Sure.
>The political system of this country could certainly be considerably
>improved (as I dare say could the Australian system), but the idea
>that the U.S. system will ever be replaced by the Australian system
>(leaving completely aside the question of whether this would be an
>improvement) or any other country's system is a complete
>non-starter, of course. I don't know about you, but I'm interested
>in practical political ideas that will get results, not total
>fantasies.
Is there a reason why we can't entertain both ideal solutions as well as "practical" ones? Otherwise, what standards do we have to measure the "practical" solution against?
> That's why I raise again the question: why is it that the Lefts in
>Australia and European countries seems to have exactly the same
>complaints about their political impotence that we hear in this
>country?
> I would say that it's because, at this stage in the development of
>capitalism, there is no mass base for radical change in any advanced
>capitalist country, whatever its particular political system. That's
>the root of the problem, not differences in how a country is divided
>up into political units or what voting system is used.
Not quite correct. The mass base is there, in the sense that the majority of people overwhelmingly support the anti-capitalist notion that the economy should serve the people and that major economic decisions should be subject to democratic control. To the extent that people don't support the sort of radical change that would give effect to that ideal, it is a combination of people either not being convinced by any particular programme to bring it about, or being deluded that political democracy *is* economic democracy. Or both.
>>Americans do seem to have a romantic attraction to feudalism, I've
>>noticed that. Probably because you haven't actually experienced it
>>as a nation and have romantic notions of it.
>
>As with your use of "democracy," your use of "feudalism" is absurdly
>tendentious.
Granted. My aim was merely to provoke a denial, so that I could point out that I was only comparing the political system in the US with the political structure associated with feudalism. What I'm trying to get at is that the political structure of the US doesn't seem to match the economic structure. At least compared to other advanced capitalist jurisdictions. The political system of the US has no parallels in other advanced capitalist countries, you have to look to the backward banana republics to find something similar. It seems a bit odd to me, that's all.
> The Wikipedia article on "feudalism" states:
>
>"Three elements existed and characterize the period: lords, vassals
>and fiefs. Feudalism is defined by how these three elements fit
>together.
>
>"A lord was a noble who owned land. A vassal was given land by the
>lord. The land was known as a fief. In exchange for the fief, the
>vassal would provide military service to the lord. The obligations
>and relations between lord, vassal and fief lies at the heart of
>feudalism." (BTW, "lies" in the last sentence should of course be
>"lie.")
>
>Of course there are no lords, vassals, or fiefs here. Presumably,
>you are thinking of one of the features of feudal society pointed to
>by Marc Bloch, as noted in the Wikipedia article on "feudal
>society": "the absence of a strong central authority."
Not all feudal societies lacked strong central political authority. William the Conqueror had a certain authority over local lords. But by its nature feudalism means that all political power stems from the natural sovereignty of local feifdoms. They need a powerful icon to lend them any cohesiveness, which is often some religious force, as is also the case in the US. ("One nation under God".)
As I say, the economic basis of the US is obviously far removed from feudalism, but I can't help wondering if there isn't something vaguely feudal about the political system?
> However, in the first place, there certainly is no lack of a strong
>central authority in the U.S. -- many would say that, on the
>contrary, it is much too strong. What may be distinctive about the
>U.S. political system is what is sometimes called "American
>localism," i.e., the fact that local and state governments have
>authority over many aspects of the society which are handled by the
>national government in other countries.
>
>Of course the reasons for this peculiarity have nothing to do with
>feudalism, but rather with the origins of the colonies and the
>subsequent history of the country. For details, see any reasonably
>adequate U.S. history.
The colonial origins of Australia are similar. Australia is also a federation of separate colonies, with much the same ethnic and social origins as the US. In fact the constitution of the US was raided for ideas to draft the Australian constitution. But it is utterly alien to Australians to have basic rights and obligations differ from one state to another. I can tell you that this is very ingrained, the US system of parish welfare (another feudal relic?) or autonomous local political groups asserting sovereignty over national elections is incomprehensible and repulsive.
Australians see themselves as Australians, not Tasmanians, or Victorians. Despite the fact that state governments exercise jurisdiction over many state affairs. Australians demand equal access to services across jurisdictions. Of course there is a natural competitiveness, but this is largely played out in the sporting arena.
But it seems Americans don't have any binding national identity. Just pretend stuff, every time i see this curious American phenomenon of exaggerated flag waving partriotism, the words "methinks they protest too much" come to mind. The American identity looks like a big fraud, at heart this isn't a real nation at all. Just a bunch of colonies ruled over by an emperor. A feudal empire at that?
I know that seems ridiculous, but there's something to it just the same. How much, that's the question.
>Personally, I would agree with the view that many things now under
>the jurisdiction of local and state governments should be handled
>federally, beginning with the voting system. It should certainly be
>uniform throughout the country, at least for presidential elections.
>It should also be made much easier for third parties to get onto the
>ballot. But such reforms will have to be achieved, if they ever are,
>by Americans, of course, and therefore within the framework of the
>U.S. historical traditions. This is not because Americans are more
>"pig-headed" than people in other countries, as you suggest; it's
>because Americans are as attached to their national traditions as
>are Australians, or anyone else. They may listen to advice from
>abroad, if it comes from folks who show that they have a clear
>understanding of their country and its characteristics, but they'll
>make up their own minds about what makes sense in their own
>situations as they see it.
>
>PS: The U.S. political/electoral system has often been called one of
>the most complex in the world, because of its overlapping, confusing
>jurisdictions. Not many Americans understand it very well, to say
>nothing of foreigners.
Tell me more. Don't let my provocative style convince you that I think I actually understand. I'm simply playing with various ideas, to see if they fit. But I'm operating from ignorance largely, so any help is appreciated. (Though of course that won't stop me arguing with you.)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas