"What's With Your 'Crazy' U.S Politics?" -- A Letter to European Friends

[CrisisPapers]

| Bernard Weiner |

Dear Wolfgang and Jacqueline:

Finally some time to respond to your recent letter, where you asked me to explain the "crazy American political situation" and why "the U.S. is behaving so recklessly" with regard to Iran. Your terms are right on the mark.

First off, it's important to know that "the U.S." you refer to is mainly the Bush Administration. In poll after poll in recent days, Americans have indicated they regard this presidency as the worst ever in U.S. history. More than three-quarters of the citizenry, for example, now believe Bush's war in Iraq was a terrible mistake and nearly two-thirds want our troops to start withdrawing as soon as practicable.

In other words, though it took a few years to learn how to read (and ignore) the Bush-enabling corporate mass-media, the American citizenry overwhelming now "gets it." They understand that their reigning government is wildly off-track in terms of good governance and adherence to the Constitution, and, in important ways, is endangering U.S. national security with its reckless misadventures abroad. Americans also are mindful of the several trillion dollars that are being poured down the Iraq Occupation and "war on terror" ratholes, all to the detriment of our own infrastructure and social-program needs at home.

But, despite the tanking economy that is squeezing the middle class badly, and citizen-anger at the CheneyBush Administration for failing to deal with the issues most Americans care about (affordable health care, educational reform, good jobs, the Iraq disaster, college loans, energy costs, etc.), the citizenry tend to do little more than sign online petitions and occasionally send a donation to their preferred candidates.

The operating belief is that every four years, an election will resolve the situation so no need to get politically involved in a deep and consistent way. In addition, in this dismal economy a growing number of Americans are just squeezing by financially, if that, and feel they don't really have the time or energy to become active dissenters. Obama or Clinton, or maybe even John McCain, will take care of the situation in a few months anyway, they figure, so no need to do much.

All too often, these excuses demonstrate lazy thinking, of course, aided by the mass-media's concentrating on the electoral "horse race" and on distracting trivial matters. But even if those citizen-expectations about the magic-bullet of elections were on the mark, the three presidential hopefuls (all of whom are beholden, to a greater or lesser degree, to the usual elite political and corporate force$) leave much to be desired in terms of making significant changes, especially when it comes to American foreign/military policy.

JOHN McCAIN-THE-CHAMELEON

McCain, for example, is basically a Bush clone when it comes to foreign policy, with a lust for war. He's content for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years or more, and he's indicated his willingness, indeed eagerness, to bomb Iran. For McCain, as it is for Bush, the world is either simple black or simple white, no shades of complexity on the horizon. Act tough, act rough, the rest of the world will get out of our way, and American hegemony will prevail across the globe.

McCain clearly is the most extreme of the three, with little operative understanding of economics and, surprisingly, foreign-policy matters. Whether it's his advanced age, or simple stubborn obtuseness, he comes across as a locked-in-the-past ideologue. Does he really believe what he's saying or are his statements what he feels he's required to assert in order to strengthen the GOP base and lure the old "Reagan Democrats" to his side for the general election?

One telling anecdote in this regard before moving on to the Democrats: McCain has been buddy-buddies with Jon Stewart for nearly a decade, and in his "maverick Republican" phase was invited often to appear on Stewart's "The Daily Show"; there the two of them would banter and yuck it up. But when McCain appeared on the show in 2006, as he was gearing up to run again for president, Stewart, clearly disappointed in his hero, asked McCain why he was sucking up to the right wing fundamentalists by going to kiss the rings, as it were, of the very ultraconservative leaders he once had excoriated as "agents of intolerance" who shouldn't be "pandered" to by politicians. McCain danced around the question, trying not to answer. But his old friend Stewart was relentless and finally McCain, apparently forgetting that he was on national television, in the presence of his joking buddy Stewart and an adoring audience, smiled ruefully and admitted, yes, he was indeed kowtowing to "the crazy base," doing what he had to do to win the presidency. (See the full transcript of the exchange here, and analysis here).

The astute Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has been following McCain for many years. Here's his explanation for McCain's current shameful behavior, including taking the low (even lower than Clinton) attack road against Obama:

"The truth is that (McCain) doesn't actually have any real convictions -- or to put it more precisely, no real consistent convictions. That's evidenced in part by the kind of campaign the guy's running now. And at least a few of his press admirers are starting to sense that. But where you really see it most clearly is in the policy agenda he embraces.

"Genuine political and ideological transformations are pretty rare in contemporary American politics. Two in a row in less than a decade is close to unprecedented. McCain went from conservative Republican, to embracing many core Democratic policy positions and actively discussing a possible party switch, to cycling back and re-embracing the same policies."

In short, the McCain that Stewart and many others admired for his "maverick" willingness to confront the Bush Administration on campaign-finance reform, torture as state policy, racial intolerance inside the GOP, etc., is no more. Now it's the old guy who knows he has one arrow left in his quiver and is going to stand with the fundies and extreme conservatives on all the major issues because he believes that's his only chance to wind up in the White House. To quote Stewart again: "Has John McCain's Straight Talk Express been re-routed through Bullshittown?" The answer is, sad to say, yes.

NOW TO THE DEMOCRATIC DUO

One would like to believe that the two Democratic contenders are significantly different, especially on Iraq and Iran. But are they?

Clinton the other day said that if Iran launched an attack on Israel while she was President, she would order Iran "obliterated." (Her term.) There was not even a mention that Israel has demonstrated it's perfectly capable of defending itself. Or that committing genocide on the Iranian population would inflame the world and place America in the war-crimes dock in The Hague.

Obama similarly has rattled the sabers, saying he would keep the "military option" on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He's been accused of not being "forceful" enough, and, by assuming the macho stance, perhaps he hopes to defuse that accusation.

But regardless of political or personal motivations here, in all three instances what's clearly on exhibit is an unstated but underlying belief that America's superpower status entitles it -- nea, requires it -- to make decisions of peace and war for other countries and regions of the world.

That's the rationale the neo-cons used for attacking and occupying Iraq in the first place, which Bush bought into without hesitation, and it appears, sub rosa, to still be active in our strange political dance in 2008.

DIFFERENCES ON THE IRAQ OCCUPATION

On Iraq, the three candidates are a bit more distinct in their approaches. McCain focuses only on the military aspects of the "surge," which he sees as a great success even though the required and promised political-reconciliation component of the surge isn't happening. McCain seems determined to keep U.S. troops in that country for as long as it takes to fashion a strong, capable, American-friendly government and society.

If it takes decades, a hundred years, a thousand (yes, he threw that one in, too), that's OK with McCain. He keeps comparing the Iraq situation to Germany and South Korea, where the U.S. has maintained a troop presence for more than half a century, conveniently ignoring that there was no raging sectarian war in those countries and no nationalist insurgency trying to throw America out.

In McCain's (and Bush's) view, America has a region to tame, after all, and that requires that U.S. troops be on hand to help shape the Greater Middle East to our specifications. Unspoken is another reason: Using Iraq as a staging area, American power can help "protect" the increasingly-valuable oil flowing in the region that is so desperately needed by the West, and everyone else.

Clinton has said she would have her military advisors draw up plans for an orderly withdrawal of American troops and begin that re-deployment, brigade by brigade, within 60 days of her assuming office. Obama has said he aims to have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months.

But both Clinton and Obama approve keeping an unspecified number of U.S. troops in Iraq for an unspecified time -- to help train the Iraqi police and army, to battle the forces of "al-Qaeda in Iraq," and to be right there in case the situation were to suddenly deteriorate. (And how could it not if U.S. military forces are still on the premises?) Again, these are arguments that seem to demonstrate the underlying soft-imperialism desires of great-powerhood.

THE OBAMA/CLINTON SLUGFEST

When you two wrote asking about our "crazy" politics, you made reference to the verbal slugfest between the two battling Democrats while the old warrior McCain is out there campaigning for the presidency.

My co-editor colleague Ernest Partridge has summed up Senator Clinton's behavior better than I could in his essay "The Monkey Trap, and Hillary Clinton's Blind Rush to Defeat." Short version: Clinton has no chance to win the Democratic nomination by fighting fairly; her only hope is to destroy Obama by whatever means necessary. Partridge writes:

"So if Clinton is to be nominated, she must overturn rules that she has agreed to, persuade most of the super-delegates to ignore the will of the voters and caucus participants, and to accomplish all this she must diminish Obama's stature through negative campaigning. Because such tactics also devastate the public opinion of her (not very high to begin with), those same tactics employed to gain the nomination will almost certainly deprive her of the presidency in the general election.

"In sum, this is Hillary's dilemma: Hold on to the bait, and both Clinton and the Democrats lose. Let go of the bait, and Obama wins. Hillary Clinton's victory in November is not an option."

A key House Democratic committee chairman the other day wondered aloud what I've heard voiced quietly elsewhere: If Hillary can't get the nomination in 2008, she'll so wound Obama that McCain might slip in. Or, even if Obama were to win the election, he'd be unable to govern easily. In either case in 2012, Clinton, being the only one still standing, as it were, figures she would be perfectly positioned to take the nomination.

Talk about "crazy"! Those reasons seems much too convoluted to be taken seriously, not the least because Clinton, in this scenario, would be universally recognized as the Dem spoiler who ruined the party's best shot for taking back the presidency. She would be the Ralph Nader of 2008 who would never be forgiven by the very activist Democratic base she would need in a future run for the White House.

HER TRAGIC FLAW: OVERWEENING AMBITION

I'm not sure Obama would be the greatest campaigner against McCain or would necessarily be a great or even better-than-average President. But he is intelligent and a quick-learner, who, I'd like to believe, might well rise to the occasion. What does seem clear is that he is on a virtually unstoppable course to win the Democratic nomination and if Clinton continues to take the low dirty road in her attempt to mortally wound him, any future career plans beyond the Senate for her are finished.

Will she rein in her ratcheted-up ambition, especially if Obama winds up winning key states in the upcoming remaining primaries and more and more super delegates endorse him? One would hope she would, for the good of the party, good of the country, good for her as an important Democratic leader. But I doubt she will see that light. The Clintons are street-scrappers and will do or say anything to get what they want and, in any event, will not go gentle into that dark night. No wonder that Rove is fixated on them, as they must remind him of aspects of himself.

That is crazy.

I know American politics don't make much sense to Europeans. Truth is, it barely makes sense to us here in the States. (On the other hand, I haven't asked you two to explain your own sketchy European pols such as Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Putin, et al.) But I hope I've supplied some insights that might be helpful. Write and let me know your further thoughts.

Love to you and the kids,
Bernie

-- BW

[dbmk]

1. A note from a european

First; You would be hardpressed to find a european that considers Putin as a european.
Second; Calling Sarkozy sketchy is a bit of a stretch, even if he might seem a bit low on substance.

But overall, where I see major differences between US and European politics;

1) Military. Not many europeans consider handling the military one of the major priorities of the president or the prime ministers. Unlike the US (understandably to a degree).

2) Religion. It might be a bit more of an issue in southern Europe - but overall religion is pretty far down on the list of topics when assessing politicians (unless they are muslims, but thats another story). It simply isn't much of an issue how much someone loves god - or not.

3) Many countries operate with prime ministers, that are not chosen personally, but as a consequence of multiparty elections, giving a parliamentary majority that then point to him/her for the job. Making elections quite a bit more issues based (not completely ofc.). And in the countries that have a president, it is in many cases a figurehead, more than an executive head. And it gives a more varied and equal representation in most of the cases.

4) I don't think I have EVER heard a danish politician being questioned on their patriotism. During the cold war it came up a few times perhaps, but these days it seems to be a nonexisting issue.

It all leads to far less personality based politics.

But overall I think your main problems are your guns and your far too numerous religious nutcases. Take those issues out of the equation and your politics might be considered a tad more normal from a european point of view.

[beezlebum]

2. can i move to europe plz?

"But overall I think your main problems are your guns and your far too numerous religious nutcases. Take those issues out of the equation and your politics might be considered a tad more normal from a european point of view."

ah, normal- no guns, no religion too...

how refreshing, european perspective.

[Prophet 451]

9. Oh, they're still around

Firearms are still allowed for sportsmen in most cases but they're regulated and licensed (except for my own England which bans everything, to my eternal annoyance). Religion is still here but it's much less demonstrative, much more a private matter between the individual and their chosen deity.

[beezlebum]

12. it's not so much the guns that bother me,

it's that guns themselves are religion, at least where i'm from. i rather like the perspective that the collective preoccupation/obsession is abnormal.

[Prophet 451]

14. Yeah, I noticed that

A lot of Americans seem to regard their firearm as some kind of talisman. Here, a firearm is a tool for either your job or hobby. A potentially dangerous tool that requires skill and practice to master but just a tool.

[mlevans]

3. That would work for me.

And thanks for the perspective.

[nichomachus]

4. All good points - what is the role of money in your elections

One of the biggest factors in US politics is money, especially corporate money. This year, all the candidates combined will spend enough money campaigning to provide free health care for every poor child in America (which the children won't get).

Do European elections rely as much on money and corporate contributions?

[izquierdista]

5. Elections and money

Look past the money to get at the root of corrupted elections. Elections are compromised by money because money buys ADVERTISING. When the role of advertising is minimal, when elections are decided by debates and talk shows and op-ed pieces in the newspaper, they can be more issue oriented. I have noticed a disturbing trend though, which is to advertise candidates in the manner made popular in America, by vacuous advertising. A voter can't make a reasoned decision based on a head shot of the candidate, a two word slogan and his party logo. Fortunately, the smaller the country, the closer the candidate gets to the people and they can see through the advertising, and Europe is made up of many small countries (and a few large ones).

To have truly fair elections, political advertising has to be banned. Issue forums, debates, editorials, position pamphlets, and public appearances are great, but advertising has to go. Advertising is the use of psychology to lure people into making bad decisions concerning their lives: smoke these cigarettes, look macho in that car, go into debt to impress the neighbors, spend money you don't have to buy stuff you can't afford. Is it any wonder that political advertising gets people to make poor decisions based on emotional responses instead of reasoning out their own self-interest?

[nichomachus]

6. I suspect another difference

is that in most European countries there is no politician that fulfills all the roles now ascribed to the president of the US -- head of government, head of state, head of the military. In other countries, those are all different people.

This explains why people can't settle on a candidate. Do we want an inspirational leader who can bring us together (head of state), do we want an experienced policy wonk who knows how to twist arms and kick ass (head of government) or do we want a saber-rattling, balls-to-the-wall warrior (head of military)? US presidential candidates are left trying to be all three -- and voters lurch from one model to the other, which is why they can't agree on who is the "best person" for the job.

[izquierdista]

7. Yes, that "fuhrer" thing went out of style

It could work that way in the U.S. if they made the cabinet departments more independent of the President. It seems that in Europe, the cabinet ministers owe their allegiance to the party first and the Prime Minister second, whereas in the U.S., the cabinet secretaries are much more beholden to the President.

[nichomachus]

8. Except we're speeding in the opposite direction

The whole thrust of the Cheney administration has been to make the president the omnipotent ruler of the country to whom everyone else -- even the Supreme Court -- owes allegiance.

[Divernan]

15. Central feature of totalitarian regimes is devotion to national symbols

As long as we're discussing the political differences between US and countries of the EU, I share what my closest friends (a Czeck & Dutch couple in their 80's) point out to me: European countries do not have "pledges of allegiance" or salutes to flags, because those were the symbols of Hitler & totalitarian regimes. "Sieg Heil!" anyone? In researching this, I was quite surprised to learn that until 1943, the American flag code required students to salute the flag with one arm extended forward.

These observations from Alternet: (google "Pledge of allegiance" & Europe)
Can anyone deny that the American flag has achieved the status of a graven image?

The contention that flag worship is blasphemy was a key element before the Supreme Court in 1940. In that case it upheld the right of a Pennsylvania school district to expel two students who
refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The two teenagers were members of the Jehovah's Witness denomination. Their church believed that pledging allegiance to the flag violated the Biblical admonition (Exodus 20) against worshipping or bowing down to any graven image of God. The court decided that the need for national security and national unity allowed Congress to force individuals to violate the Ten Commandments.

In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its 1940 decision. That reversal probably had less to do with religion than with the Court's realization that, at the height of a war against totalitarian regimes, a central feature of which was a slavish devotion to national symbols, compelling us to worship the flag was inapt. (As a side note, that same year the Flag Code itself was changed. No longer were students required to salute the flag with one arm extended forward. The similarity to the Nazi salute was too embarrassing. From that time onwards, we were told to put our hands over our hearts.)

The evidence that we literally worship the flag is overwhelming. Unique among all nations, we have a Flag Day, a Flag code etiquette, a national anthem dedicated to the flag and a verbal salute to the flag. Twenty-seven states require school children to salute the flag daily. Some might argue that we are simply saluting a symbol, that we are actually pledging allegiance to our country. But the words tell a different story.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. But our actual allegiance

As citizens or as elected officials our allegiance is or should be to the Constitution of the United States, not to the flag, or even the States or the Union, the Constitution.

[KoKo]

18. Thanks for that background on "Flag Worship."

I've been horrified that candidates are being asked about this "flag pin thing" which was dreamed up by the Repugs to show loyalty to Bush after 9/11. To hear Russert carrying ton about whether Obama should wear a flag pin or not did indeed remind me of "Heil Hitler" by a toady who worships GE for everything he's been given by Jack Welch.

The flag pin issue is almost a given with few seeming to understand that the people who wear them are displaying their allegiance to the worst instincts of partisan politics. That our Democrats haven't make that an issue shows how cowered they are by their "bi-partisan" allegiences.

[Prophet 451]

11. We have advertising here

"Here" is Britain, btw. We allow political advertising but with a twist. First off, it's free. The companies (including the BBC which is the only kind of advert they can run) donate X number of minutes of commercial time to the three main political parties around election time which brings me to the second difference, each party gets the same amount of time to make their case. What normally happens is that the party in power will make a case for retaining it in their ads and within the next couple of days, the two opposition parties will respond. What that leads to is an advertising style which tends toward a formalised debate with rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.

[izquierdista]

13. That's not advertising

Rebuttals and counter-rebuttals......BORING!!

Advertising -- no re- and counter-re- involved, just the butts

Definitely NOT boring!

[depakid]

20. "your main problems are your guns and your far too numerous religious nutcases."

That view is echoed in a LOT of other countries.

Unfortunately, those are two of the things least likely to change....

[Prophet 451]

10. With respect, Bernie

I think there is one other problem that you haven't covered: American arrogance. I speak here of the overweening nationalism which almost had Michelle Obama being tarred and feather for saying she'd not been proud of her country before and still is aimed at the Rev. Wright. One definition of nationalism is the idea that one should be incredibly proud of their nation, not for what it has done or what it represents but simply for existing. Michelle Obama and Rev. Wright's comments wouldn't have raised an eyebrow here.

Leaving that aside, there are many huge differences:
- Religion. In Europe, while many people are religious, it's very much a personal matter between the individual and their god. Even here in England where we are still (nominally) a Christian nation, Blair feared that talking about how his faith influenced his policies would get him labelled as a "nutter" (too late, Tony). There, it seems that while the Constitution banned a religious test for office, the people have imposed one of their own and many seem to expect the president to be a kind of high priest.

- Closer tie to the electorate. I'm British. We have a system here where MPs are expected (not as an enforceable rule but as a point of pride) to hold an open meeting for their constituents at least once a month (known as a "surgery" and teh PM and Cabinet are allowed to avoid that for obvious reasons). Any constituent can show up at a surgery, ask questions or state their opinion. Our politicians aren't more inherantly noble than yours but that makes it a lot easier to hold them accountable when they screw up.

- Concentration of powers. In the US, your head of state, head of government, head of military and (realistically) head of law are concentrated in one person. Here, we seperate those functions out. In Britain, the head of state is the monarch, the PM is head of government, the Sec of Defence is C-in-C of the military (in real terms anyway) and the Lord Chancellor is head of law. The division isn't absolute, an especially military minded PM might well get involved with war planning for example (i.e. Churchill) but there isn't that concentration of power.

- Issues base. Because elections in Europe are generally done by electing parties who then pick a leader from their ranks, there is a much stronger emphasis on issues and much less on personalities. Britain is actually a mixture of American and European on this one. Because our PM is invariably the head of one of the parties, their personality is more "in play" than much of Europe.

- Finally, there is the director/editor dichotomy. The names are fairly arbitrary but they illustrate two different styles of leadership. The director is personally involved with everything, very hands-on and makes most decisions personally. The editor sets general direction and perhaps gets involved in the biggest decisions but otherwise delegates much of his authority to trusted and competent subordinates. In the US, you've had both. Clinton and Bush Sr. were both editors but the general trend is toward directorship. W is a director (or, more accuratly, his controllers Cheney and Rove were). Here, the emphasis is much more toward the editorial style. We have had directorial PMs, such as Thatcher and Blair but they're usually forced out when their autocratic tendancies become clear.

[Divernan]

16. Top 9 Differences & 1 similarlity between national elections in UK & US

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/american_v_bitish_elections.htm

There are many obvious differences between the national/general elections held in both America and Britain but one major similarity.

1) A British Prime Minister can call an election at any time in his 5-year term. In theory, he can use good economic news, for example, to boost his party’s representation in Parliament by calling a snap general election hoping that voters will be swept along by such good news. It is said that Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister in the 1960’s-1970’s used this feel good factor after England won the World Cup in 1966.

The US President has no such flexibility. The date of each US national election is set in stone and the President goes into it on the back of whatever news is around at the time – be it good or bad. He cannot call an election – as it has to take place in the first week on November. The next US national election is on the first Tuesday in November 2008 and there is nothing the Republicans or G W Bush can do about this.

2) The US has an election every 4 years – the UK every 5 years maximum.

3) The UK’s Prime Minister can serve any number of years. The US President is limited via the Constitution to two four-year terms – a maximum of 8 years. Though the Constitution can be amended, there has been no evidence in recent years that there will be any such change to this part of the Constitution.

4) Even if the two countries populations are made into a comparable proportion, the amount of money spent during an American national election dwarfs the money spent during a UK general election. For the UK 2001 general election, political pundits spoke in terms of tens of millions being spent in total by all parties. In the 2004 American election, pundits spoke in terms of hundreds of million of dollars being spent – possibly even a billion dollars.

5) One of the main reasons for the above is the difference in duration of the two campaigns. In the UK, Tony Blair announced the 2005 general election for May 5th on April 5th – leaving just one month for campaigning. In America, the election campaign starts in January in the year of the election with primaries and caucuses, leaving 10 months until the actual election.

6) In America, the national election is between two candidates – a Republican one and a Democrat one. (Other candidates do stand but they have no chance of being elected) Voters vote for a candidate. In the UK there is a totally different approach. There is a vote for all 646 constituencies (2005 figure) and voters will probably vote for a party rather than for a candidate.

7) In America, the opportunity for a protest vote barely exists – unless you deliberately abstain. The Reform Party and Green Party do exist but the Electoral College system means that they have no chance of getting any form of power. In the UK, there are plenty of opportunities to have a protest vote against the standing party/Prime Minister. The election of Michael Bell as an Independent anti-corruption MP in 1997 showed this. In 2001 an Independent candidate won Wyre Forest as the Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern MP – his manifesto was based solely on keeping open the local hospital whatever the cost. He received the support of the local populace and became that constituency’s MP. The system in America does not allow for this at presidential level – though it does happen at Congressional level, especially in the mid-term elections.

8) Turnout at both national/general elections is poor. In both 2001 (UK) and 2004 (US), 1/3rd of those who could have voted did not. The announcement of an election in the UK in April 05 was described in one British broadsheet as “the lull before the lull.”

9) The UK’s electoral system is based on the first-past-the-post system. All the winning party needs is a majority of MP’s elected to Westminster to win a general election. For 2005, all the winning party will need is 324 MP’s to have an overall majority in Parliament. In America, some say that there are 50 elections as opposed to just one. Whoever wins a state, gets all of that state’s Electoral College votes and the loser gets none. Once a presidential candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes, he is declared the winner even if some states have yet to declare. In 2000, Bush won with fewer public votes but with a majority of Electoral College votes. The same oddity has happened in the UK. In 1951, the Conservatives won the general election with 11.62 million votes (including National Liberal and Conservative MP’s) while the Labour Party got 11.63 million votes. However, the Conservatives won 259 seats in Westminster to Labour’s 233.

10) In the UK an election manifesto is traditionally considered to be binding. It is not uncommon during Commons Question Time for Opposition MP’s to state: “In your manifesto you said………why hasn’t this happened?” In America, an election platform (the equivalent of a manifesto) is not considered to be binding. It is what would be done given the perfect opportunity to do so.

[KoKo]

19. K&R for OP and Replies from those with experience of other systems of government...

:kick:

[ebt12]

21. Europe is Awesome

More Americans need to get out of the country and visit other parts of the world, but especially Europe so they can see how else life can be lived in the industrialized world.

I have been to England, and fell in love with the place, especially London. If emigrating wasn't so expensive I would do it quickly. europe's not perfect but far more attractive to me.

There is a serious problem with the utter brainwashing that people go through growing up in the US. They are told again and again that the USA is completely and utterly God's gift to the Universe, so when they hear anything that goes against that, no matter the evidence, no matter that some things that others do are actually a better way, they resist and fight, or ignore it. It is uber nationalism, which is pretty disgusting.