By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
After the S&P downgrade of the United States, no country with a presidential system has a triple-A rating from all three major ratings agencies. Only countries with parliamentary systems have that honor (with the possible exception of France, which has a parliament and prime minister as well as an empowered president).
Juan Linz, professor of social science at Yale, argued that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems for reasons of stability. In a parliamentary system, he contended, the legislature and the executive are fused so there is no contest for national legitimacy.
Think of David Cameron in England. He is head of the coalition that won the election, head of the bloc that has a majority in parliament and head of the executive branch as Prime Minister.
In the American presidential system, in contrast, you have the presidency and the legislature, both of which claim to speak for the people. As a result, you always have a contest over basic legitimacy. Who is actually speaking for and representing the people?
In America today, we take this struggle to an extreme. We have one party in one house of the legislature claiming to speak for the people because theirs was the most recent electoral victory. And you have the president who claims a broader mandate as the only person elected by all the people. These irresolvable claims invite struggle.
There are, of course, advantages to the American system – the checks and balances have been very useful on occasion. But we’re living in a world where you need governments that are able to respond decisively and quickly. In a fast-moving world, paralysis is dangerous. Other countries are catching up - if not overtaking – America.
Debt crises across the West make this a particularly bad time for paralysis. Western countries have all built up very large pension and healthcare obligations that lead to huge amounts of debt. They need to figure out some systematic way to work that debt load down to a much more manageable level. This means a lot of pain.
Given this situation, it becomes very easy in a presidential system for the executive and the legislature to get into a classic standoff over benefits as we saw in the debt crisis.
Remember, the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling is actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature. There could not be a public spectacle of the two branches of government squabbling and holding the country hostage.
If we’re in for another five years of this squabbling in the U.S., we are going to make presidential systems look pretty bad indeed.
For more of my thoughts through the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and to bookmark the Global Public Square.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
we had one for two years, when Democrats had overwhelming majority; and what did they do? Ram the unpopular healthcare system down our throats. We just need a leader that's capable of getting something done and not totally oriented toward ideology! All that got him was an equal ideology force in rebuttable.
Overwhelming? You mean the majority where majority didn't matter because the filibuster was used more times than any point in American history?
You may celebrate your 50.8% Obamacare victory in the House (bought from Michigan with a $280M Medicaid contribution) however much you please – without the rest of us. Philibusters cannot prevent all legislative idiocies.
Bairkus, the fact that you apparently cannot spell "filibuster" and refer to the new healthcare reform as "Obamacare" pretty much tells me all I need to know about how educated your opinions are.
The Dems had a supermajority, meaning they were philibusterproof.
"Phillibuster" *sigh* Why are Conservatives so fricking ignorant now?
Chief, the Democrats NEVER had a supermajority. But don't let that fact get in the way of your "argument".
The dems did have a supermajority in the Senate, but not in the House. Though they did have 59.1% (257-178) It was dang close.
The Democrats had 56 seats, not a super majority even with the 2 independents. A super majority is 60 senators.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_party_makeup_of_the_2009_US_senate
The healthcare legislation was only unpopular with Republicans, which were a minority at the time, the majority of the American people approved of it in the surveys at the time. Get your facts straight before you post nonsense that you pull out of your posterior.
You are correct. The majority of people polled were in favor of it. However, of the 2000+ pages, almost no one knew what was in it. We only received limited favorable soundbites from the Liberal talking heads. Even your pinup girl Nancy P admtted she hadn't read it bt voted for it!! Since that time, MOST Americans, I'm talking the legal ones that should be the only ones considered in the polls, want it REPEALED since we are the only ones footing the bill!!
Actually, the Healt Care Reform Act is miserably over budget and will force our gov't deeper into insolvency and bankruptcy! We are GALLOPING TOWARD SOCIALISM with every Liberal that is elected!!!!!!
Sorry Jim but you are not quite correct.
The link you provided only counted up to 49 senators. At that time Al Franken (D) had not yet been declared winner. And perhaps you forgot that Arlen Specter switched parties from R to D on April 28th. That gave the democrats 58 senators, plus 2 independents that *reliably* voted with them. 58(D) + 2(I) = 60 votes.
The 2 independents were Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders. Joe Lieberman used to be a democrat but lost his Dem backing due to his support of the Iraqi war but is still basically a Democrat in every way but name. Bernard Sanders is listed as an independent but again votes *reliably* with the democrats.
So by the time on the healthcare vote in late Dec 2009, the Democrats did enjoy a filibuster proof majority. Here is a breakdown of the vote in the Senate: 58(D)+ 2(I) voted for it, reaching the magical 60 votes. All 40 Republicans voted against.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/1/votes/385/
In fact the Harry Reid had to force the vote on Health care that late in Dec 2009 because of a special election that Massachusetts had to hold for Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy died in 2009 and his seat was being temporarily filled by Paul Kirk (D). It was smart politics on Reid's part because Scott Brown (R) won that race on Jan 19th 2010, breaking the filibuster proof majority held by the democrats in the senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010
Small correction. I meant to say that the link you provided only counted up to 99 senators, not 49.
Philibuster: Noun
1.(rare) Alternative spelling of filibuster. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/philibuster
The Democrats did have a super majority in the Senate, they lost it when Scott Brown was elected. Until then it was impossible for the republicans to filibuster in the Senate where filibustering takes place.
Democrats Lose 60-seat Super Majority in the Senate
from reading what most people are writing here, u can see why this article makes sense. ordinary people fighting over their one sided single minded ideologies. Wake up america. The destruction of the USA's superpower status is fed by an ignoramus society that is unable to think out of their narrow minded and boxed mentality. While the rest of the world is moving ahead, Americans are fighting over stupid ideas... Wake Up. Obama is not the problem. He's only one man trying to function under a system that is dysfunctional. You have a congress with a party that signs some stupid contract to not raise any taxes. how stupid is that?? How do u expect to grow an economy where there's no revenue balance.
Agree. BUT the same could be said about Bush and the Reps who ram two wars into our throats, and guess what Perry will do with the tea-party support.
Ted, As a Texan I can tell you that Americans have no idea what Rick Perry will do if elected in ANY position. He does ram things down people's throats, and if you make him mad, he will go after you. He is NOT a leader, but a good old boy preying and praying on the people who do not question him. Meaningful paying jobs in Texas stink! Take credit, Rick Perry, for the minimum wage jobs in Texas. Most Texan's are embarrassed of him. We suspect the oil companies got him elected. He is Jerry Jones + George W Bush combined. My opinion anyway...
Bush didn't "ram" two wars down our throats. You sheep eagerly embraced and promoted those wars and then changed your minds when SUPRISE! things didn't go according as planned. I'm so sick of presidents being blamed for this obedient, emasculated, dimwitted population of ours.
Check your facts dude, both of those wars had far more than 2/3 in both houses.
Not all of us said "Yee Haw! Let's saddle up and go get 'um, boys!" Then, again, what he did was yard work, whle our men and women bled and died for "his daddy's honor"!
Bush lied about WMD's. The intelligence wasn't flawed (except Bush's) it was manipulated and the interpretation was skewed towards going to war. All people have to do is remember why Colin Powell resigned. The answer is right there.
alyosha_dayan, I'm pretty sure the American population wouldn't of been so inclined to go to war in Iraq had we not been lied to by the BUSH administration. Weapons of mass destruction? Al Qaeda ties to Sadam? So, I'm sorry, but the population you speak of was for the war becaused we were lied to. Not because of a war hungry nation you try to make it out to be.
I love how everyone still only talks about the wars, and Bush, Democrats etc. Seriously what is the point in arguing about who was right, the wars happened, the economy sucks, Bush got us into it, Obama has done nothing overly productive, and our Congress still can't get things done. Instead of arguing about the past, could we at least start talking bout ideas that might make our future better.
that's scary. this country is getting weird. bullies win. thugs and rapists get elected for multiple terms. the place is scary. not getting better, getting worse.
@Billy – Man, you are right on. Checks and balances ARE a good idea. I can't believe that just because Repubs have abused the hell out of the filibuster (recently, the same was done by Southern Dems in the Civil Rights struggle), and because Dems can't seem to overcome it (also recently), that people would lose faith in the whole idea. We have a decent, 240-year legacy of not allowing dictators into limitless power. Don't give that up just because the current fight appears hopeless.
Bush just wanted to finish what his dad failed to get rid of. But that is no reason! WMD pfft
it's kinda funny..the TEA PARTY...didnt really offically come about into the main stream until OBAMA..became president..funy huh?...
My experience as a Canadian is that our parliamentary system is no more effective then your presidential system. We either get stuck with a minority government that gets next to nothing done because parties can't agree with each other or we get a majority government that is generally used to settle scores and reverse decisions made by previous governments. The party in power right now would love to repeal gay marriage and the only thing really preventing them is the outright rioting that would occur over such a decision. There is no real mechanism of government that would stop them from doing it though if they decided it was worth the hassle.
@Jeremiah – might want to revisit your history books. The UN mandate was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, not unseat Saddam. Had the UN supported the Kurds, Saddam would have been out in the early 90s during GHWB term. So, it was not a Bush the First failure, it was a UN failure.
And BamBam made it 4 wars and passed an ineffective stimulus identical to Bush. Both will be in the history books as the killers of our country. Bush=BamBam
The word from texans on the street is that Perry will make Bush II look like an Einstein. Uh oh!
You mean two wars that had approval by the democrat controlled congress when Bush was President? Unlike the current war that Obama put us in with congressional approval. Soon to be followed by involvement in Syria.
@neal: Neither did Bieber... DAMN YOU OBAMA!
to aguest9: if by yard work you mean playing golf. remember that priceless clip?
George W. Bush: I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you.
[George W. Bush brandishes a golf club]
George W. Bush: Now, watch this drive.
Just what we need. Another Texan placed in the White House by the Oil Companies! Because you know that's how it works. This country will never what it could be as long as oil companies exist. Oil companies are ruining this country and will be the downfall of our nation. I have no doubt.
I'm not personally fond of Perry, but that is beside the point. GW entered one war BEACUSE WE WERE ATTACKED. I know Obama would have visited the agressor, drank tea. bowed repeatedly, tucked his tail, and sauntered back to dinner at the White House, but some men still believe in this great nation and will STAND WHEN ATTACKED. The second act of aggression I do not condione either, but you have to admit, Obama entered Libya for no reason, violated Pakistani sovereignty, and attacked in Somalia very recently.
Please don't throw stones at GW. One may deflect and bruise the King of North America. What will you do then??????? He is a miserable failure searching for an exit strategy from the White House without losing face. None exists!!
@Jared- Commented, "The party in power right now would love to repeal gay marriage and the only thing really preventing them is the outright rioting that would occur over such a decision." Ha, ha, ha, LOL, gay's don't riot
To require a Prime Minister would require a King. What we realy need is to elect the Senate and House for the same term of office. If the President happen to belong to a different party, then we would realy have a party (I suggest a fun party not a political party).
"requires a king"? That's utter nonsense! France has a P.M. and no king... Germany has a 'chancellor' which is pretty much the same as a P.M. and no king. Both these countries do have Presidents, who serve as heads of state, while the P.M. is head of gov't, a distinction most Americans don't understand.
It's not true, Russia, Italy and France have both prime ministers and presidents. In Russia and France, the power is focused on the the president and the prime minister plays the second fiddle (Putin is an exception). Italy on the other hand has Berlusconi as PM and a president as figurehead. Germany has a empowered chancellor and a weak president, All the European monarchies have en empowered PM and a monarch as figurehead.
There is no need for a king and I understand the distinction between the head of state and the head of government very well. Under the U.S. system the president is both head of state and head of government and it is not an arrangement I am inclined to change. We do not have a parlamentary form of government nor would I want one.
Guys, the USA is the great experiment here. These other Euro countries are the results of failure and defeat after WWII and the cold war. We don't want a system where whoever is in charge gets the whole grab, do we? If so we'd be flipflopping our policies every four years! Think if we had social security one year, then lose it the next, then get it back the next year? Choose one and be consistent! Checks and balances are a wise idea! It's the people who vote for these stalemates, not the system which causes it. Why do we vote back and forth every other election? THAT is the question at hand. America claimed to want "change" but then backed down from that decision two years later! THIS is the result. You want to change our 200+ year old system? It's worked through a hell of a lot worse situations than this.
What in the world are you talking about? Having a PM does not mean you need a King. Look at England, France, Israel, etc....goodness, that was a dumb post!
Before commenting make sure you understand how parliaments work.
France has got a president, a prime minister and no king.
@Billy – Man, you are right on. Checks and balances ARE a good idea. I can't believe that just because Repubs have abused the hell out of the filibuster (recently, the same was done by Southern Dems in the Civil Rights struggle), and because Dems can't seem to overcome it (also recently), that people would lose faith in the whole idea. We have a decent, 240-year legacy of not allowing dictators into limitless power. Don't give that up just because the current fight appears hopeless.
@jvon ya cause italy russia and france is doing a great job with a PM and president ha!
You must be a typical know-nothing Republican.
Here is a short list of parliamentary democracies without a King/Queen:
1. Israel
2. Italy
3. India
4.Germany
5. Ireland
They all have figurehead, weak Presidents.
I honestly can't believe that nobody in this thread has mentioned one of the most successful parliaments on Earth. Your neighbors to the north, Canada. Remember us? The Queen of England is a figurehead, our Prime Minister runs the country. We managed to ride out global recession better than almost everybody and we did it because our government functions while America's dissolves into useless posturing. And then you don't even know your politics well enough to realize that a fine example of a country with a Prime Minister just happens to share the longest undefended border on earth with you. Are you blind on purpose?
A King is not a prerequisite to having a PM in place, but I would think having a parliamentary system of government is. This article addresses the person when it should in conjunction address the process or system.
And we need term limits so they dont start their term running for re-election. These monkeys need to focus on their present job!
A Prime Minister is the Leading Minister of the Party in power in the Parliament. The "equivalent" if the U.S. were to have a Parliamentary system would be the Speaker of the House. The major downside to a Parliamentary system is that you have no direct vote in deceiding who will become Prime Minister- you vote for the Minister of Parliament (MP) in your district, and the party that wins the most votes gets in power, and then that party gets to deceide who thier leader will be, which results in who the Prime Minister will be. Seems similar to the U.S. House of Representatives? Yes, but, Pelosi nor Boehner have the powers accorded to them that the President has. Regardless of your politics, is that what you'd really want? I think that's more scarey than a combination of four more years of Pres. Obama AND a Tea Party President.
Actually, you do not always vote for the MP. You've not left the realm of parliamentary vs. presidential and moved into the electoral debate. Some states (Canada, Great Britian) have an electoral system akin to the United States, that is a first past the post-winner takes all system (whoever gets the majority of votes). Other parliamentary systems (Germany) have a proportional representation system, where a party is assigned a number of seats directly proportional to the percentage of votes they got. In the example of Germany, a party must garner 5% of the vote to be given seats.
The plus side of proportional representation is that it eliminates personal politics. Another thing it does is limit lobbying through personal politics.. .that can be a plus or negative depending on who you are asking. Also, the majority of successful democracies in the modern era have been parliamentarian systems. Presidential systems have often led to strong men that have abused power.
A parliamentary system does not require a king, but it is a system that tends to lead to dictatorships/totalitarianism quite frequently: Fascist Spain, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, etc. Checks and balances may be frustrating sometimes, and our founder's paranoia of totalitarian government may seem a bit silly at times, but there's a reason our system hasn't descended into a dictatorship where the parliamentary system has on numerous occasions.
A King?? Here in Canada, we have a Prime Minister who thinks he's a king (and certainly acts like one sometimes) but a King didn't create the position, nor selects or appoints a PM. We have the English parliamentary system, it's not perfect by any means, but we don't always have the every-two-years-election, which from what we can see make it nearly impossible to get anything done. I don't particularly care for our current PM but he has been elected to a majority for a four year term and its his job to get things done. If he doesn't, he's out.
No, a parliamentary system doesn't require a "King".
All countries have a Head of State as well as a Leader of the Government. In the U.S., both offices are combined into one (President). In British-style parliamentary democracies, the two offices are separate. Hence the person giving the "All is Well" speech to the country on New Year's day is usually a non-political official, sometimes appointed (Queen, Governor General, etc.) and sometimes elected (President). The Head of Government (Prime Minister) is the one who runs the show, however.
The major difference, however, between the American political system and the British-style Parliamentary system is the very weak political party system in the U.S. where it is routine for an individual legislator to vote against his/her party. In contrast, the parliamentary system has a very simple mechanism for enforcing party discipline. If the government loses an important vote, it has to resign and an election follows. Consequently, legislators almost always vote with their party.
Tysic: what are you on
Fascist Spain – the result of a military coup where the republican government was overthrown
Communist Russia – The result of uprising against a Monarchy (the monarchy towards the end had begun to give up some powers to a representative body, but that was only consultative)
Communist China – In what world has this emerged from Parliamentary democracy?
Nazi Germany – literally the only example where there was a parliament, however it is important to point out that the most successful parties in Germany were Nazis and Communists – meaning that the German people did not want democracy but wanted strong leadership like they were used to with the Kaiser
Seriously, your examples of parliaments leading to dictatorships are terrible
Obama would be a perfect prime minister. He can talk all he wants, not be accountable for anything, and blame others when nothing gets done.
Chris, Obama is trying to get things done. The fact that the Republicans take every opportunity to block every proposal he puts forth is a fault of the Republicans, not Obama.
I agree with Tom!
Chris still lives with his mom.
If Obama ever proposes something worth doing that will actually help the economy, reduce the deficit, and create real jobs, the Rebuplicans would have no problem supporting him. But as we have seen, nothing that Obama has ever proposed is worth supporting. I appaus the Tea Party for standing on their principles.
I agree with Chris, when Obama started his term he could blame Bush and I'd agree with him. But after 3 years I think he should learn how to accept responsibility. Yes the Reps have made it hard for him to do what he wants but he is still the man in charge and the Buck stops with him and he needs to learn how to accept responsibility to some degree otherwise he's just a child in high office. Responsibility should come with the job of presidency.
He can blame others, because it's the others who are blocking anything from getting done (hint: it rhymes with "GOP").
@michael Obama is "the man in charge" only to an extent... When it comes to passing legislation he only really holds veto power which does no good when the problem you are facing is republicans not even letting anything he wants to pass reach his desk to sign.. in these instances, the buck stops with the party that is causing all the problems – republicans
So, exactly where does this imaginary 3-year limit come from? The damage caused by the Bush administration will haunt us, the world, for many years to come. It's not that easy to wash your hands of such a debacle. Own it!
Screw all of them
Obama had two years with Democratic control of both houses of Congress.
Even with a lock on both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and a left-leaning Supreme Court heading the Judciary, Democrats couldn't find any answers beyond "Blame Bush!"
No wonder they lost control of the House and will be losing the Senate and White House in 2012!
Obama as a president has to lead the nation! That's what he was elected for. Where was his leadership in the dept sealing crisis? Did he have a real plan on how to reduce the dept? Instead of telling the congers "I want about 4 trillion reduction over 10 years with both cuts and tax hikes, now go figure it out on your own..." he should have presented a specific plan, to show everyone his brilliance, creativity, leadership etc. But he did not even bother to put anything on paper! Did he not know about this few month advance? If Rahm Emanuel would still be there I'm sure there would be a 1000 page plan on the table.
I agree with Lisa and she agrees with Tom.
Chris
Grow up! I agree with Tom and stop just listening to the media which is to the far right.
What do mean "unpopular healthcare" it is only UNPOPULAR to those who have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW SYSTEM. It is VERY POPULAR with those who have NO HEALTHCARE COVERAGE.
The ignorant people who listen to the lies from the Republican are just that IGNORANT. Every other first world country has a national heallthcare system that works very well, NO RATIONING NO DEATH PANELS.
The republicans LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH AND THE IGNORANT BOUGHT THE LIES HOOK LINE AND SINKER.
Why is the US health system rated 16th in the world with the highest cost and lowest coverage, FRANCE has the highest rating with 100% coverage at 40 to 45% of the cost of the US system.
STOP BELIEVING THE LIES OF THE SELF SERVING HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR REPUBLICAN LACKIES.
I do not have health care insurance at this time and I don't want the government telling me I have to buy something.They should not be able to force you to buy it or be fined if you don't.If you can't afford to buy it,why do they think you can pay the fines.I have a yearly check-up and it comes out of my own pocket.
NUTS
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is no fair way to run a country, that is what the Democrats want though.
carrie – they want you to buy it because the more people that are in the pool, the cheaper it will be for everyone. Also, if America's going to have to help pay for an emergency hospital visit because you got sick and didn't have coverage, they need to fine you. They're not heartless enough to say "if you don't get healthcare, then we won't help you out if you get really sick", though maybe they should.
who wants to pay for carries brain tumor? (not really wishing any ill will... only making a point since we will all pay for it unless c is indepedently wealthy!)
Two family stories concerning health care under a "nationalized" health care system. First a Canadian family member dropped dead of a heart attack. Had known issues, really needed bypass surgery. Apparently didn't make it to the end of the waiting list. Another family member in the U. S., essentially same symptons, had minor heart attack. Needed bypass surgery. Got it within a week under medicare. Lived for another 10 years. Died in their mid eighties. Another family member under the British health care system. Minor but painful back injury. Opted not to wait the 6 months to see the "free" doctor. Paid out of pocket to get the problem fixed. Point is health care is difficult to get exactly right. It seems like nationalized systems work really well as long as you never get really sick. The U.S. system, though with its own set of problems just isn't all that bad. Challenge is to get cost under control.
I've had experience of both the English National Health Service and the US's systems. I've never had a problem with the NHS in England, its just like being a member of a health system like Kaiser Permenante in the US. The US's fee for service system is a problem because the typical PPO has a limited set of providers, there's a ton of paperwork and even with decent insurance coverage you still get hit with significant copays - 'stealth bills' - if you have any significant treatment. (....and, of course, you're liable for any bills the insurance company doesn't pay). Fee for service is OK for small things but with a typical ER visit running into five figures and anything intensive starting over six its not affordable by most people.
sorry Otis but your anecdotal example doesn't match up with what actually happens with our health care system. Statistically, Canadians live longer than Americans – in no small part due to our health care system. Canadians don't live in fear of bankruptcies due to medical bills. I can attest, first hand, how well it works and I am grateful to have it. As added bonuses, because physicians fee are set and courts do not give out large payouts for malpractice, health costs are low compared to the antics that go on south of the border.
So while America has a lot going for it, health care isn't on that list.... and Parliament works pretty darn good as well!
Bingo!
the fact is, medicaid and medicare are a HUGE and GROWING part of the deficit problem... Obama focused on healthcare FIRST because he knew 3 years ago that one way to deal with a big chunk of the deficit was to address medicare costs... and so instead of just making huge cuts to the program he thought, "hey, lets catch up with the rest of the civilized world and do something that will make medical costs cheaper, thus making medicare/medicaid cheaper, thus reducing the deficit without having to cut a popular program!" But republicans in their attempt to make sure Obama was a one term president only care about ruining Obama even if it means fighting him on everything and making all the good changes he wanted to do hard to pass and unpopular.. I just couldn't believe the midterm elections.. i mean DONT YOU PEOPLE THINK FOR YOURSELVES AND ACTUALLY RESEARCH AND LOOK UP THESE CRAZY CLAIMS THAT FOX NEWS AND REPUBLICANS MAKE??? ALMOST ALL OF IT IS COMPLETE BS!!
Otis, there are "stories" and there are propaganda BS, and there's the uncomfortable truth. Ask the Canadians. They don't have a perfect system, but it covers everyone and the healthcare cost is significantly lower as a developing country.
Otis… First, your story doesn't jive. My Father in-law had a minor heart attack and was having bypass surgery within 2 weeks, after a series of tests… so who ever told you that was lying. If you ask Canadians 95% of us would say we would prefer our system to America's. The other 5% are the wealthy who would prefer to pay out of pocket for the benefit of better health care, which they can. The propaganda you are listening to is flawed. Just take a look at the top countries "in the happiest countries" index (Denmark, Canada, Australia, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden), all have nationalized health care, all have higher taxes and all have longer lifespans than the US… add in another point all of the top 5 have relatively stable economies even though all are taxed higher than the US. Maybe Americans might have to think as a whole instead of individually. Not saying it is a perfect system, but it seems to be making our nations happier.
Definitely Canada's standard of living may not be up to American standards, but maybe, just maybe America's standards are too high.
Keith (and everyone else too):
Check out the USAToday.com posting from 9/25/2003. I googled "Paris Heat Wave Deaths" and came up with it.
In France, there was a heat wave that year with a death toll set at 14,802 as of the date the article was posted. Per the article, a French parliament report blamed a complex health system, government agency and health service failures and other elder care shortfalls for the deaths. The Minister of Health was going to determine if the August vacation schedules of doctors, etc put victims at risk. Most of the deaths were blamed on a lack of air conditioning when temperatures hit 104 degrees.
Fareed Zakaria's article was about whether a parliamentary system of government would be best for this country. The blogging on the subject has fallen apart as people want to argue about whether GW Bush lied about WMD, whether Republicans try to block everything that President Obama proposes and who is the biggest idiot in the USA.
The article proves that government run health systems, put together decade by decade by parliamentarians and other "experts", can utterly fail when you least expect them to. Just posting some food for thought as we approach the era of Obamacare and get out of our 2011 August heat wave.
Of course it's "popular" with the parasites who think they'll be getting something for free.
Those of us who actually work for a living are sick and tired of supporting the human ticks like Keith.
You want Government health care like France! The reason France has not won too many wars lately is because the Government removed the balls from all it's men.
As an active duty Marine who gets paid in tax dollars, then taxed again on those tax dollars, what I really want to do is pay higher taxes so that the lazy slobs in my own country can get cheap healthcare. I already pay a bunch of Americans to sit on their couch and collect welfare checks to essentially do nothing. I am not a heartless man, as I understand that there are those that physically cannot work and need those checks, that's what they are there for, but c'mon!! Obamacare and all the rest of his cuckoo ideas simply help those that work their whole lives as they should, to support the freeloading ticks of this country.
LOL You crack me up, dude! As for me, my healthcare is awesome... I pay for it, thank you.
I understand the new health care bill and I really hate it. The Dems lied through their teeth and claimed no increases in taxes. By cutting deductions on my HSA I got a significant increase on my taxes. The Dems lied straight through their crocked teeth and messed over the self-employed and small business owners big time.
Nations with nationalized health care pay higher taxes and mandatory premiums for health insurance which translates into longer life expectancy and improved quality of life as indicated by the health and well being surveys. On the other hand US citizens have the option of purchasing health insurance and they pay lower taxes which provides more disposable income that they use to buy cheeseburgers, deep fried twinkies, and soda pop.... the result is obese citizens who won't be able to aford health care when, inevitably, it will be required.
Keith is right !! I must confess,, i work for AHIP , American Health Insurance Plans, the lobbying group in Washington, DC. Its is run by Karen Ignani, and her minions are LIEING S.O.B.'s
Bring Back the Public Option ...American people you are being lied too, I have seen her emails!!!
Sorry Bruce, but the Dems never had enough of a majority to overcome the Republican's unprecedented use of the filibuster. If they did have an adequate majority, we would have gotten a much better healthcare reform bill. Unfortunately the Republicans have abdicated their legislative responsibilities and have refuse to work for the good of the country. The GOP is a disgrace.
not to mix state and national politics....but abdicate like the Democrats that ran away and hid in Wisconsin? Sorry...all parties are the same and there is not reason to believe one is better than the other. Just depends on your cause of the day.
Sorry Bob but you are not correct.
The Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority at the time the Healthcare law was passed. In fact it was the only way it could be passed.
Here is a breakdown of the vote in the Senate: 58(D)+ 2(I) voted for it, reaching the magical 60 votes. All 40 Republicans voted against.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/1/votes/385/
The 2 independents were Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders. Joe Lieberman used to be a democrat but lost his Dem backing due to his support of the Iraqi war but is still basically a Democrat in every way but name. Bernard Sanders is listed as an independent but again votes *reliably* with the democrats.
In fact the Harry Reid had to force the vote on Health care that late in Dec 2009 because of a special election that Massachusetts had to hold for Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy died in 2009 and his seat was being temporarily filled by Paul Kirk (D). It was smart politics on Reid's part because Scott Brown (R) won that race on Jan 19th 2010, breaking the filibuster proof majority held by the democrats in the senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010
Checks and balances are here for a reason. The founders expected that we were not going to make changes very often, and when we did they were to be well thought out compromises. SLOW BUT SURE.
The founders also had slaves and had no idea how the world would look in 240 years. We need to be able to adapt and not be stuck in the past, while still adhering to our basic rights.
@David "The founders also had slaves and had no idea how the world would look in 240 years" Thus the need for checks and balances. Our rights? Like with the Patriot Act? I think most of us need another class or two in government. After that we should live elsewhere for a few years so we can appreciate they system we have a bit more. Seriously.
@crystal: As a political science degree holder and U.S. citizen who HAS lived in other countries, I feel I should point out that you are incorrect.
The parliamentary system is more efficient than the U.S. system, pure and simple. As for checks and balances, they still exist- I don't see citizens of England being stripped of their rights on a daily basis- but the government can move much more quickly.
@ryan First of all, as someone with an education, you should know that more efficient does not always mean better for every situation, preferable to the citizenry, or respectful of liberty. Of course, true liberty is a concept not understood by most liberals, but trust me, it's pretty darned important to a whole lot of Americans whether you agree with them or not. Furthermore, it was pretty tacky and damaging to your credibility to declare someone's entire statement "incorrect" on the basis of a singular concept (efficiency = better) that is so OBVIOUSLY open to significant debate.
Secondly, you don't see the British losing rights? REALLY? Been there too, pal. We're talking about a place where you can be arrested for carrying a penknife. Puhleeze!
@Ryan
I am currently in a political science program and disagree with your analysis. First, I feel it's necessary to consider the idea of a unilateral presidency, which I'm almost certain you've at least heard of (if your concentration was on Am. politics). I was discussing with several PhD and master students various journal articles analyzing the use of unilateral powers by presidents. We pretty much agreed that the growth of the usage of national security directives (which don't have to be published), executive orders and decrees is very alarming.
In addition, I shudder to think how quickly our rights would be disappearing under a Westminster system as opposed to our system. Seeing only the benefits of the government "being more efficient" blinds you to the fact that it would be much easier for tyranny of the majority.
Further, changing the system will most certainly not make voters more informed. They will still elect corrupt leaders.
The de-facto two party system is to blame. It forces Americans to think in black and white terms. There is no empathy in dichotomous thinking; the "other" is always demonized. How can there be democracy without empathy?
Whats ironic is that very little separates Democrats and Republics. The only winner in American's current system is interest groups. It's easier to control only two parties, especially when the public is duped into thinking they are irreconcilable opposites.
The health care system was voted on by our representatives and senators and is a good start. We actually need to make it better. Health care in America is atrocious in many ways and Obamacare has the means to save money and improve health care. If you don't like Obamacare it's because you don't understand how good it is.
You are in idiot cool-aid drinking moron. Ask someone who lives in Canada or the UK how they like universal health care.................they hate it.
Paul, I live in Canada and while the system isn't the most perfect that I could imagine, it provides care for eveyone. My wife had breast cancer and is currently having reconstructive surgery. My cost – nil. My co-pay – nil. My premium increase – nil (actually my taxes havce gone down since I can claim the incidental costs and prescription drugs). Waiting period from diagnosis to surgery – 3 weeks, to chemo – 4 weeks after surgery, to radiation – 6 weeks after chemo. All in all pretty good. My cost through my US employer if I was on their program – $6000/year, $10,000 deductible, co-pay on drugs and on and on. No wonder bankruptcy due to medical costs is one of the top causes. Think before you speak. The big difference is a SINGLE payer system, instead of the rats maze of claim programs. Your doctors spend 25% t0 30% of their time filing and chasing insurance companies, ours spend less than 10% of their time filing papers with the government for payment. Malpractice insurance is a small fraction of the costs in the US. No wonder our doctors are coming back from the US.
They may be unhappy with some of the performance and inefficiencies, but very few Canadians or Britons would disable their national health services and adopt the miserable profit-based system we have.
@paul – have you actually *spoken* to anyone from Canada or the UK (or any other country with universal access to health care)?? I didn't think so. If you had, you'd know that overwhelmingly they gripe about it, but they wouldn't trade it for our broken down, unfair, inadequate system in a million years. At least none of my friends from Canada, the UK, France, or other countries would.
Hey Paul,
I'm Canadian and like the vast majority of Canadians, would not want your US system. Ours is about taking care of people. Yours is about profit. Imagine if your fire services were provided only to those who could afford it. pretty ridiculous but there was a time when that happened. Many Canadians shake their heads at stories of people who are less financially able being turned away for life-saving treatment in the US. The stories are recounted in the same manner one usually describes something that occurs in a third-world country. In many ways the US does resemble a third world country – I was in Washington D.C just a few months ago.
That's hilarious paul, considering most of the Europeans and Canadians I have dealt with, both immigrants and during my time in the Army, thought the American health care system was a joke, and one of the worst in the world, while promoting the concepts of their own.
Paul, okay. I'm Canadian… I have never needed to use our health care system other than checkups. But my Father in-law had a bypass in 2 weeks after he had a minor heart attack, the two weeks prior to the surgery were a battery of tests deciding what would be the best options to take. Yes, minor operations can take a while. But I would prefer to wait for a minor operation, then have to choose a cost effective surgery when I need it most.
Again, If push came to shove Canadians would toss any government out that would threaten to privatize basic Health Care.
Fareed needs to go home and he can change the politcal system all he wants, leave ours alone.
That was the most ignorant, stupid, RACIST comment I've seen all day. I'd bet you wouldn't have the audacity to say that to his face.
I agree
We have plenty of very smart people who were born here and understand how the complicated system works,
And we're not gonna change it for ya!
But it's obvious that yours doesn't work!
No need to be racist guys. Reflects badly on your own character and to a lesser extent the up bringing your parents gave you.
Have some respect for your parents at least.
Oh please Bruce. Obama ran on a platform in 2008 where socialized health care was one of his major talking points. If the American people weren't for the idea he never would have been elected in the first place.
Exactly!
Socialized health care was one of Obama's platform planks? Really? Can you elaborate? I didn't think so, because you clearly don't know what that phrase means. If you did, you'd know that it has NOTHING to do with what Obama proposed and the Congress passed. No-thing. Zip. Nada. In no conceivable way.
The "presidential system" works fine. This president doesn't work.
How so, exactly? Is he much different from Bush then?
Bruce you are a MORON!!!
Bruce,
Quite Right, and all very good points. We need to do something about the way Congress operates...
While I don't agree with Fareed on this, I have to take issue first with this posting. We will survive as a democracy if people truly educate themselves on the issues. We don't have the kind of news literacy that perhaps we once had. We tend to react with emotion and listen only to those who agree with us. But we're pretty smart in the end, we Americans. Before we abandon the health care plan, we should understand what it means for us. There is much at stake. We are all in this together. The answers aren't as easy and as simple as some on both sides claim. Don't try to tell us that they are. You also will have to live with the results of all of this, friend. What happens to your neighbor, happens to you.
Are you honestly telling me that the Republicans are the ones not focused on ideology? If anything the Democrats want what's best for this country.
So democrats had control, they gave the country healthcare.
Republicans had control, they bailed out the banks.
Which would you prefer?
They didn't give us healthcare - we will pay dearly for it.
@peter – what are we doing now? I've had cancer, am self-employed, and the *cheapest* "health insurance" plan I can get in the Commonwealth of Virginia is $2400 a month. That's pretty dear to me. Oh, and it covers NOTHING. You need to get smarter before making comments like that.
It doesn't matter if you have a parliamentary system or a congress with a separate executive and judicial branch. None of these systems will work if your country doesn't have a shared sense of purpose and vision. None of your goals can be achieved if you can't agree what role government should serve in your lives.
Things move swiftly in Canada because we aren't constantly in an election mode. Party solidarity means that their is passionate debate of the issues, but the votes are rather predictable. In the U.S. system each vote is for sale on each bill. I'm surprised that you ever get anything done. But that's the entire point of your system. It is designed to have so many checks and balances that it is difficult to make large scale changes quickly. This prevents dictatorships, but also impedes your ability to act quickly in changing conditions.
I think I will miss America. It was such an interesting idea. Too bad it never lived up to its promise.
Apparently the only thing on which they can move swiftly is when they bomb the crap out of somebody. Important social changes like medicare...... deadlock....
Even if it did all fall apart tomorrow, preventing dictatorships, at least domestically, was worth it.
you clearly have no idea how a Parliament works. having the same party in both branches does not make it a Parliament.
Dems including Obama ran a platform that included HEALTHCARE REFORM.
They had a mandate to pass their healthcare reform bill. The healthcare reform bill that was pass was considered by many as RIGHT of center too.
And for those who are clueless, the healthcare reform bill is indeed an economic bill.
President Obama should have Vetoed the bill – we wouldn't have been any worse off. He should have had his cabinet behind him and assured the public that the bills would be paid – this is America. Congress could have reconvened if necessary. President Obama should "cull" his advisors who allowed him to be "fearful." Now that is leadership!
We have been getting fed "be afraid" since Pellosi sat on Bush's lap just before the last election for the banking bailout. The bankers and insurers would have figured a way to stay in business. The losers deserved to lose when their bets were bad. The bailout of the banks and insurers was wrong and premised on fear of what could happen. We were being fed the same c%$p about the debt ceiling. I've had it with these fear mongers. Capitalism is not bailing out financial industry losers. Bush allowed these greed mongers because they generated tax revenue along with the housing market all be it on a ponzi scheme charade of inflated values. Bush set back generations of American families in obtaining financial stability in owning a home. Obama acts like he is still is drinking the Bush cool aid. He is aftaid the public will not support him when the polls say quite the opposite. Psychology 101 – the public likes strong acting leaders whether when they press the limits of their authority. Remember Bush!!!!!
Ram into our throats – that is a tea-bagger language – ignore!
Well that's garbage, they actually didn't ram it down because they were in the majority and it was voted in! that means their ideas and policy's are and were in the majority The fact is still that the health care plan although not what I would of liked a single payer is widely popular when you add back in all the people who wanted it to go further, its overwhelming popular but that's easy you can move to Texas and Rick Perry will see to it you have no insurance even if you have a job like 71% of the working population in Texas. SDS / Seniors for a Democratic Society
I'm so sick of this babble. If you don't like our system move to Europe!!! GET OUT!!
So by that logic, I guess If I don't like the way a drunk taxi driver is driving I should either shut up and not complain or just get out and let him kill himself and innocent people?
Actually, what you guys need to do is cut your losses, admit you made a mistake in 1776, apply to rejoin the Commonwealth, as well as adopting a parliamentary system. Then, you WOULD have a government able to respond quickly to issues as they arise, AND have a sensible health care system, as we do in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand... and Elizabeth makes a great – if innocuous – head of state.
Yes we can see how well your socialist systems work over in Europe, They're all about to collapse under the strain of supporting the overwelming number of permanently unemployed. Europeans are all paying 60% of their pay in taxes. And by the way Canadians make me ill when the criticize the U.S. We've been carring the load for them for two hundred years. The Canuck military is the size of of Denmark's. It's easy to spend on health care when you spend next to nothing on a defense budget.
Amen, Tim! Problem with the US is that they're not open to anything but their own, especially when they don't understand it. I've been here 22 years..and I'm stuck, but it's appalling how this country treats it's citizens.
I'm a little confused by some of the comments on here: a parliamentary system would actually have made it easier for Bush to go to war in Iraq. Just look at Tony Blair and the opposition the parliament (and the people) tried to mount but still did not stop the UK joining in with Bush's private war. (I was and remain a vehement opponent).
And to the idiot on here who said that American soldiers should be getting dividends from foreign occupation, you are aware that they actually didn't want us there in the first place? They never asked us to liberate their souls from their bodies. It's actually called imperialism, and all the innocents- American soldiers and Iraqi civilians- who died should rest heavy on the head of America's own George II.
For Rocko
Carrying the load.... what load exactly! I think that you spend so much money on defense because you wish to exert your power over the world – so be it – it's cool – but PLEASE don't use the 'we spend money protecting ....'..... By the way, I do believe Canada has spent BILLIONS in Afghanistan along with many lives.....
Unpopular healthcare? That is something that republicans repeated enough in a hopeful attempt to make it true.. Which it is not true.. Obama ran for President and promised to reform healthcare; which he did. That was one of the reasons why he got elected. The American people came out in record numbers in 2008 to ensure that Obama was elected and healthcare was reformed. You had the republicans come out in full force in 2010 to reclaim the house.. The entire country coming out to vote and win by a majority for Obama and healthcare shows more than one party coming out to vote and win a midterm. Nice try.
Republitards get more and more ridiculous as time goes on.
I really wish this freede lulu would go to whatever country he thinks is best and leave ours alone hes always talking about changing this changing that.
I really wish this freede lulu would go to whatever country he thinks is best and leave ours alone hes always talking about changing this changing that. hE SHOUILD GO AWAY FOREVER AND LEAVE US A LONE GO WORSHIP YOUR COWS LULU
Back in the day HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED A TRAITOR. This guy shouild be put down and face a firing squad lord knows what he is telling other countries. I would love to see this man face to face
and folks like you, with the I love USA blinders on are the reason this country has gone to hell.
cnn blows huge donkey b a l l s. All they care about is their soclialist views and how to best let some alien tell us how to run our country. THEY WANT YOU TO BE ZOMBIES AND DO WHAT THEY SAY AND GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY. Half these writers ARE TRAITORS.
No one including CNN is forcing you to remain here though if you feel that way so you might try another website for your future news that have like minded people as yourself.
Joe, please be quiet. If you want to get rid of Obama, then you run for President and beat him in the 2012 elections. Otherwise, nobody wants to hear your racist rants,. Next time just put you rants, thoughts and feelings in a journal.
The health care plan that was passed under the Dems has nothing to do with our current spending problems and debt, those problems started even before obama was even sworn in.
"WE NEED A LEADER WHO CAN GET SOMETHING DONE!" and "THEY NEED TO GET IT DONE NOW!" are two of the most overused sets of words in our vocabularies.
Lyndon B Johnson certainly loved those phrases. John Kennedy's policies helped to stick us from hip to neck deep in Vietnam before he was murdered in November, 1963. But it was LBJ who submerged us in August, 1964. Anyone can read the history of "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident" and find out what the results of "GET HER DONE NOW!!!" can be in the long run of military affairs.
To be fair to Lyndon, I should mention that Richard Nixon convened a meeting of economic advisors on Friday August 13, 1971 in order to decide how to change America's involvement in the international financial system. They put together a plan to devalue the dollar, raise import tariffs, separate the US dollar from convertibility into gold and impose wage and price freezes. They announced the plan on Sunday August 15 before the Asian financial markets opened for Monday trading.
Anyone can read the economic problems that led up to that decision. But why does "Asian Monday trading" sound so familiar? And which part of that presidential activity are we still wondering impacted us the most in the long run? My father probably wasn't alone in hating the wage controls.
"BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU WISH FOR" is another good slogan by the way.
I agree with you with what the democrats did but do you honestly believe that the tea party republicans would have been more diplomatic if they did work with the republicans 2 years ago?
We need obama care. My insurance sucks a lot. I have to come up with $500 just to get a simple operation to check out if I have cancer. As far a needing a prime minister, when the GOP are in control, when Bush baby was president, they shoved unpopular and damaging tax cuts for the rich and left the poor out. The first tax rebate went to upper middle class and missed me. If we did not have the war and tax breaks and the War in Iraq with out U.N. help we would be better off. More taxes coming in and less going out is better then Less taxes in and more going out because of a unwanted war. I support the Troops not the war they are in.
Zakaria is completely missing the point. The nature of the current political discourse in America is not different now than it was at any time in the country's history. American Democracy has always been fractious – yes, even in times of national turmoil. If your main argument is that now things are different – faster response is needed, the parliamentary system is not the one to cure that ill, either. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with American Democracy. What is wrong is (only one example) a president that goes on endlessly about partisanship that must be replaced with doing the business of the country, while in the same breath, blaming his political opponents for the problem, and utterly failing to reach out and compromise himself.
You're absolutely correct. This recent "impasse" had much more to a spin doctoring President who adamantly refused to concede that the public didn't want more of his leftist ideology "rammed down their throats" and so they elected a Republican House to counter-balance the lefty President. The very wonderful "check & balance" the Founding Father's envisioned. But a sole-focused president who bristled at the thought that the public would dare put such a check on his ideology drove the country to the place where it is now.
The last thing the US needs (and this is a Canadian writing) is a parliamentary system. The checks & balance of the triumvirate system the Founders established works wonderfully, when all parties have the humility to accept that they SERVE the people, not the other way around. But such is the thinking of the current President and as Bruce McCoy pointed out, Such thinking results in an equally entrenched rebuttal. The fault is not the system, any more than a car crash is the result of the car: It's the driver who is to blame.
What "leftist ideology?" The President has been more right-wing than Reagan. If you actually look at the bills he has promoted and passed, they are all centrist. Health care was one issue that was held out like a carrot to get votes (because over 70 percent of America is for it), but when it was delivered, it was written by the health insurance industry. What the President hasn't done: He hasn't gone after the criminal acts of the previous administration; he has essentially left Bush and Cheney alone, even though Cheney was taking money from war profiteering from his private contracting firm, among other things, not to mention no WMDs in Iraq. But President Obama has been quiet about all that. It is radical and extremist to try to destroy America just because your political party is not the President; face it.
Dan, Obama is right-of-center. By ANY historical political measure, he's a conservative-moderate. You're just so far off the deep end that the sand-bar looks like a mountain.
Here is my take on decreasing the money spent by government. If they cared about the budget and the money spent they would learn to 1. Manage their paychecks and bank accounts the same as the rest of us. 2. stop paying all congress and presidents for the rest of their lives once they leave office unless they actually retire after 15 or 20 years of service. We still pay presidents who haven't been in office for years and years..3. stop congress from being able to give themselves raises put that up for vote by the people. if your doing well for the people give a little raise, but that would also mean you don't need paid 100k + per year. But hey that is just me, the government put us in this situation maybe they need to give a little back to fix it. if you get voted out of government why should the tax payers still have to pay you a salary? we shouldn't go get a job like the rest of us after your fired.
A healthcare plan for all Americans was very popular: over 70 percent wanted it. We got a very watered-down version, because of health insurance industry contributions to key people, and eventually the entire bill was written by the health insurance industry. And the Republicans dragged their feet, and refused to put any contributions in at all: they could have protected doctors, or paid for doctors' educations, for example. It is not Obamacare, but insurance industry care. We wanted universal care.
Now you want to take away care for elderly, poor, and just average folks. Are you like the gremlin in the Bugs Bunny cartoon? When you hit it "just right," it will destroy everything... is that what you want? I do not understand why so many Americans hate Americans so much that we won't help each other.
Whatever system of government, the fact is, the AAA rating is not based on Parliament versus our Democracy, but the fact that all those governments (even those that claim to be conservative) have health care plans. What business wants to invest in America when they know that business has to foot the entire bill for health care?
None do. That's why many companies advise their employees who can't afford the family option to take self-only, and enroll their children in their state's CHIP programs – yes, these are management employees, as well as line employees.
By "unpopular" healthcare policy, you mean "supported by the majority of Americans", right?
You teabaggers love to just invent stuff and treat it as irrefutable fact, don't you? Most Americans, when asked honest questions outside the context of political bickering, lean progressive.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you want a 19th century America, go start your own country.
Glad you can afford medical insurance, Bruce. Not everyone with a full-time job can, or even qualify for it.
The association and deductive skills of this writer is alarming, and stupid. Why not notice that all the current world leaders wear only cotton knickers and attribute their ratings to the fact that cotton knickers will net someone an AAA rating. Countries who overspend and whose economy is not based on actual mfg products but on promised production of workers will naturally decline in rating in a recession. The ratings will also nosedive among rampant inflation (usually a byproduct of any war wager who is not also the manufacturers who rebuild) and gridlock and schisms in the government. These are just facts–and this would happen whether the systems are parliamentary or presidential, because for the perfect storm to proceed you need a recession, wars, angry and shiftless people at the helm and an agenda driven by idealists with little to no idea or care for ramifications. There ya go.
Thats right, blame everything on the democrats. What about you republicans? What have you folks done for the country lately? Nothing but complain and moan.
Why is that when Democrates are elected to a majority in both houses and the presidency it's said they RAMmed through legislation but when Republicans win back the House they have a 'mandate from the people' and everyone should just get out of the way and let them do what they want?
When we re-elect President Obama and get Democratic majorities in both houses I expect every Republican to get out of the way.
Why can you bloody Americans never get the name of the country right? It is not just 'England,' but "Britain"!!!! Britain= England + Scotland + Wales (+ the Isle of Man, which is a tax haven with a higher credit rating than you right now, as pointed out by Mr. Jon Stewart).
One thing I don't understant about the American political system, if the people have selected one person to run the country for four years. Then for God sake give him those four years!!
Why the system only give him two years in most cases???
By dividing powers between congress and president, it may only lead to to paralysis and incompetancy?
The DEMS never had a super majority and were held hostage by filibusters (400+ since 2008). The GOP shaped HCR and mandated the insurance purchases as a condition (ransom) to stop the filibuster. The same mandate that they demanded they are now fighting in court. You already knew these facts and chose to lie, which is dishonest and immoral. Unfortunately, you are an accurate representation for the GOP these days, dishonest and immoral.
Your comment does not make sense. On the one hand you blame the administration for ramming health care through, and on the other hand you ask for a president who can get things done. So which is it? Obama ran on a platform to reform healthcare and that is what he pushed for once elected. You cannot on the one hand call it ramming because it was a policy you did not like, and then ask for a leader to get things done. I assume you only want the things you want done?
...and we had one for four years when GWB and the Republicans controlled the White House, House and Senate. Bet you weren't complaining then.
You are delusional!
True! there is some form of delusion... american sys of govt is fine, actually itz envied world over. U.S. president is party leader, then alternative party works to keep presidency in check. In our case today, itz juz that the founding fatherz never foreshadowed a tea-party mentality that somehow feels hell bent on the destruction of the entire nation. thats why the sys looks disarrayed...
As leader of the nation & for the sake of nationhood Obama has sought appeasement to solve issues that clearly need a revolution. He came in saying the status quo for the worlds #1 is not acceptable and change is dire! maybe he's trying , he shld try hard, harder, hardest!
Republican party has sunk too low, shooting down instead of offering "workable" alternatives. Look at their presidential hopefuls, what a wreck, with disquiet even within their own party corridor. where's the pride of the nation, where are they taking our glory.
when the country is in need, political grandstanding is the folly of us all
I dont think they though anyone was that stupid.
the president is not the party leader. just the national leader. if he was the [arty leader then the democrats would be much more obideant.
Curien you are wrong. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing:
All men are created equal and there are certain unalienable rights that governments should never violate. These rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.
A strong executive is great in times of national disaster. During Hurricane Katrina, it was the slow response due to confusion over who has the authority to respond as well as bureaucratic obstacles. Had it been a parliamentary like that in the UK, the Prime Minster would have been the obvious choice to turn to.
no confusion at all. it was clearly up to the mayor and governor to react. instead ray nagin pointed fingers at the Feds while his city went further down the toilet. he even called it racist??, but how can this be when he is black and the majority of the citizens are black?
Because it’s easier to pull the race card then take responsibility.
New Orleans was a mess. How were they caught off-guard? National Geographic had a special on what would happen to New Orleans, which they pretty well hit right on the head – nearly a decade before Katrina. Simple, lack of disaster planning, then throw your hands up and expect that the next higher level of government will come in and save you.
Prime ministers belong in foreign countries, not here. In fact, our politicians belong in foreign countries not here, bunch of thieving commies.
I'm confused by this. While the divisions of powers is different in the United States than in Britain, in both cases, the Executive has been given very wide powers in the case of national disaster. Katrina was more an example of systemic problems at the state and Federal levels than with who runs the Executive. President Bush had very wide discretion, but for many reasons, mucked it up (well, he's not the only one to blame, there was plenty of blame to be shared between state, federal and municipal officials).
It wasn't something he could solve by clearing brush on his ranch, so he didn't know what to do.
Or the Katrina response may have been slow because no one expected the people to be hanging back in NO and going crazy afterward. Had we known how totally depentdent on the governement NO was, I think they would have send the national guard down sooner.
The issue here isn't that we have a presidential system; it's that we're doing it wrong. The People aren't supposed to elect the President, and it's precisely for the reasons the author seems to suggest a parliamentary system is superior. We have an electoral college that elects the president, but we PRETEND that the people elect the president. We need to shift away from the idea that the people elect the president, let people vote for real people running for the real office of elector and remove the notion of a popular mandate from the office of the president – an office meant to execute the laws passed by Congress, not to act as Emperor of the United States.
No, we need to get rid of the electoral college and have the people actually elect the president. 240 years ago there was a reason to have an electoral college. It took a week for a rider to get from New York to Philadelphia. Today we have instant communication, which totally obviates the need for the electoral college.
the whole point of the electoral college was to keep the majority from dominating the minority.
Nah, we need a real man, patriot for a leader and NOT a liar, racist, do nothing pathetic socialist hump like we have today.
I know, I didn't like the Bush/Cheney regime either!
I agree that Bush and Cheney were sorry excuses for Republicans but I will pick the lesser of two evils any day.
You libs seem to forget that your socialist government model has yet to work throughout the world for the last... forever!
Not that I am a big fan of rampant capitalism, at least in the old days the lords of the land took care of the people who worked for them to some extent (housing, food, medicine, etc.).
Now we are all free, free to starve to death, be homeless, be unemployed, die of a cureable disease due to lack of money to pay for the treatment. So wonderful being a modern day American, raised on baby boomer lies and told that it is us young people's fault that America is in the shape it is in now.
In fact, the unborn children are to blame too, that is at least what they will tell them when today's bills come due for our future babies down the road. Somebody has to pay for stuff, and it sure ain't gonna be the uber rich or the uber poor, both useless, both selfish, both in bad need of being purged from the entire Earth.
Actually David the United States ranks behind Norway Australia and New Zealand in standard of living – all "socialist" countries with parliamentary systems. Try traveling. It's underrated in your neck of the woods.
New Zealand, Norway, Australia, and the United States are mixed economies, not socialist. Mixed economies are capitalist market economies with a varying degrees of government influence.
Frank, you do realize that the topic is government and not economy?
Wow you are kinda of hard on Bush there.
If the Feds cut y'all's benefits again I will surely disavow my loyalty to this government and more than happily take to the streets with my fellow real Americans to fix the problem. I've lived 40 years in this country without being asked to sacrifice for it. A bill is coming due America, and all of us sheep will have to pay whether we like it or not.
Out of all the things that need to be cut, the military is the last. Heck, we should be paying you guys dividends from foreign occupations, not taking from you and giving less.
In most democratic societies, the wealth & income distribution follows the Pareto rule to some extent.
The majority of voters favor govt programs that cover some basic infrastructure & safety net at some minimal cost
to them but at a significant cost to the wealthy minority, translating to a certain level of socialist policies.
Except, in some societies, the term socialist is used by a cunning minority to trick a significant & intellectually
incapacitated portion of the majority to vote against their own interests.
It appears the capitalist dope peddling will end soon, but it promises to be an ugly finish.
I agree with you Fareed. Some things have got to change, either we do a parliamentary system or create a corporate style system with "we the people" as shareholders, each with a vote on the larger broader issues. Scrap Congress but do have an oversiight committee.
It's a nice idea, ubt frankly I don't trust most people with the most basic choices, such as voting. We really do need leaders to run the country because most people frankly need time for their day jobs and lives. It's impossible to form a 200 million person co-op.
Any person that thinks we need a Prime minister can go to a country where they have one because America was created to get away from that system. It only leads to the government ruling the people with an iron fist made out of tyranny
'Ron Paul is the man' – I suggest you research the "tyranny" of other political systems before you write them off. The parliamentary systems of Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Scandanavia, and Germany are more responsive that the United States' presidential system, are held accountable to the people in democratic elections, and have less corruption than America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
@Sam: It isn't the job of government to be "responsive". Government exists to protect liberty. A free society is far, far more responsive than the tyranny of excessive government.
No Scott, the purpose of government is to reflect the will of the people. That not only involves freedom, but infrastructure, military, policing, education, health, and whatever the electorate demand. Being responsive is an important attribute of good governance. Especially in times of crises, eg: debt crises.
Do you hear yourself talking? SCRAP CONGRESS? Why don't we just break up the country and give it all away?! THIS IS MADNESS and FOOLISHNESS. Play within the rules, or watch the whole thing go away.
The conservative right wants to bankrupt the government. It interprets providing for common defense and the only reason the feds can tax. Promoting general welfare does not involve permitting federal taxation for that purpose. The conservative right wants the states to take care of everything now provided by the federal government except providing for common defense. This is a vast change from what we have now. Remember at the end of the Bush presidency there was talk of how some states would have to group together to provide what the feds now support with tax revenue. Even the Russians were writing articles about which states would group together. Groups here were doing the same. it is that simple.
The conservative right wants to do whatever it can to damage the image of the president so he doesn't get re-elected, including destroying the country and creating millions of starving, homeless Americans to make that happen.
Geri, that is exactly the system Benito Mussolini created in Italy in 1922. It is called the "corporate state." Fantasize all you want. I'll take a pass.
"Remember, the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling is actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature. "
Incorrect. The executive doesn't always control the legislature, esp in a coalition govt. There are tens of parliamentary systems that are dysfunctional. The PM is constantly worried about maintaining the favour of the majority in the parliament and ends up being forced to do whatever the MPs demand. Tough decisions simply can't be pushed through the system because no MP takes it upon themselves or wants to explain to their consituents. We won't even get into discussion of bribery scandals where MPs are "purchased" to vote one way or the other.
Got that right, partner!
Actually, the political battle around the debt ceiling isn't possible in other countries because we're one of only two democratic nations that have a debt ceiling at all. In most countries, the passing of the budget that causes the expenses includes ensuring that their version of the Treasury can pay for those expenses. We are the only democratic country that enables the sort of stupidity we saw this summer. The debt ceiling is about making sure the Treasury can pay the bills for expenses already incurred (passed by Congress in a prior budget year). If we had any sense at all, we would tie the debt ceiling to the budget for which it is necessary and ensure that Congress could not pass one without the other. Instead, the idiotic GOP in the House conflated three things having to do with debt: the debt ceiling (raised 17 times under Reagan and 7 under W.), the national debt, and the budget for the future (which includes additional debt unless revenues are equal to or greater than expenses). Once Congress passes a budget, Congress should not ever have the option of refusing to fund the payment for expenses that it authorized. Regardless of whether or not there has been an election in between those two events.
Why does everyone feel the need to change America into Europe or other countries? The last I looked we are still the best place to live, the place others turn to when they need help. Stop trying to change us.
I don't think you looked beyond your borders or beyond what your biased tv channels tell you. The best places to live in terms of a better life with and amazing healthcare would be the Scandinavian countries or Holland or even Brunei for that matter but the USA only holds the illusion of presenting itself to be "the best place"
Thank you Aby, at least someone who does understand that America is by far not the best place to live in. It's a great country, but calling it the best place on earth is a very ignorant statement, lots of people use.
Whatever, next time something happens don't come crying to us for any handouts. I am so tired of our country helping everyone just to have them hate us.
Please stop with the we have the greatest military in the world and we are the only ones people can turn to speech. It seems to me thats all we have left. We dont have the best healthcare, jobs, and living conditions as we had. Our infastructure is poor and china has taken over the lead in scientific research. Maybe we should look to how other people are running things. It doesnt mean that we have to change everyting but we should stop touting that were the greatest and look around for a moment. Absolute pride gets us nowhere.
Only western country with no state funded universal health care, Onlly western country which still has capital punishment. Best country in the world? I don't think so. It could be if you ever get rid of government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.
If you hate it so much being in the US, leave? I personally do not want to be like other countries. Rioting when they don;t get their own way, etc. We have been the leaders of the world like it or not for many years. We do not need to change our style of government. Make some improvements maybe, vote out all the congressmen and senators sure, but to change our style? Please.
America is still the best place to live, if you are a producer. Smaller countries benefit from Amercia by not having to seriously provide for their own defense. Their healthcare costs are subsidized because they threaten to not abide by drug trademarks unless they are given extreme price breaks, which places the burden on funding new research squarely on Americans.
Don't delude yourselves. The grass is only greener because we are watering their lawns as well as ours and thier its not sustainable if we as a nation start acting in our own best interest.
@md America has a long history of rioters who take over when things don't go their way... one of the latest that comes to mind was the Los Angeles riots of 1992. There are many countries in the world today who all help no less than America and have done so before Americans stepped up after WWII. American corporations have gobbled at the opportunity to take their means and wares anywhere they can. That's a prime reason America seems to help and not always with the best outcome. Money talks...
Dear Aby,
ho lland is a sinkhole
Sorry. America is no longer the best place to live. I moved to Europe and have never regretted it. I'm still proud to be an American. But not proud of the government.
Me and the wife have been trying to Ex pat for 3 years now. No one wants us Americans unless we are engineers or nurses. Funny how other countries know not to let people in who don't benefit their country through specific advanced educations.
We almost had a job lined up in the Marshall Islands (google it those of you who know not) but they went with another candidate from Australia.
Just have to keep trying, must get out of this country before I do something horrible out of extreme bitterness and hatred.
Wow all the America haters are really coming out. Very nice. Stay in Europe, I am sure no one cares.
#md I'm starting to think you would like to get out America for awhile but are bitter because you can't. I'm not an American – have scads of family and friends who are but enjoy living in my country north of your border. The worlds' a small place – thinking one can escape elsewhere to get from the problems is a misnomer. Utopia doesn't exist. Having the freedom to chose to live elsewhere is gift not available in some countries today.
I don't blame you. At least Europe has a better healthcare system and you guys get 20+ days vacation. What country did you move too? I would move to the country where my parents are from (Portugal) if the economic situation was better.
I agree, I love America of the basic rights and personal liberties. What I hate is the idiots in power that are squabbling to accomplish something, but end up squabbling some more.
We moved back to the US after living abroad for several years. Big mistake. It turned out to be more of a sentimental decision. We're currently planning our escape.
Hey EX-Pat...GOOD RIDDIANCE!! I sure you were a letter carrier or a mechanic. America can do without another trust-fund whinner....and Dave in Corpus, you sound like a sociopath....please leave.
Good riddance, ex-pat. Did you have the integrity to renounce your US citizenship, or do you still have an American passport hidden in your sock drawer in case you need someone to bail your out?
One of the biggest problems with the US is blind patriotism. You need to be able to critique the current systems in order to improve them, but as soon as someone points out something that needs improving they get called "America haters" or get told "if you don't like it leave".
The biggest problem with America are whining spoiled children like ex-pat and Yvette who have a baseless confidence in their intelligence and education, and the arrogance to think that we should throw out two centuries of success in favor of their petulant demands.
"Whatever, next time something happens don't come crying to us for any handouts. I am so tired of our country helping everyone just to have them hate us." ~ America butts their nose in and bully's wherever they feel like it. Perhaps that's why the world hates America.
I am not sure that "America is the best place to live." If you travel the world, you will become aware of the incredible amount of poverty, violence and and sheer indifference to suffering that exists in America, but that is not so prevalent in other countries. People complain about "socialism" in the US, but they don't understand what it is. Social Security is a form of "socialist" practice, and I know of a lot of elderly who would be out on the street or who are currently just barely getting by on their social security income. So you need to make a choice, either raise taxes on the wealthy, or throw your elderly to the curb. American culture focusses on consumption, so if you strip away social security, how many Americans will have saved enough to pay for their retirement?
And as far as the claim of "socialist" medicine goes, yes, there are problems with government run healthcare like what Canada has, but no one ever had to sell their home, use up their savings or empty their kid's college funds in Canada in order to pay for medical treatment.
Yes, by all means, let's not change.....because what we currently have is working so freaking well! Let's face it, if we don't change we will continue to flounder or, worse yet, fall to the wayside. It's already happening, and what do we see as our two party solution? Democrats and Republicans frozen in place......pointing fingers at the other side. It's a new world....a new reality.....I say change or perish. Those are our choices! It's time to think outside the box!!
What do you think has been going on the last 2+ years? We got change all right. The Fed is printing money like crazy, Obama spends close to a trillion on a failed stimulus and bundens our children with 10 trillion in future debt. Bush did saddle us with 2 unfunded wars but the national debt was $500 billion when Obama took office. I think allot of moderates voted for him because he said he would get us out of Iraq. Didn't happen. Instead he ramps up a untenable stiuation in Afganistan and gets us envolved in Lybia(?). Why? Obama has quadrupled the debt and now talks like he had nothing to do with it.
Ron, you REALLY need to double-check your numbers. As of January 1, 2009, a few weeks before the current president's inauguration, the total public debt was just shy of $10.7 trillion dollars
$4 trillion in additional debt is nothing to be proud of, but you are either extremely prone to exaggeration, or need to learn how to check your own facts before reciting the views of others.
The author seems not observing what is going on in parliamentary governments around the world like India. People voted to
inefficient and corrupt members and suffering endlessly for years. There are countless number of party's and mindless amounts of coalitions and betrayals each and every day. If one want to see a political show, one should watch live the parliamentary proceedings in India. The entertainment is not less than any reality show in America.
I've argued for years that a Parliamentary System – where basically the Speaker of the House runs the Executive Branch – is better than our system. Also, having elections are IRREGULAR times may stop the nastiness of politicians constantly campaigning and being indebted more and more to special interests. When Tony Blair stepped down, he set the next election for three months in the future – too soon to need much special interest money.
The Speaker isn't in charge of the executive. The Prime Minister is. The Speaker is a neutral "Referee" of Parliamentary debate and procedure. While they are an MP, once elected to the Speaker's position, they are expected to act in a matter that is fair and equitable to all parties in Parliament. This tradition is likely a big part of why partisan interests do not always derail Parliament – the Speaker is supposed to enforce decorum. Not fan the flames.
"we had one for two years, when Democrats had overwhelming majority; and what did they do? Ram the unpopular healthcare system down our throats."
As a member of the military, I've had Obamacare for 16 years, and I love it. So do most servicemembers.
And what did Republicans do when they won the house? They went after the gays and abortion. I guess if we had a parlimentary election last November, we would now live in a theocracy, the fire, police and schools would be abolished, and EVERYONE would be forced to own a gun. Your right, parlimentary elections are bad.
Something is very wrong with our electoral system.
Our leaders are actually very intelligent able individuals but somehow they are either making too many senseless decisions (Bush) or become paralyzed (Obama) once they got elected.
They're bought. That's the problem
right on...you can't reach this level of office without owing a lot of people a lot of favors. they're all crooked.
What! You want to change our fundamental political structure go to another country and do it! We don't need a better system we need better people in that system! We need people that understand compromise and bargaining and don't act like spoiled children! We need people that understand sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils despite your convictions!
Thats what we said last time remember? Its always new people, saying get out when someone has a idea is a idiotic knee jerk reaction. We should be debating how were doing things in this country, but as long as people are calling people nazis, socialists, and unpatriotic then nothing will get done. The greatest crippling thing facing us right now is that people are digging in on both sides and nothing of real value is getting done. People are afraid to speak about logical solotuions because they feel they will anger their already polarized base. If someone comes up with a idea we should listen to them and debate the issue, not call them names and tell them to get out.
Yes and all that must start at the top, its called lead by example,,,,
Well said Fareed, I am always amazed @ the lack of serious dialog concerning issues. I am exhausted with the name calling. Healthcare shoved down our throat, really? Where was the outrage when we had 2 wars shoved down our throats. While you can argue about the law you can not skirt the presidents intentions to cover the uninsured. Obama racist? With a white mom, and a black father.......really?
The wars were not shoved down your throats. It was a democrat controlled congress which voted in favor...stupid, idiotic liberal!!!!
ummm, no. the Dems took congress in '06, not '00
I'm Canadian and know that, for a fact, to be untrue. Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in 2006.
Wow.
Posts like this happen because of Fox News.
On second thought, I am very sure that the problem is the people not the system.
If we Americans keep ignoring the core value of our national religion of Christianity and continue to corrode from inside out, the best government or the best leader on earth will not save us.
Americans' heads swell so big that they think they can outsmart God.
Just because you are unhappy doesn't mean the rest of are
Thank god we don't have a "national religion". People who look to the man in the sky for guidance are not the best for setting a progressive and inclusive national agenda.
Exactly.It's part of the beloved first amendment. I'm in 8th grade and I know that.
The United States does not have a national religion unlike Great Britain which does, and was one of the reasons our founding fathers made it to where we did not have a National Religion. Not being rude but that is covered in high school civics class.
National religion???. Last I heard ( 2 seconds ago) America was a secular nation. When west had national religion it was called dark ages for a reason.
National religion = Iran. Enough said. The last thing we need is to make idiocy, gullibility, and a lack of skepticism official policy.
Abolish the Senate arm of Congress would accomplish much the same thing. Senators have too much power.
Example: "On December 22nd, in the face of seemingly unanimous bipartisan support, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Bill S.372) was killed in the final moments of the last legislative session when a mystery Senator placed what’s called a secret hold on the bill. " WNYC Public Radio.
Just the opposite. We need to return control of the Senate to the States where it belongs. The People have their voice in the House of Representatives. The States have no voice in the Federal government, which is the reason it has seized so much power from the States and from the People. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Your whole statement is essentially agreeing with me so I'm not sure why you say you disagree.
look at us. Congress has so many people bickering back and forth like ultimate football rivals, or more appropriately, pro wrestling fans. they have us so caught up in the us vs them mentality they are ruining this country. if Obama wants my vote the only way he'll get it is to get term limits for the house and senate set at two terms. no exceptions. no loop holes.
Yep that’s what we need a foreigner telling America how to run our government, we do not want to be socialist, communist or any other crap. Stay out of our business, just look at the blog, a bunch of Kool-Aid drinkers that would follow anyone off the cliff just because a democrat said it.
And for the lady that said when the dems were a super majority the could not pass anything because of a filler buster, tell the truth for a change , you only passed what you wanted and that was a crapper health care bill that they didn’t even read.
DEMS had a super majority and did not even pass a budget, I know I know ,,,it was some else's fault. must have been the tea party that was elected in 2010 that caused the problem in 2008-9, who in the world could ever take a DEM seriously, a bunch of finger pointing children. Repubs I am not a big fan of your either, Bush sucked, Oboma really sucks. and the House and Senate really really sucks. I am to the point that people should be screened before they vote, at least know what the issues are, if you don’t, you have no business voting because you are hurting the country. Got to stop voting for someone base on party or a smile or because they can give a good speech,,,,talk is cheap Mr Pres.
Last I checked everyone in the USA is a foreigner so you have no grounds to call another a foreigner on this or any other issue. The USA needs to realize that their government system is a complete mess and start doing something about rather than be so up themselves thinking that it's the best place on Earth. I am not saying that the parliamentary system like that of the UK with its own house of commons bickering is the best either but it is a hell of a lot better.
wow, you have to make it a race issue, here we go,, let me guess your a DEM/communist/socialist???, you are a foreigner if you are not a citizen of the U.S.A. We all see the rest of the world, and it's failing, yep that's what we need to do, follow England, see how it's working for them,,,,,U.S.A is the greatest country in the world, even when its broke, in fact the rest of the world doesn’t make a pimple on America's ASS. And yes very proud.
Wow, do you have any idea of what you are saying? Last I checked, we haven't had any riots running rampant like we see in other countries, including England
Actually, if you look at various factors related to quality of life, the U.S. ranks VERY poorly. The top countries are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Austria and Switzerland. Australia has had NO ECONOMIC RECESSION and the unemployment rate is <5%. I have lived around the world (including the U.S.) and there are handfuls of other countries with a MUCH better standard of living and quality of life to the U.S. In Sweden, for example, university education is free, daycare for kids is free, healthcare is free. The taxes are higher but there is a large middle class with very low violence levels becuase people are able to provide for themselves. In the U.S., the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is disappearing completely, and violence is high because poor, uneducated people are more likely to commit crime. America is broken. Very bronken. Sure, the U.S. is one of the biggest success stories of any country, but it's over. Those who say the USA is the best place to live have generally never lived in another country for an extended period. I have.
Hey Aby,
BORN IN THE USA
not a foreigner
Actually, "swedenisgreat," if you look at the facts, Swedish-Americans are more peaceful and law-abiding than Swedes in Sweden. They manage that without a nanny-state, "Mother, may I?" laws, absurd taxes or any of the rest of the smothering bull-fertilizer that Sweden inflicts in its subjects.
So, Myles, these "facts" you speak of. Show me where you have found these "facts" that American Swedes are less violent the Swedish Swedes. Where is this info? Facts are important to you, so show me where you get these so-called facts from. Have you been conducting street surveys? I will simply back my case up by saying crime rates in Sweden are WAY less than crime in the United States. Not even a close contest. You can find this data easily online. I'm still curious where you get your data from though, Myles?
Dude. Fareed Zakaria is not a foreigner. He is naturalized US citizen with PhD from Harvard and Undergrad from Yale. He is one of the most knowledgeable persons in America.
He is a left wing socialist who is spreading propaganda.
Its just a article dude. chill. And btw. Kool aid? Delicious
In the U.S., such a system would always be loved by the party in power, and hated by the other. Fact is, most Americans are more interested in the appearance of doing good things for the country, but mostly are interested in their party winning. Politics is more sport than governance in the minds of many here.
Part of the saving grace of many parliamentary systems, including that employed by the United Kingdom, is that of a monarchy that can dissolve the parliament and call for new elections. Perhaps if the US President could dissolve congress and call for new elections, then a prime minister might make sense. However, too much consolidated power in one house, without a reasonable "escape plan" of dissolution and re-elections, tends to lead to power struggles and bickering.
Yes a Parliamentary system will give rise to a much needed third (and more) party. This winner take all system is not the best. Right now if you are not a Democrat or Republican you have no chance of a meaningful political voice. A parliament would help break the 2 party monopoly.
It's duopoly dude not monopoly. Nevertheless good point.
I would never agree to changing our system of government to anything that resembles the government structures they have in Europe, Asia, or Scandanavia.
I would agree to changing our government so that 1) TERM LIMITS apply to all elected officials; ie, NO public official – local, county, state or federal level can be elected to an office more than one term, 2) BUDGET MUST BE BALNCED – NO public government budget can spend more than it has revenue, 3) DUTIES & TARRIFS apply to ALL goods & services imported into the USA for consumption – NO Free Trade agreements with anyone, 4) CORPORATIONS pay ZERO income taxes so long as they maintain the same headcount as the year before, or increase it – otherwise the tax rate is 50%, 5) INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES are flat – the current progressive tax system is replaced with a flat tax rate for all levels of income and 6) NO bsuiness in America is TOO BIG to fail.
1) Agree to term limits for all. One term however is not realistic, the country will have one policy for 4 years then the policy could be changed in the other 4 years, too unstable. Stability is one of the key elements required for a strong economy.
2) Totally agree. Hate to break it to all the "USA is the best country out there" people but the reason we are so strong and rich is because we've been spending more than we make for a lot of our history. Financial trickery is what has been allowing this, borrowing fake money that doesn't exist. 3) Agree. Whoever supports this should also support other countries that want to implement these measures on US products entering their country. The US government and multi-national corporations have been bullying, assassinating, fighting any third world country that tries to implement these measures. We also prop up dictators with the condition that they keep to our interests including allowing US companies and products unhindered access to their resources, markets. 4) Unrealisitc, tax rates could be flipflopping each tax season, remember stability is key 5) Disagree 6) AGREE
1. Just look at the problems the freshman Teabaggers caused during the debt ceiling crisis. Political novices are largely ineffective because they don't have a clue what they are doing. It takes a while for them to learn how to do their job. Your suggestion would ensure that Congress would always be filled with inexperienced members. Experience counts in any job, including Congress. Also, your suggestion is very anti-democratic. If people want to keep an effective leader, why do you want to remove their democratic right to vote for them. Why do you hate democracy?
2. We need to control the deficit and reduce our debt, but we can't do that without increasing revenue or gutting programs to the point where Americans are deprived of basic social services available in every other developed country. We managed to turn a profit under Clinton, but Bush's tax cuts and wars wrecked that.
3. What you propose is idiotic. If we imposed duties and tariffs on everything, other countries will do the same on our exports. We are the world's #1 manufacturer, and American companies depend on exports. Your suggestion would absolutely wreck our economy. Many corporations would go bankrupt, and inflation would skyrocket. I argue in favor of imposing tarrifs all the time, but never from people that have even a basic understanding of macro economics.
4. Some corporations are making record profits, while our country is swimming in debt. We give out billions in corporate welfare, so why should they get any additional tax breaks? We need more tax revenue, not less.
5. Only rich people and stupid brainwashed conservatives argue for this. Flat taxes place almost all the tax burden on the working and middle class. The fact is, wealth in the US is so concentrated in the upper 10-20% that a flat tax rate would not only be unfair to people that aren't rich, it would be impossible. The wealthiest 20% of Americans control over 80% of the wealth. A flat tax that would cover all of our expenses would be so high that about half of Americans would require additional government assistance (on top of current benefits) just to keep from being homeless or starving to death.
6. How do you propose breaking up the dozens of corporations that are currently too big to fail? Does the government step in and force Walmart to sell off 75% of its stores. Does the government force GM to split into several different companies? If GM had been allowed to fail, we would have had a 2nd Great Depression. Government intervention saved GM, prevented a 2nd Great Depression, and GM has already paid us back.
Every single one of your arguments is based on ignorance of how government and economies work. I suggest that you take some classes so you can make informed comments in the future.
I think I see where you're coming from, but can't agree with all of them. Holding term limits to one makes no sense. Completely unstable and it can take some time to implement strategies and campaigns are very expensive to run at an effective level. Limiting corporate contributions is very smart. How about setting a fixed campaign tools like the hard cap enforced on sports teams? It would level the playing field, give less fortunate prospects a fighting chance and will show us a brief insight on how these politicians manage their own budget.
Forcing a 50% tax on corporations that reduce employees is insane. When did corporation = bad? Do we forget that there are millions of small businesses that ARE corporations? Many of those might have to cut down an employee to keep the jobs of many others yet you're saying to tax them 50%? That's just blind.
Personal income tax should be reduced to a minimum for all. Find other sources of revenue that directly correlate to the service provided so that the individual benefiting is the one paying – sales tax, vehicle registrations, road tolls, etc..
I also support free trade for anyone willing to reciprocate. What's the problem with that? Scared that it will take away jobs? Wrong- let free enterprise figure out how to turn that into gains for us. We're big boys.
So what happens if there is a national disaster like, say, a war where the government needs to raise funds via bond sales? This idea that you can run any government of any substantial size without the option of borrowing is generated out of the minds of some very silly and ignorant people.
I like some of what you say but one term is not enough. More like 12 years, that should be enough, I know people will say just vote them out if you do not like them. The problem with that is most people that make a LIFE out of their office know how to get all the money that they need to win, someone new, 90% of the time doesn't stand a chance. I have no problem with free trade, as long as it is FREE to all parties involved. The United States, Canada and Mexico free trade agreement is a joke, it is NOT FREE TRADE. I agree with the flat tax or the fair tax but make everyone pay, not just the rich but the "poor" as well. Crack down on people and companies that abuse the system for their gain, I mean make them feel like their life is on the line. Americans need to stop living to work and learn to work to live. I am not a lib but EVERYONE should be made to pay for their health insurance and EVERYONE should be made to have insurance. I have been in enough emergency rooms to know that they are being used for a doctor's office because they can not turn away anyone. One last thing, you people can think what you want but there is one thing you need to remember. NO CORPARATION PAYS TAXES – YOU PAY THEM. Everything that they sell or service that they provide has the tax, payroll, insurance, fuel, power bill and the kitchen sink priced into it. Guess what that tells you, YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT. When you scream for their taxes to go up, they just raise the price of their product. By the way, both the Democrats and the Republicans are acting like a bunch of as@es. To you Mr. President, learn to lead not follow. Don't wait tell next month to tell us your plan, tell us by Friday. I won't hold my breath.
Having lived under both, I would prefer a parlimentary system. No system is perfect and certainly ours is showing cracks that, as suggested in the article, impedes our ability to quickly respond to issues . . . which admitadly is sometimes not a bad thing.
Get rid of the lobbyists. Make it illegal for big corps to give donations to politicians. Limit campaign spending (spending cap) to 500K or less for any re-election campaign and you will finally get corporate america out of world political affairs. For those who think I am radical left, I am not, we give to much to the no loads, force em to work for a change.
Fareed is an intelligent, thought provoking journalist whom I read almost judiciously. That being said, I must take exception to the notion that we need a Prime Minister or a Parliment. There is a system of checks and balances in this country that IF used responsively and with honorable intentions will serve us for decades to come. If not, then let us go by way of the Dodo and let another grand design begin.
I don't think this article was well thought out. To start with, Wall Street thrives on gridlock in Washington. Yes, other countries are catching up to America, but I don't see any evidence that this is because we have a President. What about the last 250 years? Parliaments are not a new concept.
This just doesn't seem like something that should have been published.
Ahem wasn't the British System the one our ancestors sought to escape? Wasn't that the system that enforces to date social class division? The same one that established Poll Taxes? The same ones that have the most heavily personal monitoring system(s) in the world? And of course the same ones that are constantly sticking it to the middle class? We are in America we are not Europe and one other thing S&P did their stuff on political agenda. Fitch and Moody's still rate us AAA so out of 3 one took a position of stick it to America and of all several of their panel are not even economists or financial gurus. This Author needs to go get a life somewhere else or go live under the system he likes so much.
India was happy to shed its colonial masters, but they promptly adopted Britain's parliamentary system. This is a typical pattern. Former colonies often adopt the political system of their masters, simply because that's the only system they know. Now, Fareed Zakaria wants the US to adopt India's political system. If he thinks India's political system is so superior, why doesn't he move back.
The Founding Fathers didn't get mad because of the Westminster parliamentary system, they got mad because the British government of the day refused to give the same weight, or at that point, any weight to their own colonial legislatures. They believed that the colonial legislatures should have the same weight as the Mother Parliament at Westminster, that the King's Ministers, if they wanted to raise taxes, should have to present their case to the colonial legislatures just as they would to Parliament.
They rejected the Parliamentary model for a number of reasons, but that was after the Revolutionary War and the Articles of Confederation proved quite incapable of producing a stable national government.
You meant a religion leader who does any sermons for USA?
Are we back to this stupid Churchill thing again?
Churchill was a raging alcoholic. He didn't even know his own name sometimes.
And you're suggesting that we need a raging alcoholic to represent the image of the U.S.?
Let's not.
.
Anybody with any familiarity with Churchill knows that you're overstating your case so much that you're basically lying. Churchill certainly drank, though I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a few US Presidents who imbibed just as heavily. This is a man who literally spent much of his time as wartime Prime Minister sleeping in four hour shifts.
By that system, John Boehner would be in charge. NO THANK YOU. He's doing enough damage where he is!
The UK (or the so-called Westminster model) is a special case within parliamentary systems, with its single-party government and hence strong PM/executive. However, if you look at the parliamentary systems in continental Europe (esp. Germany, Netherlands) with huge coalition governments of 2 to 5 parties, you can observe that they may lead to complete gridlock/paralysis at times of crisis, when the policy preferences of coalition partners diverge greatly. Even better look at the fragile Italian coalition governments of 70s/80s and the state of economy in Italy at that time! Hence, by solely looking at the rather "exceptional" case of the UK, one cannot claim that parliamentary systems work more efficiently/better (at times of crisis especially).
Moreover, Zakaria misses the point that with the exception of the US, nearly all other pure presidential systems are located in Latin America, which are unlikely to have AAA credit ratings. In Europe, on the other hand, all (wealthy) countries have parliamentary systems. Hence, it is not surprising to find very few presidential countries with AAA ratings. At this point, we also do not know whether presidential/parliamentary regimes lead to a better or worse state of economy; we can only hypothesize that but we need empirical support to confirm that hypothesis.
Finally, don't tell me that parliamentary systems with single-party governments always pave the way for economic and political stability: look at the Malaysian case for a counter-example!
"After the S&P downgrade of the United States, no country with a presidential system has a triple-A rating from all three major ratings agencies. Only countries with parliamentary systems have that honor (with the possible exception of France, which has a parliament and prime minister as well as an empowered president)."
Obviously a problem with the presidential system, NOT REMOTELY CONCIEVABLE that it could be issues with the ratings agencies.
"In a parliamentary system, he contended, the legislature and the executive are fused so there is no contest for national legitimacy.
Exactly what the founding fathers didn't want. See Germany circa 1928-1933 to see how well a parliamentry system can work out if things play out the wrong way.
"We have one party in one house of the legislature claiming to speak for the people because theirs was the most recent electoral victory. "
.....duh. When you have a 'electoral victory' the people have spoken....this is the concept of voting. Oh right, votes shouldn't count unless they're voting the way you want, I forgot.
"But we’re living in a world where you need governments that are able to respond decisively and quickly."
Yes, Goverments are ALWAYS the solution. So long as you ignore virtually all of recorded human history that is.
"Remember, the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling is actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature. "
Stop using this bull story as an excuse. The Reps that stood up against the ceiling did so because the American people who voted for them were tired of hearing that raising our debt limit is an acceptable answer to excessive debt. They did the right thing by not caving and we're all dealing with the consequences of decades of poor long term economic decisions which we would have dealt with later and much worse if had it just been shoved under the rug for several more terms. At least now with the credit ratings non-sense people acknowledge the Mutant Behemoth in the room. Again, let's see credit rating = You have paid your bills, you have enough to continue paying your bills, we don't like how you were fighting with your family about paying the bills – LOWER SCORE!!! Perfect credit rating system.
Vote Fareed Z for "Most Well Respected Fool in the Business of Selling Fertilizer to Rock Farmers" – NEED MOAR YEARS!!!
Our system of chacks and balances seems to have a lot more checks than balance these days.
I'm not ready to throw our the system yet. We need to control the money a lot better than we do. As long as companies, PACS, associations, NGO's, unions are allowed to contribute large somes of money, special interests will rule the congress. If our law is one man one vote, than the campaign finance rules should be one man, one contribution with a finite limit. Than power would rest with individual citizens again and the special interests would be far less able to buy themselves public policy.
We don't need any MINISTERS in government. By definition, that would violate a separation of church and state.
Why should we copy foreign governments when they're screwed up more than us? Back in the day, Italy's government would fall every few months because they couldn't maintain a coalition of parties big enough to run the government.
No, the idea of Parliament and ministers is too old-fashioned. It's a holdover from when all governments were monarchies–something else of Europe's we don't need in this country!
I ca't tell if you are joking. The term "Minister" is equal to "Secretary" in many parliamentary systems. There is no "religious" component to being a "Minister of Defense," or "Minister of Health" just like being "Secretary of State" doesn't mean you make the office coffee.
The only real change in D.C. would be to impose TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!
Ur so ryt. My country Nigeria will soon face such challenge by 2017
So we have two basic groups. The democrats who want to give everyone something and the republicans who want to take something from everyone and give it to a few. Pretty different goals. If we don't compromise we're done. A PM won't help because the two groups are so different. And the reality is America is in trouble. A president is still one person and he/she alone can't save it without compromise from everyone.
II agree with you. I say throw them all out and lets start over. Let's put term limits in place to keep the special interest contributions from looking so sweet and have only public funding of campaigns so that your average Joe/Jane can run and not just the wealthy.
Interesting, but I don't think the has been caused by the system of governance, we've seen it work in the past. I believe the system is broken because Republicans and Democrats have a lock on political power. Token 3rd parties have never had a legitimate shot.
I wonder what it would be like if there were no national parties. Imagine state parties creating temporary coalitions to promote national candidates and then disbanding. Political power would be more local and we would actually be able to actually pick the President instead of being forced to choose between the people that the parties had selected.
I no longer believe that voters have the ability to make a difference by getting involved and voting. The parties have become too powerful. In order to make a difference you have to work FOR the party and meet their standards. The best a third party has been able to do since the primary system was put into place was to sway an election between the two main candidates. And that's questionable.
There really isn't much difference between the Republicans and Democrats except their token nods to differing social policies.
No it just needs to get rid of the dictator is has now in the White House.
Really? I can understand him getting almost all of what he wanted in the Health Care Package, but I dont think the recent deal was close to what he wanted. If he was dictator then taxes would have been raised on the top earners. Why does everyone go for the most extreme when describing someone? When they do go to the extreme their name calling is almost always inacurate. Hes not a dictator hes a legally elected official with certain powers and limits.
If we have a PM, and a President, the PM would be the head of the Govt, while the President is the head all 51 states right? so, what do you think this would create a smoother govt to function? More like, it creates more red tape, everything is screwed up as it is already. It makes more sense to have one world leader and one world currency. With the stock market and the economy, this is what ties up all countries together. If something econonimcally bad happens to one country, it affects the rest of the world.
Bull squeeze, I don't give a damn what any Yale perfesser has to say. Parliamentary systems are inferior and much less stable, governments can fail anytime, or never be settled! What hooey. Our founders knew that in 1787, and Europe is a model on how NOT to do things. CNN and Fareed can go to communist hell as far as I'm concerned.
Our founders may have known what to do right, they also had to agree. Just like the debt deal, they had opposition among them and different ideas on what the government should be like. The founders argued, a lot, and when they did agree many were still upset with what they had created even though it was the best they could do at the time. The founders were people, not psychics. What our founders knew was only what they knew then. Knowledge changes with time.
Yes, the United States of America has problems. But, don't forget for one minute that our current and only form of governement has built the greatest nation in the world. There is not any other form of governement that matches our system of checks and balances. To Paraphase a past Senator "Democracy is the worst for of governement in the worlk, except for all the rest". I'll take my chances with our three branch system! we have always resolved our problems and we will resolve our current issues as well!
America DOES NOT need a prime minister. America needs an AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
Better yet – America needs a people who will take take the blinders off and quit stuffing stupid pills down their throats. YOU HAVE and AMERICAN PRESIDENT. It is you who choose to deny facts and hold on tightly to insanity!
This professor has not a clue what he is talking about. In a parliamentary system of govt., most of the time prime minister spends trying to keep his majority and most of the time aligns with the a minority party to maintain ruling status. If US had parliamentary system, Republican party in bed with tea party would be ruling the country for ever as members of parliament can be bought out and Republican Party being the protector of corporate wealthy would have enough money to buy out any democrat to change party. It would be a chaos! This guy would be a think-tank of worst kind.
The premise of the argument is flawed:
At this point in time all governments with Parliamentary Governments have a AAA rating. Therefore, Parliamentary Governments cause AAA ratings. (fallacious, post hoc. Correlation does not imply causation)
Counter-proof: At this point in time most governments that do not have AAA ratings are Parliamentary. Therefore, Parliamentary Governments cause less than AAA ratings.
Conclusion: The two don't have anything to do with one another.
Great reply, Rich. It looks like Fareed is selecting his cases on the dependent variable too...
Thanks for applying a little logic to this article. The writer has apparently not!
Why? This is like one of those stats that they throw out at baseball games where the pitcher strikes out 97% of left hand batters when wearing orange socks in a neautral stadium in Texas when the temperature is over 91 degrees F. We have still never defaulted on a loan and we still have a AAA from everyone but S&P. We also don't need another paid government official on the equal of a president. So my question stands.....Why?
Shallow article without any real insights, not up to Fareek's standards. Furthermore, if the only criteria is a AAA rating, OK, but the sovereign debt problems in Europe do not support Faerek's conclusions.
Fareed simply wants the US to adopt India's style of government. He is a true patriot of India, and he blatantly puts India's interests ahead of the US'. Since our interests often coincide with India's, this isn't usually a problem, but whenever our interests don't coincide, he will always favor India. He is clearly Indian first, and an American second.
Priminister is not the answer...We need to pass legislation that requires congressmen and senators to vote on policy/laws and decisions based on the outcome of sterile/transparent surveys rountinely conducted with a demographically correct sample of America. Americans should also be provided free access to the information necessary to formulate opinions based on relevant data to subject matter and not media scare tactics. Of course parameters for determining what, when, where, and how these polls would be conducted would be required. Because technology is reasonably cost efficient and very fast, this process should save time, money, be more representative of the real opinions of Americans, and eliminate the financial influence of big business through lobbiests. This approach would help take the politics out of washington and put it in the hands of the people, where it belongs. Once such a process is in place, the right questions can be asked and answered to get the government back on track to becoming a AAA rated democracy.
It takes the modern American to destroy a divinely inspired system of Gov't. We squabble stupidly and vote away our liberty.
Divinely inspired? Are you kidding me? Where does it say America in the Bible? Book, chapter and verse please. Need I mention that many of the founding fathers were Atheists or Free Masons? Your probably from the south and it said so in your text books so it must be true. Try using different sources than your erroneous and antiquated grade school books for your information. Good luck with that pal.
The solution is a return to god inspired morality and self control. Otherwise we fail.
Don't look now, Mrs. Clinton, I think Fareed here is making light of your position in the rank of things...
Somebody please slap this loser. I would but I am nowhere near him.
No need to change the system. Change the individuals. The system works well when the parts are dependable.
Our president and most of Congress are inept, distracted by personal political ambition and not at all interested in serving the people. Obama might, if he knew how, but he really dislikes what made America great. Congress needs to be fully replaced. Our tools to fix the problems are coming up next Nov.
No,we do not need a prime minister. The problem is not within the executive branch of government nor in the judicial branch. It lies firmly in the legislative branch. While I would prefer a more liberal Supreme Court I can accept the one we have. While I would Prefer a less pragmatic president I can live with the one we have. What I loathe and cannot accept is legislative branch of government that has demonstrated its preference for ideology in an attempt to assure election over the good of the people. Democrat and republican alike in Congress are prove self-interested pols. Maybe we need a parliament.
America had the equivilancy of a majority government (which is in a parliamentary system) under George W. Bush when the GOP had the majority of Congress and also under Barack Obama for his first two years. How'd those work out? Checks and balances do work for a reason and while Congress and the President might be unpopular now, they will be forced to cowork in order to keep their jobs! How did the budget get balanced under Bill Clinton? He couldn't have everything he wanted because he needed to work with a GOP Congress-like it or not, a balance of power is better for the country.
Can we strip this guy of his citzenship and ship back to his country of orgin. What a loser
Being patriotic to the US is not a requirement for living here, but CNN doesn't need to give a platform to someone who clearly puts another country's interest ahead of the US'. It's obvious Fareed considers India's political system superior to the US', and he only became an American to advance India's interests.
If Fareed Zakaria doesn't believe in the fundamental structure of the US government, he can always move back to India, which has the parliamentary system he considers so superior to the American system. It's obvious that Fareed Zakaria is an Indian patriot. He not only wants to influence US foreign policy to favor India over every other country, he seems to expect the US to adopt India's political system. Fareed seems like an intelligent guy, but he clearly puts India's interests ahead of the US'.
Wrong.
Are you really that resistant to ideas from outside the US? There's nothing wrong with looking around the world at what others are doing, and taking good ideas wherever we find them. Fareed has a point about our current state of paralysis. Wouldn't you like to solve the problem?
It's a pretty tall illogical leap to think that America's recent downgrade in economic status in the world is a result of the Presidential system. I don't know where the writer was getting their information from.
However, I will offer one simpler solution to redoing the entire system - change the election system so that you DON'T HAVE AN ELECTION every 2 years. This constant bickering and political brinkmanship that came to a head would have a bit of a chance to cool down if the Congress/Senate/President elections all lined up in one year. At least you would have more opportunity to actually govern instead of spending so much time politicing. The system as set up now is all about competing ideals and less actual time on the process.
What we need is for people to understand is the winner takes all, just like in poker which is not a game for poor losers. In our political systems the losers keep trying to win when the election is over and the people have spoken.
In a few years, the top economic system in the World will be authoritarian capitalism, not democratic capitalism, or even Parlimenary/democratic capitalism. What the tea party did was a form of authoritarian capitalism. Economist predicted that authoritarian capitalism, or China, would be the top economic system in the World in 15 years, but that was awhile ago, and we have had a World wide recession, which didn't particularily include China. So it might be sooner than 15 years, maybe more like 5 to 10 years, or within the next Presidential Administration. Given our continued use of the proven failed supply side economics, it might be even sooner, and we might end up a lot lower than 3rd place. What we should be looking at is some form of authoritarian capitalism, as it is apparent that our form of capitalism is not working. We really have no government, Congress has nullified itself, that nullifies the Executive Branch, the Judicial still works, but they have little to do with the economy. There's not much hope in elections, those are usually about absolutely nothing, neither side has a plan, or a solution, to the problem of needing 20 million good jobs, both just have campaign jingles, Obama has some sort of minor plan for maybe half a million jobs, when we need 20+ million good jobs, and the republican have nothing, other than to continue with the supply side economics of every President since Reagan, all the stuff that is a proven failure, hence all the economic problems now. We should look at some plan, perhaps authoritarian capitalism, anything that would make it all one way, as capitalism requires. There really no such thing as a little of this and a little of that, in capitalism. Capitalism is absolute, and only reacts to facts, not political propaganda, and duping, it only needs the facts to do what it does. Essentially, you go one way of the other, either it's supply side, all the way, as republican want, or it's Keynes all the way, as some democrats want, not specifically Obama, who is a dab of this, a dab of that, some kind of goofy compromiser, on things that are absolute. You can compromise on some things, but on capitalism, you go all the way one way or the other, this and that leads to economic ruin. You need absolute authority on capitalism, the economy, a compromiser won't do. If you're wrong, you will pay the price, if you're right, you're going to be smelling like a rose, but that's the way it is with capitalism, absolute, no half way stuff. Capitalism is risk, capitalism is absolute. If you don't know capitalism, you don't have any business in government, making policy, or putting trillions on the line. That was shown just a few days ago, as the economic illiterates caused the loss of trillions, in just a few days, Worldwide, then never understood what they did. It's really not about jingles, if you hear jingles, you know darn well that jingler doesn't know a darn thing about capitalism, their main job in a democratic capitalism State.
Breaking your comment into paragraphs might make it readable.
"Remember, the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling is actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature. There could not be a public spectacle of the two branches of government squabbling and holding the country hostage"
This shows a stunning lack of understanding of parliamentary systems. In parliamentary systems, governments are very often formed from a coalition of political parties, and those parties that are part of the coalition government don't always see eye-to-eye on important issues. This is why you hear about governments "falling" or votes of no confidence bringing down a government. So, to say the political battle around the debt ceiling would be "impossible" in a parliamentary system is ridiculous.
Maybe we just need to formalize the pending Monarchy in the US
We need a Prime Minister like we need some Paki telling us how to live our lives and govern ourselves.
AlohaBetty – you don't have any good points to make against his arguement so you opt instead to make a ignorant racist remark.
The world would be a better place without racists.
By all means lets have a prime minister. In fact, the prime minister should be chosen from a South Dakota elected official in D.C. because they are experts at 'looking down their noses' at voters!
Good article. "Paralysis by Anaysis". That's us.
While I think that a Westminster-style Parliamentary government is the best way to go, America has always proudly held up its system of checks and balances designed to stifle any government over-reaching as the model most conducive to freedom. It would be stupid to change it now, after so many years of success, just because of a little economic trouble that really is affecting the whole global economy, not just America. It'll be a cold day in hell before America changes that.
Fareed, please leave the US and never come back.
Fareed, I'm really glad you're here.
Yeah! That'll teach him! How dare someone share their thoughts! If you don't agree with them, they must leave the country!
It really hurts the spirit of America when half or slightly less believe
the names they call the American people. If you are reading this,
Listen, they've got you right where they want you. They want you to
paint the Tea Party and the right with a broad brush and peg them into
something to hate. In reality we are true Americans just like you are.
You personally know many of us and you don't even know it. People when
face to face with, you get along with just fine. But no, you got sucked
into watching the bias news that showed only the wackos that every group
has and you believed everyone was like that. They pegged you didn't
you?
You fell for the whole shebang!
All the Tea Party movement
is, we are trying to wrestle with the entrenched politicians that you
are trusting your future with to remember the people and not themselves.
Both parties are not safe. They are out of control and out of step, are they not? They
don't listen, do they? They keep taking and taking, don't they? They keep
spending and spending with-out limits. Both parties, lets keep it real.
So
open your eyes and realize that millions of Americans want nothing more
than a Strong, proud, prosperous nation that everyone benefits from.
You're hate has been programed into you and you may never realize it. It
is sad they did this to you
NO PARTY CAN SAVE US!
One benefit of a parliamentary system that has not been mentioned is that the Prime Minister has to answer questions from anyone in Parliament. So during the official "Question Period" the Prime Minister has to be able to think on his feet and answer what are often very pointed questions from the members of the Opposition.
Someone like George W Bush would have had a tough time in a parliamentary system...
are they allowed to use a teleprompter?
No. During Question Period the responses are unscripted. Essentially, Question Period is a debate. The Opposition asks a question and the person to whom the question is directed _must_ provide an response on the spot.
Obama and Bush would both be great for this role. They can both churn out garbage quickly.
Checks + balances vs. effectiveness is a long-standing debate here. A multi-party system maybe makes parliamentarianism less dispensible. But this culture is so varied and the mindset so individualistic, that we can't effectively express all the points of view in a score of parties, so we have two fairly amorphous globs called Dems and Reps and 40% of the country that's effectively independent... I voted for Gore, then Bush, then Obama, don't like abortion, support healthcare reform, but wished we'd had more tort reform, live green, supported Iraq,... I'm average. You can't pin me down. That's the real reason we're slow to make up our minds. We don't like leaders to make them up for us. The system is slower to react, but gets it right in the long run.
One legislative body with congressmen (or MPs). No senate, no president. Elections every 4 years. Basically, its Canada. (OK, Canada has a senate, but it's pretty much a ceremonial, rubber-stamp chamber that ought to be abolished). Put major items to a binding national referendum. Probably as simple as it can get, and fewer elections to constantly distract us.
No. We just need to redo the political system. As in 1 or 3 political parties.
Deadlock is not desirable for a country. The President should have limited legislative powers by which he can promulgate an ordinance which will take immediate effect from the date of signing the order and will be valid for a limited period of say, 90 days or 180 days by extension. It should be brought before the House or the Senate for ratification within the said period, debated and get passed. If within the said period if the Ordinance is not ratified, then it should be allowed to expire or extended up to the maximum allowed period only.
he forgets to mention that parliaments have many factions represented and each party needs to "fuse" with others to create a majority otherwise there is no stability ... historically, it is America's system built on the foundations of Christian/Judeo wisdom that is the most stable ... and only becomes unstable the more diversity of beliefs undermine our founding fathers' system.
There are ways to get around this. Parliamentary governments write laws to ensure that in order to win a seat, a party must represent a certain proportion of the population. This helps ensure that parliament is not made op of tiny factions which results in deadlock.
There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian wisdom. Christians have never leaved peacefully with Jews until after the Holocaust. There was not a single American of Jewish descent amongst the Founding Fathers. And given their milieu, it is doubtful they had any positive opinions about Judaism.
The de-facto two party system is to blame. It forces Americans to think in black and white terms. There is no empathy in dichotomous thinking; the "other" is always demonized. How can there be democracy without empathy?
Whats ironic is that very little separates Democrats and Republicans. The only winner in American's current system are interest groups. It's easier to control only two parties, especially when the public is duped into thinking they are irreconcilable opposites.
The hubris of mankind knows no bounds.
OH..... MY......GOD.... fareed...
We get it already.
You're a socialist.
Please go away.
When the general populace in the US throws the word "Socialist" around, all they are doing is showing how ignorant they are. When Republicans and Tea Baggers use the word "socialist," they are doing it to incite hatred because they know that Americans don't really know what it is.
Go ask your parents to give up their social security in retirement, and to give up any Medicare benefits so that they have to pay out of their own pocket because those two things are "socialist" benefits.
When the Republicans and the Tea Baggers accuse Obama of "over spending," they are again, inciting hatred. The "over spending" that is going on is _structural_ spending, _Discretionary_ spending, i.e. money that Obama can spend towards initiatives that he wishes, is tiny. The vast amount of spending that is draining the US coffers is social security, medicare and medicaid (and the military). But the amounts that are set for those 3 initiatives is determined by federal law, which is why they are "structural expenses"–and they are laws that have been in place for decades prior to Obama.
So when the Republicans or Tea Baggers accuse Obama of wasteful spending, they are lying about the truth.
Prime Minister of democratic country with majority support may be good if good & progressive minded. It is a human failing that power corrupts.Democracy with PM too is not very successful. Look at India with PM MMS it is doing well. But other political parties are jealous of it despite their own failure in their state rule for decades & with zero development & just corruption & building their vote bank with grass root strength of organization.Nothing is required to be rigid, it has to dynamic to cope with situation & aspiration of people of country.Democratic system is still under trial & evolving. So far US Democracy was in highest esteems with Presidential form with checks & balance of seperation of power. But current stalemate is just political vengiance with under current of bias which is legally incorrect. But correction factor takes long time & has to be long for stability of a country like America more so with diversity. Even PM has take his cabinet in cinfidence for unilateral decisions but any premature leak of discussion to media or public is weakest point in democracy if leaders & representatives are not self discilipned. There could be a Commission for Democracy norms to keep its real strength & empowerment of President to take his own decisions in case of country interests threatened by divergence or staslemate. But there is no gurantee that President will be genious as he is supported by political party in majoruty with opposition being a check & balce in the governance its self.However budget, balance, deficit & war powers must be vested in President in case of people interests not body interests.
Sure. Socialism is working so well for the United Kingdom and all of the other European countries!
Better socialism than a rapacious plutocracy my friend. Go ahead and bash socialism (or your very limited comprehension of it). Of course all countries with mixed economies fair better than the USA in terms of lower crime, innovation, the general health of the population and distribution of wealth. But hey! I know that won’t cut it in the USA: having 5 jobs, no pension, no affordable tuitions and no health care is much better. That’s patriotic and productive…
I’m amazed how articles such as this latest one trigger all sorts of responses… Happy to see that religion is not part of this thread yet. There’s nothing worse than libertarian individuals promoting pure market economy with religion in the backdrop… or would that be the Tea Party?
Second opinion piece like this here on CNN.com... "We need a more powerful leader to save us from the ineffectual leadership we have now"... similar calls were heard across late 20's Germany too. Would any of you have wanted Bush to have even greater authority while he was in office?? Any power you give to Democrats... Republicans will have in the next cycle and visversa. And besides, it's pretty asenine to believe that the solution to government caused problems would be stronger, more authoritarian, government... our governemnt already claims the right to regulate your every action (think about it, what did you legally do today that isn't regulated??), assasinate americans, indefinately inprison, torture, rendition, spy-search-grope...etc... tax you thru inflation, tax you in death.... how much more powerful could it be?
Go back to India
Our system was designed this way, with "checks and BALANCE". It may be slow, but it is a truer indicator of the people than a Parliament.
give me a break!
With all due respect, perhaps you need to emigrate BACK to your country of origin.
Your agenda is clear: to disparage, bring down and denigrate this democratic republic. We are and will ALWAYS be the best country in the world.
I think Fareed Zakaria demonstrates the fact that by not growing up in the US he did not receive the simple lessons in Civics about the benefits of Checks and Balances. He is a brilliant man, but he fails to understand what most Americans simply have in our civic DNA.
The American "Ship of Stae" is slow to make major decisions and is slow to make a major change of course by design. Checks and Balances specifically exist to keep the Executive and Legislative function act ADVERSARILY towards each other. This allow for the type of battles where politicians, lobbyists and special interests come together to come up with a solution. It has always been ugly. It is just that we now see this on cable television. People react negatively to it today just as they did to the first televised war (Vietnam).
This ugliness and hesitancy in reaching policy decisions is different from the parliamentary system because it was designed to be different.
In the end and after some time, our government will come up with a solution to the fiscal "crisis". Getting there will be ugly, take a long time, and the process will receive criticism from abroad. However, the solution will be FAR SUPERIOR than if it was developed in a Parliamentary system by a handful of people with a great deal of unchecked power.
parliaments have done so well in europe. look at the swell job they done with london LOL
Yes, Europe is doing so well, they are having no financial problems at all, right! Give me a break. The only way the US is going to get out of this financial mess is to get Obama out of office and republican majority in the Senate.
shut up fareed. this is not India. You are in America. Stop pushing your filthy Indian system on us.
Racist idiot!! Argue the points, not the race or country of origin!
John Adams biggest fear was a two party system in gridlock. I think going to a Parliment is an exellent idea one that I've had for a while. All the ignorent people in this country would probably be scared, but I say let's do it. What we have now is a lame and inefective system which dosen't accomplish much.
You're free to leave if our system is so terrible.
Change it? Over our dead bodies. And we're the "rightwing nuts" who own all the guns and make up 99% of the armed forces. Let us know how that works out for you...
The real problem in this country is the two-party monopoly. They bicker during the elections and then once they're in office, they team up to screw us all. We will not see change until people start electing third party candidates.
You're a fool. The damage is done, and no party can fix that.
Yeah MC lame system huh, its only been the envy of the World for quite some time now. You can always move
As I know a moderator will see this, pass it on – I will no longer do business with any of your advertisers and will no longer use cnn.com – yes, I will take the time to let all of your advertisers know as well – Fareed Zakaria is an abomination of real journalism, an anti American Zealot, and does not deserve to be associated with this fine country in any way. In case you haven't noticed you are losing viewership because of him – I honestly believe that he is guilty of sedition and will be forwarding that idea to attorney generals all over the country – not the US Attorney General of course since he is no better than Fareed Zakaria himself.
BYE BYE.
Yes, that's very American: "If you don't agree with me, then you must be unAmerican." And "I don't need to be aware of what else goes on in the world. Ignorance is better than awareness."
You probably already know this, but you should really seek professional help. I mean psychiatrists, not lawyers. No kidding.
Take a deep breath. Count to ten. And then ask yourself why you're emotional at reading someone's opinion. Chances are you don't feel you can put you feelings into an argument, so you just blurt out something stupid instead. Please don't procreate.
It took over two centuries, but greed and power finally figured a way to destroy our "perfect experiment". Fortunately, there is an escape clause. Unfortunately, we need the wisdom of our forefathers to start over. What we have is a bunch of pandering, greedy, corrupt, less-than-intelligent, voodoo-worshippers. It doesn't look any better for a reboot.
What a bunch of whiners. As for this fareed idiot; he is propped up by CNN to spew stupidity.
Lets see: how well has the parliamentary system done in Italy, Greece, Portugal, etc where they have huge problems that the parliamentary system allowed to keep building. Grid lock can occurr in any country; look at Israel where tiny parties cause huge problems because the two main parties are so close in power. That is a huge problem that can hit any parliamentary system and does. England has two main parties; there is no real difference in how that system of government works then ours does.
The comments of so many in this thread are pathetic. If the US is so bad to live in, why are we still the number one goal of any group of people wanting to leave their own country; throughout the world?
No, the US is not the number one goal of people who want to leave their own country. It just has the biggest press exposure.
I really think website moderators need to be nonpartisan and punish users who do not make worthwhile, thoughtful posts. Venting should not be allowed unless it has an attempt to makecacworthwhile solution.
The average American is too stupid and undereducated to vote in a European system. The Founding Fathers knew that and invented an electorate to keep the average baboon in check.
The reason why we are screwed today is because too many average Joes are elected for Congress. That's why Bachmann and Perry are so high and nighty. They talk the same utter nonsense the common ignoramus speak. Thus they vote for other ignoramuses.
We simply need more intelligent and educated people on Capitol Hill. And we need to start educating the American sheeple so that if we one day introduce a system with majority voting – mob rule – we don't need to listen in disbelief to all the hillbillies this country is so inundated with.
AND so that maybe more than friggin' 15% of our American bigots would know in the World the Iraq is we have been at war with since 9/11!!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
Jeezzzz.....
The founding fathers also required registered voters to be landowners. Maybe we need to pass a test before we can register to vote!
Hi All This is to let you know that a revolution is happening in India as we speak. Its VERY strange American media is not covering it at all.The fight there is against corruption and the uniqueness about it is just one old man of 79 years is bringing down the government.His ways are to protest with non violence A TRUE GANDHIAN and tens of thousands of crowd are following him.Not a single stone has been thrown.Please read more on http://www.timesofindia.com THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS FIGHT FOR INDIANS AGAINST CORRUPTION.
In Zacharia's home country, India, the parliamentary system failed miserably for almost thirty years. But presumably Zacaria still has a fondness for Indian socialism and thinks that India can teach the US a thing or two about how to run a country. But remember that India has millions upon millions of people living in the streets. And is not a good model for the US to follow.
Though US had millions and millions of people living in the streets......
Fareed Zakaria you are an idiot...you need to go back to INDIA and leave America to the Americans...how CNN ever put you on in a total mystery.
He is there because of idiots like you who can't articulate and contribute in a professional way to a healthy discussion.
Zakaria is a naturalized American citizen. Unless you are a Native American he's as American as you are!
Well, I *am* a "Native American."
I was born here.
My parents were born here, and their parents, and their parents before them.
My family has poured our gallons of sweat-and blood-for this country.
And there's no way in helll we're going to let some jackhole who stumbled off an airliner a few years ago tamper with our homeland.
Take your white guilt and cram it someplace uncomfortable and foul-smelling.
This dude sounds like a traitor.
The change from dictatorship, to republic, then principate/parliament, and finally the collapse of Rome. History attempting to repeat itself. Stay at republic, or be doomed to repeat history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic
The premise of your headline is flawed. We don't have a presidential system, we have a government of checks and balances. The problem is that there is enough blame for all three parts to blame. If we had a congress that earned a 80 percent approval rating... that would be nice... or a President that could do that. A novel concept if someday we could have both. Maybe courts that ruled on cases with temperance and thought instead of favoring who ever can put more dollar bills on the scale of justice... I think lady justice peaks at what kind of bills people put on them.
Parliamentary system or not, republicans have reason to worry after less than 1 year of returning to Washington: first, most polls show every candidate they've produced losing to Obama. Next, their reactionary extremism is creating a massive American backlash, and the poll that Gallup published Friday ought to concern Republicans. It shows a 7-point Democratic advantage on the generic Congressional ballot — meaning simply that more Americans told Gallup they plan to vote for a Democrat for Congress next year. Although the generic ballot is a crude measure, it is probably the best macro-level indicator of the direction that the House is headed in. Last year, Republicans won the popular vote for the U.S. House — essentially what the generic ballot is trying to measure — by 7 percentage points. So a poll showing Democrats 7 points ahead instead is a pretty significant swing.
The tide is turning; it only took less than 1 year this time for Americans to hate the Republican party once more.
Amen to all those fellow Texans of mine calling Perry the Blow Hard Hypocrite that he is. If it's possible to be worse than Bush, Perry is that possibility. He is stupid, vain, venal, vengeful, ignorant, arrogant...well, enough of his virtues! But I for one fear not about him becoming prez, rigged elections or no. That bozo's got so many skeletons in his closet he could open up a Halloween costume shop in his spare time. Once he opens his mouth in the debates to come, the same debates he refused to participate in while guv'nah of Texas, his incompetence and idiocy will exposed for all to see. Oh! Wait! i forgot! Those are exactly the traits the TeaBaggers worship.
The executive controls the legislative? So whatever side gets elected gets their way until they're voted out? America had eight years of Bush's "my way or the highway." The big problem with America politically, is that it's a two-party system, where one has been hijacked by an extreme off-shoot of their group If the Tea Party is real, then they should show courage and run as the Tea Party, and not as the GOP. I'm all for other parties. Just run as your party. There is enough non-GOPers and non-Dems to win an election. Why not start a party totally dedicated to the preservation of the middle class? What a concept. Right now, the Dems are much closer to that then the GOP.
Not so sure parliamentary systems work one bit better, if the UK is any indicator.
Let's review stability here shall we. The UK's prime ministers have presided over the breakup of its empire and its diminishing influence; France is on its way to its sixth republic in the time we've been on our first; Russia's power system is defined by whatever office Putin holds; And Germany, Italy and Spain are only two generations out from Facism.
One system offers the best opportunity to act "decisively and quickly" and that is a dictatorship. SInce that invariably leads to oppression, I choose an equitable system with checks and balances. Long live the Republic!
I'm shocked at some of the hateful messages being directed at Mr. Zakaria. It's a reflection on the poor level of education and culture in this country that so many of us can't stand to hear an idea about reforming American politics from a foreign-born person. What a sad, insular, reactionary lot we are.
has nothing to do with poor education. actually it proves how good American education is. people are so well indoctrinated that they cant stand a different form of government, exactly how the current government p0lanned it all along. not that this is a bad thing, all countries do a similar indoctrination plan.
The objective of the American system is to ensure that there is an unresolved contest over the use of soverign power. The objective of a Parliament is to foster debate aimed at accountability by the elected majority. Both systems allow the least informed voters in the middle to determine outcomes. If a nation invests in making it's citizens as well informed as possible contests for power will be the least disruptive. The problem for America is that it has chosen a system that creates more contests for power than others and thus it needs to invest the most in informing its citizens. Without leading the world in education of its poorest it is a risk for America to bet all on the wisdom of its citizens.
Betting all on the wisdom of citizens
The US separation and balance of powers is superior. It does not encourage power to be concentrated in the hands of one person, even though GWB attempted to do so. The US situation is an inspiration to countries in the middle-east fighting for democracy. The US situation makes them realise that political civil war is better in that a civil war can be fought without bloodshed. Well, actually the only bloodshed is the decision to send our sons and daughters to die in wars of no benefit to our country
Take away this avenue to express our disagreements, take away the avenue to hurt ourselves civilly, the country would disintegrate under the pressure of political implosion. Take away this system, the Arab world would lose its inspiration and motivation for democracy. They would look at Pakistan and Italy and say - is that the kind of political machinery we would want for our countries?
Ideally, I think what you are saying in terms of balance of power is true. Unfortunately the US electorial system seems to be more of an election of "cult of personality" than an election of issues (why else would Perry accuse Bernanke of "treason" or Cain now say Obama should be "impeached over Don't Ask/Don't Tell and healthcare reform").
In a parliamentary system, the public elects the _party_, not a leader. You are voting for the party and therefore you are more interested in the issues that the party represents rather than the person who leads the party. That is why the party leader can remain the official head of the Opposition for many terms even if s/he is never elected Prime Minister.
The prime minister of Italy is truly a character, by and of himself - and that was what the Italians voted him for, not for his party. IDEALLY they voted for his party but in reality they voted for the european cowboy.
actually, that has more to do with the voting system, at least in Italy. See Maurice Duverger.
Fareed Zakaria is a complete tard. Why is he not working for msnbc?
Because America is full of dumbs like you who can't fill Zakaria's spot.
Fareed Zakaria's article is ridiculous. His arguments are thoughtless and idiotic. Which economy is the largest in the world? Which economy gives more to other countries when they have a major disaster?
The parlamentary system approach to government limits growth. If you really believe this Fareed, vote with your feet and leave this country.
I will never listen, read or watch anything from him again. I will simply turn the channel to another news program.
Good bye.
...and then Michael stomped his foot and walked away.
Yes, the parliamentary system works so much better. That's why Britain is bankrupt and throngs are rioting in the streets. Idiot!
Zakaria's editorial has to do with overcoming political deadlock.
People in Britain are rioting because the police shot an unarmed man.
The two things have nothing to do with each other.
The USA is destined to experience ever-increasing growing pains and whether they survive without decaying into civil war depends on how long it takes them to wake up and see that the path they are one is futile, self-destructive, and leads nowhere.
Canada has a Prime Minister – we are AAA - our buck is worth more than the US buck – we have a Queen (Elizabeth) which means nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead. I see US cars at clinics here all the time, – why is that?
Our country is well run, and if the gov't is not doing the job, the opposition gangs up and kicks them out. It just happened here not too long ago. Now they have a majority gov't and screw the rest of the world we are doing great and will continue to do so. We are not the only ones. It looks like the US can't see the forest for the trees. Fix your problems and stop worrying about the other countries that have none. See Ya!!!
Why bother supporting ANY political party? It took me 14 years (I'm 17 now) to see how governments are stalling the inevitable outcome of every country: Anarchy. We, the people, are the true rulers of our homelands. NOT politicians or corporations who make our lives harder than it needs to be. Don't deny it. Embrace Anarchy.
Embrace Anarchy? You have no clue what you are asking for. But then you are 17 and proclaiming "I'm not dead yet". You have LIVED yet. Churchill was no slouch when he said that if you are young and conservative, you have no heart, but if you are old and liberal (reach anarchist) you have no head. You're too young to go spouting such nonsense.
My eyes are open. Are yours?
You're blogging on CNN. Keep your eyes open and read a book about how Ted Turner turned this business into a powerhouse and made millions of $ off it.
And after you buy your first home, remember that anarchy is a great concept until a greater anarchist comes along and burns the building down for you. They may think you sold out and deserve to be punished.
Fareed,
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the idea that parliamentary systems are more "stable". I certainly understand that these systems can leader to quick and more decisive action. However, what about when no party has the clear majority? History has shown that it is not always easy to build a "coalition". Parliamentary systems often use proportional representation, allowing small fringe parties to form in parliaments, something that rarely happens in America's "winner-take-all" system. Fringe groups have to gain enough support to start influencing America's major parties in order to have an impact.
To be candid, despite the extra "stability" that you mention, many European countries seem more unstable (fiscally speaking) than ever. I know much of this is spillover from the financial crisis and that because single member-states canon control the entire EU, but it has been two years since the financial and the situation in Europe is not exactly improving.
A failed parliamentary system is what led to the rise of Hitler, with radical fringe parties gaining more representation and the failure of coalitions to form. While nothing like this is going to happen in modern Europe, I'm not sure that parliamentary systems have developed the ability to overcome these structural problems in times of certain crises.
Yes, very, very few "fringe" would be in parliament but it much better than US system, where moderate members of both parties are always hostages of their own fringe.
Sure, I would say that most of the time, fringe parties will be small, but a few members from every fringe groups can add up. Also how would you address the issue of coalitions? It is not always easy to form them and sometimes they are very fragile even when formed. I suppose you just have to continue to hope that they always remain as stable as they have been over the past few decades.
You don't have to have proportional representation in a parliamentary system. A 'first past the post' system means who ever gets the most votes is awarded the majority of seats, and therefore a clear majority. This system has worked effectively in many countries, with fringe groups getting little or no power.
While proportional representation can allow for difficult coalitions, it has worked effectively in my country of New Zealand for ten years with all sections of the public effectively represented. One of the two major parties are always in power, supported by one or two minor parties.
Time to question Farhud Zakaria's sanity.
Fareed, sometimes you say foolish things. Deadlocks occur in parliamentary systems too as long as a MAJORITY does not agree on the policy. That is the basic issue. So what you are saying is BS. I lived in Germany, and they have deadlocks all the time too.
Bad idea. America is the world leader – maybe others should drop their parliament and copy us.
Why everybody is talking only about America ? Most of presidential systems are third world semi-dictatorships and almost all industrial democracies are parlamentary.
Fareed really seems to hate America.
Parliamentary systems really do not work, certainly not in the UK or Italy, where party control can swing with the wind, brusing the abilty of the brave. I must diaagree with my favorite CNN commentator. While it is true the tea party acted like children, it is very important to allow the citizens to vote for the nation's leader, not the politicos in Congress. Further, they are often children, acting on emotional impulse. Say what you like about Obama's policies, he is a thoughtful adult in a sandbox of kids. We also need a President who can veto. Forget Parliaments. We dumped that bad idea in the American Revolution.
Parliament? No way. Not a fan.
We had (well, the 13 British Colonies had) a Parliament in London. It did not work well and that led to the unpleasantness with his late majesty, George III, in 1776 and again in 1812. I don't think we are ready to try that system again.
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature and several states have cabinets in the executive branch. I don't know that any of these approach perfection.
being envied by other countries is a wishful thinking. we're too proud of how we express our freedom yet it is the very reason that's bringing is down fast. just reading posts here makes me feel more hopeless... only cooperation will get us through these tough times and cooperation is impossible, therefore, failure is inevitable
that's incredibly depressing. i do think that one chooses to be pessimistic or optimistic; i think you are drowing in pessimism and likely to create that which you fear.
Our system is better than a Parliament. We fought a war to have a system of government new to the world. Its been successful for years and will be again.
If that system works so well, please name me ONE other country than US where it works !!!! No, there is no such country, because all of them are corrupt and dirt poor third world.
Most repulsive suggestion I've ever heard. Why not adopt their king and queen while we are at it? Burn the Declaration of Independence and tell them it was a mistake and we are sorry?
A few comments from an Australian.
First, every democratic system of government has problems from time to time, and no system of rules and checks and balances will stop this.
I see people getting very angry about politics, but I always try to take the longer view and see the bigger picture. For all the issues, the citizens of western democracies are a LOT better off than most of the rest of the world. Certainly there are issues and details to work out, but at least you are not in Ethiopia or Somalia.
This debate is relevant to me as there have been discussions here about becoming a Republic and changing our Governor General (government appointed representative of the Queen) with a President. I have no problem with that in principal, as long as the President remains an appointed ceremonial postion. Having a directly elected President is, I think , less than ideal as you are potentially putting a great deal of power in the hands of one person. I prefer the natural checks imposed by having a Prime Minister who is the leader of the dominant party. The PM is therefore more accountable and can be removed at any time by Parliament.
Just my 2 cents.
Where do they find these guys from???????? Do they just wake up one day and say, you know, the American system sucks, lets get back to our English roots?
While I am still considering the wisdom of a parliamentary system, i do have an opinion about the house and senate. Every elected official could be limited to ONE six year term. This way they actually go to DC to WORK and not campaign for re election the day after they win. The terms could also be staggered so that they dont campaign for a seat in the other place before they leave their current position. Imagine. All the House in 2012. All the Senate in 2014. The President in 2016. The House again in 2018. and so on and so on. It could be like political olympics!
Parliamentary system has its own drawbacks. In a multi-party system, few parties can create an alliance and elect a person as PM whose name we never heard of. Americans can never accept that. Any feud in the alliance will create instability. Corrupt tactics (a.k.a lobbying in America) will be used in getting PM elected and ejected. What we are seeing in USA racism at its worst, nothing else.
I strongly disagree with this. Our government is made so that there is a system of checks and balances. A parliamentary system basically fuses the legislative and the executive branch into one. And as a nation like the United States, that would give too much power to the government. With a parliamentary system the majority party is always in control. I support Obama as a president but if something like the 2010 midterm elections happened in a parliamentary system, he would be out of power and there would be a republican "Prime Minister."
HA!!! Parliament would be no less political or log jammed – and the media needs to get over its lack of news in order to dig stuff like this up....what a crock. Remember the 1950's and 1960's you idiots???????????
I'll tell you the real problem in America – THE CABLE NEWS MEDIA!!!!
Having the Executive control the Legislature undermines the importance of checks and balances. Yes, our system of government may, as you say, "invite struggle," but that struggle is a natural byproduct of a nation full of people trying to figure something out. The higher and noble benefit is FREEDOM; by the People, for the People.
I would never wish this on the US. You think partisan politics are bad now? Wait until you end up with 2 extremes, a party can do whatever it wants with a slim majority, or a government that can get nothing done with a minority.
What the world really needs are countries with proportional representative systems to alleviate political extremism.
eg: A small libertarian voice would keep both personal and economic freedoms honest, a place where democrats and republicans never see eye to eye.
Well all the wonderful checks and balances of our system are being disposed of on a daily basis. Supposedly only the congress can declare war but we are boots on the ground in a number of places with no such declaration in place. This new "super congress" just got around the checks and balances associated with debate and filibuster. What is the point? We may as well elect a king or queen.
Ahem....for all those who equate dictatorship and parliament . I give to you Canada. We have a great economy currently, a most excellent currency, a stable and DEMOCRATIC political system. We practice tolerance and have a lot less racial and economic strife. We have so far managed to practice capitalism and also a social welfare system. We try to only fight wars when necessary and as far as I can tell, we get along with the USA and share many many common values with your republic. Oh and the real power in our country is held by our Prime Minister and the elected members of....PARLIAMENT!!!!!! So as much as I admire Americans and their love of freedom..right now I am sorry to say but your political system is very much in need of an overhaul...but then maybe if you drag the entire world into a deep depression the reality might set in. Lets see how things look in 5 years and discuss this again....Id like to read what everyone says then.
Really? A minority government in power for 5 years that accomplished nothing but several elections with the same results, and then the minority of voters (39% of popular vote) captured 53% of the political power?
Only an insane person says this is a good democratic system.
Actually, Canada accomplished a LOT. We were the only G7 country to run up a budget surplus 7 years in a row.
Yawn. Another CNN left wing globalist commentator
Yawn. Another reductionist comment that targets the messenger, and doesn't attempt to debate the issue. If you have nothing to say, don't say it.
Democracy as a system is flawed. I would prefer it if the voting block were restricted to those who pay taxes and those who aren't, well... leeches. Otherwise they'll just vote more benefits for themselves.
That's right, until the pendulum swings so that thems that have don't anymore.
Horrible idea. Think of it this way – you would essentially have the House running the country with they type of person who usually is Speaker as the Prime Minister. Terrible. They tend to be way more extreme than the country as a whole. Popular majorities might be fast to act but they are fickle are fleeting. That is why the founders built the system we have. He fails to mention all the countries with parliamentary systems that are disasters, of which there are plenty. That system is one step from mob rule. A mob is fast alright but not what we need.
You fail to mention the parliamentary successes – UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway... countries that are more similar culturally to America than the parliamentary failures – India, African nations etc.
America needs a big computer that anyone can asking the question to go through a database to find the best answer at would save the taxpayers a lot of money instead of paying politicians that just want to drag their feet they'd seen issues and not being bought and sold by lobbyists corporate donations to give them tax breaks.and information was better regulated we would not have people getting away with stuff that destroys our nation. And the church and state separate.
I have seen CNN pushing this anti-American guy before on Cooper's 360. The guy was totally bashing our system and Cooper just sat there with nothing to say. Why is CNN pushing this stuff? CNN: Do you have some sort of problem with the USA and our form of government? TRAITORS
Well the America is not world. If it is a wonderful system, it should be wonderful in Ukraine, Russia or Mexico too, or in some other country. The presidential vs parliamentary system debate is not about America, it is about the system !!!
In every national election, a very significant number of relatively poor, uneducated white people vote for the Republican Party, i.e., the party of the rich, in every election. Is it any wonder that our system of government is paralyzed by gridlock?
The uniqueness of the American is its three elements of government. The reason it is not working is because many of the participants in the system are venal and corrupted seeking wealth and/or power rather than doing the business of a democratic republic. We need a purificationof the process, we do not need a new process.
For the people arguing against the Healthcare Plan. Have you thought about the fact that we are all required to purchase car insurance except in two states? So why would we not be required to have health insurance? What's more important to you, your car or your health? You tell me.
False analogy. Not everybody has a car so not everybody is required to buy car insurance.
Universal health care makes much more sense.
We have well over 200 years of great success using our system of government.
This is a blip on the radar, nothing more.
I like your books-(Post American World 2.0 in particular)-and respect your intelligence but you are batsh!t crazy on this one.
We need congressional term limits before we need a Prime Minister.
It's great that you are a citizen but if Europe has it right and we are so off course, you should consider relocating in my opinion.
The parliamentary system isn't the problem with Greece and Spain. It's their economics. Many other European countries have a parliamentary system and higher standard of living than the United States... UK, Norway, Germany, Sweden...
They guy who wrote this article is a Soros drone and drinks Soros juice strait from the source....his coooccckkkkk!
Just because FZ says our system is failing does not mean it is. CNN and FZ need to shut up. The world reads what you print. It's not true or accurate.
We have a successful presidential system but WHY NO OTHER SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS IT ?????? Hallooooo ? Why the best system ever only works in US and not in any other country ??
Because when we topple a government, we put in a parliamentary system ... Ever wonder why?
Because the founders of the US had a unique opportunity, a clean slate. They took a long and hard look at the problems of rule by monarchy and they also took a long hard look at what did the Byzantine empire in.
Other forms of democracy are iterative of the systems in place before them.
Dems pushing more and more for being European like..please MOVE to a country you will be happy with and LEAVE THE US ALONE!
And what is wrong with being more like Europeans? Are you saying that Republican and Tea Bagger's emphasis on religion is better? Would a theocracy like what they have in Iran and the Taliban had in Afganistan better serve the American public?
Gotta admit as a Canadian with a Prime Minister i find this all very interesting. Just dont elect Bachman America that is all I ask.
Dems suck
Our system is no longer a democracy (never really was because of the Electoral College) but is fast becoming a plutocracy with corporations and the very wealthy in control. At some point, the middle class will simply disappear, being replaced by a proletariat who labor ceaselessly for their economic masters.
They are talking about getting rid of it...Lets hope they do!
NO! Next question!
Does lust ruin a man and nation?
"That baby is crying incessantly this afternoon, and the bathwater is clearly filthy! What should we do?" ...
"Well, throw 'em both out!"
If Fareed Zahkaria found a giant turd in front of the Louvre, he'd call it a masterpiece. What a fool.
Judging from the London riots, it appears the UK needs a prime minister or at least one with some backbone!
The UK needs to give their 'royal family" the French cure for kings.
Followed by getting a Bill of Rights that actually means something, like the US version, rather than being a mere fiction that Parliament can ignore with 50.01% of its votes.
... and this country became great b/c it did not do what Europe did politically or economically. This obsession by Liberals with rimming the EU's backside is pathologically stupid For lord's sake, the EU is falling apart and this numb-nut is obsessing over the "glories" of the Arch D'Triumphe.
I will answer that question with a question. If America needs a Prime Minister. THEN WHY IS LONDON BURNING, LOL
This comment is so stupid I don't know where to start. Londoners aren't rioting because of their parliamentary system. Some are rioting because a man was killed by the police, others because they are opportunists. If you think America doesn't suffer from riots, your history is appalling.
this guy says the Consitution is antiquated and now the government needs to be replaced. with what? Obama's vision or this guys? The problem is the people, not the concept.
I've seen a few commnets about "Bush's" wars. Is it possible that the arab spring in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran etc is a result? People are seeing how Iraq has so much more freedom and potential now that their dictator is gone - they want that too. I wish Bush were still in charge so he could help these people take advantage of the situation to gain freedom. But instead we have Obama who's missing opportunities or ignoring things. From teh begining, I knew that one of our reasons for going to war, but a reason that couldn't be explained publicly, was to inspire freedom throughout the middle east. Only problem is that radical muslems fear this freedom and how it would hurt their dreams of islamic government, sharia law etc. So they try to fight it. But for the youth, the stage was set in Iraq and has spread to other countries.
Normally I agree with Zakaria but not in this case - parliamentary systems still suffer the same debates about who represents the people, and on many occasions are no more responsive to the needs of the country. Just look at India's system as a prime example of this, or Brazil's. A parliament with countless parties and divisive coalitions rarely gets anything done, and the people get fed-up with that just as much, if not more.
This writer is seething America hatred every time I waste a minute reading his offensive drivel how this system and that system is better than ours....it's not the system, it's the idiot in charge who's muffed it. He was a gargantuan mistake and it's now time to fix it, it's that simple and if coupled with term limits for the bought, paid for and owned congress things will quickly return to normal. The batch of people in power now reflect a society in free fall so the time has come to reverse this trend 180 degrees or it will fail.
I agree with Fareed about possibly needing a Parliamentary system. We need to only look to our neighbors to the north, Canada. They have a Parliamentary system and have a much more stable government. What a Parliamentary system does is allow for the will of the people to be represented better. The government clearly has mandate and we won't have nearly as much in fighting. Almost every single stable democracy is a Parliamentary system, not a Presidential system. The USA is an exception. Most of the time, checks and balances just creates paralysis in government and the military just simply takes over so a decision can be made. So having a parliamentary system instead, where we simply move the president to a figurehead and create an office of prime minister will help solve a lot of our current problems.
With respect 4 elections in eight years 3 with minority governments is not stable. Our financial/banking rules prevented the meltdown seen in your country, and as a result we came out of the recession more quickly than you and with lower cost. We now have a majority for 5 years that will truly
stabalize this country further
I'm sorry – are you taking credit for PREVENTING the global economic crisis? The one that started from America's subprime mortgage market and Wall Street? IN AMERICA! That's not even arrogant, it's just insane.
You have been misinformed about Canada,
-5 general elections in 11 years
There is nothing stable about that at all.
Canada is stable and prosperous for two reasons: it is shielded by powerful allies-first the UK and now the US-and it is full of Canadians.
They could be ruled by a twelve year old albino dwarf who made his decisions based on interpreting tea leaves and Canada would still be stable and prosperous.
Do we get a king too?
India has a parliamentary system. However, I don't think anyone has accused it of being responsive, or even functional.
And it's clearly such a superior system that Fareed stayed at home to enjoy its many benefits... Oh, that's right, he got the hell out, and came to someplace that actually worked.
This is what we in the USA deserve for our treason against the Crown.
You just won the comment section.
Folks I live in Canada, my wife needed hip surgury on both legs total cost $0. Total wait times 3 months for first 4 months for second. Health and education in Ontario 75% of our budget. Taxes higherhere than in Michigan and Ohio. Universal healthcare in our system -–priceless
.. and for all those people denied care or told to wait?????? F*** them right? You got yours!!! Heck, even in the old Soviet Union the government officials did really well.
No one in Canada is denied care -ever. That is a myth propagated by the Republicans so they can scare the general public into thinking Canada's health care system is bad. Yes, we do have problems, but no one is ever denied care.
Yes, our taxes are higher than the US. However, we don't pay health insurance premiums (sort of. We pay between $55-$200/month for extended coverage depending upon the province you are in). So while Americans pay lower taxes, you pay very high health insurance premiums, which is essentially a tax, and that is assuming you can afford the premiums.
And in Canada, no one can ever be dropped from coverage, and no one can be denied treatment because of a "preexisting condition."
The parliamentary system is definitely preferential to our system, though not entirely for the reasons laid out in this article. It is a bad idea to have one person with that much power who is directly elected by the whole country. No matter how you elect them, that puts too much of a mandate in the hands of one person. Frankly, I would advocate something even better than a prime minister. Instead creating a position of a "national CEO" (analogous to a city manager) could yield even more benefits. It would allow the elected representatives to select the most qualified person for the job and put them in the role of a "board of directors". They would not be limited to choosing from the elected representatives.
The most serious issue facing our country, though, is not the structure of the government branches. It is not even the electoral college. It is the rules surrounding campaign finance and redistricting. The extreme corruption surrounding these issues is shameful and it is frightening that the general public still doesn't see this as a problem.
You got to be kidding, revert back to what we declared independance from? I don't think I could stomache waving a tiny lemming flag and screaming "God Save The Queen!"
If speed of government is the prime requirement, then no system is faster than a dictatorship.
oh, cause Britain is doing so well? Our system is certainly broken, oh but let me think, Canada rocks!
Instead of admitting that we elected a pres with poor leadership skills, no experience and bad ideas - this guy is trying to sya the syetm is broke !!
RICK PERRY CALLS GLOBAL WARNING UNPROVEN TO PROTECT HIS OIL BASED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTORS.
You guys should have just asked the polar bears if glowball warming was real or not.
presidential system worked great for hundreds of years. Today all western word is in crisis, regardless of their particular kind of democracy. As level of life is rising in china and India – level of life will decrease for US and Europe. If every person on Earth would consume as much as average American we would need 4 planets to sustain it. As billions of people raise out of poverty and start consuming more oil and more food – US and Europe will have to consume less. And this will be very painful for economies driven by consumption. Once we adjust for the new reality presidential rebulic will work fine again.
I take a certain amount of umbrage from someone who is born and raised somewhere else (India), comes to America for eductional, career, and lifestyle opportunities not available to him in his native Country, and then proceeds to spend the rest of his life telling Americans what's wrong with this Nation and our leaders and how we should be more like other nations. I would prefer that he simply emigrate somewhere else more in line with his philosophy.
No we need people like Mr. Zakaria, we need as many people with an education that we can get. The sleeper cells of militants that infiltrate London, the US, and India don't consist of people with advanced degrees. People looting 7-11s don't have PhD's.
Funny. Obama can't lead and suddenly we need to change the entire system. No, no, no... It's not because Obama can't stop talking about non-specifics and start putting plans on the table, it's not because Obama ignores the people most in need (see: inner cities with sky high unemployment). No, it's because the SYSTEM failed us.
We have a Prime Minister- the Sinister Pete Nice!
This is the most treasonous, traitorous thing that I have ever read.
Read Tom Paine.
We're not in this gridlock for another 5 years as you suggest, because the idiot college professor President is gone in a year and a half... There's nothing wrong with our government system. The American people just need to stop electing pretentious fools like Barack Obama that talk a great game and have zero capability to run anything.
I lived in the UK from 90-1994. There system was is check then as it is now. Can't accomplishment anything.
I thought while we lived there I hope we(USA) don't get to that point. We may unfortunately be there. We definitely
don't want THAT SYSTEM.
Same old nonsense from socialist buffoons who never fail to miss the forest for the trees. They see a poor person and their only reaction is to seek a Government imbecile to remedy their short term problems while ignoring the very factors for the problems and never addressing them. What is wrong with this Country is that a sizable minority essentially has drained the energy and treasure from the productive majority. While Democrats are principally to blame - the Corporatist Wing of the Republican Party is also complicit.
This is not even in the Top Five Worst Challenges the US Has Faced. Maybe not even the Top Ten. Calm down.
The author of the article argues that in a fast moving world, we need to be able to respond quickly.
I would argue in a fast moving world, maybe we need to slow down so we are not reacting to the problems. Be an actor, not a reactor.
No! We need a General in charge and martial law for a couple years to clean out the gov and bankers.
Don't give Barry any ideas eh.
The author of this article is an Indian and i 'm from India too. I know how the prime minister system works. it is a total mess.
Your system is fine. Your poiltics are the problem. Having a 2 party system with such diverging views and no middle ground creates the backlog. Reasoned second thought was the promise of the senate. It has failed. Mind you the house of Lords and the Canadian senate are retirement homes
The US is dysfunctional needs a parliamentary system? Uhm, wasn't it Britain in flames last week? Just sayin'....
OMG Barry's not the messiah,,,but what will we dooo?!
This is simplifying the Parliamentary System. The crisis the country is in is Economic, and something that was bound to happen in any capitalist society/ economy that uses credit to keep consumers buying. It has nothing to do with Presidential form of Govt. Throughout history American presidential govts have been successful. Imagine the chaos that a parliamentary system can bring to any decision making. Nothing moves. There would be committees after committees, a huge bureucracy, too many voices. Nothing is the matter with the form of Government, it is the economic policies that need to be reviewed, reconsidered and redefined, somehoe
Mr Zakaria, once again, shows a great ignorance of the American system and it's history, as well as it's outlook. I'm not so sure half the people in our current legislature have any better grasp of the "way things work" but we don't need the radical changes this man keeps calling for. Why does CNN allow him such a wide audience when he doesn't make sense in the broader scheme? I was interested in his opinion until it became obvious he wasn't rooted in reality. If anybody needs a change it's this CNN commentator!
So wait. We ought to give the president MORE power? The only way I can conceive of this working is if the United States broke up into smaller nations. While many countries with parliamentary systems work smoothly, they are also much smaller and much less diverse. Hence they are easier to govern (not that diversity is bad, but it makes governance hairier). The United States is not analogous to the UK or France. It's more like the EU, but the EU has very little actual power, and for good reason. The only thing over which it has a large amount of power is the Euro, which is itself struggling mightily.
Well said, Pete.
It is also analogous since the US and the EU have similar populations. 300-400 Million people or more, and it becomes an exponentially much tougher prospect to govern.
This is the second article in just a few weeks where you have advocated the removal of the basic cornerstones of our society. What is it that you find so awful about this country?
"But we’re living in a world where you need governments that are able to respond decisively and quickly."
Our nation can respond quickly, but what is more importantly is acting proactively. The debt debate (which you cite) could have and should have been tackled at the beginning of the year. It wasn't a surprise that we were going to reach the debt ceiling this Summer. What was surprising was how surprising to see Congressmen simply refusing to do anything to reduce the ever-increasing rating of Government spending. Then, on the other site, Congressmen wishing to yield their authority to the President simply for political gain. That's not the fault of our government structure, but rather the two-dominant parties that have been in power for way too long. We don't need a new government system . . . just a third and fourth party to break up the gridlock (something that those Parliamentary system nations enjoy).
Fareed has little experience living in the United States or with our form of Government compared to many of us who have families with generations or experience. The same argument could be made by Socialists promoting Socialism or Communists promoting Communism.
Likewise Nazis and witches and werewolves and anarchists and Freemasons and Catholics and Mormons?
I don't know about the parliamentary system as the solution, but there is something about the European governments that I think we need – Representative Democracy.
No matter what you believe, here in the US, in the end you have to choose between a Republican or Democrat. If you vote something else it is a throwaway vote. In Europe and some other places, if you are Tea Party or Green Party or whatever, you vote that way and your party will get seats in the parliament based on the percentage of people voting for that party. Therefore, someone that believes the way you do will be able to represent you.
I have a secret to tell you: governments aren't supposed to be fast-acting. They should be divided and inefficient.
What happened recently with the debt thing was a failure of the American people, not congress. We voted in these Tea Party idiots who manufactured this crisis to flex their "F%*K the System" style of politics.
Spending cuts are not enough. Taxes will have to be raised, and of these wars will have to end. The economy will not improve until there is tangible wealth back in treasury. It is ALL of us, not congress, that needs to make these tough grown-up decisions. We need to stop acting like spoiled brats.
I say this in all seriousness, run for office.
Let me get this straight... The "Tea Party," that didn't come into existence until 2009, is responsible for the economic crisis that has been going on since at least 2007, and actually been brewing for much longer?
Wow, someone forgot to cut their Obama-juice with tonic water.
How bout we take a survey Fareed. If 1/2 of 1% of the country don't agree..you have to move back to India. Free tip..drop a deuce before you board the plane cause toilets aint a plenty back home if you know what I mean.
It's not the Presidential system that's failing, is't our current President.
I'm all for slashing the house and senate in favor of a parliament. Let's get rid of the deadlock and the political lies. After all, if you're elected to office and you don't vote within party lines (or what you said you would), you're not going to get reelected. Also, there's no excuse for not pushing through legislation that the party claims they will push through prior to gaining votes, particularly when they are the majority party. It works better than the American two party system on most accounts.
If Fareed loves a Parliamentary Govt., then why does he not go back to India, that has a Parliamentary Govt.? He is a hypocrite and Anti-American. And CNN loves him. No surprises there.
It's good to see that at least one poster thinks this country is perfect and has no problems that need to be addressed.
How many posters are Tea Party voters and truly what does this Tea Party stand for?
Shhh..silent majority. You'll see.
This government is quite interesting as we see how disconnected the government is from the rest of the people. While the government's main purpose is to provide us safety and protect the common good, and to secure happiness for the people, rather, lawmakers and enforcers just use the public to secure their power in government to sow their own political interest. This is a very sad time for many as we see that our government is totally disconnected from our society and the worse of it all, nobody, not even many of the people are keeping government on their toes. We the people have a responsibility to keep the government on their feet as citizens of the USA are part of the political process, yes it might be the lowest office compared to representatives or anything big, but we can still do something about it. Apparently, many took this negative energy and turned it into the Tea Party which I believe is just frustration turned into the opposite of reasoning. I think when I see post about the one side is better than the other, it just make the problem worse as we now have a bunch of angry people and nothing is done about it. It is also fact that there is many myths and misconceptions about government because of the way the media portrayed the government for years. Personally I think in this situation, even if you don't care or contribute to the political process, watching the news will not help you get started in participating in the process as many news organizations do not challenge the lawmakers or the government in check whenever they have their "interviews". The journalism community is what I would like to call the 4th branch of government because they are suppose to report the things that are happening in our government and have the viewers make the decision. I think part of the problem too is that our people are more and more disconnected with government as we went along and that caused the problem we have today as political leaders used this to do things behind our back and now we are in this mess and nobody truly knows what's going on. Once that happens, people assume and are mislead that causes grassroot movements like the Tea Party to spring up. If we want to save America, we must have more people in the political process and do our duty as citizens to make sure our government is doing their jobs.
Actually Daniel the newspapers are known as the Fifth Estate.
Then what is the 4th
judicial
Then what is the first second and third lol
No No No NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Mr Zakaria, we are not a perfect nation, but I will not stand by while you advocate a revolution. Political discourse is at a relative low, but I AM NOT ready to just toss the Consitution out the window and start over. You have come up with some interesting viewpoints in the past, but you should be ashamed of yourself for publishing this piece!
There will be civil war before that happens.
If each party did what they were supposed to do, our system would work fine. The President should direct Congress's attention, and Congress should LISTEN and work with the President, because they are both representing the people, and both representing the country. Also, the Vice President is in a perfect position to act like a prime minister for the Senate, yet he does nothing.
Thankfully, America's framers didn't design a system of government whose principles were founded on assessments made by stock indexes. They accepted the reality that hardship is an unseverable part of the human condition, and that while the Union was formed in large part to address the nation's most pressing "exigencies," the system of separated powers was established first and foremost for the preservation of the people's liberty. The result is, we have a political society that sometimes faces trying hardships; but in exchange for weathering these hardships, we retain the gift of liberty.
The author ignores the fact that parlimentary systems can also generate dramatic policy shifts as the winners in any election win two branches of government. This pendulum swing (wider than ours) can cause lots of wasteful doing and undoing. Also, the correlation of bond ratings to president vs prime minister is simplistic - you could make similar correlations to numbers of lawyers, to education levels of representatives, or to suggest that perhaps communist government (ala China) is the most stable.
Mr. Zakaria makes an excellent point, in my opinion.
For many years, I've thought that America would be better with a parliamentary system, a system which is more responsive to the will of the people.
Unfortunately, the very people who would have the power to bring about such change, the Republicans and Democrats, would rather hack off their fingers with a rusty machete than lose the power they have so long fought for.
Nice idea. But way it's gonna happen here.
This impulsive "Will of the People" nonsense was PRECISELY what the American system of checks and balances was intended to prevent: emotionally-driven, poorly thought-out mob rule.
"The Will of the People"? Look around you. You want any of those idiots deciding your fate based on what they "know" about anything besides "Dancing with the Stars" or "Entertainment Tonight"?
"checks and balances have been very useful on occasion"??? May I remind you that every time America has faced an existential crisis, it has emerged victorious and stronger than it was before? The same cannot be said of any other country, "parliamentary" system or otherwise, with the possible exception of Great Britain, who would of course be speaking German today if not for the US. No, the reason the Republic has endured is _because_ of its limited and balanced government, not in spite of it. Yes, there are reforms that need to be made; the "debt ceiling" needs to be abolished, for starters. But anyone who talks of scrapping the most fundamental tenets of the system merely because one private unelected corporation decided to downgrade our credit rating is just looking for an excuse to criticize America as compared with the rest of the world.
Peter if you want to pick the system of the winner of World War II, it would be Communist Party Central Commitee rule. If you think otherwise then you are not very good in history.
It's not the gov't system ... It's the educational system!
Seriously, when people vote simply on the basis of a person's "religion", how the heck do you expect to elect good leaders?
The reason the US is falling behind countries like China is because of dumb conservatives who think that TAX-CUTS creates everything like magic, and "praying to a imaginary Jewish guy" is the only social assistance one needs.
That is how idiots like Bush destroy the country because dumb conservatives only care that he is Bible-thumper!
Only those who have a college degree that included courses in economics and politics should be allowed to vote! LOL
I do have to agree with you based on the fact that there are people who are only seeing things from the perspective of a single religion which in this diverse society does not help us in making any judgement about "Real world" policies and "Real World" problems, but religious morals may work in the sense that it gives us some sort of philosophy in which we could live our life upon on, but being blinded by religion is something else.
MLK was a good leader. His "followers"..now that's another story huh.
As long as voting requires no identification at the polls and people who do not pay taxes are allowed to vote, we will continue to be completely screwed.
Ummmm no.....What we have is sometimes messy, ugly, and a hassle but, our system does work and has worked for over 200 years. Keep your stupid revolutionary ideas to yourself. Just because were going through a tough time in our history does not mean we need to change the way our govt. is structured. What we really need to do is vote in moderate, intelligent people who will work for America and not for corporate sponsors. If you want corporate sponsors....watch NASCAR.
As long as corporations (AND unions) are allowed to sponsor political candidates, no moderate will ever find themselves in a position to affect any change.
Reform (read: restore) campaign finance laws, and we'll never need to have this discussion.
Parliament is an excellent funk band, but I'm not sure we should take heed in disposition of our gov't structure. But remind me again; the relation to the peace prize and our president? Yo Gabba Gabba!!!!
I'm glad to see someone shares my thoughts of a parliamentary system. During the different Poli Sci courses I took in college there was a consensus that the European parliamentary system work the best especially the German system that has a PM and a President. With the advent of the Tea Party a parliament may work better and therefore allowing not only quicker response to difficult issues through votes of no confidence votes. Contentious repartee works in the UK in a civilized fashion allowing the politicians to vent.
May people also be a part of this problem, you said yourself you took a pol sci course and you realized that a parliament may be a better system, but if the people do not participate and make it better, would any government in the sense that the public just don't understand system and the same thing happen again with the politicians.
Read my full post, think about it then reply
I think the reason why people view the American government as dysfunctional is because of your mandated 2 year elections. It keeps you people in campaign mode every day of the year. Perhaps if you people were to be there for more than a 2 years it will force you to do something use full instead of point finger at who is more incompetent. In addition to that, if there is a majority of representatives feels that the government is not doing its job, there should be a call for a vote of non-confidence, a system in which is available in virtually all parliamentary systems. Of course this couldn't be abused, perhaps maybe only 1 or 2 non-confidence motions are allowed every year. With regards to the president to this, maybe if the president doesn't have a fixed term and run things from the comforts of his own house, that might just stop all of this deadlock and last minute deals.
And with regards to the senate, in most countries the purpose of the senate is to provide a sober look at the laws that are being passed in the house. Given the chasm in political view, and mood swings that is worse than the markets, a sober look isn't a bad idea.
Yes, but our current system has a vote of non-confidence of sorts at the procedural level (filibuster), and it is currently abused, as votes of no confidence can be (I hate to bring up the Weimar Republic, but there it is). The flaw is not the system, the flaw is in the voter, and in the representatives they elect. This is a huge country with a plurality of beliefs, don't give up on us yet.
The US senate does exactly what you said: Provide sober limitation on the exuberant excesses of the lower house (as well as carrying out other important functions such as confirming key executive appointments, judgeships, and foreign treaties). I am grateful the US has such a branch in its legislative arm.
Not that I don't agree with you. I am just addressing people above me that suggest that Americans should abolish the senate
Nazi Germany ran under a parliamentary system before Hitler took over through legal means. I'm perfectly happy living in a presidential system where the three branches of government watch over each other. Checks and balances prevent a parliamentary system from becoming a fascist dictatorship.
AMEN!
God Bless America!!
Agreed!
the recent debt bill drama was a problem entirely of the legislature. A small minority who could block the will of the leadership of either political party. Their tyranny will fade as their foolishness & hypocrisy is widely observed.
Parliaments can work great or very badly. There are many rubber stamp parliaments working for some of the greatest tyrants in history. Checks and balances are inherently inefficient adding cost and delay. Would prefer that over complete government tyranny. Let the national spectacle play out in full view.
From what I am seeing here in a government is the fact that we are living in a cycle of oligarhchy, monarchy, and democracy, and then all over again
You are a supreme jerk, Fahhhreeeeed. If you like parliamentary government so much, I invite you to take your sorry butt to Europe instead of insulting the population of this country with your daily diatribe.
Need a prime minister instead of a president for the USA? No, just need a real leader who is a patriot.
This is agreeably the best system, but it's not suited to the American personality. We don't like one party government, even for limited amounts of time. Since Nixon, it's been even more true, since that is when the modern cynicism about government began to flourish in the US. Americans are just that way. They want divided government, but they complain when gridlock is the result. Can't win for losing.
I don't know if a Parliamentary system would be altogether superior, but I think there could be some valuable things that could be taken from the British system, such as the ability to dissolve Parliament when performance is bad (or in our case, atrocious). I would also like to take the multi-party approach of the German (and others) system, where compromise is a way of life, not the last sign of the apocalypse...
Well the point of the US government is to move slow and be a power struggle. It's a nearly perfect system for a time long past. I, for one, don't want to be a part of the US if it were to ever change its system of government. It will end in disaster and the country we now know (and most of us do enjoy it, even if we hate it!) will be forever lost.
AS long as you get free golf, unlimited vacations and a killer corporate jet I think Obama will go for it. What the heck..he's already got a jump start on the grey wig.
Zakaria proves once again his stupidity. America was designed to protect our liberties... wealth and prosperity was an outcome from this. We have seen time and again the government seize more control... along with it more of our liberties and our money. This is just a desire for more control of our lives by Washington. The debt crisis is because we have too many people in Washington who only want to spend what we do not have. Some people stood up and said this is insanity. Our spending matches our GDP... the only time we hit this amount was WWII. This is unsustainable. Wake up to reality!
I don't need more government... all of the idiots in Washington think they know what is better for me and everyone else. What contempt! Wake up or you will become a slave.
The Corporate American System is more synonymous to the Parliamentary system than the Presidential system where the share holders choose the Directors who in turn elect the CEO of the firm. This system enables the leader to execute his ideas in an efficient manner hence the Corporate America was a successful model. The Presidential system has its own benefits but looking at the current scenario at the Congress and the Senate, I think President Obama could have been more successful if he was Prime Minister Obama.
I agree in another country he would have been more successful!
Every time I read his articles, it's always what's wrong with this country and his deeply thought out plans to change it. Maybe he should run for a political office. I would like to see his armchair quarterbacking possibly turned into actions. I would also like to hear his thoughts about his native India and their system, since India always flaunts itself as the largest democracy. I have my thoughts on the democracy since discrimination through the caste system and a nation without real social welfare where so many are so poor and so hungry while the few possess all the riches of that land.
"In a parliamentary system, he contended, the legislature and the executive are fused so there is no contest for national legitimacy"
True. Which also means it's easier for them to quickly ram unpopular measures down the peoples throats before they can be voted out of office. Ever hear of "Checks and Balances". That's the point of a separate executive branch.
Though I totally disagree with everything said here, I do think it would be nice of there were televised shouting matches where all attend, like Questions in the UK Parliament. At least we could see the bickering in real time and know who has swagger. Seems pretty American to me.
If a parliamentary system is so wonderful, why is the UK suffering so in this downturn. The idea that a parliamentary system will save us is simply another phantom cure-all espoused by people seeking ineffectual quick solutions to problems and by people with an ax to grind who want to undermine our system of government and our way of doing things. We are okay...we've been worse off and survived and with determination and positive thinking, we'll come out just fine!
What a dumb question.
By that logic, Canada, which has a parliamentary system, is doing great because it has a parliamentary system.
Here's a hint: The system has nothing to do with policies. England is having problems because of past policy choices, just like Canada is doing great because of past policy choices.
Zakaria's editorial is about asking questions about how to get around the current political deadlock in the US government so that policy decisions can move forward.
People treat the president like an elected dictator or king for four years. Doesn't make sense. All the power should be in a body of 400 people not one individual.
Get ri of the Two Party system, it does not work. The recent gridlocks are a perfect example of a broken system. We need more than a two party system.
Americans have more than two parties, it is just that there is only two parties with enough voters and representatives to get an elected majority. However if there was a third party with enough members in both the senate and maybe strive for a more balanced approach between the major two, there will be no doubt there will be enough Americans to elect a few members large enough to influence the vote in a new or different direction.
That is not to say there aren't moderates in both parties, however there aren't enough to make sure they are heard.
Once again, I am amazed that Zacharia gets space on a major news outlet for his rather bizarre and ill-informed ideas and opinions. He doesn't know who represents US citizens in the Federal Gov't (no, it's not the President, it's the House of Representatives- duh) snd, despite a long series of Congressional knee-jerk decisions that have caused us a lot of needless pain now and will continue to do so in the future, believes that the Federal Gov't isn't able to work fast enough to flush us down the toilet.
Honestly, when I first read one of his columns a couple of months ago, I figured him for a fill-in junior op-ed writer that somehow slipped a column past an editor over the weekend. His lack of understanding and perspective of US governent, history and economy is truly staggering for someone writing in a national news publication. Apparently, at CNN, obtaining employment truly is a case of who one knows rather than what one knows.
To his Late Majesty George III we should ask forgiveness. To her Royal Majesty Elizabeth II we should seek pardon and rejoin the United Kingdom.
A parliament is far better than the US Congress. Dump the presidency and get a prime minister.
Our nation has failed, the system is broken.
God Save the Queen
This isn't the first time zealots held the governmnt for ransom. The last time this happened ... just before the Civil War.
The real issue is not our form of government but the problem when you analyze it are the people who keep voting in politicians who feed our addiction to spending. If your own household has more debt than you can pay, what do you do? Yes, you start cutting expenses. Very simple concept. But, every voting bloc, every special interest group, every committee all have their own interests for their local voters rather than what is best for the country and that is getting our Financial House in Order.
Everything has worked fine until Obama happened. This is what happens when a community organizer becomes president!
I'm sorry, i think you forgot that the economy crashed under bush
It's been two years, when is Obama going to try to do something about it? Will we still be blaming Bush two more years from now?
also forgetting the Civil War?
How's London doing today? Oh yeah, not so good!
The president only has so much power because Congress as a whole is too afraid to impeach him. Yes, Democrats, that means standing up to a member of your own party, and no, I'm not talking about Obama. I'm reminded of Clinton, when the best Congress could do was to censure him when he should have been fully impeached for lying under oath.
Imagine that. Another Anti-American, we are outdated, post from the loser Zakaria. This screaming bag of garbage loves government and feels it should do more for the people when history shows that ALWAYS government ends up being the problem and gets overthrown. Generally this occurs when they start doing the things Zakaria believes in. This guy is a propaganda spewing jerk. And you wonder why CNN has worse ratings than Nickelodeon at 3am, BECAUSE HE'S ANTI AMERICAN. He hates our system of government, he hates bottom up rule. What a bigot.
Go back to India or Pakistan or where ever you're from. The nerve to America and say that garbage. When you come from some crappy country. If you don't like it, LEAVE.
I just put forward some thought elsewhere on GPS on how things can be improved. "Blaming republicans won't work during election" (you like it or not). People are very angry and rightly so. They won't listen a speech or learn how we got into the mess. They want to listen to NEW ideas. Here are my thoughts that I would like our president to consider:
Mr. President,
Here is a ten point agenda that I had like you to pursue. Appoint people with fresh ideas and team them with members of your team to pursue each of this item and score each of them (as "zero" or "hero", based on their failure or success in their task).
1. Cut a deal with big corporations e.g., CISCO, GOOGLE, DELL, and try to generate new revenue in the system (introduce a new and lower tax clause that help them bringing the profits from foreign countries at the helm of requiring them to create new jobs from most of the money that they saved by such reduced taxes). In other words, they get free labor to work on their problem from today.
2. Remove social security tax cap (everybody shall pay the social security taxes at same tax rate!)
3. Introduce spending cap on individual’s Medicare related health care cost on annual basis. Medicare programs shall not go on spending millions on individual’s health care cost. The expensive procedures must be performed at Government funded facilities and not the private ones.
4. Innovation by funding the “public-private research endeavors”. Small business/research firm can seek govt. facilities and also seek funding support to conduct joint research activities which otherwise not possible to do so, by themselves.
5. Simplify the tax code, I mean really simplify it: “Everybody shall pay at the same tax rate, say 15%”. All of a sudden, there is no gimmick, no waste, no loopholes, and no charities to any sector of the society. Don’t incentivize people to remain poor. Most importantly nobody also complains about others for not giving their fare share, and basically it means that republican have nothing to fight over!!!
6. Sign trade agreements with as many countries as possible especially the ones where we have high stakes. This will help US companies shall able to sell their products and services abroad. Use all your negotiation skills/ammunition for countries who won’t agree.
7. Pull out of Iraq by end of 2011 and by mid 2012 from Afghanistan. No more policing. Keep military presence in these countries at a level that is sufficient for fulfilling the host country’s training requirements as well as our own security requirements here in US (to deal with known threats via remote operations).
8. Close “Gitmo”, and help open a new facility. This new facility could potentially help deal with all the existing as well as new national security threats entirely within its own borders.
9. Increase foreign aid to Africa and other poorer nations. Help our and other industries around the globe to invest in such countries and help create local jobs (rather than letting poor folks beg for food!).
10. Amend the new health care law. Remove the clause related to mandatory purchase requirements instead incentivize people so that ‘opt-out’ becomes rather irrational!!
I think you and most people recognize this very well -“If you could not bring the unemployment numbers down considerably, you will have hard time getting re-elected”.
If you achieve even half of what I am suggesting here....nobody has any chance to stand and debate in front of you.
Good Luck !!
1. These corporations have been sitting on massive reserves... and CISCO still had a major layoff. Corporations have gotten so effective at buying politicians and getting welfare, they have little interest in working anymore. No workee no jobs. Instead, create an infrastructure repair/replacement program. Feed the system bottom up.
4. The government already does fund a lot of research, and even gifts its own research to private corporations. Instead, license the inventions to corporations, generating income for the taxpayer's investment in research.
6. Trade agreements like NAFTA got the outsourcing ball rolling. NO THANKS.
10. Kill the new health care law. It is just more corporate welfare supporting the bloated insurance companies. It is acknowledged that insurance has been the direct cause of skyrocketing health care costs. Europe has nationalized health care that is much cheaper per person because it does not encourage fraud and increased charges like insurance has.
Sorry oldboldgold, Corporations pay higher taxes to the US than anywhere else in the world. We are the only nation taxing profits on sales in Other Countries. Say buh-bye to US Corps.
Sorry oldboldgold, Corps are not going to invest their holdings to produce products no one will buy – no more than you would put your life savings into widgets just to put your friends to work.. ..when all you'll get out of it is a few pats on the back, a yard full of widgets no one will buy, and an empty retirement plan.
Fareed, our form of government was well thought out. No, we do not need your foreign ideas for our government. A democratic Republic is a bit messy... oh well. It well suits a very large country with a very diverse population. Including yourself... many people coming from places they did not want to live get enamored of the idea that the U.S. needs to implement the very government style they just escaped from. Just saying.
Our system of government is not the problem. Poor leadership is the problem.
The problem isn't the presidential system, it's the rules in the house and senate that allow for things like filibustering and for the non-majority to hold the majority hostage. Regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat, you will have been frustrated by the use of these tactics when your party was in power.
bush trashed the place...obama is making every effort to return to the united states for americans and not united states for monster industry/$$$$$/the ultra rich (fools who can parade puppets like bush and perry who appeal to blind equally greedy americans).
I think the writer does not understand the importance of the C & B system in American Politics. The executive and legislative branch both have legitimacy equally, not over the people but drawn from the people. To say that one is more powerful, or has more legitimacy than the other is a basic misunderstanding of the system. To have a system that could act more quickly in the sense that the writer is speaking of would undermine the safe guards this republic has established to guarantee the safety of those inalienable rights. The branches must remain separate. Forming a parliament would not address the problems the writer is speaking about, but would only change the way they are played out. Do not forget the issue of representation... cant really have one party in control.
Besides, the president is elected by the electoral college... not directly by the people.
Not sure what Fareed is talking about. Even without a president, our two parties would have done nothing. We need proportional representation in the house. In other words, parties get a percentage of the house based on popular vote and a minimum percentage. We also need congress to have the power to regulate money in politics. This would create an environment where we have more then one party and compromise would be easier. It would also keep the influence of corporations out of our politics.
Agreed, it really is that easy to fix all the stupid going on.
Yeah. You can see how well it's worked for the UK.
Americans will never have a parlimentary system. It may be a good idea. It may be good for the economy. It may lead to less civil wars. it may lead to less coup detats. However no matter how good the idea is if it is not an American idea it will not be adopted.
Mr. Zakaria has been showing off his knowledge of comparative politics and exposure to British style parliamentary systems (as an Indian born but US educated PhD in Political Science). You get a gold star for internationalism, intellectualism, and cosmopolitanism associated with a high priced Ivy League education.
Be careful what you wish for. As Mr Zakaria, is probably aware some have argued that a parliamentary system accelerated the rise of Htler in the very tumultuous post WWI Weimar Republic. It is precisely during the tumultuous Great Depression did the public advocate that the government do "something" to "save us" from each other, from the "system" and from mob rule in various countries. David Conradt mentions and assumes this in his book "The German Polity" which covers the modern Germany. This occurred in many countries like the US and Germany to vastly different results.
Democracies and Republics can flourish in various countries with many differences. Arend Lijphart explores this solely in his book "Democracies." The US system is setup to balance various interests and put the brakes on popular vote. For this reason, we are not a democracy but a republic. The residents of California do not get to unilaterally shove their policies down the throat of the residents of New York, Nebraska, or anywhere else. This is a function of our shared history which has been reconfirmed again and again. The current system allows the majority rule but provides a check but does not allow one regional interest group to dominate lopsidedly. Thus, the American system while not perfect attempts to meet all imperfectly and protect the minority. It was the experiment.
Unfortunately, we have failed to remember the purity of this premise. Mr Zakaria falls into this mental trap. This happened a long, long time ago. As mentioned, in the Great Depression, we asked the government to become bigger, more decisive, and save us essentially from ourselves and do things for us. We did it in WWII and the start of the Cold War. We did it again with LBJ's Great Society. We did it a bit with Reagan's defense oriented expansion in the face of the Soviets. We did it a third time in the name of saving us from Iraq/Afghanistan and saving us from the abusive insurance companies and Wall Street firms.
The real issue isn't the system. It's the people. There is no unity of vision. There is not a sense of shared personal responsibility. Dogmatically holding to party discipline and ideas is the issue. This goes for everyone ranging from the Tea Partiers and Republicans to Progressives and Democrats. The issue of a sense of the "system" and "what I'm owed". Our worldview defines both how we view the system and what we are owed. We have highly different views in the US of what that is. Moving fast simply decides the issue without allowing for reducing the cultural tension and ultimate assimilation via dialogue. Failure to lead and address these issues simply brings forth the specter of potential violence.
I recall Thomas Jefferson's complaint about parties and dogmatism/party discipline and how detrimental it is to the national interest and somehow I sadly think he saw what was happening today.
Nice.
"Erudition – n. – The dust from books blown into the minds of scholars." – Bierce
As soon as someone mentions Hitler or the Nazis I stop reading.
Ok, how about Czarist Russia which was attempting reform post WWI or Post WWII Britain as it more or less systematically dismantled its colonial empire due the domestic pressures and foreign pressures. 1950 and 60's France who clamored for Charles De Gaulle or back even further to a Napoleonic France of chaos and one man who was seen to save and bring order. Mexico before kicking out the PRI. All the trappings of democracy without the democracy. The list can go on....but I suspect my viewpoint doesn't confirm what your want to hear so you ignore it and will probably ignore this.
Jason H.
A good argument reasoning against the change to a parliamentary system in the US. Now that you have discussed many of the problems associated with such systems in other countries, what about America?
Mr. Zakaria's point was that the American system seems to many people, at home and overseas, to be broken (at a minimum disfunctional) at the moment and that perhaps other systems from around the world can be looked at as examples of possible 'fixes." The author offered his views as a talking point and it certainly succeeded. You have sought to defend an American system, which most commentators (see the above blog entries) think is in serious need of reform, by pointing to the failings of other systems while limiting your insight on the existing problems in the US to a lack of "unity of vision' and "shared personal responsibility."
At present America needs doers rather than thinkers. Some of the suggestions from a range of contributors to this blog are worthy of serious implementation. These include scrapping 'Medicare' and changing the rules for 'Medicaid" so that everybody contributes but a personal private cover option is allowed. There should be no caps on social security with everyone paying the same percentage contribution – again, private pension plans allowed. There needs to be a serious effort to unify tax codes and eliminate many of the loopholes and concessions currently in existence. There needs to be 100% tax relief on R & D and capital expenditure carried out in America. Double taxation on overseas revenue should be eliminated as long as all profits are repatriated to the US. College graduates should be given tax incentives paid directly to their college loan funds if they undertake a public service job for up to the same period as their college study......and the list goes on.
Remember, it is always easy to say what is wrong with something, it is more difficult to come up with practical suggestions to fix it. As an aside to finish. I come from the UK and I think that most parliamentary or democratic systems around the world are broken for one simple reason – when the elected representative genuinely believes that it is right to represent the party hierarchy (often unelected) at the national and local level, when they believe it is right to represent the financial sponsors and special interest groups, and when they believe it is right to represent their own interests ahead of the voters of their district, the district itself, and the country then you know the system is well and truly broken. I believe, after careful consideration of the voting record of a representative that if, by referendum, the majority of the voters in the representative's electoral district show that they believe the representative to have voted in a way that clearly does not reflect the interests and values of the voters, that is grounds for impeachment on the basic that the representative has disenfranchised the voters. A representative must represent the voters otherwise they can not call themselves "representative."
The problem with out political system is all of the opposition. What constantly happens is that we all get worked up about a certain bill, fight back and forth until the night before the deadline, and then throw something together that nobody likes. If our congressional leaders got worked up about solving economical and health issues, and did not have the pressures of an immediate deadline, then maybe they could get something done every once in a while. BTW during the debt ceiling debates, does it seem to anyone that the politicians spent a lot more time giving press conferences then they spent negotiating? Just a thought...
We here in the U.S. value our own opinions too highly and cannot admit when they are flawed until after they are put to the test and fail. Even then, it's hard to admit wrong. There are tons of different opinions on tons of different issues, and the system setup now is great for making sure all are heard. But...yes...it is very hard to get things done when there is no compromise. If 12 guys rule the nation, millions of Americans will be upset if they go one way on a subject, and millions of Americans will be happy. But things will be addressed quickly and we would learn to live with the results.
The goverment mimics is a poorly ran business, and it progresses and adddresses most challenges extremely slowly. Ousting the system now is a risk. But so is the system as it stands. So why not give it a try? Some problems will improve, and new problems will arise, but that's no different than now. Everyone is afraid that whoever has complete power will abuse it or take something away from them or do something they don't want those in charge to do. They do that already folks...and have been doing it for a long, get used to it. Those with power will do what they want, and someone will claim abuse while it may or may not be. It's life.
Dready, you value *your* opinions too highly.
It's not broke, so it doesn't need fixing.
As Thatcher would put it when arguing against EU integration, "No! No! No!" Prime Ministers, like British Prime Ministers, have excessive power that far exceeds the limitations of the Presidency – it destroys the foundation of check and balances. Party politics would be reinforced, and hyperpartisanship would exist in the long term with a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems actually are less stable. For example, Canada was led by a minority Conservative government from 2006 to 2011 having three general elections in that time period, and many European countries are held together by very weak coalitions that can easily break and cause snap elections, elections that if occurred in the U.S. would be a danger since our own general elections are marred with low turnouts. Our current system is structurally sound, but it is our voters that need more civics education.
Just because a country has numerous elections in a short span of time does not mean that it isn't accomplishing things. A parliamentary system works in a country like Canada because the greater minority party MUST compromise with the lesser minority parties (Yes there is more than one other party) to ensure that parliament works. Vice versa the lessor parties have the ability to vote confidence and force an election but the citizens have no patience for forcing an unnecessary elections so it's usually over something rather important. The key is that one election for all of federal government. The US is all about the election (every 2 years) and very little about getting things done.
Why doesn't the author just come on out and admit he is for a sharia law dictatorship.
This is an editorial, not news. You should place it there. It is the opinion of one reporter with no credibility in that arena...just delete it and nobody will be the wiser.
The US Presidential system is set up for disagreements to be intentionally inefficient. Want to know how Parliaments turn out? Look at Iraq or Iran. The US system is made so that 1 person cannot control everything.
Do I go to India and tell them they need to change everything to be just like in my country? Maybe Fareed is tired of all of those white house pow-wows and thinks that if we transform our entire government to be just like India, then he might get a break. It must be tough being one of the smartest people alive in a country with such an outdated political system. Poor angel.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams
This post should make all Americans around the world feel insulted. What makes America a strong nation is our political system. Our Founding Fathers risked their lives just so we can have this in place. What's the point of the American revolution if we're just going back? And just because our generation is failing we have the right to say it's because of the system? Bullsh-t. America is failing because WE ELECT THE WRONG PEOPLE IN HIGH PLACES. Our system isn't the problem, IT'S THE PEOPLE WE ELECT. Why don't you elect someone who has the leadership and qualifications next time and not a smooth talking community organizer? How's he working for ya? Thought so. Our system has safeguards, but use your brains too.
I mean... Parliamentary systems in Europe aren't doing so well with their wallets right now either; that's my argument. The Vice President is head of the senate... maybe we should put his job in the spotlight more since we do elect the President and the VP as a pair. Also, I'm not sure if you think the U.S. is even remotely capable of changing into a parliamentary system; I don't know how you can imagine that transition going down in anyway resembling reality. American's, I'm pretty sure, generally hate when someone has so much power as a prime minister (we don't even like how much power our presidents or congressmen have individually, how can you actually think combining that would be possible?). Our Government system can work, we just have to elect leaders and trustworthy people instead of monkeys that sit in a room and throw their feces.
Lets try it out for an while and see if it works.
AS I stated many months ago..the US government structure is no longer functional in today's hi speed world and instant communications...it's time to re-invent/make changes at all levels of government to bring it into the future and to ensure managerial effectiveness.
It's a bit bizarre to write an article comparing parliamentary and presidential systems and then completely glide over the issue of parities and coalitions. In the U.S. legislative gridlock comes about 2 ways: conflict between congress and the president, and within congress between the two parties (which may also split control of the house and senate). In a parliamentary system, gridlock often occurs because there are many parties and none usually have an outright majority, therefore in order to get anything done they have to form coalitions and compromise with each other. Actually, you can think of the two U.S. parties as basically being super-coalitions. Just look at the Republican Party: it makes no sense that libertarians, southern white bigots and the religious right are all in one party.
Anyway, I fail to see how trading one form of gridlock for another represents progress. The reality is that gridlock is just a natural and normal part of any democratic system. It's not realistic or even necessarily desirable to reduce gridlock; sometimes slowing down the decision process is actually a good thing. We could have used more gridlock in the rush to invade Iraq, deregulate the financial industry and cut taxes for the rich.
No, America just needs somebody with the foresight and morality of Ron Paul. It's time to take our country back from the corporations, banks, and special interest groups that have hijacked Washington. Stop the republican/democrat bickering and make a vote that will actually bring about real change for once.
The Truth brings Colin Powell into the picture as if he was forced into doing something he did not believe in. Colin Powell was hand picked by the Republicans because he was a puppet and they were the string manipulators. He used affirmative action all through his army career to get his promotions and when he got to the top, he said he was against affirmative action. Bush jerked his chain and he tap danced to the tune of hail to the chief.
Colin Powell helped rebuild the Army after the damage done to it by the draft and the war in Vietnam.
Tell all the heroes of Vietnam, Korea, World Wart Two, that were drafted how they messed the Army up. You sir are an idiot
Fareed: You must have missed the memo. Our system is called checks and balances–not the presidential system.
I was about to ask why people don't listen to Ron Paul, and I scroll down to see the person right above me mention him. Can we please elect Ron Paul, who opposed the wars in the Middle East since the beginning and actually says things that make sense, not the BS spewed by damn near everyone else.
I disagree strongly with this op-ed. Yes the United States Presidential system doesn't work at the speed of light like some of the other European countries Parliamentary systems, ours does bring somewhat more stability. instead of coalitions of groups and parties electing a leader of both the government and the country our head of state is directly elected by the people. If one wants to throw around failing parliaments one only has to look at Russia, Dimitry Medvedev may be the prime minister but the reins of the country are still in the hands of Vladimir Putin...Russia is a joke anyways, one major disaster away from another socialized society
Yes! We already have one state legislature that looks parliamentary in nature (Kansas).
I have long supported a parliamentary system for exactly these reasons. The people in charge are in charge.
And one vote of no confidence and boom new elections. The other advantage is that in general senior members
become PM. You don't get near rookies like Obama as PM.
Why don"t we downgrade the credit agencies instead? These are the same agencies that gave AAA ratings to bankrupt corporations costing millions to the poor souls that put their faith in the rating system. S&P = stupid and pathetic.
Right on friend, The Republicans like to investigate folks, why not do a number on Standard and Poors. I believe the Democrats would join with them and kick ass.
The problem with you Americans is that your head is so wrapped up around the idea that you are number one in everything that you don't see the obvious. Wake up and smell the coffee! Your political system is dysfunctional (actually non-functional), health care system is at the bottom of the first world countries, you are dangerously flirting with becoming a theocracy, your debt is $14T, you're going to wars based on leaders' lies, your "defense" budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined all the while people are losing their jobs and can't afford health care... Don't get me wrong, America is dear to me, but you are free-falling while actually thinking you're flying! You may realize the difference only when you see the ground approaching at terminal velocity. Better open that parachute soon!
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Does anyone in the Republican Party believe in their minds that the working folks, that are now mostly working for minimum wage or less, and cannot make ends meet unless they are working two or even three jobs are to be at the mercy of the rich If and when they get too old to work? They will not be able to live on social security as we know it. If the Republicans succeed in killing medicare and medicade what will happen to the folks that have worked all their lives and are living on the street? Is this what you want? Do you have any loved ones that are not as fortunate as you? You had better give this matter a lot of thought before you elect folks that have no feelings for the poor and sick folks of this country.
Its time to take the bull by the horns...The US Government has already enslaved the American People. Millions of Americans who don't know what Freedom is are growing weed for a living, and many people where I live in Long Beach have cash businesses and don't pay taxes...Eateries like Fish and Chips and Donut Coffee Shops owned by Asians for example don't pay sales tax to the government. Its time to implement the Draft and put all of the Meth Addicts on the front lines in Afghanistan to pay their dues...We'll call the program the Dirty Dozen for example. Military personnel who serve 4 years will come out with a Bachelors Degree in Military Science instead of having to compete with the sh.t for brains who's parents paid for college and he's stoned all the time while the volunteer serves on the front lines. We'll call that program: Americas Finest Student Program...It will save Billions in GI Bill and Military Science Graduates can go right to work and compete and they will do better why? Because college graduates with a BS can't compete with a BA in Military Science get it?
Yeah, because Europe is doing so well. Fact of the matter is I would still rather have a government that is prevented from doing some things easily so as to avoid them being able to do anything. The U.S. won't be in danger so long as people don't start asking for "quick fixes" to issues (AKA calls like this to unify the executive and legislative branches. Please). Government should be slow and deliberative, which is why (and here's a shock) our government isn't perfect, but it's sure better than any of the others so far discovered and in use.
What happened to dreams and hard work? The USA seems little more now than bickering politicians blaming each other for short term individual gain, rather than statesmen and women comming together to fix things in a time of crisis. A country so badly served by its political parties, so divided, and so deeply in debt will not last as a single nation unless changes are made, either structural or cultural. In my assessment, the USA is on track to fragment in our lifetime, and based on history it won't be pretty. A parliament would help, but I doubt it will be enough in a land where the politicians spend all their effort on trying to destroy the other guy on TV, rather than carefully building a credible future for the nation.
Oh and everyone should take careful note of the statue in the picture. What the British did under Sir Winston's leadership in WWII is what the congress should be doing behind Obama now; but unlike the British who waited until the war was won to replace Churchill, the USA's leaders are arguing while the bullets fly and the dollar fails. At a very simple level, the USA is losing, because of its own politicians.
Maybe its time to reinvent our system entirely, I don't know about a parliamentary system by itself, but some kind of hybrid system that still allows for checks and balances while also having the capability to act quickly in times of dire need as the article states would be a marvel of the modern world.
It doesn't matter whether parliamentary systems are better or not. There's no path from here to there.
One basic question for Fareed – I can't recall the last time you actually disliked something that came out of Europe compared to our system. Now I'm sure you'll find one. But all in all, I believe you're a biased Euro-idealogue that generally can't accept that the U.S. is not like Europe. Our country was founded on principles that provide a foundation quite different from Europe or China. I believe that it is those stark difference that drive American excellence, not detract from it or require a Euro oriented modification in style or substance. You spend way to much time in your recent op-eds detailing the crisis in America compared to the other major countries. Our solutions will be found from an American idealism and foundation, not from emulating a Europe or Asian style model. We're going through some problems now so it's easy to pick at the foundations of those problems and poke at why we're different. But it is preceisely those differences that have created the greatness of this country and will return the U.S. to it's greatness in the not too distant future.
Reinstate the draft and put these rich dope heads up against the folks that are supplying most of the stuff they are sucking up their noses or injecting in their veins. The soldiers that are not in harms way are overpaid and are nothing but leeches on a government that has most of its life blood sucked off by the billionaires and millionaires. Put the rich folk's boys and girls on the front lines and watch these wars go away. Same old story, the rich start the wars for the poor to do the fighting. Elect a president that knows what we built all of our expensive submarines and stealth fighters and bombers for and use them instead of using young, poor kids as cannon fodder. To hell with Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and all the other rag head countries. If they are worth fighting over, blow them off the map and be done with it.
Usually I agreed with Fareed, but I would have to disagree this. Every time we had a divided and non functioning government, we wanted the parliamentary system that all power falls upon one party. Every time we gave one party all the power, we wished that we had more check and balance.
Our political system shouldn't rely on current environment, yet it should withstand the test of time. For I can tell, it lasts and works most of time for over two hundred years and it will continue to work, even if not all the time.
I don't think fusing the executive and legislature is a good idea. The check and balance is crucial.
The trouble with the Republicans is, they want their cake and eat it too. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq to avenge his Fathers assissination attempt. The only trouble was he wanted poor kids that knew nothing about the political end of things to do the dying and suffering that the war laid on them, while the rich kids were staying drunk and stoned while tucked away in their gated communities and living the good life.Bush, like Bonzo Reagan, had proffessional script writers spelling out every thing he said or did. George H.W. Bush was old enough and wise enough, and saw the evils of war when he was young, and should have known better than be a puppet to Ronnie boy, but did not. read my lips was a catchy phrase, but it cost him his job. We had better get our political house in order, or the statement by Nikita Khuschev that "we will conquer you without firing a shot might happen", except it will be the communist chinese that does the conquering, and when they conquer they do not mess around. You do not see any blacks, whites, hispanics, or anything but chinese in China.
For writing an article and posting it on the internet for all to see, you would think that the person writing the article would have a clue about what he is writing about. You have no idea what you are taling about. Complete ignorance.
does it really matter? he/she will be one of Democrats or Republican?
I don't think we should move to a parliamentary system. First off all countries at one time or another have been down graded including those with parliaments. Secondly the U.S. with its system of government has never before been down graded until now, partly because of mounting debt, but mostly because of slow economic growth (also due to the 2 trillion dollar discrepancy in S&P's calculations [oops!]) otherwise the other major credit agencies have have kept the U.S. at a triple A credit rating. I think S&P's downgrade was more about politics than economics, mostly due to partisanship, but that doesn't mean a parliament could due any better, they have there political spats too. Take a look at Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy, all parliamentary republics some with presidents some with out, all with prime ministers and administered through parliament. Portugal and Ireland have had to be bailed out, Greece twice, Spain and Italy may be next. Mean while Germany and France (also administered through parliaments) are at odds as to what to do about the crisis, and the U.K another parliamentary styled government isn't doing great ether. I think the problem isn't so much about the system of government as it is about the parties in power, and the lack of will and courage to do right by our country as a whole. This may not always be a popular move such as when Carter was in office while he failed to effectively deal with hyperinflation, and was unable to resolve the hostage crisis, he did attempt to do right by the country by refusing to play the back room game (means he never gave in to corrupt practices such as receiving kickbacks for his vote {fancy word for bribes}) with even his own party, and stood up to the people of our country, when they were out of line. The same with Bush senior passing a budget plan that increased taxes even though his most famous words were "read my lips, no new taxes" and ultimately the tax increase benefited the country and by the end of the decade we where in a short lived surplus partly due to that compromise. In the end it really doesn't come down to not the system of government (both systems have their flaws), but who's running it, make no mistake both parties have agenda's and unless they can find a way to put their political beliefs aside and compromise we will continue to be stuck in this mess. Wether this move is popular or not it shouldn't matter this isn't about that, it's about doing right by America.
I don't know about that but a parliamentary system would at least help get rid of the gridlock and make clear just which party is for what.
This is a silly question! No America does not need a Prime Minister. Americans cannot even elect good politicians to run our country let alone a Prime Minister. Prime Minister? BAD IDEA!!
You should all move to Canada... Nobody hates us and we have a health care system for all. I just don't understand how a country that claims to be the representative of freedom "the US" can not provide that basic necessity for its own people...
I agree, I have long thought that this is a fundamental flaw with the US' presidential system. Obama's been unable to achieve much (at least partly) because Congress gets in the way quite a lot. Compare that with the drastic economic, social and political reform being pushed by the UK government! You may not always agree with the Coalition in the UK, but at least you won't have a standstill in policy...anyone who's run anything knows the only thing worse than an a bad decision is NO decision...America's stood still!
Although I agree with Mr. Zakaria I would like to point out one small error,
Germany also has a Prime Mininster (Chancellor) and a President the president has little power, but they retain veto power, although the President of Germany has yet to use it.
All those in favor of a parliament say "aye". Great. Now please leave.
It's checks and balances vs the government being able to get things done more often. I prefer the checks and balances. America would be the largest government with a Parliamentary system if it indeed was. Kind of scary our government with less restrictions from keeping it from doing things. This debt crisis wouldn't have even been addressesed if it wasn't for our system. Europe has just as much of a problem if not more in regards to debt.
One advantage a parliamentary system would have is that third parties would have a chance to be represented. Under our "winner take all" system, we are stuck with two parties, neither of which is doing a good job.
If only we had people in DC that actually cared more about the good of the country than the results of their next election. All sides are equallly bad at this point.
What America needs is to feel the wrath of living under a third-world nation such as Ethiopia, Somalia or Uganda. At the rate your country is going, that's exactly where you are headed. Your politicians are so twisted and only concerned about their very own welfare, especially the Republicans and radical Tea party.
There was a time the USA was the Greatest Country in the World – a true, elite and mighty super-power. Well, hate to break it to you, but to us Europeans, you are now the laughing stock of the world. Your politicians are more concerned about the starving children in places like Somalia and Sudan than they are about your own needy children living in the streets. It's no wonder your crime and drug-abuse rate is so high !! I pity your foolish nation if you vote for your Tea party radicals in this upcoming nation. Only then will we refer to your nation as the United States of Zimbabwe.
I guess the biggest problem facing your nation is the overall lack of education and academic achievement.
Actually and despite the author's implications in the statement that the "legislature..speaks for the people," no one in the House of Reps or the Senate speaks for ALL of THE PEOPLE. A Senator speaks for his state and a Representative speaks for his Congressional District. No one in the Congress has a mandate from or legally represents anyone from outside of the state where they were elected. The President and the Vice President on the other hand (weirdness of the Electoral College not withstanding) are elected by ALL of THE PEOPLE.
Our system also separates the crafting of "the law" from it's execution, which to my mind is a very good thing.
Our problems with the debt and our recently lowered credit rating have nothing to do with the fact that we have a president rather than a prime minister. The problem mostly lies with a legislative body which is more intent on winning the next election and securing their own personal power rather than compromising for the benefit of the majority of THE PEOPLE! Sure, Obama played his part, but at the core was an ineffectual Congress who is unable to act until the boat is ready to fall over the precipice of the waterfall.
If it were up to me I'd kick ALL of the rascals out... 100%. A new crop could hardly do worse and hopefully they'd realize in clear terms that they work for the people. They do not lord over them like England's Parliament.
"Given this situation, it becomes very easy in a presidential system for the executive and the legislature to get into a classic standoff over benefits as we saw in the debt crisis.
Remember, the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling is actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature. There could not be a public spectacle of the two branches of government squabbling and holding the country hostage."
This is another area where the author is being truly naive... Just because a prime minister is "in control of the legislative body" it does not mean he could have prevented the kind of debacle we had over the "debt ceiling." Even in a parlimentary system, the members can vote against their party if they feel strongly enough about an issue.
As America's northern neighbour we often feel uncomfortable towards how the US blunders along. Kinda like having a strong but retarded cousin. The retarded cousin has helped when facing elementary school bullies and even has some good ideas once in awhile. But sometimes he flies off the handle and whacks people for no good reason. You try to reason with him but you can tell he's not all there and, fortunately, he hasn't taken a swipe at you. Some years have passed and your retarded cousin is now an adult. He still persists in his beliefs in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus and even makes serious decisions based on these beliefs. Most people would have ditched him by now but, hey, he's family, so you try to appeal to his strengths and ecourage the positive. You hope he never turns on you but he seems to be having psychotic breaks and that's never a good thing. He can't hold down a job, his health(care) is worsening and he's getting into debt from which he can never recover.
Your northern cousins still love you but please get help.
Reading all these blogs it seems the Americans are experts in what is going on in every country except their own.
That explains the inherent problems in the US – "We are perfect – therefore nobody else is" Give your respective heads a shake. The US has become "Organized Confusion" Never ending.. .
Because Europe's been such a model of stability for the last 100 years you want to immitate them? Do you live in a box?
uh, check your own American history: The US has been involved with a war every 15 years since WWI. I think the Europeans have a much better track record.
Glad you asked. US needs a military dictator.
Does America need a prime minister?
You can have ours. No charge ! Has little experience
You may have to train him
Canada
No French please.
No. What we need is a leader with integrity and values.
I kind of always thought of the House of Representatives like Parliament... and the Speaker of the House as the Prime Minister... The Senate is like the house of Lords, and the President (a popularly elected) King. We already have this system.. the only difference is our Representative are suppose to actually represent their districts and not just their party like the Parliament in England does... England already had a Parliament system when we rebelled against it. We definitely DO NOT need to go backwards in history and mess up what the founder's were trying to fix. Just demand your representatives start representing YOUR district rather than the political party.
American Prime Minister = Secretary of State.
Zakaria needs to move to another country. He obviously doesn't understand or appreciate our current form of government.
He doesn't really want a Parliament... he wants a communist dictatorship... he wishes one guy could just order his subjects to jump and they all just reply HOW HIGH? He hates freedom and individuality.
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a terrible idea?
No... there are atleast 40 million Republicans who think its a bad idea and about 20 million democrats who think its a bad idea. the rest don't care and only the foreigner gypsie type immigrants from the Middle east and north Africa (India too) are the ones who like this idea.
yes the country with over 14 trillion in debt thinks a change to a "better system" is a bad idea.....
Of course Zakaria blames much of the governments' economic problems on programs which actually help their citizens, such as pensions and health care. He says nothing about expenditures for "defense" and related items which have the end result of killing and maiming people and, at least in the U.S., are areas of legitimised corruption.
Having lived under both governmental systems which he compares, I somewhat prefer the parliamentary one over the U.S. system which is laden with inefficiencies. But Zakaria needs to read some history and recognise that the U.S. system was established in reaction to Britain's parliamentary governing of the American colonies which many of the Americans of the time regarded as dictatorial and did not allow them any representation. The ultimate reality is that there is no perfect type of government – any government is what is made of it by those in control.
The government, the Dems and the Republicans got our country into this mess. If the Tea Party wasn't posturing it would be the Left Wing Liberals posturing. All politicians are liars and will say what they need to get elected. We're forced to vote for the lesser of the evils presented to us in hopes they'll get something done. I quit voting straight party ballot and I started listening to the issues to pick who I vote for. I figured out that the Liberals are wrong and the ultra right wing Conservatives are wrong. You have to be in the middle and compromise to get stuff done. Right now, none of the idiots in office that represent me or my state are getting my vote for the next election.
I don't know that a Parliamentary System is necessarily a panacea for all of the problems in the US, but I do suspect that sooner or later we will see the current Presidential System crash and burn completely because of increasingly acrimonious political battles of narrow ideology being fought between the Republicans and Democrats. While the two parties are at each others' throats, nothing gets accomplished. This is a Big Problem as the country teeters towards multiple severe social and financial crises because it is effectively creating a power vacuum. As in all power vacuums, if a government can't govern, sooner or later it will be replaced by another one that can. The question is, what will the new government be? For better or worse, it will likely be one that breaks the current ideological gridlock and allows power to flow without so many of the close checks imposed by the US founders.
Democrats are not Democrats anymore. The party has been hijacked by radical Progressives that could not sustain their own party.
Yeah England is a great example, their parlimentary system brought that Empire down from ruling half the populated world to half an island. Sounds great.
Fareed Zakaria, you want a Prime Minister ? Then move !!!
The only purpose that such an arrangement serves is to allow a one sided conversation to take place.
This is a good blog about the u.s.'s problem i agree partly with this blog. We do need to get things done in these states and as a country. we in to slow things down and try to be back to a manageable debt is right in that scents. The us's problem of debt is still climbing and we need to pull it down and the way we are is rising it fast. Im not talking about changing the government but the us needs to do something with this problem right now it looks like we are tosing it to the side to worry about it later.We are the US we should be moving forward but if moving forward is going to kill us we need to slow down. As a future voter i see that what is promised by the people we elect isdone but not the way it looked like. Our problem as the US is we spent to much.
The other good thing about a parliamentary system is that if there is a deadlock, an election is triggered. That's what just happened in Canada.
Then the public goes to the polls (in a few weeks, not months), a mandate is given, and the country moves forward.
In the American system, we have paralysis until Nov 2012.
A parlimentary system would be a fun change of pace. But don't overlook the benefits of a peerage system too. We could elect Lords to life peers of a non-hereditary monarchy. While the common chamber would be elected, the upper house of lords would be thinned every year via a survivor contest. More entertaining the the olympics with the raucus costumes of DWTS and the mind-bending exercises of Jeopardy. The monarchy could be run like high school homecoming contests yearly and via the internet. We could also have mock joint chiefs of staff for university ROTC majors, and poly-sci majors could be Ambassadors for the day.
So this guy thinks a prime minister type government is more stable? Apparently he has not considered Italy, which has a prime minister type government. Only one Italian government has lasted a full five-year term in the last 50 years, led by conservative Silvio Berlusconi between 2001-2006 and even he was forced to resign once during that time by fractious allies. There have been 62 governments in Italy since WW2.
Forget a prime minister, what we need is an omniscient, benevolent dictator. All hail Fareed! He'll make the trains run on time!
What the U.S. needs is a president with some sense.
I think our system works. It's not broken but slow. I rather be slow and right than quick and dead. I would like to see us have more political parties though. America has changed alot. I'm a conservative liberal. (Blue Dog Dem) Unfortantly there isn't a party to reflect me. I like something consverative and somethings liberal. Today though there is no party to reflect those things. When the nation started we had several parties. What happened?
G Dodds – The country never had more than two major parties. The Federalists (Alexander Hamilton) and the Republicans (Thomas Jefferson) came about immeidately after George Washington took the oath of office. Their debates focused on the role of the new federal government and whom we should be allied to, France or Great Britian. The Federalists became increasinly unpopular and, following their attempt to get New England to seceed during the War of 1812, were all but eliminated. The Republican party enjoyed a period of one party rule, but eventually broke up into the Democratic party (Andrew Jackson) and the Whig party (William Henry Harrison). The Whigs tore themselve apart over the slave issue with a new Republican party emerging (Abraham Lincoln). A Progressive Party split off from the Republican Party during the election of 1912 in opposition to Howard Taft's re-election but after Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) was elected in 1912, the Progressives didn't have any more influence.
I've worked hard and done the right things all my life like millions of Amercians, but for the first time i have lost faith in my country. I don't trust the government to do the right thing and I'm frightened of the future – or the lack of one. This system is broken – the recent debt ceiling fiasco will attest to that along with many other things. A prime minister for the USA – sure, I'm willing to give something differant a try at this point.
To all you guys talking about "Obamacare" being "socialized healthcare." "Obamacare" is actually a REPUBLICAN solution; it was created by Republicans to counter the solution the Democrats offered which was to simply extend Medicare to everyone. Since it's a Republican solution, it's also a giant windfall for the insurance industry. Of course the insurance industry is going to whine about having to spend more time figuring out new creative ways of denying care, but in reality the "mandate" means a huge windfall for them as people are now forced to buy insurance. This was the Republican solution to the "we have 50 million without health insurance" problem. Of course, once the Democrats and Obama championed it, it became socialism overnight.
I remember shortly after the 2008 elections when the media was speculating about the "imminent death" of the Republican party that the tone among mostly liberal (myself included) posters to this site was not one of jubilation, but rather concern about the possibility of our government transforming into a one party system, as though something much more sacred than one's individual ideological beliefs was in jeopardy. I've lived in both the U.K. and Canada and while, as a practical matter, there seemed to be very little difference between these parliamentary democracies and the U.S., it seems that most Americans (myself included) would feel that their liberties would be threatened by such a change. The two-party system inertia that we are currently suffering through is, of course, disheartening and frustrating. However, it's important to keep in mind that rulers such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., never had to compromise with other parties in order to carry out their agendas either.
People are certainly fusterated, on both sides of the aisle. However, I am encouraged. The debt debate proves that our system is working just fine. It appeared to be ugly, but you had two branches of government and the two major political parties debating how best to handle our mounting fiscal problems. This is what you want. We want better healthcare, we want social nets, we want national security, but we are also weary of taxes. Within that context we should be fighting over what to cut, whom to tax, and what our national priorities should be. It's a very big country and we all have different priorities and different ideas, so yes, we need to debate. I don't want either party to simply impose their agenda on the country because neither party has a platform that works for everybody.
Pick me! Pick me! I can be prime minister. I like prime rib. I would like to administer all the prime rib of the US. I would do the best job of serving prime rib to my rich republican friends. Then we could throw scraps to little people outside.
Are Americans prepared to march into Washington
and arrest the entire republican congressional
members, hold public trials, and carry out
punishment on the steps of the Capital ?
If not, stop typing and go back to sleep.....
I can respect that you don't agree with Republicans. However the idea of trying members of a politcal party just because of their political affiliation is the single most unamerican act one can do. Why don't you just pick up and move to some brutal dictatorship because that appears to be the kind of government you want.
So what do you expect from a foreigner. "The US system is so un-international... no one does it this way... Change it to be like everyone else!" I don't think it's a coincidence that the US is different, AND we have the largest GDP (though we are in debt to our eye-balls.) Our system was created for proper representation. Basically Zakaria's logic would lead us to an elected dictatorship. He reasons, basically, government is far more effecient if there is no one in opposition to your plans and ideas!! Yeah, we would all love the be the sole ruler but that would not be a democracy! We have to live and die by our system, or else our freedoms and representation will surely die... unless you "abide" by those in power.
Fareed is an idiot. End of discussion. He is the democratic Rush Limbaugh.
Not really. Years of redistricting, partizanship, culture wars and intolerance have caused the american people to retreat into political camps. Remember, our leaders are a reflection of ourselves. They are doing this because we told them to in the 2010 elections. We havent been this divided since the civil war. The american system works but, not when the population and its leaders are divided.
I agree but in the US this would be nigh unto impossible since compromise has been abandoned by the two-party system.
If not for the U.S. all of Europe and their screwed up Parliments amd Prime Ministers would be speaking German now. Bunch of losers, why would we change our system to match theirs? Should Europe catch a clue? Yes. Should the U.S. have a prime minister? Hell no.
The issue in the US is not about have a President but rather persons elected to Congress that no longer need to represent all the persons in their district. With the formation of voting districts that create an easy win for one party it is impossible for most Congress persons to be elected unless the represent the extreme stance of their voters.
What changed in the United States at a level of what is the US Congress is that we no longer have represenatives that need to make sure all the persons in their district are taken care of , just those in the majority.
The Indian wants us to change our form of government. We don't need a prime minister, we need an effective president and congress. people need to stop voting for a party and vote for the individual, a little research before selecting someone would be good. However if the average IQ of Americans continue to decline, then we'll have a benign dictator.
Agree with you completly, tell Fred go back to the other side of the world please, enough is enough of such crap.
Fred get real, go back to the other side of the world, and tell me how truly wonderful they have it.
Does America need a prime minister? NO AMERICA NEED JESUS ASAP!!!. Amen and Good night....
There's a lot of blind patriotism here, and I can understand that. But the dribble about socialism and what not, just goes to show how brainwashed this nation is. There's an easy way for you all to see how this country is doing, go online and do searches, such as...best places in the world to live and you'll see on many, many sites a break down of lifestyle, education, longevity etc. and you'll find that the US is nowhere near the top and in nearly all of them doesn't even make the top 10 or 20 in some cases. Another one you need to look up is that amount that the US gives, as this one always comes up when Americans say they give the most...wrong again! Then you need to check which countries ALWAYS back you up anywhere in the world and you'll find it's all the countries with governments you are rubbishing. Australia is the ONLY country to fight beside the US in EVERY war it's been involved in since WWII. You need to be careful of what you say about your friends, because you don't have many left. America was the greatest country as it's brainwashed itself to think so. Unfortunate, but true. It is not the greatest country in the world, it is not even close. Yep, you'll all slander me now, but if you'd care to do 20 minutes worth of web research you'll see I'm not lying. Sorry.
Well said. I totally agree. I'm an American but I'm not at all happy with our system of government here. A lot of people don't know it but Australians are our best friends. I think I saw a survey once that asked what country Americans related to most. Australia got the highest percentage of votes. Good on ya mate.
The Founding Fathers of the United States had the opportunity to undestant the Parlimentary system. What is unique to the US from its founding is that is was a confederation of semi-autonomous states, who instinctively did not trust each other. Tiny Rhode Island feared New York, and Georgia would have been outvoted by Pennsylvania. The Congress was a compromise, as was the Electoral System, to protect the smaller states. The original plan was the Senate would represent the States (selected by the state legislatures). The House would be directly elected. The 17th amendment changed the Senate to popular election. The President and the Judiciary are seperate and co-equal branches. Other than a small hiccup from 1861 to 1865, the system has worked rather well. What the Founders did not forsee were permanent rival parties for the last 150 plus years. The Federalists versus the Democratic Republicans, the Whigs,.....if a third or fourth party ever gained traction in the U.S., you could see Parlimentary-like coalitions (which in Europe can become unstable, one party quits, and presto....a new eleciton is called. Italy seems to come to mind). There is a stability for our election cycles. Sometimes, the goverment getting nothing done can be a good thing.
However, I would love to have an American version of Question Time for the Prime Minister. Tony Blair was a delight to watch on C-Span. In Parliament, you had to be quick on your feet and have a good wit and sense of humor too.
only a dem station like cnn could ask this question wow
Whether or not the United States should have a parliamentary system is an interesting intellectual debate, but does not deal with the probems that exist within our government. For one thing, it is unlikely that America would ever agree to a system with a single legislative body elected on a one-person-one-vote basis. There are clear reasons that we also have a Senate that is based on a simple formula of 2 members per state. The reasons for this go back to the creation of the Consitution and they still exist today (basically small state vs. large state). Furthermore, the electoral college also gives advantages to smaller states. A parliamentary system would not necessarily deal with the new reality of an undemocratic process in the Senate which, according to Mitch McConnell now requires a 60 vote majority on any significant legislation. How the Senate cloture rules fit within the one-man-one-vote 'rule' is beyond me, but it nonetheless exists and is becoming an increasing barrier to our government acting on anything. Remember what happened with immigration legislation during the Bush administration when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. It failed because there was still disagreement within the Republican Party which would not necessarily be solved in a parlliamentary system. Finally, as Congressional districts become more and more 'gerrymandered, they create more and more 'safe' seats which seems to lead to the Congresspersons from these districts being more extreme (either right or left).
It is nice to point to countries like Germany, Canada, and England which have only a few parties and where coalitions are not always the rule. However, when one looks at countries such as Israel or Italy in which multiple parties create coalition goverments more frequently, we see that the so-called efficiency of the parliamentary system is far more questionable. Consider the current political environment in this country and what has been happening in the House and ask yourself how things might be with an election giving 200 seats to both the Republicans and Democrats and 35 seats (less than 10 % of the total) goes to party X. Think about the leverage that minor party might have in agreeing to form a coaltion. So while a parliamentary system may look attractive in theory, I think it is an oversimplification to assume that it could solve our current political problems.
Our Government has been bought by the "special interests". Neither side actually represents "the people" with the exception of the top 2 percent of the wealthiest people.
I think candidates that are running for office should be required to pass an intelligence test of some kind. There are too many people that have been elected to congress that are just plain dumb and have no business being there. We all learned a very scary lesson about the importance of having an intelligent President the years following the election of George W. Bush. He and his cronies set this country on a path that is virtually impossible to fix quickly I dread the thought of another George Bush. Where will Perry start another war? I guess it doesn't matter because we know if he gets elected that's exactly what he's going to do. He'll be working on getting access to more middle eastern oil for the oil companies and helping US weapons makers earn a killing by making and selling weapons to the Military.
Millie, You are a kindred spirit.
It seems like the problem has less to do with our system of government and more to do with a culture of corrupt politicians who care more about doing and saying what they need to win the next election rather than what is best in the long term for our country.
http://dmilenkovic.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/remarks-on-fareed-zakarias-blog/
My opinion.
Unfortunately, our leaders are only elected by corporations and they are only interested in helping those corporations. They have no interest in actually doing their jobs for the people. Bush hurt our country more than you can imagine. He is responsible for thousands of death and is a war criminal.
really?......... do we really need to steal more money from the tax payers???
Every single American who has worked so fervently to oppose their president is a traitor to the nation and they deserve to be executed, along with their offspring. The GOP killed America. Now it is time to kill the GOP.
I live in Canada and if you want to know how countries like this run just check out the taxes. Our taxes are horribly high here and we also have tax on tax! I lived in the states most of my life and the after moving back home 3 years ago the biggest shock to me was the voting system. Here you don't vote for Prime Minister, that person's name is not on any ballot and you are also not allowed to mark your ballot in ink, only pencil. Someone want to tell me what is wrong with this picture? Our medical is NOT free, it comes out of our taxes. Yes we don't have to worry about whether or not we can see a doctor due to no money, but in some provinces such as Nova Scotia, there are many who don't have a doctor and have no choice but to go to the ER and wait sometimes a day or longer to see a doctor there! What doctors we do have here are totally overworked which isn't fair at all to them. I could name a lot more issues with this "wonderful" parlimentary system we have, but I think you get the idea here. Even with the economy being what it is n the states, it's still better then in Canada.
Possibly, what we need is to go back to when the Vice President was the looser of the Presidential race. This way, both parties are represented in the Whitehouse.
Our problem isn't the fact that we have a president or a congress, it's that we have gerrymandered districts so f'd up that they insure only the most extreme of the nut jobs on both sides of the fence make it to Washington. Fix that and you fix a good part of our current ills.
As far as the rest of the partisan bickering in the comments....You both suck.
no, we just need a president that knows what he is doing.
The problem is congress is very powerful in America. Congress and the courts rule the country. Every senator and there are a 100 of them can potentially stall a bill and sees themselves as a potential president.
Though the US president is head of state and the executive, in reality he is much less powerful than the UK prime-minister.
Also, there are bad presidents and good presidents. The bad ones make the system look inferior. Obama who was my emotional choice is not however turning out to be a good president. He has lacked the gravitas, and bold decision making. He has lacked the insider knowledge. In washington, I am now convinced, you need to be an insider with experience to make a difference. Its just too much for an in-experienced outsider to handle.
The real question is "Does CNN Really Need Fareed Zakaria and his incessant negativity on every subject?"
I'm not sure if I agree or not, but one thing that the Parliamentary systems have that I like is the vote of no confidence. If a prime minister gets a vote of no confidence he's out. That would have been great to have during the Bush administration and even with the current administration. (I'm a Democrat but Obama has had a dismal performance while in office). I'd like to see the same thing for congressmen and senators. If the public gets fed up with them we throw them out without having to wait until the next election.
What America needs is a President who will put down his golf clubs and inflammatory rhetoric and do his job.
Then elect a better one next time. Investigate who you vote for, don't just follow public opinion. Once He/She is elected you are stuck with them until the next election.
More fascination with Canadian and European style socialism / Marxism from the left. CNN try some neutral news reporting for a change. Enough propoganda!
In my mind, after this domestic terrorist was happy with the name of his propaganda piece he held it up and took a deep breath and smiled knowing the Devil's work had been done, and then all of a sudden Thomas Jefferson kicked the door down Kool-Aid style while wearing an American flag around his neck like a cape, and then he just punches this terrorist in the face saying "#uck parliment, fool." So that's really all there is to say.
That is a hilarious image!
No, what this country needs is to replace EVERYONE in DC with a group of people who will actually work for the American people instead of their own political party's agenda and their own bank accounts.
America does not need to change their political system. America needs American politicains that do not hate the American people.
Why don't we just elect a dictator or appoint a king?
The system works just fine. Why shouldn't the two politcal parties debate how to reduce our deficits? We have to decide what to cut and who to tax. These are seriously complex issues so there should be division and serious debate. The sad thing is the Tea Party had to hold the country hostage for us to take the question seriously. I don't like their uncompromising nature, but I like that they made the nation take a serious look at deficit reduction.
US citizens, like all peoples worldwide, have the government that they deserve.
I'm afraid that you're right.
May God give us (and the world) good leaders, and may God rid us of corrupt, selfish, greedy leaders.
And I add your sentence: If Americans do not like their government, they simly do not deserve anything better
I don’t know if we need a Prime Minister, but I think it’s time to prohibit our politicians from taking money from lobbyists.
Since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, lobbyists have given money to our politicians and have undoubtedly
corrupted the American political system.
During the term of President Grant the lobbyists would meet the politicians in the lobby of the hotel, across the street from the Congressional Building—hence, the term lobbyist.
Sadly now the lobbyists march right into the offices of our senators and representatives, wearing their $2000 suits and their $750 alligator shoes, with not a shred of shame, as they use their influence to get what they want.
Sadly our leaders are all too willing to take their money and compromise themselves, making themselves beholden to the highest bidders.
So much for representing the people, whom they’ve sworn to serve.
Now you see why this country is having the economic crisis.
In Ancient Rome a law was passed, prohibiting the senators from having pockets in their togas, when they were on the floor of the Senate. This was done to prevent them from taking bribes, while on the floor of the Senate.
Is it not time that we passed such a law in our country?
We don't need a prime minister. We need honest politicians and an honest political system, one that despises bribes, (I mean "gifts" and "campaign contributions") and despises greed and corruption.
America needs CNN to take down this stupid article !!
.
This proposal shows tremendous ignorance of the American system. The Congress speaks for the people. It is placed in Article 1 for a reason. Tax bills must originate in the purest of the people's houses – the House of Representatives. These are not just procedural niceties: they symbolize where the power originates. The president is not even elected by the people – he is elected by the states.
Anyone who thinks Britain (or Canada) have it easy need only watch Question Period or consider how many "governments" they can go through in a ten-year period.
what we need is more people working that vote than the ones that vote for a living. then we will be solvent again.
no we do not need a prime minister. that would totally override "We the People" or have all of you forgotten that's who is SUPPOSED to be running the joint? We are supposed to be governed by ourselves, which is why states rights are SUPPOSED to be supreme. We are to be represented by our elected officials from each state.
But several things have gone wrong.
1) Federal government is oversized and out of control. The wrong answer is that agencies have sprung up and been granted broad powers to regulate without any kind of vote or say by our elected officials hence no one is accountable to the public.
2)Statesmen are in short supply. The system defined by our founding fathers worked because even if they were worlds apart philosophically, they were united in making this country work and they rode for the compromise to favor the working man so the nation could become financially strong. Today's politician is self-serving and seeks only the next election.
And that's what is causing the stagnation right now. We are highly polarized as the haves and have nots each increase and the middle class dissolves. We can't sustain the give-aways, and the politicians can't keep their jobs without them. Does it surprise any of this that it can't work? They are afraid to make a decision!
When we, as a nation of people, grow up and stand on our own two feet, stop expecting others to clothe, house, or feed and care for either us or our children, when we expect to pay reasonable wages for a job well done, and, in turn expect to take our time and save up for the things we want....then the politicians will no longer control us. When we the people, curtail national government and opt for states rights to override, the picture becomes much more clear and the problems are much more easily defined and thus solved.
No use discussing.... Americans will never even consider another system and will nix any other country and system because of their belief in 'American exceptionalism'.... nothing works better than the USA! Yeah, right.....
The US system depends too much on compromise. When a group like rabid Republican Right wing, including the Tea Party rejects compromise, nothing can happen. The US actually has 3 (not2) centrs of power, since thje Legislative branch is divideed into two bodies which often do not agree. When they do agree, the President can still veto. In the parliamentary system, the people vote for a party(or coalition of parties), which has the mandate for the term of say five years. The government runs the country without the gridlock that exists in America. i
The advantage to a parliamentary system is you don't have to come up with trumped-up charges to impeach the prime minister. You just call a new election. Prime ministers are relatively easy to remove from power. The trade-off is that they have near absolute power, which would be frightening if we had a PM named Perry or Bachmann.
The U.S. government has lasted longer than every governmental system in Europe, except the UK. Let's see a parliamentary system last over 230 years first, before we start wondering if we should change ours.
America needs for Zakaria to STFU or go back to wherever he came from.
Ironically, I wrote a post on this very topic a few weeks ago: A Canadian's perspective of the U.S. Debt Crisis http://optioneerjm.blogspot.com/2011/07/q-vinaykg-of-bangledore-via-twitter-dm.html In it, I spoke about how much smoother our Country has become once we had a majority government. In the U.S. there are too many opposing factors on solving many issues ... it appears as though Obama is constantly handcuffed. Also, it appears as though the adversaries are more politically driven towards the 2012 election than they are towards solving any issues.
But eh, I'm just a Canadian, what would I know?
Jeannette
http://optioneerjm.blogspot.com
In the Parliamentary system, unlike the U.S. System, responsibility is clearly with the government. If there is a loss of confidence in the government, as expressed by a vote in the House of Commons, the government falls and an election usually results. The legitimacy of the government is always clear because it has the confidence of the House and therefore the right to govern. In the U.S. system, no one is responsible and this is the main weakness of the system.
The real bottom line is that S&P did not look at the United States government and say, "They don't have a Prime Minister – there is no way we can continue to allow them triple-A status." They looked at the numbers and determined that lending to the U.S. is riskier now due to the increasing debts, increasing spending and decreasing income. Debt to income is one of the most basic assessments to determine creditworthiness.
I do not have a Prime Minister but I do have a low debt to income ratio so I was able to borrow money to buy a home. Maybe I should have had a P.M. so I could get a lower rate. This article is as inane as the "made in China" article. CNN needs to offer college economics courses for their reporters so we won't have to continue to read these obtuse articles.
The USA should very much consider going to a parliamentary system.
more and more the u.s. government is becoming more obsolete. it is time to end a system of gvmt. that doesn't work for it's people. allows and expects the rich to pay for the poor and can't keep it's hand out of my pocket. easiest solution to our governments incompotance is to have several independant countries with prime ministers and accountability. our government doesn't work mostly because our country is too big!
Thanks, I have recently been looking for facts about this subject matter for ages and yours is the best I've discovered so far.
Well as of 11 AM EST I now can't access the site again after being able to do so for a few hours this morning from home.
Interesting article Bill...we found that we suffered the age-old "what is this site about" problem a while back, where our bounce rate was through the roof as visitors weren't presented with clear information about our services. We've since redesigned the site with clear messages to help explain our existence...bounce rate is much lower and it seems to be working!
I was more than happy to search out this net-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this excellent learn!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.
Recently reviewed on Download.com, the anti spyware removes trojans, cleans throw away files, repairs vulnerabilities and optimizes the Windows operating procedure representing users
I received a complaint for foreclosure from HSBC it was verified by Joseph M Papariella Assistant Vice President Bank of America NA successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP. It was not notarized and I'd like to know if you have heard of this person. It was dated 8/4/2011.SincerelyLiz Santana
This is a complete information center about the sales and rental marketplace in Manhattan. Here you will find everything you need to know in order to make an informed decision before begin your search for an apartment to buy or rent.
I drop a comment whenever I especially enjoy a post on a website or if I have something to add to the conversation. Usually it's triggered by the fire communicated in the post I read. And after this post %NAME%. I was moved enough to drop a thought
I actually do have a few questions for you if it's allright. Could it be simply me or do a few of these comments look as if they are left by brain dead individuals? 
And, if you are posting at additional social sites, I'd like to follow everything new you have to post. Could you list the complete urls of all your shared pages like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
Excellent post. I used to be checking continuously this blog and I'm impressed! Very useful information particularly the last part
I deal with such info a lot. I used to be looking for this certain information for a very lengthy time. Thank you and best of luck.
hi!,I really like your writing very so much! proportion we be in contact more approximately your article on AOL? I require a specialist on this house to resolve my problem. Maybe that's you! Looking ahead to see you.
Woah this blog is wonderful i really like studying your posts. Keep up the great work! You understand, many people are looking around for this information, you can help them greatly.
You really make it appear so easy together with your presentation however I in finding this matter to be really one thing which I feel I'd by no means understand. It sort of feels too complicated and very broad for me. I'm looking ahead to your next submit, I'll attempt to get the cling of it!
You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I in finding this matter to be actually one thing that I feel I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I'm having a look forward in your next post, I'll try to get the hang of it!
All this argument on who is right and who is wrong in the past is the whole problem with this country. How about talking about what we can do now to make things better. I'm looking for real ideas from both sides not bashing. Cheap shots are easy and unproductive. Talk radio style debates should not rule our country.
http://buyaciphexonline.over-blog.org/ aciphex generic name
http://whipautos.tv/forum/topics/buy-zopiclone-online order zopiclone
http://whipautos.tv/forum/topics/buy-cheap-reductil-15mg reductil information
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is magnificent blog. A great read. I will certainly be back.
You can certainly see your skills in the paintings you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always go after your heart.
Thanks for helping me to gain new concepts about computers. I also have belief that one of the best ways to help keep your laptop computer in excellent condition is to use a hard plastic-type case, or perhaps shell, that will fit over the top of the computer. These kinds of protective gear usually are model distinct since they are made to fit perfectly across the natural covering. You can buy all of them directly from the vendor, or from third party sources if they are intended for your notebook computer, however not every laptop will have a spend on the market. Just as before, thanks for your guidelines.
Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I've really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I'll be subscribing to your feed and I'm hoping you write once more very soon!
I liked as much as you will obtain carried out proper here. The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. however, you command get bought an impatience over that you would like be turning in the following. unwell undoubtedly come further formerly again since precisely the similar just about a lot regularly within case you protect this hike.
Simply want to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity on your publish is simply spectacular and i could think you are a professional in this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to stay updated with coming near near post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please carry on the enjoyable work.
Wow, marvelous weblog layout! How long have you ever been running a blog for? you make running a blog glance easy. The entire glance of your site is excellent, as well as the content material!
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you actually recognize what you are speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also discuss with my web site =). We could have a hyperlink exchange agreement between us
You can certainly see your expertise in the paintings you write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time go after your heart.
You already know therefore considerably in the case of this subject, produced me in my view consider it from so many numerous angles. Its like men and women aren't involved until it is one thing to accomplish with Girl gaga! Your individual stuffs outstanding. At all times deal with it up!
I was recommended this web site by means of my cousin. I'm no longer certain whether or not this put up is written by him as nobody else recognize such designated approximately my trouble. You are wonderful! Thanks!
Unquestionably consider that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the internet the simplest factor to remember of. I say to you, I certainly get irked even as other folks think about concerns that they plainly do not understand about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and also outlined out the whole thing with no need side-effects , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you
Heya i am for the primary time here. I found this board and
I in finding It really helpful & it helped me out much. I hope
to present one thing back and aid others such
as you helped me.http://forums.motioninjoy.com/viewtopic.php?
f=25&t=26647
Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention that I have really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I am hoping you write again soon!
I believe this internet site contains some really fantastic information for everyone. "Few friendships would survive if each one knew what his friend says of him behind his back." by Blaise Pascal.
Yesterday, while I was at work, my sister stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a 30 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!