You know what's really lacking in American politics?

[rumborak]

This is something I remember noticing when moving to the US. There is, at least when compared to my home country Germany, barely a sense of "together".
That is, of course in Germany people heavily disagree with each other on political issues. But there is still the tangible perception that in the end, we're all in the same boat and we need to figure something out that all of us can live with.
I can't say I have gotten that impression from American politics. Sure, the word "all Americans" gets thrown around a lot during election times, but I always got the notion that Americans don't really like each other that much. Especially people from different states seem to almost openly give each other the middle finger.
As a result, politics feels less like a politics of compromise, but that of a Cold War. Each side is directly trying to screw the other side through whatever means possible.
To put it into one word, I think what's seriously lacking is "goodwill" towards the opposing side.

Am I off with this perception?

rumborak

[MasterShakezula]

You're about spot-on.

I will say from my (very limited, having lived in one city my life) experience as a US-er that people really do not care for or about the people around them.  Very rarely do people interact meaningfully with people they haven't known since childhood.  One could say that US-ers are xenophobic towards their fellow citizens.

I think it's a combination of having a huge amount of differing demographics, the way people are brought up, crime-rate-related-fear, and possibly nationalism? 

[Super Dude]

You're about spot-on.

I will say from my (very limited, having lived in one city my life) experience as a US-er that people really do not care for or about the people around them.  Very rarely do people interact meaningfully with people they haven't known since childhood.  One could say that US-ers are xenophobic towards their fellow citizens.

I think it's a combination of having a huge amount of differing demographics, the way people are brought up, crime-rate-related-fear, and possibly nationalism?

That's a theory I'd support. We have a political heritage but not really a national heritage, so it's sorta hard to create unity from that. The only real "unified" culture in America seem to be red and blue, i.e. those who adopt the high English culture and those who inherit the Scots-Irish culture.

And rumbo, this politics of trying to screw the other guy over goes waaay back, I don't even know how far back. The earliest that I have actual evidence for is the 60s, which was a very similar picture to today: economic and social inequality maintained by the right, and if anyone on the left tried to enact reforms or expand the safety net or anything of the sort, they were accused of being a Communist...only in those days, such an accusation was a lot more dangerous than simply slinging that epithet at Obama or something.

[rumborak]

Was there ever a notion of national unity in the US history, other than right at the beginning with the British settlers?

BTW, I pretty much agree with that one of the main factors is the heterogeneity of the US. There is certainly a high degree of tolerance of the different ethnicities/culture, but that's very different from the willingness to share resources with those people. So, everybody sticks to themselves and their group, and just tries to grab as much as possible. That is of course Libertarian porn, but in the long run, infighting never works to society's advantage.

rumborak

[Riceball]

Somewhat related but somewhat not related, but most certainly funny, is a tidbit I read last night concerning parliamentary democracy in South Korea. I won't post the article because its not relevant (its the US/SK FTA), but here are the snippits:

...local television stations and newspapers showed images of opposition lawmakers shouting and one shooting a tear gas canister in the room where the voting took place.

...stalled the government’s efforts since June to put the bill to a vote, on several occasions physically blocking lawmakers entering subcommittee meetings to prevent its advance to a plenary session...

Clearly, what US politics is lacking is violence. You guys like violence, right? That would get people interested.

[El Barto]

Was there ever a notion of national unity in the US history, other than right at the beginning with the British settlers?

Not really.  I can think of times when people have really banded together,  but probably not on a national scale.  It seems to me that what really creates that sense of unity is strife.  During the depression people were certainly willing to help each other out.  I don't think it really had any nationalistic base, though;  more a component of being human than American.  What really solidifies that sense of unity is war.  During the first few weeks of Gulf War I,  there was a very distinct yeah America kind of sentiment.  But once again,  that's largely based on circumstances rather than that whole shared heritage thing, though. 

The biggest issue is really one of scale.  New Yorkers might as well be Canadians to me.  I actually relate to Texans much more than Americans.  On a larger scale,  you've got Southerners that couldn't be much more different to Northerners. 

The other component is time.  Germans have been working together, for better of for worse,  for 1500 years.  That's a whole lot of invasions (to and fro),  and plenty of economic ups and downs.  We've got less than 300 years, and very little of it were we ever really threatened.  Napoleon probably would have instilled a fair amount of unity in us;  I'm sure it did y'all.  Hell,  the worst we had was the British and Canadians,  and they're actually pretty decent people. 

[Scheavo]

Our size has to play into it, and how ignorant people can be of people from States within the Union. Germany is probably bout the size of my State (possibly smaller), but there's a lot more people. The bigger the cities, the more the bystander effect kicks in, and the colder the population. Human interaction really isn't suited to deal with millions of people; our evolutionary history is of rather small groups. Small towns are known for being friendlier.

Too large of a land mass, with too distinct of a populace. I doubt things will last as they are for too much longer, though I hope people keep their minds and basically just redraft a Constitution with regionalization of power, and adding another level to the federal hierarchy (with a very limited federal).

[Riceball]

I'm a massive fan of federalism, and your arguments about agglomeration where there shouldn't be agglomeration is very appropriate for the US.

But wouldn't it be really hard (if not impossible) to do this? It would involve the Feds writing themselves out of the story, wouldn't it?

[Scheavo]

States can call a constitution convention, states can modify the Constitution, states can ratify said changes.

It's all constitutional, and it would completely bypass the corrupt federal government. I'm more than willing to bet that our army would support the change, so I don't really fear a coup.

[Super Dude]

Why do we have to limit the federal government so? What other country in Europe has done so?

[rumborak]

In the face of increasing globalization, I also don't think going more towards the state side is the right move. I don't think it's economically particularly sensible to have every state do its own thing and have its own rules.

rumborak

[MetalMike06]

I've always been heavily in favor of state governments having more power, sort of like European countries mostly govern themselves rather than just one massive EU government. Simply trying to force 300 million people to adhere to an ever-growing single set of laws hasn't helped things much, IMO. Localism ftw.

Also, keep in mind the US is not really traditionally a monoracial country, I mean it was initially, and for a long while of course it was basically just western Europeans and Blacks. But my point being, European countries have been their own cultures/nationalities/ethnicities for hundreds, some thousands, of years. That has to play a heavy factor in their domestic tranquilities, I think.

[rumborak]

I've always been heavily in favor of state governments having more power, sort of like European countries mostly govern themselves rather than just one massive EU government.

That's a pretty bad example, because that exact lack of central oversight caused countries like Greece to go haywire with their finances and jeopardize the whole union.

rumborak

[snapple]

Most Americans banded together on 9/11. World War 1 and 2 most Americans banded together. I think the trick is you have to really piss off Americans to get them to band against you. As most foreigners will probably say, Americans are very elitist, which I would 100% fucking agree. I do think this is the best country in the world. And, to the core, most Americans agree. If you do something that "challenges" us, we tend to set our differences aside and make sure to unleash the hounds of Hell on whoever did what to us.

Oh, when Osama Bin Laden got owned, there was dancing in the streets.

[MasterShakezula]

Perhaps the US gov. could take advantage of that through regularily waging air raids upon its own major population centers, claiming the non-incumbent party was behind it, and staging a mock trial of the party's leaders with fake execution clip, wash-rinse-repeat

(my attempt at humour aside, snapple's point is all too disturbingly true)

[MetalMike06]

I've always been heavily in favor of state governments having more power, sort of like European countries mostly govern themselves rather than just one massive EU government.

That's a pretty bad example, because that exact lack of central oversight caused countries like Greece to go haywire with their finances and jeopardize the whole union.

rumborak

US States have never had that kind of power, I mean financially. A state can't print US dollars to finance its own extravagance. But I'm talking more generally; health care, social laws, etc. could be localized way more easily, IMO. I mean do you think the EU should have a single health care system, a single military, a single set of social laws, a single tax code, on and on?

[kirksnosehair]

Was there ever a notion of national unity in the US history, other than right at the beginning with the British settlers?

For a very brief period directly following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the feeling of national unity was palpable.  We weren't "liberals" and "conservatives" we weren't "Democrats" and "Republicans" we were "Americans" and you could really feel the sense of brotherhood and unity.

Even though the events of that day were a horrific tragedy, I cannot remember ever feeling more pride and unity with everyone, regardless of their ideology or beliefs in the weeks following that day. 

Sadly, it wasn't very long before things changed, and pretty soon we were invading Iraq and the partisan divide was (and remains) bigger than ever.

[Super Dude]

@ MetalMike: There's a big difference between a federal nation with non-independent states, and a league comprised of many independent nation-states. EU =/= US

[Scheavo]

Why do we have to limit the federal government so? What other country in Europe has done so?

The United States is bigger than Europe, geographically.

Also, I'm not saying we should revert to states, but regions of common interests that have more of the power that our current federal government has; maintain a Federal government, but weak it's power by giving some of it's authority to those regions. Like I said, add a third tier to the federal system; states, regions, federal.

[rumborak]

For a very brief period directly following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the feeling of national unity was palpable.  We weren't "liberals" and "conservatives" we weren't "Democrats" and "Republicans" we were "Americans" and you could really feel the sense of brotherhood and unity.

Even though the events of that day were a horrific tragedy, I cannot remember ever feeling more pride and unity with everyone, regardless of their ideology or beliefs in the weeks following that day. 

I don't think it's surprising those feelings didn't prevail. They were created by a fear of something, and once the fear subsided, those feelings did too.

US States have never had that kind of power, I mean financially. A state can't print US dollars to finance its own extravagance.

Neither could Greece. The ECB prints the Euro, and just like the Fed it is independent. Greece was able to live beyond its means because it was riding on the low interest rates in the Eurozone that were carried by the stronger countries. So, the comparison with US states is not too far on that one.

But I'm talking more generally; health care, social laws, etc. could be localized way more easily, IMO. I mean do you think the EU should have a single health care system, a single military, a single set of social laws, a single tax code, on and on?

Actually, most of that list, I don't see a reason why not. If the EU survives the current crisis, it has two choices: Either integrate further with its member countries (i.e. go further to a US model), or disintegrate completely back into its member countries.

rumborak

[Riceball]

There's a big difference between a federal nation with non-independent states, and a league comprised of many independent nation-states. EU =/= US

Ding ding ding.

They aren't really the same thing, for a number of reasons, not least of which is fiscal integration (or lack of it). There are explicit federal-state financial interactions in the US federation, while in the EU there isn't. Thats actually one of the key reasons why Europe has become so munted over the past few years, and its being postured as at least part of the solution to their current ills - although naturally it would involve Germany transferring their spare fiscal capacity to weaker jurisdictions.

Australia is a good example of how a federalist system can operate: imbalances between spending and revenue raising powers between the Feds and the States (called VFI) and a process of equalisation where spare fiscal capacity (read surpluses or strength in revenue) is transferred across States (called HFE). In Australia, though, VFI is too big (states have only 25% of revenue powers but are responsible for almost half of spending) while HFE is too extreme (my state, WA, gets raped under the current methodology - much like Alberta was being made Canada's bitch for a number of years). This is certainly not ideal and something that my organisation has been lobbying hard against for a number of years.

The US has somewhat of a federalist model, but I think the centre has a lot of the power (amirite?). Decentralisation is pretty much always a good thing, but for a nation as large - geographically, geopolitically and economically - as the US the centre still has a role to play on things like diplomacy, security, trade and the like. But no doubt, the US would benefit from a little less centrism.



*in case you can't tell, public economics is a school I'm very interested in.

[Super Dude]

A little less but let's not go overboard.

[Scheavo]

The US has somewhat of a federalist model, but I think the centre has a lot of the power (amirite?). Decentralisation is pretty much always a good thing, but for a nation as large - geographically, geopolitically and economically - as the US the centre still has a role to play on things like diplomacy, security, trade and the like. But no doubt, the US would benefit from a little less centrism.

I agree with this, but we of course have a federalist model - as far as I remember, we created the concept.

[Riceball]

Mmmmmmm, I think alot of European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany and Italy) have been federalist countries for quite a while. Britain certainly isn't a federalist country, I don't know about Greece - I'm thinking of democracies here.

[Scheavo]

They weren't federalist before 1787 were they? I guess feudalism is somewhat federalist in a way, you have your lords and your kings.

[Riceball]

I really don't know, tbh. You are probably right...was the US a true federalist nation back then though?

[j]

Why do we have to limit the federal government so? What other country in Europe has done so?

What country in Europe is remotely similar to the US in terms of size, heterogeneity, etc?

Not to mention, I would lean a lot further to the "left" if this country's government had ever shown itself to be competent enough to effectively implement, manage, and modify even the handful of social programs that are already in place.

-J

[rumborak]

They weren't federalist before 1787 were they? I guess feudalism is somewhat federalist in a way, you have your lords and your kings.

The current German states come essentially from those feudal lords' reign borders, and the Bundesrat (essentially the equivalent to the Senate) came straight from those lords convening to discuss matters. Even the term we use ("Bund", as opposed to "Föderal", i.e. federal) comes from the union ("Bund") of those lords.

rumborak

[Riceball]

They weren't federalist before 1787 were they? I guess feudalism is somewhat federalist in a way, you have your lords and your kings.

The current German states come essentially from those feudal lords' reign borders, and the Bundesrat (essentially the equivalent to the Senate) came straight from those lords convening to discuss matters. Even the term we use ("Bund", as opposed to "Föderal", i.e. federal) comes from the union ("Bund") of those lords.

rumborak

Well there you go, I learnt something today.

Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns, the US has got enough differences and enough similarities to warrant a less centralised structure of governance. You would never want a fully state-governed system, that would become far too disfunctional; but some level of disfunction is probably a good thing.

[MasterShakezula]

What would be some examples of this positive disfunction?

[Scheavo]

They weren't federalist before 1787 were they? I guess feudalism is somewhat federalist in a way, you have your lords and your kings.

The current German states come essentially from those feudal lords' reign borders, and the Bundesrat (essentially the equivalent to the Senate) came straight from those lords convening to discuss matters. Even the term we use ("Bund", as opposed to "Föderal", i.e. federal) comes from the union ("Bund") of those lords.

rumborak

I agree with this, but at the same time I feel there's something unique about what America did. We don't call England in the 17th century a real democracy, even though our revolutionaries basically fought for the same rights those 17th century Englishmen fought for. I think the overt institutionalization of the Federal system in America was different (and the arguments made for it in the Federalist Papers), but perhaps I should just be saying it was the first democratic Federalism.

[Riceball]

What would be some examples of this positive disfunction?

I'm performing too much lingual gymnastics today I thinks (that tastily formed sentence changes that). What I was implying was a sprinkle of horizontal competition between governments, so disfunction insofar as not everyone is pulling 100% in the same direction (90%+ though, otherwise things can get a bit retarded).

[AndyDT]

Why do we have to limit the federal government so? What other country in Europe has done so?

What country in Europe is remotely similar to the US in terms of size, heterogeneity, etc?

Not to mention, I would lean a lot further to the "left" if this country's government had ever shown itself to be competent enough to effectively implement, manage, and modify even the handful of social programs that are already in place.

-J

Britain is the biggest country in the world based on overseas assets and liabilities, apparently:

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100013116/uk-is-the-worlds-biggest-country-judged-by-its-liabilities/

[Super Dude]

Why do we have to limit the federal government so? What other country in Europe has done so?

What country in Europe is remotely similar to the US in terms of size, heterogeneity, etc?

Not to mention, I would lean a lot further to the "left" if this country's government had ever shown itself to be competent enough to effectively implement, manage, and modify even the handful of social programs that are already in place.

-J

I wouldn't say it's *never* been competent. It's harder to see that looking back, given where we are now. Maybe I'll post the Harper's article here too, if I can find it online.

[Scheavo]

Why do we have to limit the federal government so? What other country in Europe has done so?

What country in Europe is remotely similar to the US in terms of size, heterogeneity, etc?

Not to mention, I would lean a lot further to the "left" if this country's government had ever shown itself to be competent enough to effectively implement, manage, and modify even the handful of social programs that are already in place.

-J

Britain is the biggest country in the world based on overseas assets and liabilities, apparently:

https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100013116/uk-is-the-worlds-biggest-country-judged-by-its-liabilities/

Are they really counting Canada and Australia as Britains?