>I think what's exceptional about the US is its bifurcated political culture,
>almost evenly split between small-c conservatives and liberals, mostly
>Democrats but also including independents and scattered urban Republicans.
>In Canada and Europe, the small-c conservatives are far fewer and wield much
>less influence, even in the Conservative parties. I think the postwar race
>tensions, spread of US imperialism, and the sharp decline in the social
>weight of the unions explain the massive growth of American conservatism,
I'm a little confused by the claim that Americans are generally divided between liberal and conservative. It seems to me that there is at least one other large segment who are radical reactionaries, of the sort represented by George Bush. Given that he was elected twice to the highest political office in the USA, I don't think you can pretend this group isn't significant.
You certainly can't pretend that Bush is a respectable conservative!
As to why the US electorate would favour such a dim-witted nutcase, when other western democracies generally elect more mainstream politicians, I think its probably complicated. It seems to me that one factor is probably the simple fact that the US *is* the dominant imperial power, thus pretty much without any immediate concern about how other political powers might react to political choices that Americans make.
Thus, the US can flout international laws, treaties and opinion without fears. The people of less powerful democracies know damn well that they can't get away with being a rampaging international outlaw. So they are a bit more circumspect about who they elect. Generally speaking anyhow. Not to mention that the people of more vulnerable democracies know that they can't really afford to elect obvious bird-brains, like George Bush.
Americans have reason to think they can get away with electoral masturbation. They don't think they have to care about what the world thinks of their decision.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Australians don't think like that. They know that if they were to elect a nutcase or a complete fool to high office, that is likely to get the whole country into more trouble than it can live with. They prefer to vote for someone they generally despise, like John Howard, than take risks with a loose cannon. John Howard may be a small minded little prick, but its clear that he is at least a cunning and somewhat competent small minded little prick. (That is to say, a classic conservative.) He won't get us too deeply into the shit.
I wouldn't mind betting that voters in European democracies consider this somewhat as well?
You can't say that for American voters. They don't think twice about electing wild-eyed lunatics. They think their country's massive military power will insulate them from the consequences of putting fools in charge.
The rest of the world hasn't got the leeway to do that.
There are other possible contributing factors that occur to me, but I suspect that's the decisive factor. Its always been the fatal flaw of great imperial powers actually. Because they *can* get away with having incompetent leaders, they tend to do it. They tend to get used to doing it and don't know when to stop. It weakens them and destroys them eventually.
America has had numbskulls in office before of course, but the trend at the moment seems to be that the numbskulls are taking over everywhere. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that at least *some* important positions ought to be filled with competent people. And obviously that's a self-perpetuating state of affairs until the real world causes the whole thing to come crashing down.
In short, the arrogance of power.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas