't really like long shots.
As for the poor not being given much choice, this is also somewhat of a fallacy. The upper and middle class far outnumber the poor in the US and they vote as a greater percentage of their demographic than do their poorer counterparts. The poor are not affecting elections as much as it seems one way or another. Even when they do vote research supports the disturbing fact that they overwhelmingly vote against their own economic interests. When given a choice on the ballot between a socially progressive candidate whose platform includes economic parity and a economically conservative candidate they will vote for the conservative nearly every time. The reasons for this are interesting but can be reserved for another discussion.
Tara wrote: "A candidate's war chest is a reflection of confidence placed in his chances by lobbyists, big business and state political machinery. They hold the purse and if you were a humble schoolteacher from Anywhere, USA and they wanted you in office you would have unlimited funds with which to mount a campaign. This trifecta, while representing a locus of wealth and power, will back a candidate that is most appropriately vetted, despite his own level of wealth...."Interesting. The way you describe it, it still resembles oligarchy, where the purses fund all the candidates, they deem worthy, sometimes a few of them simultaneously. You assume they would back the 'most appropriately vetted', while they may apply quite a different criteria: 'of most agreeable with their agenda', 'least dangerous to their interests' and so on. If they really decide who, the candidate's own aptitude might be less important..
The system you describe doesn't exist in any developed nation so are they also oligarchies?
I think there can be more oligarchies than perceived -:), but specifically regarding campaigns financing there are systems that rely on cap and government funding of election campaigns, party membership fees rather than donations, mixed financing, etc.Don't know how accurate this specific article of Wikipedia is, but it tries to give some overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...
The US system is partly based on the old Roman system, where the President/Consul might be voted for by the masses, in principle, but in fact they are not - they are voted for by tribes/electorates. The net result of this in the US is that Presidential candidates know in advance that most of the states are not worth the trouble of campaigning in because everyone knows how they will vote. The President is NOT the one who receives the most votes, but the one who wins the electoral college. Rome voted its Consuls for only one year terms, and effectively, only the senatorial class counted, although it was possible to "come from nowhere". Ti. Flavius Vespasianus came from a modest farming family. America also has courts, which Rome did not have, and Rome had the Tribunes, which America does not have. The problem with the Republic type of government is that generally speaking, only the rich can get into government. The parliamentary system that my country has gets around that, partly, by the politicians electing the Prime Minister, but this has the problem of being led by "professional politicians", most of whom have done nothing else of note in their lives. There is no easy answer.The system I "invented" in my "First Contact" trilogy had the same governments for countries, but a Federal system of countries where the Federation Commission acted as referees and laid down rules that governments had to abide by, such as a common taxation system, a common social security system, etc. but the Federal authorities could not pass laws that a acted on the people, merely on governments. Of course the story involved the major defect with this type of system.
Not speaking of US or any country specifically, but I think the stronger the alloy of capital and politics, the more problematic it is for the majority of population.The entire notion of the democracy is that the majority decides, while the minority is protected from abuse.
Representative democracies, where the system heavily favors rich or elitist candidates, just make the entire concept flawed, for I argue a millionaire is not the best representative of a majority, formed by a different class of employees and self-employed low-key entrepreneurs, be they farmers or high-tech engineers. Naturally, you care about things and agendas that you have personal affinity with. You simply don't care that bread have a 60% appreciation from year 2000 in Canada (if what Annie says is accurate), while many do.
In such a system elites rule and care for each other with occasional gestures towards those below, but it's not truly a democracy, where the majority is supposed to promote its agenda and not just choose which member of the elite will be at the helm..
Nik, the problem is, democracies do not work. Of course, we do not have one - we have a Republic form, which may well be a good compromise, but as you say, if the senatorial class (taking the Roman Res Publica as a standard) rule, they really don't even think of the Plebs, except if they need them to promote themselves in the electoral process (e.g. with G J Caesar, who had very little interest really in the Plebs, but was happy to use the despicable Clodius to achieve his aims.) The really rich cannot even recognise the problems of the poor.
Yep, if there is a problem, it needs to be addressed. Not through violent means, but by using our powers, allegedly vested with the majority. Haven't written my manifesto yet -:)
Putin, the hardliner, substituted liberal Yeltsin in Russia. Now we are about to witness a sharp turnabout in the States.Obama and Trump, at least at the moment, look so extremely opposite to each other on so many levels that I guess kinda natural to raise this issue again. Many think that Trump might undo a lot of Obama's achievements.
Do you think the alternation of leadership is a good thing or such a drastic change in policies, attitudes, everything isn't necessarily helpful?
This really should be a new thread, almost. However, I think it is inevitable and highly desirable when someone goes to extremes. For example, in NZ, at the start of the millennium, Helen Clark was PM, and her government did some really good things, but then got carried away with "doing things" and started legislating in all sorts of places that were unnecessary, earning her the title of running a "Nanny state". She got voted out and that fiddling stopped, and the worst overturned.Back to Nik's examples. Personally, I think Yeltsin was a drunken disaster, and Putin did well. However, once Medvedev came into "power", Putin should have stepped back. I don't know enough of Russia to be sure, and while I think his second term has done some good stuff, his inability to stomp out corruption is hurting Russia and someone else should be there. I think Trump is a highly retrograde move, and what surprises me is that with all America has, couldn't someone better have popped up and won?
A bit of chin leading there, but . . .
Ian wrote: "...I think Trump is a highly retrograde move, and what surprises me is that with all America has, couldn't someone better have popped up and won?..."I must agree about the retrograde part, but not necessarily about the highly part. But the electorate was too polarized to come up with a compromise candidate. If you asked most Dems whether they'd prefer Cruz to Trump now, they'd likely say yes for a second, then demand a less conservative guy or gal. They're too polarized to adjust, even if it could have kept Trump out of the Oval Office. They did hate Trump, just not enough to have sent major amounts of money to Cruz (or another front-runner) when it might have done some good. They wanted it their way, and no other, and made their play based on that want. Now it's too late. Bernie was robbed, but that's another story.
I think even a third Bush in the White House looks good to a lot of people right now...
J.J. wrote: "I think even a third Bush in the White House looks good to a lot of people right now..."are we talking a third term of george w., or jeb?
Jeb Bush would have been perfectly acceptable for me.
Michel wrote: "Jeb Bush would have been perfectly acceptable for me."Me, too, but my expectations would have been low. Hillary-Lite, no real action on immigration reform. The usual decadal amnesty. Cheap labor for manufacturers and damn the consequences. The US would become too much like the UK: two major parties, "two cheeks of the same arse."
Michel wrote: "Jeb Bush would have been perfectly acceptable for me."wouldn't have been my first choice, but with the prospect of The Horror that will unfold on January 20th...sign me up.
It reminds me of a Chinese curse: from the 21st Americans may well live in interesting times.
It won't only be the Americans living in interesting times but the whole world as it were.
if there even is a january 21st. trump may sit down in the oval office's swivel chair, spin around a few times, say, 'oooh, what does this button do?' next thing you know, the nukes are flying.
Nah, Mike. That's not really interesting.
true- that'd be a bit anticlimactic, wouldn't it?
Nearly as scary or even scarier are some of the people chosen by Trump as his top advisors and White House staff. You just need to think of Mike Flynn as National Security Advisor (a man who says that Islam is a political movement and not a religion). Then, you have Steve Bannon as policy advisor (an alt-right conspiracy theorist). Now, Trump is soon going to put his own choice of people in charge of the intelligence agencies he just denigrated for weeks. If you think that intelligence reports were politicized before, wait another few weeks. If I would be a CIA analyst working on the Russian Desk, I would already start checking for another job out of simple self-esteem (not wanting to be a simple yes man for an ignoramus).
Right- there will be no moderating influence. It's hard to know which of his rogue's gallery is the worst, but I would probably say Bannon. I think it's anyone's guess what Trump really believes, but Bannon is a true ideologue. I just read a novel, It Can't Happen Here, published in 1935, that describes the rise of a Trump-like dictator helped along by a cold, calculating, advisor who kind of lurks in the shadows and orchestrates everything. I can't remember the character's actual name, because I just kept thinking of him as Bannon.
Well, watch out as well for Mike Flynn, Trump's National Security Advisor. He is the kind of loose cannon who can precipitate the U.S.A. in a war with hardly a second thought, and he also thinks that he is more intelligent than the rest and doesn't need to listen to others. No wonder that he got kicked out of the top ranks of the DIA.
One would expect that an advisor could not precipitate war, but in some ways such fanatical advisors can be worse, because they can take away freedoms that the average citizen enjoys. My guess is there will not be war with Russia, and in some ways Trump is less likely to go to war than Clinton would have been (although in her case the biggest probability was some bluff that got out of control) but equally Trump is far more likely to dig another hole that is also highly dangerous. I hope I am wrong about the second guess, and right about the first.
Michel wrote: "and he also thinks that he is more intelligent than the rest and doesn't need to listen to others."That sounds a lot like Trump as well, doesn't it? "Believe me, I know more about ISIS than the generals do." He knows more about climate change than scientists. Etc. A full cabinet of people like that, who don't have the humility to know what they don't know, is going to be very dangerous.
There are countries that limit term of service of their heads of state and there those that don't. What's better in your opinion and for your location?
It's better not to have a head of state.
Nik wrote: "There are countries that limit term of service of their heads of state and there those that don't. What's better in your opinion and for your location?"I think it depends on the level of power. Prime Ministers in the parliamentary system can be voted out any time by the party, so if they stay too long, the party suffers anyway. Presidents are a bit difficult. I know the US has two term, and that has served very well. A powerful President gets too entrenched, and unless there are time limits, they don't do enough to get themselves a replacement. That, I think, is Putin's real problem. He is not generating enough variety.
Anyone think Congress should have term limits?
Scout wrote: "Anyone think Congress should have term limits?"Yes they should just as UK MPs should have limits. We have several MPs who have been so for over 30 years. They know lots about how to manipulate legislation. I'm not sure about 2 terms as that keeps the election cycle always running. How about 12 years consecutive. In the UK senior MPs get to be executive ministers (even the PM is one) so if serving in such a role the time is bound to be longer. Then I think they need to be made to leave office for a minimum of the same amount of time they have served
Probably unworkable.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
I think one of the more popular term limit ideas prevents them from running consecutive terms...that means our congressmen are spending their time in Washington doing their job instead of taking off to spend a full year campaigning...Personally, I'm all for it.
J.J. wrote: "I think one of the more popular term limit ideas prevents them from running consecutive terms...that means our congressmen are spending their time in Washington doing their job instead of taking off to spend a full year campaigning......"You don't understand the point of returning to their home district. It's not to campaign, it's to be accessible to their constituents, attending townhall meetings (genuine ones, not the farces we've been presented with lately, where the auditorium is packed with shills), etc. .
That much I know, but in the last year of the term, too much time is spent campaigning. A House term is only 2 years, so how can they do their full job if one of those years is spent running for re-election.But to your point, what I think people don't realize is that they also answer calls from constituents for things we might think are too small and unimportant for an elected official...When someone has trouble getting their VA benefits for example, they'll call their Senator who will often help them out. I will give them credit tat for all the politicking we see on TV and all the partisanship that plays out in the halls of Congress, these people are doing work behind the scenes that they get little if any credit for.
J.J. wrote: "That much I know, but in the last year of the term, too much time is spent campaigning. A House term is only 2 years, so how can they do their full job if one of those years is spent running for re..."Yes, that's a part of the problem. A major part is the seniority system, which gives long-serving members a lot more power. Removing a committee chairman or member by imposing term limits has down-side consequences for continuity and experience.
But there's the up side of not having entrenched politicians who are too indebted to special interests and who owe lots of favors. When you talk about "down-side consequences for continuity and experience," you have to consider that even the presidency has an eight-year term limit. I agree with you, J.J., that not letting congresspersons serve consecutive terms would eliminate the distraction of their needing to campaign while in office.
Scout wrote: "But there's the up side of not having entrenched politicians who are too indebted to special interests and who owe lots of favors. When you talk about "down-side consequences for continuity and exp..."Most presidential candidates appear to have a modicum of previous experience in high office (Same as MPs in UK and elsewhere) before they reach the ultimate role. The current US incumbent is a notable exception. Regan for example had been Governor of California. Others had been Senators and Members of Congress. In Hilary's case she had been first lady (not equivalent) and Secretary of State as well as a Senator.
In the UK Theresa May had been Home Secretary
Lots of examples I'm sure around the world. This does not qualify or disqualify from office. Running a corporation (Well or badly) does not qualify a person for office. For elected office the only qualification is to get elected. For US President they have to be a US Citizen from birth I believe. The UK does not have the same restriction, but to stand as a member of Parliament (That is what the Prime Minister is) they have to:
Pay £500
Be nominated by 10 registered voters on the electoral role (No party affiliation required)
Have no criminal convictions that are not spent. If you subsequently get a criminal conviction is does not disbar you automatically.
To become a member of Parliament you have to win the election first past the post including a coin toss if votes are equal.
To become Prime Minister you are invited by the sovereign to form a government (this does not necessarily require a general election) and this normally falls to the leader of the largest party to try first.
Thus unlike the US Prime Minuster's can come and go between General Elections and power can change between parties.
The current UK Government party Conservatives (nicknamed Tory) does not have a majority of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons. It depends on the support of one or more other MPs to get legislation through, or blocked. Currently it has an agreement with the Democratic Unionists who are a Northern Ireland Party. This is not a formal coalition as no DUP member sits in Government. From 2010 to 2015 The Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Party who held many ministerial (Executive) posts. Not all Government posts are held by serving MPs but all the senior ones are. This can also give rise to continuity.
In addition the Opposition Parties run shadow ministries hoping and waiting to step in should the government fail. We do not have the dead duck or lame period between an election and new government, except when a coalition is formed. Certainly not months like the US when the newly elected President is waiting to take up office like an albatross around the incumbent's neck. In most general elections where there is a change of power the Prime Minister is gone that night after the result. They go to the Sovereign resign and are shown out but are followed in by the new to be PM. No swearing in no high ceremony just a formal kissing of hands. Yes it is that quaint.
I confess the "dead duck" phase in the US is not helpful. In principle the new team should take the period to get acquainted with things and prepare themselves for the incoming sessions, but it appears you can't do that if the President's followers don't like you, as Flynn found out with this Logan Act.In NZ, to get into parliament, it is a little like what Philip described for half the politicians, but we have MMP and the other half get selected by the parties, provided they get the votes. The idea is supposed to be that this gets qualified people into parliament, but what tends to happen is a number of party hacks get in, in addition to the few needed with talent. For the constituent half, which is FFP, he real trick is to get nominated, because in many seats one party or the other has an unassailable lead before you get started. Getting nominated in a safe seat is the trick. Once in, you can stay as long as you like, as long as the voters don't turf you out, but the problem is the voters have no say on the list seats, other than to turf the party out. (The party needs 5% of the party vote to have any members.)
Philip wrote: "Most presidential candidates appear to have a modicum of previous experience in high office (Same as MPs in UK and elsewhere) before they reach the ultimate role. The current US incumbent is a notable exception...."
You can argue over the experience, but as head of a large company, Trump in fact has executive experience leading people. We've had more than one President where the only experience was leadership in the military...in their case, we look at them in a similar way...they were generals with experience leading large numbers of people.
I think Trump's craziness highlights what Clinton claimed during the campaign...that experience matters. But the reality is we look at every race differently, we look at every candidate differently, and we judge that "experience" differently. Traditionally, our Presidents haven't come from Congress...Obama was a rarity in that respect. On the other hand, we've had a number of Presidents elected after they served as Secretary of State, so Clinton's political history would have been more common if she had won.
I think the idea that Trump is crazy is wrong. I think he is being deliberately chaotic, to throw off whoever he is dealing with. He just does not behave as a politician, and the other politicians have no idea how to deal with him. If I am right there, it would have bene interesting to see how he did business dealings.
Ian wrote: " I think he is being deliberately chaotic, to throw off whoever he is dealing with. ..."I think that is a stylistic issue. We have just come off Bush and Obama who were both process orientated presidents, and Trump is very much into his own 'art of the deal,' style, where he wedges his opponents and goes for the jugular.
As I've said in other threads, this is a distinct departure from previous styles, but is possibly one of the key appeals to his base who didn't want another establishment insider that was going to continue to let then 'rust.'
And what about the idea of denying congresspersons consecutive terms? Wouldn't that eliminate the distraction of their needing to campaign while in office and make them focus on their job while in office?
I'm a big believer in limiting politicians terms in government. It should be a profession.
Graeme wrote: "I'm a big believer in limiting politicians terms in government. It should be a profession."
You seriously say that lying and stealing should be a recognized profession?
You seriously say that lying and stealing should be a recognized profession?
Every year Putin holds direct line with citizens and answers their questions allegedly online. Why allegedly? Because BBC (and maybe others) claim that it's a well rehearsed event, where the questions and the askers are selected and known in advance.
Anyhow, during the last direct line Putin, when asked about problems with alternative leaders in Russia, chose to doubt alternation of power in the US, referring to Bush dynasty and then Clintons:
http://sputniknews.com/world/20160414...
One possible interpretation - Putin uses these examples to justify his own alleged 'usurpation' of power, ruling Russia from 2000 as three times President and Prime-minister in the middle after first double term.
Another - that it's a valid doubt.
What do you think? How important is alternation of leadership, in your opinion?