Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Republican Party. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Republican Party. Mostrar todas las entradas

jueves, 28 de agosto de 2008

Coalition parties in the US.

It has become a common assumption these days that bipartisanship is almost impossible in the US. Ever since the 1980s or so, both parties have made huge efforts to dig their heels behind the trenches and consolidate their own world visions without conceding anything to the opponent. In other words, politics has become far more ideological. A pragmatic politician, the one who could reach agreements across the aisle in order to promote a broader interest, is invariably call a "flip-flopper" these days, derisively painted as someone without convictions. And yet, as Halstead and Lind state, American politics worked best when Democrats and Republicans could reach such agreements, when neither party had a firm control of every single representative in Congress and convincing members of the opposite party was at least theoretically possible. Or, to put it a different way, when party discipline was far more loose than it is these days.
The attempts by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans to make the two major parties in the United States more ideologically uniform have had two results. The first result has been the alienation of a growing number of American voters, who cannot find even a faction within a major party with which they can identify. The second has been the debasement of our political discourse and the emergence of a political cultura based on partisan scandal-mongering rather than bipartisan achievement.

When the US Congress worked best —from the mid-1930s until the early 1970s— the House and Senate functioned in a fluid, kaleidoscopic manner. Conservative Democrats often sided with conservative Republicans; liberal Republicans voted sometimes with liberal Democrats; sometimes liberals and conservatives, in the same or opposite parties, cooperated. Indeed, if we look at the major congressional achievements of the twentieth century —Social Security, the Marshall Plan, the enabling legislation for NATO and the UN, the GI Bill, Medicare, Head Start, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts— we find that they are concentrated in this era of weak parties and strong cross-party coalitions. Democrats may have controlled Congress, with a few brief exceptions, during this period, but much of the credit for these landmark achievements goes to Republican lawmakers. For example, as a result of the number of segregationist Democrats in Congress in the 1960s, Republican members of Congress were more likely to vote for the historic civil rights legislation than Democrats. Moreover, the great House Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who worked comfortably with members of the other party as well as with their own.

(Halstead & Lind: pp. 116-117)

There are two issues that are worth considering here, I think. First of all, we have witnessed in the past few years an overall tendency towards an excessive partisanship and, even worse, a clear polarization of the political debate in two blocks —one conservative, the other socialist or social-democratic— inescapably opposed to each other. This trend can be observed in the most recent period of elections in most countries (Germany, United States, Italy, France, Spain, Mexico...), where one or the other side won by a very narrow margin after a campaign that has always been characterized by an embarrassing lack of serious debate over the issues and an exchange of insults that does little but turn the citizens away from the political process. The second issue is the worrisome trend, parallel to the polarization mentioned above, towards the imposition of party discipline over the individual conscience of the political representatives, which is putting an end to a real pluralism within the political parties. While our societies are becoming more fluid and complex, the organizations that supposedly represent their interests and ideas in the political institutions appear to be moving in the opposite direction, promoting the lack of debate and the homogeneity in the name of appearing "strong" during the campaigns.

viernes, 22 de agosto de 2008

How the American health system came to be.

I found the following paragraph quite interesting:
The employer-based portion of America's current social contract is not the product of intentional design but rather of historical accident. During World War II, wage and price rationing prevented American companies from raising wages. In order to attract workers, companies began taking advantage of a loophole in the tax code that gave them a tax break if they provided health insurance for their employees. This minor loophole then expanded to become the basis of the American health care system for the adult workforce, creating a type of welfare capitalism without parallel in other societies. Subsequently, the major reason for the failure of repeated attempts —by Presidents Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton— to establish a single-payer system like those of other advanced technological societies was the fact that many Americans already had health inurance through their employers.

(Halstead & Lind: p. 66)

Taking into account how strongly Republicans advocate the current system, one would think that it somehow reflects a very deep American conviction over how these issues should be managed. Yet, it seems that the system came to be in a very haphazardly manner. I suppose it is one of those instances where today's reform (or even revolution) will be tomorrow's status quo, firmly defended by conservatives as the "traditional way to do things". One way or another, it definitely puts things in perspective.

domingo, 17 de agosto de 2008

The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics.

Ted Halstead and Michael Lind propose to take the US in a completely new direction, away from the "rigid two-party cartel" dominated by Republicans and Democrats. While the vast majority of Americans label themselves as independents, both parties appear to be leading in the opposite direction: quickly moving towards the extremes in an attempt to clearly establish their identity in opposition to the other party. But in order to respond to the challenges of a new world characterized by the increasing influence of technology, globalization and all the changes they are bringing about, Halstead and Lind think that the US needs to adopt a new set of ideas, a pragmatic mishmash that blends already existing proposals from here and there depending on their merit, and not any ideological prejudice.

Technical description:
Title: The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics.
Author: Ted Halstead and Michael Lind.
Publisher: Doubleday/Random House
Edition: first edition, New York (USA), 2001.
Pages: 264 pages, including index.
ISBN: 0-385-50045-9

Find it on Amazon (US, UK).