By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
I wrote a blog post for the Global Public Square website that has gotten a great deal of reaction. So let me talk about it for a moment.
It all started because I read a website that pointed out that after the S&P downgrade of the United States, no country with a presidential system has a AAA 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).
This brought to mind my years in political science grad school and an essay by, a famous Yale scholar, who says that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems because they allow for greater stability and purposive action.
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.
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.
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. In 1945 Britain enacted a quasi-socialist economic plan that set the country on a bad path.
But look at the situation today. Western countries all have created welfare states and governmental systems that are cumbersome, sluggish and expensive –especially as the population ages.
These need to be reformed and many of the reforms are fairly obvious - in social security, energy policy, tax reform. But the American government has lost the ability to actually implement any policy solutions because of political gridlock
Listen to what the S&P actually said in its downgrade. "America's governance and policymaking [is] becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed.. . Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge."
This is not just about the presidential system alone. Recent developments have added to polarization and paralysis. The fillibuster for example, is not in the constitution but it is now routinely used to allow a minority of one house to block all legislation.
In a fast-moving world, where other countries are acting quickly and with foresight, we are paralyzed.
It's all very well to keep saying that we have the greatest system in the histroy of the world but against this background of dysfunction, it sounds a lot like thoughtless cheerleading.
For more of my thoughts through the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebookand 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
With respect, I don't think the system itself is the issue. While there are a number or process improvements that could be made, the overall system is effective and will work. There are really two larger issues that are leading to this legislative paralysis.
First, we have a two party system where the parties have evolved over time to have two polar opposite philosophies on how this country should be run. Over the years, the view points have become increasingly extreme and further apart on the political spectrum. This leads to the lack of legislative action we have seen in past few decades on anything significant.
The result of that though leads to the second issue. The American public is not actively engaged in the governance of their own country. It is not unusual to see 35-40% of the eligible public not vote in mid-term or even presidential elections. That leads to the most passionate people have the most say in the voting. Sadly, those people are voting in the polar opposite politicians who end up being more interested in appeasing their specific electorate and getting reelected than actually producing meaningful results that benefit all people.
The only way we can really resolve these issues are by doing the following:
- Have at least one legitimate additional party in Congress with enough seats to avoid gridlock that is in the political center
- Voting must increase to 85-90% to ensure the voice of the common American is heard and reflected in Congress
- Term limits for all elected officials must be at the very least mandated by the voters if not written into law
I believe doing those simple things will ensure we have real people who want to solve real problems governing this country instead of public officials who see their roles as a career rather than a temporary service to their country.
Toby... I see your point but after studying political science and history in University there is no guarantee that a third party, and there are many other parties in the US, will become as large/ well known/ trusted as the Dems and GOP. I believe the overall theme in Fareed's message is a country that is Predictable. You see, in Parliamentary democracies like Canada, France, and etc sure different parties (Conservative, Liberal, etc) will assume all the power in the Executive and Legislative Branches depending on elections with the goal to enact their own policies, but a policy of 1 party that is very popular with the public (Universal Health Care in Canada for example) will not be undone by the future election of another party because it would be political suicide.
Universal Health Care in Canada was introduced by a party on the left and despite numerous right of center governments afterward, it remains intact.
Having only two "trusted" parties though is precisely the issue. No debate truly only has two viewpoints as most issues are more complicated than that. What our system has devolved to are two parties that aren't willing to agree on anything so they accomplish nothing. The true root cause of the issue is that people have just accepted that we have to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican.
A great example of this were the recent elections in the Ohio 1st Congressional District. In '08 the long time seat holder was voted out only to be voted back in two years later riding wave of voter anger.
My greater point is that the system of government would work fine. The problem is the people being inputted into that system are not truly representing the majority of Americans because of the true lack of choice.
Not always true. And you don't appear to credit the true danger of this system – uninterrupted hegemony of a single party. This basically results in a dictatorship of the majority. An example of this is visible in Great Britain. Where Labor held power for so long it enacted policies favored by the labor elite that actually damaged the country long-term. The self-righteousness of a seemingly unending mandate and the power that goes with it led to ministerial hubris, and downright bad decision-making.
'Predictable' is certainly nice from the point of view of a creditor, but that is not really what the Founders were looking for. Several people suggested an executive appointed by (the majority in) Congress prior to the Con Con (Jay and King at least in conversations with Washington). This was rejected by the Convention. Not only was the separate election of the Presidency required, but under original rules, the Vice President was likely to belong to a different caucus and the Senate was elected by the state legislatures. It was intended that government *should* deadlock except on completely non-controversial issues. Even today, the Senate is known as "the place where bills go to die" and it is working as intended in that respect.
Perhaps the Founders were 'wrong'. They certainly were not perfect, but I think it is clear our system was not chosen by accident and that a parliamentary government would fundamentally alter our system, not just patch a 'problem'. As other posters have pointed out, the real problem is that there is little agreement about where we are going and a large portion of the population is disinterested. Having a system where a slim majority (any slim majority) could simply plunge ahead would be just as much of a disaster in this situation as one with the deadlocks we are experiencing.
@johnymac: LAbout managed 13 years in power, 1 year more than Reagan and Bush combined and 7 years less than roosevelt and truman combined. I'm not sure any party has ever held power in Britain for as long as the dems did in 32-52, and very very few if any PMs have beaten Roosevelt's 12 years. This century I can only think of 2 prime ministers who have managed 8 consecutive years, whereas a number of US preseidents have. It's the same as any system, if you don't like someone, you can vote them out. We even have motions of no confidence and the ability for parliament to dissolve itself so non functioning ogvts can be replaced.
The measure of polarity we see in politics and congress today are directly related to the agendas driven by the president.
With that, if we have an extremely liberal president, he/she may advocate a VERY liberal agenda. When something EXTREME hits Congress, they have no choice but to polarize: Congressmen were voted into office to represent those who elected them, as such they have NO choice but to vote their inherent values.
Take it the other way, if we have an extremely conservative president, he/she may advocate a VERY conservative agenda. When something EXTREME hits Congress, they have no choice but to polarize: Congressmen were voted into office to represent those who elected them, as such they have NO choice but to vote their inherent values.
Thus, we DON'T HAVE to have a polarized government. IF our president chooses to bring CENTERED and MODERATE agenda items to Congress, Congress can act in less of a polarized fashion.
Democrats and Republicans agree on some points. We need to balance the budget. We need to cut spending AND we need to raise taxes. Republicans are not against raising taxes, they are against raising taxes unfairly. EVERYONE needs to own our debt. Taxes can be raised across the board to help pay for our debt situation. AND, expenses can be cut across multiple areas of Government: the defense budget needs to be cut and the welfare budget needs to be cut hand in hand.
These things CAN HAPPEN. We are not a polarized nation. We have a leader who is implementing polarizing agenda items and it is causing our country to appear as though our government is broken. It isn't broken.
@B W Messenger: The problem is, the president is from one of those two polarized parties. Even if he wanted a moderate agenda, he has to follow his party if he wants their support in the next election. If he plays centrist, both sides will denounce him for being ineffective. Its a conflict in interests. What Fareed is saying is that in a parliamentary system, this conflict cannot exist because the Prime Minister sets the agenda of the legislature as the leader of the majority. If the move is unpopular, he and his coalition pay in the next legislative election and he is removed.
Congress has the finally say in the creation of laws and policies, the issue is that our political parties are blinded by their own ideology, in a "one size fits all" mindset. The country does not need a "Compromise", it needs a "Amalgamation" of ideas from both sides to fit the current situation we're in, taking in all factors that are relevant too the NOW not during 30 years ago or what work or didn't work in the Great Depression.
We are in a extraordinary debt crisis, you must take drastic measures! The only way out is if we both raise taxes on the wealthy, cut back massively on government spending, reform social security, medicare/medicaid, and welfare( the fact that there hasn't been reforming in those program lead us into this situation in the first place), and at least if nobodies getting anywhere on Afghanistan/ Iraqi debates, reform the way the military spends the money (seriously, blowing up hummvees instead of changing the oil when it runs out and 360 million ending up in contract deals with Tailban linked companies? Come on now)
The problem with our system here in Canada is right now the Conservatives have a de facto dictatorship. They stacked the senate with Conservative senators and now have a majority government. He even gets to appoint the judges. Right now with the Conservatives (who I fully support) in power they can do whatever they want as the Liberals did many years ago. There is no balance of power and nothing to keep one person or one party from having all the power. I am a dual citizen, have lived just under half of my life in the US. I much prefer the US system.
B W Messenger-
You need a history lesson. Obama is not bringing a "VERY liberal agenda" Cap a trade was a Republican Idea – let the market manage the external cost of pollution, the health care bill was a conservative idea back in the 1990's as a counter to socialized medicine. If anything our president can be classified as a conservative from 1990s.
Republicans are most certainly against raising taxes, at least that's what their pledge to norquest says. Our tax code is such that you only pay the taxes in your tax bracket on the income from that tax bracket. for example. $0 – $8,500 while $8,501 – $34,500 is 15% if you make $9000 you pay only 10% for the first $8500 than 15% for the second $500. ergo rich people get tax breaks when taxes fall for the lower and middle classes but then get additional tax breaks for having higher incomes. This is anything but fair. Also the reason why 50% of the population pay no income tax at all is because they have no money to pay. If our national wealth were better distributed more people would pay taxes. So the fact that 50% pay no income tax at all is not a reason to tax them more but a reason to tax higher income earners more to better distribute wealth thus making some of that 50% pay more taxes.
American politics has been pulled right since Reagan – see overton window and not Glen Beck's collection of sentence salad rather the concept in political science after which it is named. The modern conservatives have come so far right in recent years they wouldn't be happy unless all our social safety nets were gone and we were living in a theocracy.
Toby Langworthy – while term limits sound great and make a wholesome soundbite they are a horrible idea. First if you know you can't be elected you are no longer accountable to the electorate. Second being elected to multiple successive terms builds experience in your job. Tossing someone out because they've had two terms already is like throwing that experience away.
I'm sorry did you just say the republicans and democrats are trusted by the public?
A third party would be good. I think that is one issue that is a constant in American politics. There are only 2 parties. If you are a Dem and believe in certain republican philosphies you are told you are too this or that. If you are a Republican and believe in certain Dem ideas, you are treated the same way. Right now, the idea of being a moderate has been erased. It is a funny things-you can't categorize thoughts. I think that a moderate party should be created. I think the world laughs at us a lot because we only have 2 parties. Maybe having a Prime Minister and President wouldn't be so bad?
I think we would be better off to elect a president for six years only. This would alleviate the country from perpetual election politics. It used to be that once a president was elected we gave them a chance to govern. Obama was given a good week as a honeymoon, and has been subjected to polls almost weekly. The constant questioning is nothing more than a thinly veiled rejection, but on what merit? We have seen that the cost for this has been the loss of reverence for government. Some Republicans have pushed for this development and justify it by stating boldly that want less government, all- the- while using their elected position to pander for corporate money. Others say this has everything to do with reporters crossing the line to make news in order to bolster ratings. Sadly we live at a time when politicians, judges, and even clergy need to be watched for being petty, easily bought off, being stupid, being crass, or worse. Call me a cynic, maybe we should force elected officials to take training on government, public administration, and have them punch in for work. At least this way they will know who pays their salary, and who they are betraying when they sell us out.
II'm not an Obama-basher by any means, and I agree with your disgust at endless polls. Perhaps they should be restricted as useless at best, but propaganda at worst. But I am afraid that history will show that we have in the past had governments with similar balance of power arrangements that have been able to function, and in at least one case – Lyndon Johnson – the difference came in the form of the Chief Executive himself. Well-versed in the vilified 'Washington Insider" political machine, he was well-able for the job. And was able to compromise and work well with both enemies and allies as a result of that familiarity.
We shouldn't revere the government.
I do not believe Fareed would have written this were the Republicans in power today. I agree that our system is complex and slow. It is a fact that "benelovent" (or not) dictators get things done much quicker. The problem remains that a system's main goal is to remain in power...
As for the tripple A, only the near future will tell if France and others can keep theirs. It has nothing to do with their parliamentary systems.
The US have faced other moments of divide in the fundamental vision of the role of government and survived because of the system we have. It may be messy, but I'd rather see it worked out rather than see a system introduced that avoids this because it gives full un-checked power to any side.
Our current problems in government are not owed to differences between the Republicans and Democrats. In fact, the constant vying for positioning is what provides the US with the balance that makes us unique. The problem we are having is that we have allowed sociopaths to positions of power when their very code of conduct is contrary to governing. We as a nation must hold people accountable, if some Republicans are being destructive then get rid of them. If some Democrats are too failing to work for the middle class, then find some that are. Bottom line, we can not roll back the perceived glorious days of the 50's. Can not happen, no! So we must learn to find ways to build a future that protects civil liberties, promotes the American dream, and inures inclusion, otherwise we are handing out our freedom to the elitist groups who don't even view themselves as American and view us as suckers.
Well stated Sally in CH...carry on.
Good ideas Toby but I don't know how you can persuade 85% of the electorate to vote. Unless maybe you had their IRS refund /welfare check waiting for them at the polls.
Fareed, calling the "Presidential System" into question over political polarization shows a lack of basic reasoning skills.
Example: I tried to put a pair of pants on this morning and they were too tight, I couldn't button them. I did not conclude that "Pants" were a bad "system", I concluded I had gotten fat or my pants had shrunk. I needed to lose weight or get a bigger pair.
Fareed sees our Our "Presidential System" is not working as well as we would like, and despite 235 years historical success, he calls it into question. Liberals reflexively believe "Change" is an ideology to applied everywhere to everything whatever the object or however long or successful the tradition in question.
Fareed did you just get Pantsed?
It hasn't been 235 years of success. There have been plenty of failures from the very start of our country. And there is little doubt the system failed us during the debt crisis – and the system is what brought us to this level of debt. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. In fact, your attempt to paint it as such simply underscores that that is the climate that exists in this country, and our system both feeds from and falters because of it.
Here's one example of how to promote participation. My mother-in-law is Canadian and lived in a nursing home in the Province of Quebec. Before each election, officials canvas the communities to assure people are registered to vote and know how and where to vote. If someone can not get to the polls they make it easy to vote by alternate means - typically an absentee ballot.
Har, har, har! Yes, that's Fareed Zakaria's problem: lack of basic reasoning skills. I actually laughed out loud right there.
It doesn't work. The biggest joke is the US touting democracy and choice when there is none. It's one or the other. And if you don't like either choices you can try voting for a third party, but history shows most of those don't get very far.
You spelled it out beautifully!!! Bravo, Dom!
Prime Minister/ Parliament has been around for a very long time. at 200 and some years of being a country a president is a very short time in history. Every country has problems and sees problems every country has its peak and then decline. Problem with the states is that to many people are ignorant to the fact that there is a bigger world outside of USA and its going to be more powerful and wealthier then the States – AND the biggest point is that these countries will be run by a Prime Minister. the Parliament system has alot more checks and balances as to once you become a president you basically have all the power you want and if you don't you work around those areas so they work with you. The States had one thing MONEY and a Economy to support that money value – now they dont have either. It will be very interesting to see the States make friends with countries when they dont have anything to buy them off with! Next 10 years are going to be very interesting for us North Americans!!!
"the Parliament system has alot more checks and balances as to once you become a president you basically have all the power you want and if you don't you work around those areas so they work with you."
I'm not sure where you learned basic government but "having all the power you want" doesn't sound like checks and balances to me.
Dom, your analogy is right on the money. The Parlimentary system in fact just leaves you with a benevolent dictator or either right wing or left wing persuasion for 4-5 years. the best thing you can say about a parlimentary system is the occasional minority government that forces cooperation and compromise. You need at least three parties to do that.
Also, in a parlimentary system the Prime Minister rules with an iron fist over the members in "his party". i prefer the fact that democrats and republicans often swing from the party line into the middle.
Hi Toby, while your argument appears to be persuasive on first read, your observations are actually not historically correct. Since the founding of the United States of America, politics has been fractious and at times violent. Third parties have emerged, typically on a populist issue, and both major parties have evolved their message and one or other (or both iin some cases) has subsumed the populist message, and moved their platform to accommodate the prospective voters. The parties have not evolved in opposite directions at all. Rather the politics of the country has evolved. Further, your opinion as to extreme politics is actually laughable in a global context. American party politics is significantly one-sided compared to the rest of the world. Elsewhere – right wing can mean Fascism, and left wing can mean communism. Conservatism and liberalism are often expressed in totalitarianism or anarchist movements. So globally, the American parties seem ridiculously close in dogma. Hyped-up depictions of the particular fellows you don't agree with are nonsense to anyone who truly understands political science – until populations come to the point of revolution or anarchy, American politics is simply more of the same. That is not going to happen anytime soon.
Our system of government is so far twisted up in red tape we cannot achieve any kind of decisive action. Bureaucracy is the problem here.
Arnold, not sure if I understand your argument. Current problems, like ensuring that our long-term finances are in order, must be addressed by politicians, not bureaucrats. Mechanisms that are standing in the way of decisive action, like filibusters and primaries that appeal to fringes of the electorate, are self-imposed by the politicians, not examples of red tape.
Finally. A calm, on-topic, common sense, well-thought out, and reasonable reply. Would that more occurred, at all levels of America. We might get Congress to start working together again. Well done and well said.
Anytime a 3rd party with members enough to feel important to create a majority, they will show their imprtance. When this 3rd party has no feel for their country but want to force their agenda, good luck for that country. Same happens when a huge majority is received by a single party who has no respect for the minority's agenda. You will see both these situations when you look at history of Prime Minister based democracies in Asia. So, its not about the what system, the discussion should be what are the responsibilities of democratically elected members? Want to force his/her agenda only? If so, is it different than being a dictator?
Fareed seems to be unfamiliar with the US Const i tution, where each branch of government is defined.
He is also unfamiliar with the fact that a filibuster is not permitted in the House of Representatives, but only permitted in the Senate.
The voice OF EACH STATE is represented in the Senate. The voice of the POPULACE of each state is represented in the House of Representatives.
The PRESIDENT represents ALL citizens as a NATION.
I find it interesting that someone who lays claim to higher education is unaware of things taught in grade school and expanded upon in high school!
The theory of the balance of power is wonderful. It is the practice where it has been failing. Too many politicians pander to the big donors of their campaigns rather than represent their electorate. Many seem to be in politics for personal gain rather than the public good.
In Australia voting is mandatory.
It is not possible, however, to mandate *informed* voting.
That it is, perhaps the other advantage that Australia has is in the preferential voting system that we also have, in ranking your choices of candidates in elections a better picture of the overall will of the voting population is able to be delivered. This concept does seem to be quite foreign in most countries though.
I like your post. I really wish this would happen. Things would actually get done, look at the lame duck session we had at the end of last year, more got done in that short of time then the months that have passed or the months before. Unfortunately I do not see it happening any time soon. People are blind to realize what the issues really are and the politicians have too cushy of job give up even when it is better for the USA. I personally am fed up with both parties (more so the Republicans than the Democrats). I wish a moderate Independent would enter the race for POTUS because right now the Republicans (Perry/Bachmann) are forcing me to vote Democrat again because of their extreme policies. If this third party candidate did exist they would win
I am convinced that the US political machine is broken. What we do have is a continuous-campaign that permeates every policy discussion, and huge investments that “buy” politicians. It is ridiculous to blame the right or the left any longer; they’re all guilty of self-interest and campaign loyalty to their contributors (Congress and President). I suggest that we need a systemic solution to address the root-cause of political incompetence and government inefficiency. I’d suggest the Framers knew the “system” would need changing, which is why the Amendment process was created. Let’s use it by:
1. Creating the 28th Amendment that would establish a one 6-year term for Congress (House and Senate) and the President. The terms would rotate like they do now to provide continuity and overlap in governance. (This would essentially end the continuous campaign)
2. Pass legislation that would END private/corporate contributions to Congress and Presidential candidates. The campaign season would start 6 months before the election and all “legitimate” (signature imitative) candidates would get equal funds and air-time. Funding would come from the general budget. (This would create a money-trail back to “The People” not special interest. It would greatly curtail lobbying as we know it today).
3. Bring all troops home; all wars and close all military bases. It’s time to put home-first. Get them truly defending America and building schools/infrastructure in the US not in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. (Focusing on us/USA rather than the world would rejuvenate the youth who see their future squandered by greed; they’re not stupid. Simply inform the world, “It’s been nice folks, but we can’t afford to help you any more – you are on your own”).
4. Set up an independent “Political Accountability Panel” that would maintain an on-line accountability chart listing all votes and decisions by Representatives, Senators and the President by comparing their promises/platform during the campaign to what they delivered on when elected. In the case of gross contradictions; consider legal ramifications.
While I find your post very well thought out, I have to disagree with part of your fourth idea. Definitely bring the troops home, but I think continued investment in other countries, whether in building schools or literally investing in the business sense, should be a long term goal. I don't say this because I feel bad for other countries and feel they need our help (they don't) but raising the overall economic prosperity of other countries will increase their demand for commodities such as computers, electronics etc., things we make very well and hence increasing our own economic prosperity.
Sorry, I meant part of your third idea.
We already have a parliament system, we just have checks and balances. The House of Representatives IS a parliament. The Speaker of the House IS the Prime Minister. Call them by what ever name you want. The problem this freaky foreigner has is not with our system, its with the Checks and balances. He wants a dictator, and less representation of the people and more representation of a national political party. This way they can ignore the people and listen only to their party leaders. He is a communist, he wishes for a dictatorship where the "parliament" will just check off on everything the dictator tells them to do. Very unAmerican for a person not from America... not at all surprised.
Zakaria is a naturalized American citizen and a centrist.
What he has written is called an essay.
He just elaborate on problems related to our political system and propose potential alternatives.
A constructive reaction from your side would be that you elaborate more in details why you think he is wrong and even better that you make a proposal instead of trying to criticize his ideas by criticizing him as a person.
'polar opposites' is not really true. you have 2 essentially aligned parties that make mountains out of the mole hills that divide them. Neither party is talking about serious change to govt policies, just a few degrees movements when you compare the full range of possible positions.
Although I find your ideas thought provoking, there are some glaring issues. You can't just add a third party and call it legitimate when it lacks the support of the people. Furthermore, what kind of party would it be? Republicans wouldn't want it to be another Tea Party since they'd be losing voters more than Democrats. It would have to be a moderate party that doesn't weaken one party over the other, but finding the fair middle ground that would appeal to both sides wouldn't be easy. A fair middle ground might appeal to swing voters, but then again it might not. Although a 3rd party would be wonderful, how successful it would be is a big question mark at best.
Getting 85-90% to vote? Wow, good luck with that. This country's tried for years to get people to "Rock the Vote". Voter turnout is still currently below 50%. Raising it to 85-90% could take decades.
It's not that I dislike your ideas here, it's that they're just not solutions for the years 2011, 2012, etc. We need results NOW.
Toby, I take your point, but I think that it's a bit of a stretch to describe the Democrats and Republicans as "polar opposites". Yes, particularly in recent years, cracks have widened in areas such as national health cover and government spending. However, it's not as though we are talking about the Tories and the Communists. Both the Dems and Repubs share many similar policies – free trade, open markets, strong defence force and so on. I suspect that there are more similarities than disagreements, but it is unfortunate that where they do disagree, they do so very acrimoniously.
if the house and the senate are dems and gop than of course our president who has his own share of power... should be libertarian or another third party affiliate
You can squabble about Parliaments, or Parties ... the problem with our whole political system boils down to one simple problem .... money. Republicans take millions from their rich cronies to help their cause, Democrats take millions from powerful organizations like Labor Unions (as if the average Labor Union in this day and age cares about their membership at all) to help their cause ... who is really representing "The People." Until big money is taken out of politics, a true representative of "The Average Joe" will never be elected again.
Your right about a third party but in order for that to happen the media will have to actually give air time to other candidates which the the establishment will be against cause another party would threaten their monopoly on government. Look at Ron Paul, the media doesnt give him the time of day so people just think hes a cook, if you want a thrid party we need real reporting, not agendas and oppinions which is the only thing fareed is good at.
"kook", my bad
I agree with Toby, and according to polls, there are enough disillusioned people with the two parties, that now see themselves as independents, that have moderate views, and that can justify being represented in congress by a third party. I am sure that these disgraceful shenanigans over the debt ceiling would not have happened had we had a third party in congress.
Just what we need, another overpaid blowhard.
Every two years, we throw a coup. We're the greatest country in the world.
on what basis do you make that statement? You need to define 'great' as I am sure other people in other countries feel the same about their country – so what is the criteria?
He means every 2 years we have bloodless coup for the House of Representatives, every 4 years for Senate and every 4 years for President. A bloodless coup, by every US Citizen who makes the effort to vote at the ballot box!
And yet another column trying to make a case for the europeanization of the US. Their argument; the US is baaaad; Europe is gooood.
It apparaently doesn't occure to Zakaria that our presidential system...where the executive is not "fused" with the legislature is part of our checks and balances. In fact, you might even say that in those cases where they were "fused" (i.e. the same Party controlled the Senate, House and Presidency) have been absolutely disasterous as the Party in power has wildly overreached on a purely ideological agenda. Clinton in '92, Bush in '00, and Obama in '08.
Zakaria also overlooks the fact that in many parlimentary systems, governments rise and fall with regularity. Only in the Nordic countries do they have anything approaching stability. Culturually, the US is much closer to the Mediterranean countries than the Nordic countries....a parlimentary system here would be a disaster.
And for those europhile Leftists, ask yourself thiis. Would you have liked a parlimentary system from 2000-06 when Bush and the Neocons had total power? We would have privatized social security, and a host of other Right wing agenda items.
This is the most intelligent post I've seen on this. Thank you!
In general there are some good comments here (much better than the comments sections on most CNN stories), but John is a little off. The story didn't start with a "USA bad, Europe good;" that's foolish oversimplification. Zakaria simply notes that parliamentary democracies with PM's might avoid the kind of deadlock we in the US are subject to, and which is clearly not good for the country. The founders would be appalled by this ideologically-driven paralysis and the self-important stubbornness behind it. If you think our system is working well, you haven't been paying attention.
Well said WEST. That's the basic problem with a lot of our discourse in this country. Oversimplification and the seemingly uncontrollable desire to try and demonize those that disagree with you on some things.
"Remember, the political battle surrounding the debt ceiling is actually impossible in a parliamentary system because the executive controls the legislature." I'm afraid it's the other way round. The legislature controls the executive, as its members get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body,
I agree with you on this point. however... even though the Prime Minister is the "First amongst equals" he/she is the leader of the political party he/ she represents. In Canada's case the Conservative Party controls ore that 50% of the seats in the House... so the PM who controls the confidence of those legislators of the same party can with their support kick out any dissenting Conservative Party member forcing them to sit as an Independent. In the next election the Conservatives will place a new candidate to run against the former |Conservative and thus during the next election solidify its control over the House.
Indeed, you're talking about the Westminster Model of parliamentary system. Canada of course had adopted the British one. In the rest of Europe the system works differently.
A parliament is more efficient only if it has a majority of the seats. If it holds only a minority, all legislation will require the cooperation of one or more of the opposing parties, and that can be difficult, if not impossible in some cases. The problem in the US is that current politicians do not know or care about what is best for the country or the world. That is the beginning of the end of the American empire.
I think it was Lord Hailsham that coined the term "parliamentary dictatorship" in reference to the minority govt of Wilson/Callaghan which had no mandate from the majority of the electorate. Then it was applied to the Thatcher govt which won large majorities with 40% of the vote. In fact if Wales had the FPTP system the country would be effectively a one party state with Labour in power forever (well they already have been). No Zakaria's argument is not about democracy but stability just like Mussolini's Italy.
Sorry that should have been "elected dictatorship" same thing basically!
You can have ours (UK) if you like?
well see the whole point of USA that they wanted to brake away from UK!
No, America does not need a prime minister. America needs a president.
Admitedly our current president acts more like a King enjoying fringe benefits and just being a celebrity. We need someone with experience – not a social planner whose whole career has been "present", with commitment – not always on vacation and getting photos for his presidential library, and who follows through on his promises (and stops lying) can anyone say three wars, prison camp still open, no jobs, and etc. Currently the first celebrity and America's Marie Antionette are on vacation. It was taxing and he needed the time off from his numerous birthday parties and from flying on airforce one to the midwest to drive around and campaign in his new multi-million dollar death-star buses.
Frankly, I am hoping BO is out of office in 2013 and we have someone who can get something done that the people want (not just pushing through his own agenda items like obamacare and the new illegal immigrant items). I have no clue however who I am going to vote for though. I am an independent that usually votes Democrat. I hope that someone in his own party has the guts to challenge him.
Just because you don't want something does not mean that people of this country feel the same way. And to think that putting someone in office who APPEARS to be decisive (Rick Perry perhaps) is a good idea is simply ridiculous. What could this president possibly do to satisfy you? Why do you act surprised when he carries out the agenda of the people who elected him president (not his own personal agenda). Did you even vote for him in 2009?
No, I did not vote for Obama. I wanted to vote for Clinton. I could not stand to vote for McCain and Palin. Since I did not feel Obama was qualified for the job but that the alternatives were worse, I decided not to vote against him and "hope" that the confidence others put in him was well founded. (Yes, this means I refrained from voting). Personally, I thought people were voting for an Idea and not for the person and his record and qualifications. I have to admit that the "idea" was attractive and long overdue.
My friends who voted for him and were so woo hoo have gone from Obama will save this country (hope and change), to he is doing his best (evil advisors), to he is in over his head but what could anyone do. I hoped he would succeed. I thought on the worst end that he would just be status quo. What I see is a man who is focused on himself (serious egotist issues), who is enjoying the perks of the job to the max, but who is all flash and no delivery.
You asked what I want. Well not Rick Perry. I do not see any Rupublican candidate that I could support (at least right now). What I would really like is for Obama to step out of the next race citing whatever reasons he feels would put him in the best light and let someone else from the Democratic party step forward (not Biden). Since that is unlikely to happen I am doing two things 1) looking at the Mitt Romney to see if there is even a chance I could vote for him and 2) trying to see if there is another candidate that might be coming out of the Democratic party.
So I will be voting this next election and it will not be Obama. I just hope soon there is a candidate that I can support with my money, time, and vote.
Just to add to the below... I would like to see a serious independent candidate run for president. Politically I am a moderate with liberal leanings on social issues. Most candidates seem too far left or tea party right. Brett if you know of a potential candidate (and I am not talking Obama or Perry) that might be interesting please reply with their name. I am currently reading up on candidates and looking at their views, records, promises versus delivery, personal views (public servant versus self centered egotist), and etc.
the last post should read ... add to the above instead of below. I had thought it would post in a different order.
Let's all just vote for Ron Paul. He seems to have America's best interests in mind (Middle and Lower class). He certainly doesn't have his own political career as his best interest or he'd be spitting out different brands of the same stuff all the other Rep. candidates are trying to sell.
president Obama has taken about 60 days "vacation" in his 3 years; Bush jr 69 in his first year. The link below has all the numbers (Clinton was the lowest); they speak for themselves:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
No President is ever on vacation for real. Obama isn't, Bush wasn't, Clinton wasn't etc. The point though is the optics of it. With the country how it is right now, for the Administration to project images of Obama just leisurely riding his bike in MV, eating ice cream, and shopping in a bookstore, is just insensitive to the country.
I was reading the comment string and appreciating how civil and reasoned it was - until I read sunlight's comment.
About the subject: Since governance is a process of compromise, you have to notice that compromise occurs (or is supposed to occur) in different ways in the different systems. In European parliamentary systems, most of the compromising occurs between the election and the formation of government. In these multipary systems, the parties negotiate from their points of view with other parties to formulate a program for governing. The people have a more nuanced choice when they vote, but the resulting government and government program may surprise them. In our system the choices are limited and the compromising is supposed to happen between the members of each house and between the Congress and the President. But the art of compromise has taken a terrible beating.
If we had a parliamentary system the whole government would keep switching every time people got angry, which seems to be all the time these days. So much for stability! Another weakness in Fareed's borrowed argument is that it totally fails to take account of our bi-cameral system.
Sunlight's mind is parroting radio blather. As we ALL know, President Obama has taken now about 74 days of vacation since taking office; while President Bush had taken close to 230 days of vacation after taking office (over the same time period). So that argument is ridiculous and really makes ANYONE who says otherwise a simpleton.
Regarding the Secret Service buses: One is for President Obama, and the other is for the winner of the Republican primaries. That second bus will be used to provide security for the Republican candidate – Indisputable facts, live with it. Both buses were made in Canada, by the same company that made the Secret Service buses that were used by President Bush – Inarguable facts. The postings by Sunlight, which detracted from the entire purpose of the article, demonstrates why listening to partison rhetoric rather than researching facts, is the cause for such division = Rhetoric from those whose only goal is to mislead for political gain find themselves angry and upset because the truth is not on their side – so they attempt to deceive or scare those who do not have time to search for or just don't WANT to see the facts.
It gets worse. On Friday night/Saturday morning, radio talk show host of Coast To Coast AM made the following comment regarding President Obama, "That guy is always on vacation!" That is a direct quote. Although he claims the program to be non-partison, it is clearly not. This show covers 545 stations at night, and tends to wander in to areas that it should not, according to the primary host's own philosophy. It is bad enough that people like Sunlight actually exist, it's worse when so-called professional broadcasters are helping to spread this propaganda – intentionally or through ignorance. That is what takes a reasonable conversation off track and transforms it in to a name-calling back and forth. I won't even comment on the remainder of Sunlight's posts as they really are just a waste of time.
Actually I never listen to talk radio so I have no clue what you are talking about. As far as my existance comment that appears to be a childish statement. What this post has done is make me aware that I should not just be sitting reading and thinking about how best to use "my vote" in 2012. As to Democrats and Independents who are disappointed in Obama from what I can tell talking to my friends and their friends – we are legion. So if we don't want to end up with one of the current Republican candidates in office we need to start organizing and see if there is a viable candidate that will either challenge Obama within the party or be/go Independent.
Frankly, I think you need to take a serious look at what Obama has promised and what he has delivered. Yes he has personality which worked really well with an unknown outsider promoting hope and change. It should be an interesting campaign. I would like to see him stand on his record.
Never did I say YOU listen to talk radio, however you prove my point that rhetoric is the basis for your argument. You have no sources for what you considered to be facts other than what you and your friends discuss – your "legion". You are distracted easily, and even when your argument is debunked, you refuse to admit you are wrong and; you change the subject of your postings, but not the objective.
When a Republican has to tell you that what is being said about a Democratic president is grossly incorrect, partison rhetoric, you must ask yourself: Why am I [you] misinformed about Obama? What you should do is research facts so you are not made to look so gullible. Know what is happening, admit when you are incorrect, and use your own logic. If your vote is based on the information you've posted, you might as well not vote. So far, your only objective is to find a way to NOT let President Obama get re-elected: same hollow goal as Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Vote for whomever you prefer, but please don't spread rhetoric about the sitting president – and expect that Americans will sit back and believe baseless madness. Oh, and where is Sen. McConnell? On a 5-week vacation, of course! Congress is gone for five weeks in the middle of all of this economic mess, after only seven months on the job! And they [the House and Senate] promised, "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" And in an article about "government," you single out the wrong branch with rhetoric, when the guilty party – (all parties of) Congress – are out of sight. My, my.
One item that might not be clear. As I said before I am an Independent with Democratic leanings. I am not a Republican. When I compare Obama and find him wanting it is not a comparison to GW Bush or that EB Dick Cheney. I hope that Bush's presidency does not become a viable measure against which other presidents are measured because to me better than Bush does not mean a lot. If he were to be worse than Bush then God help us all.
What I am comparing him to is the potential presidency of Hiliary Clinton (with Bill). Do I think we would be in the mess we are currently in if Bill Clinton (admittedly by proxy) was in the white house and the answer is no. I was concerned in the 2008 election with Obama's lack of experience and some of what I saw as character flaws (mostly to do with his trying to be all things to all people). I did not vote in the election because frankly Palin scares me (crazy and delusional) and I had reservations about Obama however it was rightly pointed out to me that at least one of our greatest presidents did not have grand qualifications going in but he rose to the occasion (A. Lincoln). So basically I may not have voted for him but I was glad he got in (over Palin) and hoped for the best. However, at this point I think we need someone else at the helm and not the tea party or etc. I am hoping he gets challenged within his own party and we have either a different Democratic choice or a viable Independent candidate comes forward.
@ Rabeenhood88
Basically because my contention was never debunked. Buying new buses that cost that much with taxpayer money that will be used for campaigning during the current economic situation is in poor taste even if one is for the Republicans. He should have bought it with his own campaign war chest and let the Republicans figure it out from their own contributions. Also did I read what you said correctly... the buses were purchased from a Canadian company – way to go BO.
If you like Obama and think he is fantastic then good for you. I don't need to read a Republican newsfeed to know what he promised and see what he has delivered (gitmo still open, 3 wars ongoing, bank bail outs, transparency in govt – what happened to the public getting to see the bills early, obamacare which is a problem and if you don't believe me just wait and see, huge increase in the national deficit, America credit downgrade, grid lock in congress not working across party lines, unseemly expenditures to benefit himself and his family during a national crisis, ...). Yes, the unseemly expenditure comment is my personal opinion but I think he would be better served vacationing at his regular home or in the white house. I would however be impressed if he used the time to help others, i.e. some type of community service or visit some of the places in the country that could use the publicity and assistance.
Obama came in with a mandate for change and good government. He had an opportunity to make a difference a real difference but instead has been more of a first celebrity than a hard working public servant. All this comparison to George W. Bush (on vacations and etc) is irrelevant. When comparing competency, dedication, and impact you compare to the best not the short end of the stick. Obama promised better than what we have gotten and if he truly had lived up to expectations he would not need to campaign and there would not be all this arguments.
I do read the NYtimes though and here is an article you might find of interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1
@ Rabeenhood88
your quote from above "you must ask yourself: Why am I [you] misinformed about Obama? What you should do is research facts so you are not made to look so gullible. Know what is happening, admit when you are incorrect, and use your own logic. "
You know if I am misinformed and gitmo really has been closed and soldiers are still not dying in Iraq and Afganistan I would love to hear it. Also, if the US is no longer involved in Libya that would be good to know as well. As to Obamacare you might find the article below of interest. I think we need to have universal coverage as there are large segments of the population suffering because of lack of healthcare coverage. I just don't think the current plan was very well thought out. I am hoping you are well informed enough to know that there were extensive bank bail outs and that this has not appeared to benefit the common man (but I can dig up references if you need them). Also, the US did experience a credit downgrade and congress has been deadlocked with huge cross party issues.
As to spending check the captions of the pictures of the Obamas vacations as to the number of family and friends that travel along. It should be pretty easy to find. Also the type of vacations ($$) as they are not backyard white house relaxations or even in his old pre-white house home. For the African vacation her mother, nephew, and niece also went along as well. As to my comment about his being an egotist. Has he ever written a book that was on something other than his own life? (not as far as I know). Listen to his speeches.. How often does he make it about him? Count the number of times he uses the word "I" even on topics that have nothing to do with him. However, as far as I am concerned he could write on himself and talk about himself all day long if he got the job done.
I really don't think I am misinformed about Obama. I think you need to do a bit of the reading that you recommended to me. Also, holding a sitting president accountable for his actions or lack there of is definitely more reasonable than hashing over the records of someone out of office. At least the sitting president can make changes and try to make a better future; with an ex president it is just history.
Obamacare link:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/
Well, why stop at parliamentary systems? Look at a country where people are probably happier than they ever have been- Russia. As long as you don't mind the "fusing" of the executive and the legislative, why not go for a good cop/bad cop dual presidency with a rubber stamp legislature. We already have presidents who are on vacation half time a la Putin, all we are missing is the other president in charge of drudgery. Biden would fit that bill admirably.
Might as well dream that dream as the equally impossible one you are already dreaming. I say it is impossible because it would go against the very heart of the system we have, which was created precisely to slow down and confuse its functioning.
The Founding Fathers did put in some weasel words about national emergencies, and a couple of presidents have invoked such in times when things really had to be done right now. Perhaps this is another of those times.
Haha, this is hilarious. The founding fathers came from Parliamentary system and setup our current system for a reason. A parliament wouldn't work in this country as there would be constant bickering and nothing would get done. If you look at most parliamentary systems, not a lot gets done. Also, the population doesn't elect officials directly but the parties, which I don't think the American public would favor, even if people already vote that way.
I dont think you now whaat you are talking about. The bickering is the debate process,. As every bill has to be debated. f you are meaning PMQs that doesnt even affect bills.
Where you are dead wrong is that ANY bill the govt puts forward gets approved.
So translaet that to the US. If Obama was PM, any bill he wanted to get through would have gotten passed. As the governning party votes with the govt's platform/maniffeso.
Each system has their advantages and disadvantages.
The biggest advantage of a republic is that there is a balance IF the people choose it to be. Also the cabinet can be picked from industry persons.
The biggest advantage of a parliament is that the govt is given a mandate by the people on its pary's manifesto.
That is true in some countries, but not all. Can somebody enlighten us. I was under the impression that in Britain the MP's were directly elected.
The American colonies rebelled against an early version of British Parliament and a hereditary monarch. Present day British government has come a long way, through many reforms, from what it was in the 18th century. Maybe you should learn a little history.
Not only Fareed but many of CNN's people when talking about the UK's leaders refer to the country as 'England'. CNN, as a leading news observer and disseminator of that news might perhaps attempt to get the names of countries correct. UK has only been around for over 300 years.
I agree just pure lazy ignorance, just like this analysis which includes his inane dismissal of the the 1945 government. England as a nation state has not been around since 1707, however that might change if Scotland votes for ending the Act of Union.
In real emergency situations our government never seems to fail to act, oftentimes with the same poor solutions and just as bad as what we're seeing happen today in the parliamentary systems (UK wants to close down any and all free-speech i.e. Facebook, US government passed Patriot Act.) Only these fake created "emergency's" do we have a problem with "gridlock" I'd posit that this is a good thing and not a negative.
There is evidence that S&P's downgrade was politically motivated and not motivated by any factual points, despite their protestations. But it seems more like they're unhappy about the recent legislation (Dodd-Frank) and are using this downgrade to try and get what they want. And, with the news that DoJ is now investigating S&P, we're witnessing an interesting battle by-proxy.
Either way, a limited government bound by checks and balances is preferable to me not only by tradition, but also by fear of any one person being too powerful. I don't want a King, or a Prime Minister!
There can be checks and balances in a parliamentary system if the same same system is bicameral. That is to say that there is a Lower House and a Senate. Unofficialy the states can act as another check and balance toward Washington jockying for political favour such as when Perry as Gov of Texas treatened seperation from the union. The people may also elect one party locally that is different from the other party nationaly.
Oh yes, a parlimentary system is better. Think of Italy in the years when the govenrment lasted, on the average, two weeks. Or think of Israel, where the government is held hostage by small religious parties. No, having a Prime Minister wouldn't solve our problems. It might just make things worse.
Italy and israel are as you say because of their electoral systems as pure proportional representation whereby if your party gets 17% of the vote it will get17% of the seats. Too many parties get elected which leads to endless partisan gridlock. A parliamentary system with a first past the post system like in the US and Canada will avoid the problem., most of the time.
A first-past-the-post system would also neatly avoid strong minorities having any representation at all. A slim majority wold be able to move its agenda forward, typically in the US on the say of about 3 1/4 percent of the population (which is roughly what is needed to swing a majority here). In a situation like we have now, you would end up with the entire nation looking like Wisconsin (that is, utter chaos). When a strong minority cannot stop a slim majority politically, things get nasty, especially when the current majority does not obey the lawful limits on their authority.
But in the case of our current situation and a bicameral gov't, what good would it do? Our Executive has not done as he promised even within the Executive Branch he effectively controls (e.g. Gitmo, tribunals, NSLs/wiretaps, foreign wars), If the coalition government were controlled by the House, the Republicans would have reformed the government with the Tea Party caucus critical to that coalition. Obviously Republicans would prefer that, but a large portion of the population would not. If the Senate were controlling, the Democrats would not control any more than they currently do (the Senate plus the President). In either case, one house would be opposition-controlled. We could do away with our bicameral system as well I suppose, and that pesky Supreme Court that occasionally wakes up and enforces lawful limits on government authority.
Originally, the president was elected by the electoral college and their votes were not tied to the popular vote, and senators were appointed by the state legislature. The House of Representatives was the sole direct representatives of the people, elected for a two year term. Perhaps if we went back to this form of government we would see more stable policies yet retain a co-equal branch of government that, if they would do their job would be quickly responsive to the needs of the people but with reasonable restraint against abuse of power by the Senate, the President and the Supreme Court as well as the state legislatures via their choosing the states' Senators and also via the tenth amendment.
The problem with the US has more to do with irresponsible policy choices than it does with its system of government. Every political unit at every level in every country in the world that has promised more benefits than its economy can afford has the same problem – massive, unsustainable deficits. Look at Detroit, California, the US, Greece, Spain, Italy – regardless of their system of government – they all made the same mistake. Some where along the way, providing a minimum safety net morphed into providing a hammock. A society always gets more of what is subsidizes and less of what it taxes. For example, why do you think Medicare is destined to break the US, if it isn't reformed? Without massive reform, or massive tax increases Medicare is going to go broke. The unfunded liability is in the 10's of trillions. Raising taxes on productive effort to keep Medicare going in its present form will undoubtedly discourage productive effort – eroding the tax base that makes even considering subsidized medical services possible. On the other hand, why would anyone be surprised about exploding deficits if we offer a blank check for medical services.
My point is this – parliamentary governments like Britain's have been even more proflligate in their spending than the US has. It is not a mystery that they – and other governments who offered similar levels of cradle to grave welfare – are going broke first. The US is not far behind and for the same reason – profligate, irresponsible spending – not the fact that it has a presidential form of government.
S&P may have downgraded the US debt rating because at some point in the very near future, its debt levels are going to overwhelm its ability to pay back what it has borrowed. The problem – we're spending too much money. It's not because we don't tax enough. Had a parliamentary government existed in the US, is there any doubt that a government led by Barack Obama with a Democratic majority would have raised the debt ceiling without thinking twice about it? Is there any doubt they would have raised taxes, increased government spending and ballooned the size of the US government even more than it already has? Does anyone really think the US suffers from excess frugality? Well, maybe Paul Krugman -I'll cede that point.
The US system of government worked just as it was designed to act – namely to provide a means for an aggrieved minority with a legitimate gripe to keep its rights from being trampled. Unfortunately, people who actually pay taxes in this country are a minority. It is a sad state of affairs when the people who actually pay all the bills are in the minority, but that is a fact. The only responsible party to the recent debate over raising the debt ceiling was the Tea Party – the only political force in the US that actually represents the US taxpayer. Their voice would have been drowned out in a parliamentary system.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. Suppose, a Republican president gets elected in the next election, the Republicans take over the Senate and they maintain control of the House. This is a very likely scenario. How many so called "liberals" (actually statists) will be yelling that we need to give the Republcans a free hand to reform the massively bloated federal government?
Fareed, will you still be calling for a parliamentary system in about a year and a half?
Scott C.
I fundamentaly dissagree with you point in your second paragraph. Yes. The UK is having budget problems but your anaysis excluded parliamentary democracies like Canada, Germany, and Australia. Their economies and gov budgets, especially Canada, are doing very well. You see when there exist paralysis in a legislature the only thing that politicians can agree on is saying yes to more spending for everyone, and thus kicking the budget problem down the road.
Hi there,
I would ask the Canadians to take a lower note in any of this kind of discussions. Not to forget Canada is a UK dominion and not a full fledge democratic country. And even now a day UK shadows Canada from lot of aspects, from external affairs to emigration and even military. And as economy this two countries are way different but Canada has a very large underground economy and part of it is narco – economy which even is not written legal it is practically right legal in large parts of Canada.
Michael
Hi there,
I would ask the Canadians to take a lower note in any of this kind of discussions. Not to forget Canada is a UK dominion and not a full fledge democratic country. And even now a day UK shadows Canada from lot of aspects, from external affairs to emigration and even military. And as economy this two countries are way different but Canada has a very large underground economy and part of it is narco – economy which even is not written legal it is practically right legal in large parts of Canada.
Somebody better go back to school and take a history lesson cause he don't know what he is talking abooot
Re: Comment from 'Michael'.....
Are you serious.... I think it would be news to all Canadians that we are not a full fledge democratic country.... As far as corruption, goodness – it would be hard to be more corrupt than your senators and congressmen.... As for our economy, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and our Finance Minister said to the country last week.... we will stay the course – which meant that he still plans to have our deficit paid by 2015....Yes, it may hit us hard, but, as he said, we are prepared. It is a big help to have the strongest banking system in the world.
Really, Michael,
Michael
You guys are still an UK dominion, not a full fledge democratic country, you have a lot of corruption going on the quite in your country like in may of the UK dominions: Jamaica, New Zeeland, Australia and so on and what is positive is your natural resource reserve which counts to lot of $$$ in a very crowded environment. Wait a bit longer and the economic will start heating you hard again as before. And even now a day is way chip to leave in US and in Canada.
If the Republicans won the House, Senate and the WH, the American people would have given them a clear and unequivocal mandate to run the country. Whoever didn't like the results of their governance could vote them out, starting in 2014.
Your concern about half the people not paying taxes is a very conservative concern and example of severe brainwashing. Has it ever occurred to you that that small percentage who pay most of the taxes also own a disaproportionate portion of the country's wealth? Most folk who pay no income tax would love to. They are just not making enough money. I bet that never occurred to you.
It's pretty arrogant to condescend to an American about he inefficiency of our system when it was designed to be that way to begin with. Perhaps you would be fairing better back in India where the "superior" Parlimentary government and caste system exist?I won't bother being critical of it's shortcomings. I think you have already shunned them by having chosen to live here.
yeah, you're right. No one from another country is ever allowed to have an opinion on ways to improve this country. You're expected to immigrate here and then shut up. That's definitely what this country was founded on ~sarcasm.
And also it's faring not fairing... and it's parliamentary not parlimentary. You are both an idiot and a racist. Bravo. Why don't you come back when you have a basic grasp of the language?
bravo, indians are smelly and should not be allowed this kind of condescension to their white superiors....no sarcasm intended but is a true fact..i am not racist either
People need to realize that both systems hve there good and bad points. But both give the rights to speak out in a form like this which you can't do in many different countries like China ,Iran, N Korea and Syria
Who are these other countries Fareed claims are "acting quickly, and with foresight, while we are paralyzed? I bet Iran is one of them, right?
Canada, Germany, Australia, etc.
Ha, yet another Canadian proudly telling us what we should do. Meanwhile their whole form of government has only survived because they didn't have to spend money on defense because they were protected by this great countries might for a long time. Remind me of the kid who tries to tell the parents how they should live, meanwhile ignoring the very fact that the parents provide them a lifestyle that they could not afford otherwise. Worry about your own problems and keep your nose out of ours.
I would ask the Canadians to take a lower note in any of this kind of discussions. Not to forget Canada is a UK dominion and not a full fledge democratic country. And even now a day UK shadows Canada from lot of aspects, from external affairs to emigration and even military. And as economy this two countries are way different but Canada has a very large underground economy and part of it is narco – economy which even is not written legal it is practically right legal in large parts of Canada.
Dear Einstein,
Who exactly were you protecting us from.
Also, let's get real, I don't believe your concern for Canada is what prompted you over the past few decades to spend your money on your defense. I think it's more about exerting your power over the world..... don't you think!
Fareed you are completely wrong. (only the second time in your life) Neither the Parliamentry system nor the Presidential system is revelant to the mess America is in.
Politicians should be outlawed. . .and replaced by Americans.
Revelant is a quote by American's second greatest living philossopher: "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND IT IS US". . . .originally referring to pollution.
November 2012 – clean out the politicians and our system of government will be pollution free.
Stupiduck1
Hi. I just want ot point out there was an error at the end of the program. It was Anwar Sadat's Egyptian forces that attacked Israel during the Yom Kippur, not Mubarak, who was Air Chief Marshall then.
and this guy has Obama's ear. socialism is the goal and this regime and they will not give up until they have full authority over every aspect of our lives. big government means less freedom. less government means more freedom. the line in the sand was drawn when the democrats "deemed passed" a bloated take over of health care. it's time for rational americans to decide if they want to continue make their own choices or have a federal employee in washington make the decision for them.
Paranoia must be a way of life for you. Lol. Of what percentage is the federal gov a part of the economy cause last time i checked socialism is when the gov comprises of over 50% of the national economy. Secondly socialism is an economic state a country can still be a democracy while being socialist.
"it's time for rational americans to decide if they want to continue make their own choices or have a federal employee in washington make the decision for them."
You do you pull together the brain power necessary to run your respiratory system? The choices you are talking about are made by Americans now, in something called "an election," the winner of of which is not "a federal employee in Washington" just because your guy didn't win. He's the peoples' choice. This is what a democracy is. Jesus!
There are many things in this country reserved for the states or to the people not intended to be decided by 50% +1 vote. Just because "some dude won" does not mean the other 50% -1 vote ceases to matter. If consensus does not emerge, then the system deadlocks *as it was designed to do* and probably does not do often enough.
I think the US should have a PM. A lot of countries have both a President and a PM and many of them do just fine.
While it may be true that a parliamentary system is more cohesive and therefore will have less infighting in the government, our presidential system has its own virtues. The legislature is part of the checks and balances that counter the president. In a parliamentary system it is much easier for a party to push a new agenda forward without anything to counterbalance them. So while we may be more noisy, I would argue that in this way we are more stable, not less.
I agree.... unless the second house has a different political party controlling it. This all depends on whether both houses have equal power or upon several passages and reading of a particular bill the house can over rule the Senate. Perhaps at that point the Head of State (President, King, whatever) has a deciding vote much like the Speaker of the House when the House has a tie in votes.
The President has! Its called a "veto" or he can signed it into Law!
Don't worry Fareed, nobody takes you serious anyway.
Ha ha ha, you are right Nate.
Change will only come when money is taken out of politics.
I agree. Perhaps the usual go slow approach is best for the US. Introduce public financing of parties like every vote a Party gets gives a $1.50 for the next election. Compulsory voting is another great idea whether its the carrot ( tax credit) or stick ( a fine). Australia does it.
Why not decentralize some power like health care and education to the state level with giving them the power to tax if they need to do so. So people in 1 state can have universal care while people in another state have private.
Then if there are still major problems with the political culture in the US switch to a Parliamentary system with the President as Head of State.
It is quite possible they both speak for the people - There are Democrat people and Republican people - It just so happens the only "people" the Replications listen to are the rich, mostly the rich of the rich.
keep talking Fareek, your mouth is your worse enemy.. a piece of advise, if you don't think too good, don't think too much
Thankfully, we have Fareed to tell the most powerful and successful country the world has ever known what to do. What clown!
LOL.. powerful yes.. You guys got lots of Nuclear weapons. Most successful.. not a chance in hell. More people are working in each of Canada, Germany, Australia, Nordic countries and are just as or better well off! Take your head out of your ass and look around buddy lol
Look.... as your neighbor I am concerned about what happens in the US (I have family there btw) we speak the same language, I love making money too and don't like it being wasted. You guys need to see what works around the world and ask yourselves "Can we make this other country's policy work in America, maybe with some minor changes?"
Im sick and tired of smarty pants people thinking they know whats best for America...our forebears looked at the british system and shunned it FOR A REASON! Our system isnt perfect but until george bush Junior we always seemed to get our act right!
David, the British system back in those days is different than today. The Monarch in the 1700's has sooo much more power. The current Monarch is just a Figure Head.
Adopt a Parliamentary system and just tweek it to fit America's needs.
Americans can have any system you want.
Bravo! It is the quality of your comment that helps me better understand the
problem in hand. However, beware of chaffing.
you are crazy dude... go live in UK zakaria... why are you here? why are you dissing 100% democratic system in US? there is still queen in UK and parliament is piece of A** totalitarian thugs.
Dude ... What have you been smoking? Seriously, Adopt a Parliamentary system and alter it to fit America's needs. You don't have to have one identical to another country (like the UK) I'm not sure any country does that.
Parlimantry system is road map to politics by UK export other countries... mostly seen in common UK wealth countries such as Canada.
As a Canadian living in the US I am struck just how dysfunctional the US system of governance is. In canada governments can actually get things done, and without paying a price in porkbarrell to bribe the votes. Hopefully Canada NEVER reforms the senate to be elected, as it could render the Canadian governance system just at impotent as the US one. There is a reason the Us is no longer the greatest country in the world.
you are dysfunctional. people voice their opinion for bi-partisan balance of opinion in capital hill... where you do not see any where else in the world. mono polar socialist goons
Maybe the mono polar socialist goons to the North should turn off the oil to your country and sell it instead to the Chinese and see who becomes dysfunctional.
The posters who support the Usian system seem rather illiterate compared to the boys and girls writing in from the Commonwealth countries.
Canada does very well since they don't need a military. Canadians have served bravely in all wars but it must be nice not to have that expense. As far as the oil, if we needed it that bad we would simply take it. Waddayagunnado?
Whay would we do – maybe get a few tips from the Taliban on how to fight the US military to a standstill with little more than a few AKs, RPGs and pick up trucks. Maybe you'd send the new F-22 stealth fighters at $400 million each – oh wait – they dont work and are grounded. Yes, the world is real scared of the US military these days (See behavior of Iran, North Korea, syria.....)
Why do you suggest Canada does not need or have a military force? Our country has a small population compared to the US, which means we have to be careful of our budgets and cannot afford to waste resources, so we get to be very good at what we do. Canada has had a substantial military presence in Afghanistan since day 1 of the effort there. And while we do not have forces on the ground in Iraq, our navy is helping patrol the waters of the Gulf. Our military is also serving with NATO forces over Libya, and supreme commander of Nato forces for that effort is Canadian. (http://theamericanaudacity.blogspot.com/2011/03/nato-supreme-commander-of-nato-forces.html)
additional note, Bud: did you know that the US has invaded Canada twice in centuries past? Got bear back both times, we are still Canada.
Don't confuse Bud with facts.
Facts like what? You certainly have no shortage of suggestions but facts seem to elude you also.
So you're with NATO? Great. They tell you where to go.
I am referring to ladybears facts. Are you really as thick as you seem?
Robert you are an idiot, you have been sucking those british nuts for long that now you need to go to rehab with lady gaga
Will this "prime minister"/Churchill nonsense please just die and go away !!
.
You are a bad joke in CNN...
Fareed, you are a bad joke in CNN...
Amazing how this idiot can keep a job. If America is being ruined by Obama, it must be the way America works. He's a idiot trying to cover for an idiot. Oh to be be finished with both of them after the election – but CNN doesn't let us vote.
The only constant in the political system is the legislative process. People will change their voting behaviour depending on the political party system, the voting system in place. And there are LOTS to chose from!
If y'all vote out Obama and every member of Congress for new people , there is absolutely no guarantee that you will see results in legislative voting. .... unfortunately so.
That would be true and it would depend on who or what was funding their campaigns.
Love the idea. Sign me up.
It would be interesting if the USA President became the same equivalent of the UK's head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. A figure head who can represent a great country around the world and not be dragged into politics. America could certainly benefit by having a Head of State, and a Prime Minster structure. Particularly when very unfairly there is criticism that follows any USA President abroad, when instead they could be separate from the flotsam of politics and instead represent the best of America abroad.
How's going with that humongous British Empire? Oh, that's right you lost most of it. People are burning your capital. How's that going?
The British Empire dissolved long before any of us were born, watching the American Empire crumble is far more interesting since it is unfolding now.
@Robert: And crumbling it is. Unfortunately we're gonna take quite a few along with us!
Fareed is right about one thing, we need more political parties in the mix (a blind hog gets an acorn every now and then). History has shown our system will take care of that. The Tea Party is a large voting block and no one knows who they are or how many. This mysterious group (even if you are convinced they are all idiots) will be the biggest factor in the next election.
Any talk of Presidency vs. Parliament is analogous worrying about a symptom and not the root cause. We are supposed to be a Republic (elected officials who govern) with a form of Federalism that binds the individual states into the United States. All this talk of DEMOCRACY is MISLEADING. Our President, if he doesn't get his way acts like some movie star and appeals to the general public as if the public can somehow solve the problem (which it absolutely can not do). Democracy is only a part of our government. Problem is, the Republic has long ago lost its influence and importance. What we need to do is get back to acting like "... the Republic for which it Stands...". Point is, after the elections the people and the government should refrain from destructive, divisive, and overly intensive communication – and both should just get to work.
Leave our Government system the way it is. We do not need a Prime Minister (PM) because it will only create chaos and consusion. If we instate a PM, he, the president and the Speaker of the House will probably get into time and resources-consuming arguments as to who should be the spokesperson of the American people.
Our elected officials have the right to make claims as to what percentage of the population they represent whether it is true or not. In the end, we, the American voters, elect our president who will lead us and who will speak for us.
Our president is the one who speaks for all of us domestically and internationally, no matter what political party he belongs to. Therefore, we do not need a PM.
Mr. Fareed Zakaria, as an Islamic/Muslim, is loyal to his Islamist ideology; his ideas are designed to instigate confusion and harmful changes to our government in order for Islam to divide and conquer the USA. It is common knowledge and not a secret that Islamists wish to destroy the USA by any means, including by infiltrating into our government system.
Jose I was listening to your argument when you started talking about Islamic conspiracies. Dude, come on.. this aint no movie. lol
Agreed.
The US needs real leaders whose primary concern is the well being of our country. It sounds simple but apparently ir involves locating some DNA from Thomas Jefferson and a reaaly complicated cloning process.
1. Get rid of political parties, so that candidates can run on ideals rather than party loyalty and platform
2. Get rid of tyranny of electoral college that creates red and blue states and denies the right to directly elect our national leaders.
3. Make the Senate more representative of population. Now, a citizen from Montana essentially has many times the voting power of a citizen from California.
4. Severely shorten election cycle to end perpetual presidential race, with real finance reform
5. Limit archaic Senate rules blocking legislation endlessly
While a parlimentary system wouldnt get rid of parties, it would help with your other points. Canadian election campaigns are usualy about 6 weeeks long from the time an election is called. There is no elected senate (its appointed so has no moral authority to block the will of the elected house of commons and doesnt), represenatation while skewed a bit for the smaller provinces and quebec is pretty good.
I would like to add
6. Extend the time between elections in the House from 2 years to 5 years max so that politicians can think for themselves and not for special interests with lots of election money to give. But if an annual budget fails to get more than 50% support of the House allow the President to call an election or ask someone else in the House to become the Majority Leader with enough support to pass a budget.
Excellent points, you guys, thanks!
Actually, I would love to go back to a Senate appointed by the state legislatures. Then at least one house would be responsible to the 2-axis balance of power we are supposed to have: legislative-executive-judicial and citizen-state-federal. The word "federal" means "of equals". Wisconsin is intended to be the equal of California, even with differing populations, and has very different needs/interests. Going the route you describe would leave two or three cities in control of all the country's politics. No thank you.
BL said "3. Make the Senate more representative of population. Now, a citizen from Montana essentially has many times the voting power of a citizen from California."
Then what is the point of the Senate if your replicate the Populace vote in your Upper House? The idea of the Senate is to represent the State, as an equal weight in the decision making process.
The current economic situation in the United States is exacerbated by the so called trillion dollars in debt. We as a nation are not supposed to be indebited like this. Let us take a lesson from the nation Israel. God blessed obedience. He said, "...and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shall not borrow. And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail, and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." if the people obeyed. And in another place concerning individuals in debt being released from the creditors in the seventh year, God said, "thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee."
Maybe we need to just follow scriptural principles and get back to the original design.
Yes, thats what is neeedyou needed, to blindly follow a book written as a modern guide to livng in an agrarian society 2,000 years in the past. Let get back to stonings and cutting off hands. We could be just like the Taliban!
Fareed's example of the UK form of parliamentary government is the best example of why the three branches of government is the best for us. England has been on a downward death spiral since WW II and the dominance of the Labour Party to be able to do as they please. The English are about to become a minority in their own country. Most everybody is on the dole and taxes are sky high to pay for it. They are about to run out of everyone's money.
You forgot Canada, Australia, New Zealand that have Parliamentary systems identical to the UK (and have the Queen as Head of State) and are doing very well
You guys are still an UK dominion, not a full fledge democratic country, you have a lot of corruption going on the quite in your country like in may of the UK dominions: Jamaica, New Zeeland, Australia and so on and what is positive is your natural resource reserve which counts to lot of $$$ in a very crowded environment. Wait a bit longer and the economic will start heating you hard again as before. And even now a day is way chip to leave in US and in Canada.
I would ask those who claim that the former British dominions are not democratic to read the 1931 Statute of Westminster. I've always had a hard time trying to figure out why so many Americans believe that if something is not a carbon copy of the American system, it is somehow deficient or less democratic. American democracy is only one example among many others....
A UK dominion....we are part of the commonwealth, but not a part of the UK. The monarchy is pretty more only ceremonial today, as the Queen really doesn't have a whole lot to to with Canada in terms of governance.
While it is true that Canada is rich in natural resources, the problem is the US isn't, but the US is also the largest consumers in resources so they must buy a whole lot from other countries to survive.
As for corruption, the entire US financial system has proven in the past few years that it is just a corrupt because of a lack of governance. The US corruption has pretty much bankrupted the nation, and brought down the world economy – well maybe not all. Canada has been one of the better countries to weather the storm – of course we have a lot of governance about such things.
The US is slowly imploding in on itself, and eventually something will hit the fan.
People Fareed Zakaria is a Rockefeller stooge. all you have to do is look him up in wikipedia "Zakaria became managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine in 1992." This is status quo propaganda. The veil of deception you read about in the Book.
Robert how is lady gaga
Zakaria does not release that some liqueur stores are closed on sunday... makes it too difficult to hear crap without booze.
The political system isn't the problem, the problem is the people in the system, and the very existence of political parties.
Rob ? Zombi? Yes ... the problem is you.... how is the virus treatment?.. zig zag tick tack... go hale the queen boo boo
Too bad the undesirables that are calling Fareed out are getting blocked. It's very telling of the intent of this article.
I wonder if Zakaria was an American born caucasian... if he would have encountered such violent opposition for expressinghis thoughts.
There's really only one problem with the American system – campaign finance. If elections were publicly financed (costing only $6 per citizen per year) then we could completely eliminate the crushing corruption of corporate and big money donors and allow politicians to compete on who has the best ideas rather than on who can afford $5 million to run 500 TV ads in their district. Politicians including the Congress and the President WOULD be completely representative of the people if they owed no favors to the plutarchy and were not allowed to profit from their office.
Currently, they are completely representative of the corporations and the top 1% and THAT is why the system seems so off kilter. Their words are meant to placate the people while their actions are intended to reward the plutarchy. And those with a non-authoritarian predisposition and not mentally caged by fear-mongering rhetoric are frustrated by the disconnect and by the massive loss of opportunity.
I live in a parliamentary democracy & think it works just fine for my country. The American style of government works just fine for the United States, but at the moment, it is completely deadlocked with everyone not giving an inch or even listening to opinions, suggestions or comments without being shouted down & branded as a communist, socialist, libtard and far worse. Where is the respect for discourse & most of all, where is the respect for the president? The present financial problems were created by greedy criminals & not Mr. Obama. The last post on this topic by Mr. Zakaria brought out the most disgusting xenophobic comments I have ever read.
who elects PM? holly S*** not people?!!! get a grip, you chose to let them run you... good for you, maybe they can let loose of your own deadlock of PM BS... we like to run them as much as possible.
Mr. Zakaria once again calls for the change of the American government to more closely reflect the system in Europe. Wow, news flash, we held a revolution to move AWAY from that structure. It astounds me that he just loves to keep bashing this country.
some forgot we kicked their ancestor, the majesties and their idealogy when declaration of independent 1776. They are doing come back through their media commentators such as GPS, but not for long. we have great people to kick these birds as*.
Europe and the UK has also moved away from the absolute monarchy systems since America declared independence. Any existing monarchy today is merely a figure head for cultural reasons and just signs bills... that's it. They cannot and would not over-through the Will of their elected Parliaments.
not even french canadian agree with you queen lovers.
I think the problem – as an American – is that we as a society have allowed our leaders to become too disparate, too separate... You have two extremes when the average American is somewhere in-between. We are not a democracy because we do not as a public vote. We are a republic that elects to office to represent us, but we can only elect what we have on the table. The problem is that as the cost of elections rise those that can afford to run are limited. The average person cannot run, at least not without agreeing to the demands of those that fund their run.
Is the system broke? Not yet, but it certainly doesn't help that it now seems to take 60% of the Senate to do ANYTHING. In fact, they won't even consider it unless they have the 60 votes which means the Senate has basically had it's nads removed. Meanwhile the House – who doesn't have that strange rule – can vote on anything and only require a majority.
We have our problems, but for me the majority of the problems are that "we the people" aren't actually represented in our representative democracy... only the lobbyists, unions, and those with money are represented...
to those wishing ill on America where would your countries be without the protection of the US? Do you think your peoples would enjoy your currents freedoms with the likes of russia and and china??? be grateful to the US your freedoms are being bankrolled by the US TAXPAYERS!!! russia hasnt made any threats to canada and its oilreserves because the US will chop their hands off!!! all the money going into your healthcare and social programs would be used to defend your countries...the queen and her territories are not messed with because of the backing if the US!!!
You are really too funny!
You know, David, no one wishes ill on the US. But you all really have to tone down the rhetoric re: you have no money because you protect the world and we have money because you protect us ... it really doesn't wash.... We have money because of good management and governance.
Parliamentary systems are far worst... believe me. Maybe a semi-presidential system can work, but a Parliamentary system is the worst. In a Parliamentary System, division of power is inexistent... We have that problem here in Spain, so, don't do that!!
Geez, people, we are a reprsentative republic. The system is actually working perfectly. The president does NOT speak for the people. And, in essence, Congress does not speak for the people. They are elected to be informed and "do the right thing" for the people. Only the House is really speaks for the people. Our system was built to slow everything down....take time to think....and compromise. Funny, if the internet existed in the early 1800's we would hear basically the same stuff seen here. Too funny!
No, America doesn't need a President as much as it needs a Congress. Congress, after all is tasked with creating legislation and voting on it. The President merely makes astute observations and tries to give a direction. When you have a Congress that uses the filibuster 80% of the time, you have a problem America! It's time to stop voting for these people but since we have the mentality of our political parties being like football teams (my team/party must win no matter what) we will forever be in this mess. It's time to start demanding and voting for people who have an interest in moving this country forward as opposed to themselves...will you help?
im sorry fareed as much as i would like to indulge in your scholarly musings...i wouldnt change a thing the founding fathers did...there is a reason America is still the greatest nation on earth!!! Countries like Canada,UK AND OTHERS will do well to know their place "as one of our strongest allies"...
And for his next column Fareed will suggest that we really don't need so much freedom of speech because it causes hurt feelings and Muslim extremism. Whatever he can do to weaken the American system, he's there.
Our forebears when they stood against the british were so scared for their lives and most times didnt even think they would see the next day...yet they persevered....Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness!!! America is always strongest in its darkest hours dont be fooled!!!Proud American for life....can you tell???
500 years from now, people will still be rediscovering that Voltaire was right.
Please, not being sarcastic but interested, what did Voltaire say?
"There are, of course, advantages to the American system – the checks and balances have been very useful on occasion. In 1945 Britain enacted a quasi-socialist economic plan that set the country on a bad path."
BAD PATH? FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL = BAD? FAREED YOU HAVE LOST YOUR MIND. PEOPLE IN BRITAIN CONSIDER IT THE BEST GOVERNMENT WE EVER HAD!!!!!
Fareed, get out of the country and go back to india and wipe your butt with your finger, dirty foriegner..
Are you really ignorant or just pretending to be????
What ? finger wipes.... probably in existence somewhere
I don't think we need lessons in civics from Fareed, who has an opinion on everything under the sun. Here, he is simply postulating and not assessing the value of the trade-offs.
a lot of people wonder why Americans are very protective of our country, because its the only nation founded on an idea and at least our forebears had the creativity to come up with a new system of govt most other countries just copied and paste..lol
While I am happy that I live in a country with a parliamentary system, I think that Zakaria neglects to point out one hole in his theory that they necessarily entail stability. While it's true that in majority governments there is no question as to the largest party having almost unchecked power, in minority or "hung" parliaments this is simply not so. Hung parliaments can be just as fractious and unstable as the American system. Parties have to compromise and deal with each other, most often intent more on scoring political points rather than on passing substantive legislation. Don't get me wrong, majority governments in parliamentary system are without a doubt superior to the so-called checks and balances of the American experience if stability is what you want, but that result is not absolutely guaranteed in a parliamentary system all the time.
What if the people would give President Obama majority power?
...It is a fact that the majority of Americans disapprove of the working results of Congress...
....perhaps this will motivate Americans to justify and give a strong majority to President Obama, the Leader of the Free World, in the coming election.
Given his accomplishments in dealing with the political, economic, and international challenges in the last 2.5 years...imagine what he will be able to do with majority power.
Americans and nations of the world will glorify the works of this Nobel laureate for peace.
...the economy will improve
...democracy (in work or desire) will be implanted in all countries, as this is on the verge of happening in the “glorious land”.
...Peace will be finally enacted among the Israelis and Palestinians
...Jerusalem will become the symbolic city of peace...of freedom of rights and universal values....of interfaith rights.
...The True God and his Christ will officially be replaced by man's belief in his desire and freedom to serve and justify his own interests and rights.
...A muscular democracy will be embraced as law...establishing and forbidding the divisive, anti-rights, anti-universal declaration that There is Only One True God and forbidding the declaration that Christ , the coming King of kings, is the Only Way of Life to The Father.
...the light of the truth will be darkened and put out, unifying man against the return of Christ, His Kingdom, and the One and Only True Way of life.
The signs are already taking place...as the king of the north has entered the glorious land and his hand has stretched out to Egypt, and Libya and Ethiopia are following at his heels...following and embracing his belief and way of life…man just does not want to recognize them.
John Stefanyszyn
God gave us free will and does not judge us, we do that. To say Jesus is the only way to heaven probably amuses Him, or saddens Him because that kind of thinking limits the limitless. You can choose to believe what you will, but that will not alter God's unlimited love for ALL THAT IS, you included.
Fareed is scholar and is allowed to indulge his fantasies from time to time...it just always seemds his ideas are third world like and attempt to berate our system of govt...instead of sounding smart which i think is his goal he just sounds lame...maybe he needs to go on a bus tour of America! Fareed are you listening? you can thank me later pal...lol
It's that constant power-check that keeps our country strong. Prime ministers were invented because the European heads of state (royals) couldn't find their butt with both hands and a flashlight. The president is both head of state, and head of government, and there's always been a reluctance...dating back to George Washington...to use the "head of state" power too stridently, for fear of being perceived as behaving like a monarch.
at least people elect the president... PM... not so much
I'll have what Fareed is smoking. Thanks.
it was a gift Gaddufi.
Fareed goes on a bus tour in 3...2...1..
treason**s kinda... hopefully this kinda sowing seeds stop soon
this was suppose to be on main post, not a reply to you Dave.
Zakaria is totally off base here. The issue is not whether the President does or can control the legislature, but whether the people really have control over both. In the USA, unfortunately, it has become a government of, for, and by special interest and large corporations. Therein lies the present malaise. That is the disease and all others are just symptoms.
Agreed; time to break the chains....
you seem pretty strong... time for you to read.
you are right , he is off base... his base is in UK. mono polar social crap
Great point!!! when mitt romney realizes corporations are not people and that govt needs to be returned to the people a lot of the problems that ail America will be greatly diminished...its hard to hold corporations accountable when they are loyal to the dollars (profit) flag than to the American flag!
But David, it's We the People who are voting for these representatives of corporate interests. My only question is when will we stop doing so? I am sincere in this, not poking fun or jabbing anyone. Only "we" can get "us" out of this mess...when will it happen?
Of course this liberal Fareed would want him as a prime minister, like that of england, elected by the parliament (or in this case, the senate). With a senate controlled by the liberal democrats, they would appoint obama as prime minister over and over and over again. This is liberalism at its finest, trying to trick their way into a seat. The leader needs to be elected by the people, not by a committee which was elected by the people. Just because I think you are a good receptionist (congress) and I hire you, doesn't mean you should have the ability to vote for the next leader of my country.
yes sir, it can be a life time gig for the freak.
Freak? Interesting choice of words; why "freak"? "splain Lucy....
ok the "splain" is that, have you smoked the stuff fareed sent you? Good stuff home grown from Gaddafi's garden
Sorry, but that is no explanation, just insults. Again, why "freak"?
calling me "Lucy" is an insult you idiot
Just using a phrase from Ricky Ricardo, but sorry if that offended you, but still, no explanation. Can you give me one now that I have apologized?
you are funny a little thought... if we were on twitter we could have been friends??? i do not know why all crazies come to me at some point.
@megaman: OK, I give up, you can't give an explanation for the word "freak" and still insist on insults, therefore you will now be ignored...after all you were given many chances. OK, let 'er rip; what's your next clever reply, oh but wait, I won't be looking! Have a great evening!!
When getting elected is such a grueling process, people who would otherwise be well suited to the task, don't dare become involved. It subjects the candidate and family to an amount of scrutiny that no sensible person would want.
We end up electing mediocre persons with a quest for power and no interest in the welfare of the nation.
This is really easy. It's not the system that's the problem. It's the people who are elected. Americans, in the regular general voting population, aren't the brightest crayons in the box.
your hole existence in this forum, and out is an insult
@megaman: That would be "whole". Geeze, I guess you showed me!
your friend fared stole the w so you can swing on it.
of course then you love the king. long live regular people, over you arrogant thug, sheep became lion while back, idiot chump
Again, more insults....
I completely disagree with any notion of America needing a Prime-Minister or a Parliament. The US federal system is built on the notion of the separation of powers in order to maintain stability through the presidency while allowing for the flexibility of legitimate democratic debate in the congress. It is infinitely superior to parliamentary systems which essentially use their legislative bodies as a rubber stamp. In a parliament, whatever the PM says is how the members will vote. If he/she can’t get his members to vote on vital defence or money issues then back to the polls. This has created an incredible amount of instability in many countries including Canada, where elections have become common every two years. This instability is fine where there is a strong monarchy to provide stability while parliament bickers.
Because the US has no Monarchy, it uses the presidency as that stable center to run the country while congress bickers. The US congressional system provides for greater democratic legitimacy than many parliamentary systems the world over.
It just so happens that the debt ceiling issue is the door to a hornet’s nest of political debate that America must have about the role of government and the way in which its programs are funded. It is essentially an internal national issue about how the US should spend its money and more importantly... IF the US should spend its money.
Why this has become a global headache is because AMERICA IS “TOO BIG TO FAIL”. For over a century, American deficit spending and tax dollars have financed global growth and stability. From financing and fighting two world wars to financing the rebuilding of Europe and Asia, South America to paying for the development of modern communications and transportation systems; almost every system that the world has relied heavily on US expenditure. No other state has the will or the wealth to drive the global system.
What we in the rest of the world need to do is to pay our fair share for the systems that the US funds so that they can repair the global economic dynamo that their economy has always been. Suggesting that the problems in the US have come about because their political system is inferior to those in a bunch of former tyrannical monarchies is self serving at best.
Your statements make sense. Until a Majority of Americans have the spare cash to spend (we are the world's biggest consumers) there is no demand, no need to produce, therefore no need to hire (corps are currently "sitting" on something in the the neighborhood of $2 trillion). Currently 2% of the population has 95% of the income (stats from the Congressional Budget Office) and is an imbalance that is killing the economy. It is unsustainable.
Dude i really enjoyed rading your post!!! Im glad there ar still some normal reasoning people left! My thoughts well summed up! Best line "For over a century, American deficit spending and tax dollars have financed global growth and stability. From financing and fighting two world wars to financing the rebuilding of Europe and Asia, South America to paying for the development of modern communications and transportation systems; almost every system that the world has relied heavily on US expenditure. No other state has the will or the wealth to drive the global system"
Right on! When is the rest of the world with its hand out going to show any thanks for our contributions! Oh, I forgot; we need to apologize for
all we have done. And, our way of life needs to be lowered to be more in line with the rest of the world. Thanks a lot, Obama.
I agree the world could be a lot more grateful to America!
This Fareed is truly anti-american pretending to promote America's interests! Readers Beware!
agreed!
As the intelligence of the electorate diminishes it is easier for one to deceive them with promises of free stuff, and catchy phrases like "hope & change"...our govt. is the best system in the world; our elected officials are some of the worst. Phoney criminals who wont show their "credentials" and you can look at who they associate with and know
they are NO good! But ignorant people are easily deceived and some even worse feel the need to vote based on color. "See! We elected a black person! We aren't prejudiced. NO! Just ignorant. Educate yourself!
and some see the need to vote against Obama and destroy his presidency based on skin color...the retardation is on both sides...how ever the treasonous intent ( to destroy obama regardless of harm caused to America is solely coming from the right)
maybe 1% of righties fall under that hat.. but most worry about america... right and the middle and some middle left are worry, rightfully so which makes it a tremendous challenge for him to be reelected. Obama, has no experience and no idea how to execute... not only him most of legislative background people are not good in executive branch. Maybe if he had 10 years of governor experience, he had better idea... and governing america is just too big of a risk for governing 101 class... thats why he just do what liberals ask him to do
Sorry, your racist accusations don't fly anymore. You are exactly what I am talking about! How's that hope and change thig workin out for you? I
know, deep down even the dumbest liberals don't believe that rhetoric!
If you really believe all that then spend $1.00 for every 60 cents you bring in. Duh! Do the math. And as far as treasonous, your goof in the White House has the market cornered. Get over it! The guy conned all you losers into thinking he was some great savior. He is inept at best and down right ignorant most of the time. You still cant admit it to yourself! Ha ha ha... they jumped on Perry first thing! Like you! If he is so great why isn't he out there toutin' his accomplishments!?!? Like healthcare, or Obamacare, or suing Az and Al over immigration...or causing gas to soar, or need i go on?????!
Hope and change isn't working out because of Congress, not for lack of ideas. Can you say filibuster 80% of the time???
@JenniferTX: explain why he has not done anything he promised within his own Justice Department? Do obstructionist Republicans control the DoJ as well?
I would suggest you follow your own advice. By the way, what do you think of Congress, the group that really has the power to change the direction in which we're headed?
I think you are running this country( People)
if only the self righteous right in this country would come down on their congress to do their jobs America would be out of this recession by now! energy bills, infrastructure, new regulations a lot of bills pending yet Republicans cant get the stick out of their eye and take care of America....sure lets blame the black guy!!! im an independent and i know half the debt they claim is Obamas is really interests ballooning on george bush borrowing cheap money from the chinese the country has to pay back! if bush hadnt done all that borrowing and the interests acrued we would have a little more money left...tax breaks for thee rich borrowing from the chinese in the midst of two wars??? i feel icky just thinking of it...God forbid rick perry comes any where near the presidency....the south needs to be out back in its place!
Speaking as someone whole lives in Texas, Rick Perry is a disaster waiting to happen! He didn't balance the state budget, accepted federal bailout money to fill some of the gaps and has only "increased" employment as a result of government jobs. If he was Pinocchio his nose would be really loooong by now!
Still blaming Bush; don't know how that will play in another year? Best of luck with it though.
This is truly the disease of the 21st century...Republicans pretending that 8 years of george bush was harmless!!! how do you think Obama got elected??? do you know how bad bush had to be??? keep living you delusion!!! if all obamas appointees and all his bills passed then you could blame obama for this mess!!! half the people he appointed never got through congress half the bills 80% filibuster and you think this is obamas mess/economy or are you a partisan?? moneys on a teaparty/partisan "nut job" this is very much still bush and the republican economy your elected republicans have made sure of that!!!
"Fareed's Take: Prime Minister...of America" – Really? Please refer to the US simply as the US, or USA – stop using and perpetuating this mistake, colloquialism for the United States which in fact is really part of America, not America itself.. Educated people know the origins and correct usage of that word . "America" is not a country but a region.
LOL every time one of my Latin American friends hears the US being called America they cringe. You are correct America is a region.
But then again United Statesens just doesn't have a nice ring to it as opposed to Americans
Yes! It took me a college course about colonialism in the new world to realize that most of the authors about the subject used "America" for what can also be called 'the americas' – common sense would make you think tho because for example North America is not the northern United States but the northern part of the American continents haha. And yes US'ns doesn't sound all that good, but i guess its an old habbit for most people...Latin Americans do resent this misuse tho.
Sure, in the Spanish language it is (and sometimes in French). But that distinction doesn't really apply in English and you know it!
What is SURE is that there is no country in the world called America. Just like an educated person can deduce that when Columbus discovered America (this said in English), it explicitly refers to the landmass not the US....
I hear in many places it is simply called 'The States' – more confusing, not less! But, in other languages it is often America, simply because it cannot be translated, unlike the words 'united' and 'states'. I myself usually stick to USA, or the US, but how else would you say 'Those who are citizens of the USA' other than 'Americans'?
More unneeded political correctness. Someone will also say show the country respect and don't use USA because it is acronym. Instead use "Unitrd States of America". Get over it Paul or is it Pablo?
Nations and the people within them get to choose their demonym and no other nation gets to tell them what to choose.
The nature of Political Correctness is such that the value only flows one way – up, to the powerful or those perceived as such. This makes it a hypocritical concept as it is selectively applied.
The solution is not to have a parliamentary system to remove the 'block' by the executive or legislative branches being at odds with one another. Greece and Britain both have intractable long-term debt issues that arose as the United States's have, and their system was no panacea.
It would also be beneficial if Europeans could go more than a decade or two without a war or industrialized genocide, if they intend to lecture North Americans on political systems and their superior results. I do not see the benefit of a Parliamentary, Left-leaning, Social Democrat dominated political system if one cannot refrain from killing one's neighbors.
I'd rather we scrap the electoral college and practice popular voting. Why should I care about the primary campaign in Colorado when the candidates are chosen for me in the "important" states? I would have voted differently in the last election had the candidate of my choice made it through the primary campaign, but sadly I never got a chance to express my support for that candidate so by the time election day came around, I was unhappy with my choices.
And I wonder if Mr. Zakaria would be happy with a Republican Prime Minister? The idea of a single party having control–temporary or not–does not sit well with me at all. The whole point of two parties is to dull sharp opinions and therefore foster compromise (though the parties have become admittedly polarized as of late due in some part to sensational and politically-minded mass media). In our current system, I still have politicians to turn to if I am unhappy with the opposing viewpoint.
And who is Mr. Zakaria to make suggestions about our form of government? I hear things are great in India.
A Republican PM could be checked and balanced by the Senate of a different political Party, as well as the President if he has the power to fire the PM. Not practiced and political suicide if done if the PM enjoys overwhelming majority support in the House though.
Look I didn't vote for the Conservative Party when it won the election this year in Canada, but I comforted by the fact that they know that if they want to win the next election again they will move more to the center while in power, and that The Province of Ontario has the Liberal Party in charge of the Provincial Government.
Canada has nothing to worry about i hear your conservative party is more to the left of the Democrats here in America! If only the conservatives here in America had the common sense of your conservatives...you know like Universal healthcare and good solid safety nets they would attract more people in the middle like me!!!
I like your column. I think there are other alternatives. Redraw congressional districts using a computer algorithm as opposed to congressional intervention. Limit the terms of congress. The first one would eliminate the extreme right and left congressional districts and the second one would allow congressman to vote for the good of the country as opposed to looking out for their own self interest.
Its called minority voice.... its the beauty of the congress that everybody has a voice... even a hard working farmer... he has a bigger share of contribution than just some city kids any ways...
That minority voice wants to cut off farm subsidies to the farmers.
farmers want to cut their own aid! thats new
The tea party is the minority within the minority party in congress. You do not think they would not cut farmer support?
The problem of 'aid' is that it always comes with strings.
I don't pretend to know much about governmental systems, but knowing what I do of history, is it not common for a government to function for a time and then need revision? The other countries systems make work better than ours not because the system itself is superior, but simply because they have had more 'practice', if you will, as a country. America is only 240 years old, after all, and that's way younger than the majority of countries in Europe. Whereas they eased into their current systems in the course of change over time, we have had less experience, so I think it would be natural for a few bugs to show up about now. Does that make sense? Feel free to correct me.
A benevolent dictatorship would potentially be the best thing. Lacking our desire for that, then Toby Langworthy hits it right on the head with his second point – a populace involved in the process and exercising their right to vote is what we need. All else is fine with our system if we have that. Nothing else will work if we don't, at least not in America.
In summary, the US government works fine. What doesn't work is the money that buys our politicans, they are not leaders, and the bias media that divides the citizens.
Te media are owned by said corporations. For example NBC is owned by GE, the company that made $4B in profits but paid not one penny of fed taxes.
In short the problem is party politics. Parliamentary systems avoid this by basically ensuring one dominant party. However tyrannies and dictatorships can be said to be 'superior' to presidential systems for this exact same reason.
A better solution is to simply do away with political parties, much like we have at certain local levels of government, and to revamp the way we have campaigns. The political shorthand we get from party labels simply does not outweigh the downsides of this system.
Judging by the way of income distribution we are a dictatorship ( in a graph depicting same we had a banana republic on one side of us and an African dictatorship on the other)....
Yada, yada, yada. Our system has worked for over 200 years and the LAST thing we need to be doing is trying to be more European. Fareed, take your "GPS" and go home. Political claptrap!
fareeds gotta earn a living too! I dont think he is anti America i think he just puts this crap out every once in a while to get reaction and generate traffic...he cant be this idiotic...
He's certainly sparked a response here! CNN must be very happy!
Why? Whats so wrong with Europe? They are all capitalist democracies with the same freedoms as in the US.
lol As a Canadian I am offended that you ignored Canada in your message.
In fact if the US adopted a Parliamentary system you would be technically Canada, but without the monarchy.
It's pretty nice to live in Canada I can say whatever I want without persecution, I can be whatever I want, I can make as much money as I want.
The only downside.. not as many nice beaches as in America.... wink*
Given your health care system alone I would like to live in Canada, it's just too cold.
I lived in Maine for 12 years and that was enough for me! Take care!
T from Canada.. Most Americans are turning their focuse to Canada Now.. Its creeping up. We realise our strongest ally is not in latin America for they kind of are too indian and oppose our association with Western Europe (personally think they think were to white of a nation.. they have issues with their own too like chile Not so much brazil but argentina).. not to mention alot are racist ive noticed.. Canada im going to visit for the second time.. Like the first time i felt right at home.. naturally we neglect our friendship buit we never frown up on our northern neighbors nor are we denying how similiar and important our countries bonds will be!!
look~~~a rare sighting
it's BFOTO
.
an American icon
.
the village idiot
Zakaria states "And you have the president who claims a broader mandate as the only person elected by all the people"...I don't believe this is a correct statement. If it were, Al Gore would have been elected President in 2000. Back when the Senate was elected by the state legislatures, you could make an argument that the people were represented by the states which in turn "represented" in the Senate. Of course, this is no longer the case. Consequently, the House of Representative is, and has always been, considered the "voice" of the people. The founders probably intended this given that they are voted for by the people every two years and thus are able to respond more quickly to the "will" of the people...but evidently not "quick" enough. Given Zakaria's position, Obama would have been thrown out of office after the 2010 elections. How would this foster greater "stability", potentially changing leaders every two years?
This is truly the disease of the 21st century...Republicans pretending that 8 years of george bush was harmless!!! how do you think Obama got elected??? do you know how bad bush had to be??? keep living you delusion!!! if all obamas appointees and all his bills passed then you could blame obama for this mess!!! half the people he appointed never got through congress more than half the bills he supports 80% filibuster and you think this is obamas mess/economy or are you a partisan?? moneys on a teaparty/partisan "nut job" this is very much still bush and the republican economy your elected republicans have made sure of that!!!
Another part of Republican amnesia is when Reagan faced 10% unemployment, that's right TEN PERCENT, he raised taxes 2% of GDP! FACT! You'll never hear a single Republican speak of their beloved Reagan in those terms. Well, that's not true; I saw a top economic adviser of Reagan's say just that on This Week. He looked as though he wanted to strangle the Republican senator sitting next to him calling to extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.
Fareed – very interesting comments regarding a Prime Minister v. a President. With the polarization of Washington – good luck making any headway in that area. I would rather see a greater degree of term limits for all members of congress the house and the president. So for example – the President can serve one (that is correct one) five year term. The people's work would be conducted for five consecutive years rather than what we have today which one or two years of the people's work followed by three or two years of campaigning and re-election efforts. He or she could run for office again 10 years later if he or she wished. That's it plain and simple. The same type of program should be implemented for the members of the house and senate. Folks like Reid, Pelosi McCain have been in office so long they have no idea what is happening in the real world being so out of touch with reality. Heaven for bid these folks should go out and get a real job. We need fresh ideas and fresh thinking or this great county of ours will continue to go down the tubes. Fareed – when will the white house allow you to interview the President on your show. Asking the tough questions you would ask may help him see the light.....
Fareed Zakaria has opened up an intersting debate. Te one big differnce between a parliamentry systems and a the US republic system is that goverments with a parliamentary system can in fact react quicker. It is great to have the checks and balances but someone has to make a decision one way or the other and right now the republic system is broken and needs to get out of its funk. Rome is burning and the biggest debate besides taxes increases or reduced spending is what religion he or she is from. You never hear any debate about cutting back military spending even though the US spends more than all the next 20 countries combined. It is as if that debate is undemocratic. The US is the third least taxed in the world when you combine all levels of taxation yet everyone thinks they are overtaxed.
The house and senate needs to set a course one way or the other. One thing for sure, if tough choices aren't taken now and the country slides further into unemployment with the rich getting richer, that is when the real problems will start.
Good post Dennis. Most civilizations have failed when such a small minority of the population has such a vast majority of the income. Either there is revolution or total economic collapse.
typical left...cry and whine when you dont get what you want....well, obama HAD control of BOTH houses and the white house for 2.5 yrs...and in that time he mananged to enact legislation that actually HURT the economy and ruined any chance for a real sustained recovery. So now fareed wants a parliamentary system and why? because people voted for change in 2010, and they got it...its called the will of the people..democracy at work....but pooor fareed doent like it....awwwwwww....too bad for fareed and his boss obama.
the FACT is, americans were SICK of obama's shenanigans...ramming through bad legislation against the majorities will, deviously appointing people during the lame duck session.... etc...etc...
sorry fareed....it just doesnt work that way. This is America! We like our system thank you very much.
By the way, I dont see the left crying about how THEY were obstructionists in congress and the house when bush was pres in 2006-2008. talk about hypocrites...ah yes, the lovely left....
lol just what we need....ANOTHER layer of gov....thats like finding a man stuck in quick sand and you save him by pouring more sand on his head
wow, I hope you were kidding with your comment because you do realize that a parliament system actually doesn't have more "layers" as you call them as your current system?
Try reading about other countries once in a while, you might learn something
Perhaps a good solution could be that American people henceforth elect the Prime minister as the head of government instead of the President. Or, in other words, that what is now the President becomes the head of the government.
The President of the United States is both Head of State and Head of Government.
I meant in the way Angela Merkel is in Germany, for example.
I think Fareed raises a good point about the gridlock in Washington, but we need not replace the entire system to address the problem. One simple rule: bring Congressional members back to the real world by tying pay to performance. The least senior Congressman/woman makes more than $150,000 annually; why should any of them get away with voting "no" to every bill, and campaigning for reelection? Imagine if Congressional members operated under the threat of no pay until they passed a budget. Not only would this force people to the negotiating table and cut down on the protesters who only go to Washington to vote "no," but timeliness would miraculously improve. If you know that you must accomplish a task by June 30 to avoid missing a paycheck on July 1, you're going to start that task in January. How many times during the months long debt ceiling debate did we see President Obama or Speaker Boehner stride to a podium and say "We've made significant progress," only to hear the next day that someone else walked out of negotiations? Can you imagine your boss assigning to you a task, and you string him along for months, telling him you're "making progress?" Pay for performance is the way to fix this problem. Sure, most Congressional members are wealthy, but even wealthy people (maybe especially wealthy people) know better than to lose more than $400 per day and work for free.
Follow the money as it weaves it's way through the American political system – favors are bought and sold – deals are sealed with cash and other favors and it is business as usual within the BeltLine
Americans are too childish to accept that something of theirs is not "the greatest".
spot dead on ~ but also one more adjective ~ stupid
dumb. I will stop watching GPS. Who needs this
certianly not you ~ you don't have the dura matter to process it.
The problem is not the government structure. The problem is we have allowed big business to derail the democratic process. Government by the people and for the people, not for the corporation and by the corporation. Why is my current official elected and I don't have a chance of being elected? He has money to spend on campaigning, which he then in turn uses his power to make sure his financial backers make enough to give him campaign money for the next election. Is he more qualified? By far there are thousands of people in this district more qualified than him to be in congress. My other complaint is why are there only about 600 people representing almost 400 million people? Can I say oligarchy?
I look at the world today, and see the fruits that big brains planted. Then I dismiss the anger because the big brains are genuinely ignorant of the damage they do daily (such as Mr. Fareed). I guess the few humble folks left on this planet can only hope that the big brains finish their spaceship soon, and leave us to fix/heal the damage they've done to our beautiful planet.
Our system is obviously not perfect and we should be open to improvements. Capitalism itself may need to be modified, it is not working well for the majority of the American people.
So you've become somewhat of a TV personality, and now you're going to reinvent America? Check your ego meter dude, I think your tank is full.
Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge.
Fareed,
Is it possible that the system is OK, but it is the elected individuals who are in congress and senate who are the problem.
Is it possible to imagine a "clean House" referendum where the people have a one time election to appoint an entirely new congress and senate ? People who have served cannot be elected into the new houses of government.
Might that remedy this embarrassing gridlock that our fine form of government is struggling with perfectly ?
I wish people would stop saying North America in reference to the US. North America is a continent that includes 2 countries and believe me, Canadians don't want to be mistaken for Americans...
Thanks,
And vice versa to be sure
Cut it out Anne, You love to put America down cause it's kind of like the new rage these days. You know you Canadians idolize the h-ll out of us Americans tho. So obvious.
Correction Anne, North America includes 3 countries (you forgot about Mexico). I'm sure they etach that in Geography class in Canada, ou non?
I can tell you in my opioion what wil fix America right now. We don't need to change the system we need to not have any further elections until there is an approved economic plan that works for the country. When neither party can move their personal agendas foward because they cannot gain more power they would be forced to work together.
Freeze Elections until America is fixed
Interesting point of like he always has but it is only his point of view. After nearly two and a half centuries our system has been remarkably self correcting over time and I see no evidence of that changing. We are just in need of correcting, big time. LOL
No mech ,good and bad, can patch up a blown engine and expect the engine to run like before. you need to rebuild it and that takes time. and obama is saying 'I AM REBUILDING' the engine that bush redlined to destruction. and there's these loud republicans on the side line saying fix it fix it fix it. yikes
If the Pubs were just on the sidelines shouting, that would be great. Unfortunately, they are not on the sidelines but are actively working to disrupt the process. They are against all attempts to jumpstart the economy, which requires putting money into the economy, not taking it out. They don't care about the engine, they want to destroy the mechanic.
....SPOT ON...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's the deal with Fareed; he jumped to "fame" in 2001 after he published an article called "Why they hate us" (right after 9/11) and claimed to be the holder of that knowledge. Because he's of foreign origin (now a naturalized citizen), and because he comes from the general area of the world where so many hate America, the American public was open to lend him an ear and intrigued by the source of these claims (i.e. "he must know, because he's highly educated and he's from that region"). After that jump to prominence in the media Fareed realized that people called his statements "thought-provoking" and he had a delightful "aha! moment" of "Wow, yeah, I AM provocative, I need to stay the course on that 'provocative' line because I get so much attention that way". So, by force of being provocative Fareed now finds himself trapped in the dilemma that in order to maintain a similar level of the public's attention span over long periods of time he needs to get more and more "provocative" and thus he keeps writing nuttier and nuttier things, lest he fall off everybody's radar screen. Fareed's problem is that he doesn't know how to course-correct his method, because it's probably already too late. He's set in his ways, and being "thought-provoking" is all he knows. My analysis of most of his articles? Yawn
So you basically posted the same article AGAIN, Fareed? If you don't like our system, feel free to go elsewhere. I believe you hate America more than many of the radicals.
Who is this little goof, and why is he constantly on this site spouting pure sh-t?
The strongest economy in Europe, rated triple A, is Germany and isn't their system basically the same as America's, although with a (purely symbolic) head of state?
" In 1945 Britain enacted a quasi-socialist economic plan that set the country on a bad path." It's insulting to call it quasi-socialist, it was proud to be socialist, and we'll disagree about whether it improved the country or not (although it did).
Whether you disagree or not about that, just contrast how the British leadership at that time overcome difficulties that make today's seem trivial (bankruptcy, rationing, military commitments) to carry out their beliefs. The current western leadership, including President Obama, would use those problems to do nothing. So maybe there is something in what you say provided only that the government is visionary and determined enough.
Our main problem is that President Obama and the Democrats try too hard to be liked by too many. Republicans realize that no matter what they do, somewhere around 40-45% of the people will be adamtently opposed. While the same holds true for Obama and the Dems, they try too hard to be liked and compromise too much while the Republicans just take a deep breath and ram through as much as they can when they get a majority... or in today's case, block everything they don't like no matter what the consequences. The President is still trying too hard to be a community organizer instead of being the President, head of his party, and leading the charge whenever necessary and stop trying to win over that remaining 40%. It AIN'T gonna happen, go go ahead and govern!
I disagree with Fareed. India too has parliamentary system. Look the level of corruption they have. I think presidential system does have self-correcting mechanisms to uproot corruptions. Besides the same citizens who might have elected Obama, might think differently 2 years later and decide to undo some of the things that are happening. I think in thise case Fareed is assuming whatever Obama is doing is good for the country. But that may not be case for the long term survival of capitalism that has worked in this country for last century. America can come back if its citizens are free to innovate and government creates that environment. From automobiles, aeroplanes, to transistors these were produced by citizens and not by the government. America needs its old mojo back.
As a Canadian, I can second and confirm anne's sentiments. We would never want to be like america, as much as we like you guys....but really? NO THANKS! We're nicer, friendlier, less arrogant and less materialistic. We also have a wonderful conservative majority gov't that has managed a fantastic economy despite the whole world falling apart. you can have obama...he's a bloody loser who knows NOTHING about running a country. Better he should go back to harvard of the community at accorn he used to organize.
.....canadian..............AND YOU ARE INFLUENCED BY FOX DOUBLE SPEAK ABOUT ACORN?...............YOU LIE LIKE A RUG........AZZHO.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FAREED WILL YOU RUN?
Looking from outside the USA I really don't see that much difference between the democrats and the republicans.They are both part of the business party.In the USA it is not the people but the major corporations that set policy.With Obama it was the financial sector that backed him in exchange for the large bailouts and allowing the people who caused the financial crises to supposedly "clean it up".The deficit in the USA is not a problem of too much social spending. The problem in the USA is a dysfunctional healthcare system and a defense budget which cost twice as much as those in any other comparable industrialized nation.If you had a defense budget of 2.5% of GDP like France or Britain,and you had a national healthcare service like in either of those, you would not have a deficit but a surplus.
.................two words..........................................sarah palin...........................................omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fareed, you don't have to pose it as a question, we all know how you really feel so please explain how you want American to change.
We need to look at the history of America. Our system of government was set up by Indian killing, slave owning reactionaries. Reactionaries are conservative to the point of being hidebound. This is what got us where we are now.
While your statement is inane, who set up parlimentary systems?
OK.....Not that I agree....but an interesting line of sight on the workings of our political system. Specific Questions: 1. WHY did our founding fathers NOT include a Prime Minister? 2. How is it that everything has worked so well without a Prime Minister for all these years? 3. Didn't our founding fathers have just as heated (maybe even more heated) political conversations in their day? 4. And Fareed, has the heat in your kitchen been turned up since you cae out with this opinion piece? Can't we just all get along....
circa R. King 
PS I love your show and reading/watching items that include your viewpoint. Keep up the good work on providing independent lines of sight or agreement when you do. At least we do listen to one another at times...... and the coruption is not so bad. We need not go do hunger strikes. Warm regards.
History is not black-and-white, but then political scientists rarely understand contingency, do they? Britain's social safety net was a well-deserved thank you to the ordinary people who suffered to preserve Queen and Empire from the threat of Nazi Germany. It's Thatcher who set Britain on a bad path, one Cameron hoped to return to. It's not working out so well, is it?
I agree With Fareed that most european nations that are proving stable during this time are parliamentary democracies but i think his assertion is missing something critical. I think not only do you need such a system but you need political parties that are centered around that system. Such countries tend to have parties that have much more similar platforms, directions and goals, thats why they are more succesful at legistlating its because alot of the party positions were hashed out in the middle of parliamentary debate. To throw a parliamentary system onto republicans and democrats would be fatal because then the directions of the government would not be insulated by an executive branch and they would change on whim from day to day depending on the particular party
Dear Fareed.
The Prime Minister of Australia, whilst being representative of a majority (potentially a coalition) in the lower house of parliament, does not necessarily have a majority in the upper house .
Hence they do not have the ability to pass all legislation of their choosing.
Democracy remains a work in progress even in the Westminster system.
There is so much to say, but you are just an idiot.
Fareed love prime minister. The way CNN is protecting corrupted people in India, Fareed see opportunity to bring such corrupt system to USA. That was dream of his corrupted father who was part of India's most corrupted political party.
You forget that when a Parliament lacks a clear majority the little parties (read Tea Party) wield power all out of proportion to their numbers. Would you like to have BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats bidding policies and Cabinet positions for Tea Party support in order to get their Congressional leader (that would be either Representative Boehner or Pelosi elected as Prime Minister.
Scary .
I have a problem with the article in so far as it alludes to the US as supporting a welfare state much like the rest of Europe (The West). While the Dems seem to be pushing more social programs we are still far off from the system of welfare practiced in Europe and England. When we start paying 50% of our income to support the government (i.e. Europe) via taxes then we should be concerned.
Ok. Are we done with this fascicle notion yet?
.
The 1945 quasi socialist economic plan enacted in England was by the Conservative Party. Copying Bismark's attempt in Germany to head of full blown Socialism or Communism. After the Revolution of 1848, many Germans emigrated to the US, especially the state of Wisconsin. Their descendants are in action now.
Congress is much more divided than the American people. That is due to the inordinant influence of special interest money,
Is it possible that the Dismal Science RULES?
Corrections "head off" not "head of" Bismarck not Bismark
Here we go again with another rediculous article by a Bomb Thrower
Fareeds does not mention the bad aspects of a parliament/prime-minister.
During the fifties and sixties and into the seventies Italy could not keep a stable government for more than about a year. It was a continuous vote of no confidence in the government. If I am not mistaken for a European parliament was not Hitler Germany's prime-minister?
Concerning the ridiculous number of post war governments in Italy – averaging close to 1 a year. It is a durational enactment of the motto – That government is best which governs least – which seems to me to be a reasonable respone to the rule of the Fascist Mussolini.
Italy is a bad example cause they use a different electoral system than the US. In Italy the country is one district and if your party gets 10% of the popular vote it gets 10% of the seats. therefor potential politicians are not beholden to their voters but the Party cause of a party list that is based on seniority. Israel has the same problem.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and etc elect their politicians the same way: first past the post system where there are many districts and winner takes all in each riding.
Democracy in America has failed due to an electorate of citizens who literally are NOT SMART ENOUGH to be appointing by electon, their leaders. A prime minister who acts largely like a president who can get rid of those that are below him being the big difference is not so much of what is needed rather than ingtelligent people voting the dude in charge into office. Until Americans can elect someone using criteria other than LOOKS, RACE, or LACK of EXPERIENCE not being accounted for and/or considered, then we are all doomed to the same mistakes made by other idiots that have been elected to or STOLEN their way into office prior to the one presently in office or the one before him who more or less stole his way into office...............!
hey.....you talkin' about me???
you're awful. Democracy fails when there are only 2 parties to choose from, and those two parties extend every ounce of their energy trying to discredit the other one, as opposed to doing something novel like working together to do what's vest for the American people (ALL of them, not just the ones who voted them in.
Democracy in America is failing because Republicans refuse to acknowledge the needs of over 50% of the US population, because that >50% didn't vote for them. Once you're elected to public office, you concede to the fact that there are 400 million people to take care of, not just the rich white corporate elite. It's why Obama makes concessions, because he wants to help America, in spite of a Republican House that seeks only to destroy him and enhance their own interests heading into 2012.
*best
To Abby: You do not understand the basic role of government. It is not the governments job to take care of ANYONE. Not 50% of the population, not 100%, not 1%. The ONLY role of the government is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. That is it. Nothing more.
hopadoop...how about "provide for the general welfare". Forgot that Mr. Crappants?
Our system isn't the problem...The problem is that politicians from both 'sides' have perverted the system for their own selfish gains...Slowly but surely our Republic has been turned into a Fascist State, we have 'Gridlock' because those who understand the value of living in a Republic are desperately fighting the Control Freaks who love the criminal and immoral 'Stacked Deck' system that is Fascism
Before we change our entire system of govt, how 'bout we get the $ out of elections so that every single elected official, Democrat, Republican, or whatever, doesn't have to beg at the feet of corporate paymasters. Then let's see what happens.
Presidential system or not, America's two-party system is by far its biggest problem.
Also, don't forget to mention how much more stable Canada's economy, with it's parliamentary system, is than the US. You said Western countries, but I'm not sure you've paid complete attention to how well our economy has done, in comparison, since the recession. Our biggest issues have everything to do with how closely our economy is tied to the US and vice versa as far as trade (oil, fresh water, lumber, wheat – you're welcome
No my lady thank you
Wow...while I believe Mr.Z you have a right to think and say what you will the suggestion that the US just do a 180 and change our political system so radically has only one word to explain it "INSANE"
Lol This guy is a freaking moron. "yes, while the U.S. Government has 'checks and balances' when can be good at some times, what we REALLY need is a dictatorship who can tell us what to do so we make decisions fasert."
What an evil idiot! I am GLAD our government doesn't get things done. If our government was efficient, we would have been entirely under their control decades ago. THANK GOD FOR GOVERNMENT INEFFICIENCY. It was designed that way by the founders so we would for the very purpose that it would be unable to interfere in our lives.
I do not know if the Parlimentary System is a required fix, but I do agree that this approach seems to keep the politician in greater alignment with votes becasue the cost of faillure is relegation to the back benches. What occurs to me is that the "compromise" based nature of our system always ends up with the highest spending, lowest tax solution. Part of this has been the near unlimited level of debt available to solve problems, part of it is the nature of the beast.
Our other problem is that once our Primary system was opened after the 1968 Conventions, we have lost all quality control over the candidates. As a Republican, I am embarrassed that the current cast of candidates has more the shape and feel of carnival barkers, hucksters and pure opportunistis. None of these clods are worthy of mention next to the great leaders of the party. This gang of misfits is simply doing the political equivalent of dumpster diving to get attention.
The people in the system are what the problem is not the system itself. This system allows us to vote in a new government just about every 6 years if we wanted to. To bad no one really does this otherwise most of our problems would be fixed. In fact the only part of the system I would fix is cutting out the senate and letting the reps vote for everything. To change the system into a Parliament system is ridiculous. It doesn't need changed just new people, now go to sleep giant CNN troll.
BTW our government doesn't control the economy and it really messed up when it tried to bail it out (thanks bush). seriously we should have let the companies fail instead of giving everyone gold parachutes and half a lung to live on.
No, parliamentary systems are generally not stable political systems. Afterall, Germany's Weimar Republic was a parliamentary system that gave Hitler's Nazi Party a mob-ruled, populist platform to nullify Germany's Post-WWI democracy and start a fascist dictatorship regime.
Although Parliamentary systems are truer to a democracy in that their legislative bodies create policy and elect Prime Ministers while their executive branches tend to be more of a popular figurehead than a policy-making figure, parliamentary systems tend to allow for more mob-infested populist candidates and produce a multi-headed Hydra-esque coalition of political parties. Look at India and Italy's parliaments, and you'll see mob-ruled, populist democracy run amok.
The reason why UK's parliamentary system appears more stable is due to its 3-party system which requires a coalition with a 3rd party. As for France's political system, they are more of a presidential political system than a parliamentary one, and most political scientists will argue that France's political power is heavy on the executive branch, even more so than the US.
What America needs is not a Prime Minister who is susceptible to the whims of the legislative branch and a populist mob (look at the Tea Party and Coffee Party movements).
America is need of a moderate 3rd party within Congress and legislative branches that can force Democrats and Republicans to form coalitions and pass reform within the legislative branch. It's unfortunate that for a country who's politically moderate majority population that outweighs the extremist bickering of both sides of the political spectrum, has no moderate political party to support them and speak on their behalf.
I think we'd be better off if we had a parliamentary system, but I think the chances of us reforming our own system are slim to none. Our government is like Elmer Fudd; it has done to itself the old gag from vintage cartoons. It’s painted itself into a corner, and I have no idea how, or even, if our government will ever get out of this corner. We have serious problems that need to be resolved and can be resolved, but the very nature of our system prevents workable solutions from even being tried. In short, because our system is broken, we cannot fix our system. Check out my blog on our dysfunctional government: http://kwheatcroft.blogspot.com/
It would be nice if we could get rid of the Senate. The fact that Nevada or Wyoming has the same weight as New York or Texas has led to a tyranny of the coalition of small population states. It leads to false " Will of the People" claims. The power of the vote of citizens in the large population states is diluted. In essence they do not receive equal representation. In addition, the archaic Electoral College adapted from the Holy Romen Empire, should be abolished and a straight popular vote used to determine the Presidency.
correction Roman
The founding fathers intentionally made our system inefficient.
If you look at effecient goverments they get to where they are going extremely fast. Everyone hops on board. The goverments goals are priority number one.
Nazi germany was a VERY effecient governemnt.
True Elmer fudd never kills Bugs Bunny ... but her never kills the entire Warner Bros cartoon population either!
We don't need a Prime minister or President. We just need a mini Congress. Each state would elect their own representative. All the representative would gather and make our laws in Washington DC. This mini Congress could select their own person to Represent the US in foreign affairs. Bills would become law by Majority vote. These Representatives would receive council from a panel of elected University Scholars in Econmics, Military affairs, foreign policy, etc. Each representative would be subject to its state vote every 5yrs.
The presidential system is great, but within the United States, we have corruption and the only way to rid the government of corruption is simple. We make taking bribes/kickbacks illegal, under treason and punishable under the death penalty. We also form a small group of detectives that have proven their loyalty, they will have any resources they need to investigate representatives of this great nation.
I also have another solution to the world in crisis, we get rid of all currency, the people of the world come together in unity to solve problems together and look forward, not backwards. Earth must become like the world in 'Star Trek' they gave up all currency, they worked together and achieved all so much in their time working forward.
Our system required that everything President Obama was trying to accomplish had to be passed by both house of Congress. What is the point of blaming him for unkept promises when members of the Republican Party were disciplined to vote as a block. Some of them had signed a pledge to Grover Norquist never to raise taxes for ANY reason, even if the economy collapsed. Grover Norquist has never been elected to the Senate or the House of Representatives. What was the point of electing these idiots if all they did was to behave like a "stuck record" that played the same message over and over? They could have sent a computer to negotiate instead of appearing in person. This cannot be called a negotiation if their message was "My way or the highway". Subtlety was beyond their comprehension. Also, their declared goal was to ensure that Mr. Obama would be a one-term president. The result was that they voted against absolutely everything proposed by Mr. Obama, including all appointments of federal judges. This was paralysis as a political goal, and our "system" of government empowered them.
Zakaria should be smarter than this. The problem isn't the presidential system, it's the people that have taken over one half of our government. In a parliamentary system the parliament elects the prime minister from among it's own ranks. Could you imagine the Republican majority picking America's prime minister? Oh I shudder to think of the thought.
We don't need one and we never will and this effin re tard reporter that wrote the piece can go straight to h e ll!
Nice, ralk, you add quite a bit to the conversation. Now, back under a rock with you. C'mon...hurry.
...Hell! And who is the king or queen?!... Exxon Mobil, or Walmart, or Facebook?, thus, the 'TEA' party should be looking into this such 'proposition' made by this arab Farreed!
I think Fareed raises a good point about the gridlock in Washington, but we need not replace the entire system to address the problem. One simple rule: bring Congressional members back to the real world by tying pay to performance. The least senior Congressman/woman makes more than $150,000 annually; why should any of them get away with voting "no" to every bill, and campaigning for reelection? Imagine if Congressional members operated under the threat of no pay until they passed a budget. Not only would this force people to the negotiating table and cut down on the protesters who only go to Washington to vote "no," but timeliness would miraculously improve. If you know that you must accomplish a task by June 30 to avoid missing a paycheck on July 1, you're going to start that task in January. How many times during the months long debt ceiling debate did we see President Obama or Speaker Boehner stride to a podium and say "We've made significant progress," only to hear the next day that someone else walked out of negotiations? Can you imagine your boss assigning to you a task, and you string him along for months, telling him you're "making progress?" Pay for performance is the way to fix this problem. Sure, most Congressional members are wealthy, but even wealthy people (maybe especially wealthy people) know better than to lose more than $400 per day and work for free. ty tymkovich
Yes, just what we need, a 'fared zakaria" telling us that we need to change our governmental system.
Idiot.
Yeah attack the fact that he is a not a white guy and ignore the fact that what he says is right.
Ben...your prejudice is showing...but, then, you have no control over your seething racism.
The proof is in the pudding, the US created a parliamentary system in every country it was involved in "Nation Building" since WW2. We sit around so pig headed about how wonderful the US is that we don't look at the obvious problems.
Very little insight here. Zakaria was presenting a paper...think of it as a THEORETICAL passage to another way of thinking...of governing. That's how IDEAS begin and how problems are sometimes solved. I suggest you all relax and let some fresh air in.
In most parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is the head of government and the Head of State is a benign Monarch or some other figurehead. The President of the United States is both. Thus, there is a controversy when a sitting congressman shouts "you lie" as the President is giving a speech. No member of the British Parliament would call Queen Elizabeth a liar, but Prime Minister Cameron is called a liar in the House of Commons almost daily. The same for Prime Minister Harper in Canada.
Watching the debt crisis unfold daily has made me appreciate the effective checks and balances of a parliamentary system. In the end all the Founding Fathers did was create a system that "Elects a King". But the King has so many road blocks systematically in place, he or she cannot effectively govern.
Mr. Zakira, our latest expert on all things, knows how to pump up ratings, as one can easily see by the number of posts written herein. While this not a bad thing in itself, it does make such an "expert" liable to pretentiousness. Of course, if one really wants to see the workings of the parliamentary system look back at the great BBC series, "Yes, Prime Minister". Skullduggery, inefficiency and a whole load of characters acting out the greed and baseness of politicians written by the British themselves. As for politics getting nastier; well that has been said for generations by muckrackers like Ambrose Bierce way before CNN lest expert's pronouncements.
Well said, Mr. Dugan.
No: We just need a real POTUS!
I always thought we lived in a dictatorship here...
America needs a presidential replacement! Someone with a brain and a soul!
Fareed, question for you, don't you need to have a royal family take over an establishment "ordained by a God" prior to a parliamentary system in effect? Isn't a parliament the royal's "democratic attempt" at a government ?? Cause if I do recall, Republicans, at least after Bush aren't exactly pro-royals? So what are you talking about?
This is inline with my thoughts that it's time to refactor our government here in the states. It needs a good ole fashioned corporate restructuring.
What we need is good old fashioned American SECESSION.
Why am I not surprised that Fareed would pimp for a Parliament? A little, toothy man coming from a huge ant pile of indistinguishable humans with no individuality or sense of personal power would have to abhor our system. Go home, Fareed.
Unbelievable naiiete and preprogrammed response! The reader should be aware at this point that the democrats and republicans are nothing more than two heads of the same snake. No major election has changed anything in America for decades. None will, for the foreseeable future.
The political conversation about dems vs. republicans is like comparing Ford to Chevrolet. On the one hand we've got people who manufacture useful motor vehicles, while on the other hand we've got people who manufacture useless balogna.
Why call for a prime minister? It's just a quicker way to establish a dictatorship in name as well as in power. Why not call this person a Chancellor instead? It worked for Hitler and I'm sure it would work for Mr. Zakaria.
Votre site est remarquable et tres interessant ! Vous pouvez aussi voir mon profil sur Vosamis.net.
This written by someone who was not born here and does not understand this country.
The problem/culprit are the LOBBYISTS hired by for profit companies. Get rid of them and problem will be solved.
I guess if we have a prime minister, no one would object to the president becoming king.
I wonder how many people have ever talked to the normal working people who live in these countries with parlamintary systems. Reading about it and making judgements are not the same as living there.
I have talked with people from countries around the world they are no happier with there governments then we are with the US government.
Anyone that can figure out how there country can keep there econmy booming without counting on the US then I mite listen.
No "prime minister" please, what the nation needs is for President Obama put on his "child day-care center director hat" and place the "republicans" in the "time out corner" until they can behave like "mature children", some democrats too and off course all those "under the influence" of the tea party.
NO, Fareed, the U.S. doesn't need a "prime minister". We need fewer immigrants from countries that
HAVE prime ministers, and who want to bring the kinds of government structures that they are familiar
with into this country...We just need a more resolute President (one who quits his efforts at "bipartisanship")...
and we need to end the Plutocracic oligarchy that American CEO's, lobbyists, and Republicans are so
hellbent on establishing.
The Westminister system of government is the best in the world. New Zealand has a great version of it. Also the countries using the Westminister based system in Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Canada have great election processes as well, far less corrupt that the one in the USA.
Implementing structural change is far easier under the Westminister system than the US system.
To travis, I agree that what hitler did was bad, but to call the jews innocent is a HUGE LEAP. No thiest is innocent, they are evil spiteful hateful killers.
What have the "spiteful hateful killers done to you lately? Sounds like you would have fit right in
with Hitler's bunch. You're scarry...
Wow this could actually be good for the US. The US government is to busy fighting for control within by parties that only fight to control both the presidency and congress. It almost seems they don't even care about the people anymore. Maybe a parliament (if the stated facts are true) would actually be better since they would get things done for once.
Only in the past 20 years has India achieved any type of independent wealth. Prior to that Indian prime ministers promoted blatent socialism. And India still has millions of people living on the streets. Fareed grew up in a fairly wealthy family and so undoubtedly has a fondness for the supposed greatness of India. And now wants the US to imitate his home country.
I desired to thanks pretty much with this illuminating article. I've currently book marked your web site, when I've more free time I'm going to need to perform some additional learn.
Magnificent items from you, man. I have be aware your stuff previous to and you are just too fantastic. I really like what you've obtained here, certainly like what you're saying and the way in which during which you assert it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it sensible. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a terrific web site.
I'm now not positive the place you are getting your information, however great topic. I must spend some time finding out much more or working out more. Thank you for great info I was on the lookout for this information for my mission.