Biodun@bbcnews.com

Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile

«	April 2024					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

You are not logged in. Log in

Group One
Tripod Home
Tripod Build
Register Your Domain

Group Two
Lycos Home
Lycos Search
Lycos News

Biodun@bbcnews.com

Thursday, 18 November 2010

Is the US political system broken?--The Economist Debate Series by Biodun Iginla, BBC News and The Economist
Topic: us politics, bbc news, the econo

JOIN THIS LIVE DEBATE

Overview	Opening (172 comments)	Rebuttal	Closing	Post-debate
	16Tuesday November	19Friday November	24Wednesday November	26Friday November
Latest updates	Statements	Statements	Statements	Decision

How an Economist debate worksIn 23 hours...rebuttal statements from the speaker and moderator. Get alerts

Do you agree with the motion?

75%

If you Agree

vote yes

25%

If you Disagree

vote no

Voting at a glance

50%

75%

25%

75%

25%

75%

25%

DAY

Representing the sides

Defending the motion

Matthew Yglesias: Fellow at the Center for American Progress; American political institutions are in a period of crisis. The source of the crisis is relatively simple. Our institutions work only when leaders can reasonably expect broad bipartisan co-operation, but the emergence of more ideologically rigorous parties makes such co-operation extremely unlikely.; READ MORE

Against the motion

Peter Wehner: Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center; There is a predictable pattern in American politics: when a liberal, Democratic president is in trouble and his agenda is unpopular, it is said that the American political system is broken. In 1980, Jimmy Carter was unable to 'form a Government.' It turned out the problem was not with our form of government; it was with our 39th president.; READ MORE

Today

Our debate begins, as each side delivers opening remarks.

Up next

Arguments deepen, as each side offers a rebuttal.

Still to come...

Wednesday

Our debate concludes, as each side offers closing remarks.

Friday

The moderator will announce the winner.

Background reading

America's democracy: A study in paralysis

Democracy in America: The problems with Congress

The mid-terms: States' fights

Lexington's notebook: The merits of divided government

Democracy in America: The advantages of parliamentarianism

Comments from the floor

Opening phase

ADD YOUR VIEW
Most recommended | View all (172)

16/11/2010 17:44:52 pm

Joe, not a plumber wrote:

Dear Sir,

I feel compelled to further refute Mr Wehner's closing remarks. His arugment from them seems to be that we should accept a broken political system since it was never meant to be perfect. This argument is completely without merit.

On the one hand, no reasonable American expects a perfect political system-- what we we desire is a responsive and functional system. There is a far cry from imperfect to dynsfunctional, and pretending that supporters of the motion expect a perfect government is intellectually dishonest.

On the other hand, even if the masses somehow demanded a perfect government, that has no bearing on whether it is broken or not. The expectation has no relevance on whether an artifact is working or not. If we remove all considerations of what people can fairly expect, we are still left with the original question, i.e., is the American political system broken or not. I attribute Mr Wehner's failure to address the actual problem as another symptom of America's failing political system: mistaking perception as fact.

American newsrooms and politicians have more or less decided that perception, in the form of poll results, is more important than reality. The news does not cover specific proposals of bills as much as it reports percentage of people who thinks its good or bad. There's no vetting of the sample, to see if respondants actually know the content of the bill, and thus politics becomes less an informed civil debate than an extended PR campaign. The ultimate result: we end up talking about the popularity of a given bill rather than its real impact.

I would like a treatment of this replacement of statemanship by advertising by both debaters, but particularly by Mr Wehner, since it appears to be yet another symptom of a failed political system.

16/11/2010 17:23:11 pm

Cynical_Desi wrote:

Dear Sir,

You are being very kind when you say that only the political system in the US is broken. The country exhibits all the signs of a nation in a downward glide path. The public is unwilling to make any hard decisions. In the “Yossarian Syndrome” from Catch -22, people are willing to let the taxes rise and benefits be cut as long as their taxes do not rise and their benefits are not cut.

We cannot build a tunnel between New York and New Jersey anymore and the Chinese are blanketing their country with a high speed rail network; we spend more money on K-12 education than any other country in the word and have little to show for it. The water lines are old and corroded and we actually had candidates like Linda McMohan running for the senate. Police union pensions in states like California are out of control.

The demise of the US as the greatest nation will not occur overnight, or even in decades. What is clear however is that the signs are all there. When a company develops a degradable chips bag but has to stop using it because people complain the bag is “too loud”, you know that this is no longer a nation with the wherewithal to rescue its Apollo 13 astronauts, but a nation of facebookies and twitterati.

The politicians just reflect the will of the people and since we have no giants among men anymore, we only have little people and little politicians and they are our political system.

17/11/2010 08:11:43 am

TS Glassman wrote:

Dear Sir,
One look at Peter Wehner's "argument" makes me call into question the Economists ability to choose speakers. His highly partisan harang of my eyes should not call into question his own judgement but that of Mr. Lockwood for tapping him.

That being said a representative government should not be a false dichotomy of the two largest pocket books who could run. The system is deeply flawed and does not come close to representing the majority (left or right) and ends in voters simply casting for the lesser of two evils.

17/11/2010 08:03:22 am

D.J. Layton wrote:

Dear Sir,

Peter Wehner's argument is so hackneyed and puerile it's unfathomable. "Reagen was the greatest president ever", "America is the best county ever", "The founders were infallible god-like beings who in their supernatural power crafted a system that would never require change despite the fact that this has been needed in every other country on earth". Couldn't the Economist get someone who sounds like a bit less of a mindless Republican stereotype?

16/11/2010 21:11:23 pm

Lord Of Logic wrote:

Dear Sir,

The US political system reminds me of Dante’s 4th circle. “The Hoarders and The Wasters”. In which the opposing groups are lined up on opposite walls. The Hoarders roll a giant bolder across the room shouting “Why do you waste!” and smash their opposition to bloody masses against the wall. The Wasters eventually reassemble themselves and roll the boulder across the room yelling, “Why do you hoard!!” smashing the hoarders to bloody masses. This continues throughout eternity. The control of their punishment is in their own hands. But they refuse to stop rolling the stone.

The US political system is broken, but not because of any of the reason cited by the motions defender. The lack of understanding the reason is (and all the emotional sentiment attached to the problem) assurance that the downward spiral into irrational policy making.

That reason is exemplified by my daily emails and overheard comments about “Obama being Muslim” and “Obama is not born here”. This sentiment is closely followed how “if you don’t speak English you must be an illegal immigrant”. Coming up from behind is the sentiment of self entitlement that “we don’t want to pay hire taxes to support all these lazy people who are coming over and stealing our jobs”. Never mind that 80% of us get way more benefit from government services and projects then we could ever pay for.

The reason our system is broken is the very thing that made it so great to begin with. The fact that “everybody has their say (a vote)” was profound when conceived. But the marketing factions in control of the system learned that appealing to the fears and prejudices of the uneducated masses pays off in political gain.

US politics: "
This house believes that America's political system is broken.
"

Posted by biginla at 1:51 AM GMT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older

Do you agree with the motion?

Voting at a glance

Representing the sides

Today

Up next

Still to come...

Wednesday

Friday

Background reading

Comments from the floor

Opening phase

Current debates