Someone here must be able to answer this; a teenager wants to know so I pass the buck !

How is it possible to govern a country,the US, where the president may be of a different party to his legislature ? Or if the two houses are, individually, controlled by different parties ? Isn't this a recipe for disaster, conflict or, at best, bland compromise? How do you get around it or does it never arise?

Discussing the power of the President as an individual deciding policy somebody on another thread here noted that he was especially well placed when he had the support of the legislature. That is such an extraordinary proposition to anyone in the UK, where his nearest equivalent, the Prime Minister, is chosen by the party in control of the lower house and the upper house ( the Lords) is effectively impotent in stopping bills that the Commons wants; it cannot stop fiscal bills and can only try to amend or delay others; that it probably never occurs to Britons that it applies in the US.

Bland compromise is the closest description. It serves to keep things from swinging to far right of left supposidly. This is why being a strong negotiator is an essential strength for our President.

In reality I think the party difference is exagerated. All of the legislators are willing to give others a yes vote on pet projects in return for getting their own. The result is often that the American people as a whole lose. Many voters actually prefer the President and Senate or House to be of different parties with hopes of slowing them down. Since the budget must be passed though the result is a huge omnibus bill that no one can possibly make sense of or even read. So make it bland and hurried no choice compromise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Someone here must be able to answer this; a teenager wants to know so I pass the buck !

How is it possible to govern a country,the US, where the president may be of a different party to his legislature ? Or if the two houses are, individually, controlled by different parties ? Isn't this a recipe for disaster, conflict or, at best, bland compromise? How do you get around it or does it never arise?

- snip -

---

In point of fact, the best government we have here is when the legislative branch is controlled by one party, and the executive by the other. It doesn't seem to make much difference which is which, but they keep each other from making various mistakes. I believe money dictates the direction of US politics to a greater degree than you see in the UK, and having the branches in separate hands prevents the spread of political payback to financial backers. Also, our President is responsible for a number of appointed offices, particularly federal judges. These appointments require legislative approval, however, and if the legislature is dominated by the other party, the appointments get serious scrutiny, and only the truly excellent get through. With both branches dominated by the same party, any old party hack can be appointed and approved.

Alan Moore

Fred, I agree entirely with Alan that our system is at its finest when the legislative majority rests with the party not in the White House. Our system is rather boring, but it certainly keeps tyrrany in check. Your Parliamentary system provides more power for the majority party, but also provides a way to kick the bums out without having to wait when confidence wanes.

And gatman makes an excellent point that the party differences are exagerated. While staunch supporters on either side would certainly argue that point, I spent some time in the UK and your party choices and differences are far greater than they are in the US. Voter turnout is regrettably poor here, in part due to a lack of perceived difference.

Both systems are effective and probably serve their respective countries best. I think ours may provide an additional measure of stability, but yours is a lot more fun!

I never knew you Americans were, covertly, such socialists (see #2 ) even at Christmas.

#1 Here's Hilaire Belloc writing (probably pre-WW1)in the UK: On an Election:

"The accurs-ed power which stands on Privilege
(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Privilege)
Broke- and Democracy resumed her reign
( Which goes with Bridge, and Women, and Champagne )"

#2 We had a musical(?) toy dog at Christmas; dressed as Santa, it howls the Socialist anthem 'The Red Flag' when you squeeze its paw.This traditional song is still sung annually at the end of Labour Party's conference (leader of the party: Mr T Blair). You Americans pretend it's 'The Christmas Tree' ( Tannenbaum )but WE know what you really mean.....bet you sing it quietly when nobody 'conservative' is listening

All together now !:

'The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold.

[CHORUS}
Then raise the scarlet standard high ,
Beneath its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here !"

Sadly, being rather a Conservative household we had to look up the words before joining in; still next Christmas we'll be ready with the rest of you

While I agree with most of what Alan said, I have to take exception in the case of Supreme Court appointments. The appointment of Clarence Thomas will remain an stain on the COurt for a long time. He was appointed solely because he was a black Republican, even though Bush, Sr said he was "the best man for the job." Even a glance at his record shows that he was primarily an office manager rather than a jurist.

[This message was edited by Doriangreyed on 01-09-04 at 03:48 PM.]

DG is dead on about the Supreme Court which, in my humble opinion, wields more unchecked power than any branch of our government. Likewise a conservative jurist, Robert Bork, was raked over the coals in his nomination process and never made the court. Though politically distasteful to many, he was widely regarded as among the most competent "bench warmers" of his day. The political process seems to guarantee that our best and brightest stay away from the political arena.