It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Two
For those who missed "Part One" or who need a refresher:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/07/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part.html
Unlike in most other democratic nations, the American governmental system has a President of the United States serving as both the "head of state" and as "head of the government." As "head of state" the President conducts foreign policy, including meeting with leaders of other countries, negotiating agreements with other countries,* and signing agreements or formal treaties. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such, he can appoint or dismiss high-level military personnel.**
Now, with treaties, the President can negotiate and conclude such agreements, BUT treaties must pass the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds margin to be ratified, so the President's power is not absolute. In a major defeat, President Woodrow Wilson failed to get Senate ratification for the Versailles (Peace) Treaty, with its section for the establishment of the League of Nations after World War One. So even a peace treaty to end a major war is not a certainty. The thing is, a President must be willing to work with members of the Senate to try to gain ratification and that can mean coalition building.
Also unlike in many other democracies, American political figures themselves at all levels are much more in view than party platforms. In fact, while party platforms are contested within the respective parties by various factions, the platforms themselves rarely take center stage in the actual political campaign. No, Americans tend to vote on the individuals involved, rather than the political parties; that is, at least in theory.*** The focus on the candidates and not the parties has caused consternation among some, who feel that "personality" dominates more than substance. During my life I've heard many a person say, "I wish the President (or Governor, or Mayor) would just do what he wants and forget about the polls." That all sounds nice, but it is naive, as American voters do not like to be ignored. During the early years of the Great Depression, admittedly a stressful time, President Herbert Hoover had a tin ear for public opinion. Hoover was not reelected.
Until the last few decades, party affiliation did not necessarily tell us much about a candidate's overall political views, and it still doesn't, especially more where Democrats are concerned. Up until fairly recently, there were Democrats in Congress who often voted with Republicans and Republicans who often voted with Democrats. While I sort of liked those days, the notion they would last was also naive, as much more ideological forces came into play, with the Republican Party becoming more of the true conservative coalition party of the country, including both traditional conservatives on money matters and social ideas, but also much more hard line, "fire breathing" right-wingers and religious fundamentalists. Earlier, generally speaking, Democrats had fashioned a coalition of working class people, organized labor, minorities (especially Black Americans and many non-Cuban Latinos, as voters of Cuban heritage tended to be more Republican), many women's groups, and liberal middle class and liberal wealthy Americans. During the late 1960s and early 1970s the Democratic Party began to have difficulty convincing some Americans about their commitment to the military defense of the country (fairly or unfairly), as anti-war groups (primarily Vietnam War, but even more general) became a highly visible part of the Democratic coalition. Republicans quickly promoted themselves as the party of national defense. Keep in mind, there were always a certain number of independent or swing voters, even within some of the various voter groups noted above.
If you are interested in the subject of political systems, try your local library. A good source, which I used to some degree for the first two parts of this series, is, "The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems," published by Oxford University Press, 2009.
More in "Part Three"
* Presidents don't typically sit down and negotiate every detail of an agreement or treaty, but a President will have the final say on all of the provisions in such treaties. Many American treaties for the first century or more had to do with treaties with various American Indian tribes. Woodrow Wilson went to Europe after World War One to try to help fashion a treaty that would maintain peace. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with other Allied leaders during World War Two, even discussing many details of agreements for the postwar world; still, many of the actual details had been worked out earlier or even during these conferences by other officials.
** Of course one of the most famous presidential interventions came when Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.
*** Straight ticket voting; that is, voting for all candidates from one party, was once very common. Today, voters "tend" to cross back and forth on the ballot, like voting for a President from one party, a senator from the same party, but a congressperson from the other party. Further down the ballot, local offices probably get even more back and forth voting than the state or national offices, as political ideology is not usually seen as being quite as important in these offices. It would be tedious work, coupled with a lot of guessing, but it would be interesting to see how the nation fared during times of "one party" domination; by that I mean, times when the President, and both houses of Congress were substantially controlled by one party. I say "substantially," because while votes in the House of Representatives are based upon a majority vote, the Senate is more complex, and it often requires at least 60 votes (out of the present 100 members) to pass a bill, and, as noted above, a two-thirds affirmative vote is required to ratify a treaty. A two-thirds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress is required to override a presidential veto of legislation, but a veto of legislation in one party domination, in theory, would not be likely. I mention this, as "one party" domination would put the U.S. closer to how other democratic nations operate, as indicated in "Part One." In more recent U.S. history, Americans have seemed to send mixed signals; electing a President from one party, but either putting Congress in control of the opposition party, or making it so evenly divided (especially the Senate) that getting legislation through is difficult, if not at times, impossible. While congressional Republicans in both houses have "tended" to be more unified than their Democratic opponents, still, getting at least 60 Americans to agree what time it is can be very difficult.
WORD HISTORY:
System-This word is actually a compound. It was borrowed into English in the early 1600s, probably from French "systeme," or directly from Latin "systema." Latin had borrowed it from Greek "systema." It goes back to Indo European "syn," which had the notion of "together, united," and Indo European "sta/steh," which meant "to stand;" thus, "stand together, stand united," which is what a "system" is; parts united that make something work or function.
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/07/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part.html
Unlike in most other democratic nations, the American governmental system has a President of the United States serving as both the "head of state" and as "head of the government." As "head of state" the President conducts foreign policy, including meeting with leaders of other countries, negotiating agreements with other countries,* and signing agreements or formal treaties. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such, he can appoint or dismiss high-level military personnel.**
Now, with treaties, the President can negotiate and conclude such agreements, BUT treaties must pass the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds margin to be ratified, so the President's power is not absolute. In a major defeat, President Woodrow Wilson failed to get Senate ratification for the Versailles (Peace) Treaty, with its section for the establishment of the League of Nations after World War One. So even a peace treaty to end a major war is not a certainty. The thing is, a President must be willing to work with members of the Senate to try to gain ratification and that can mean coalition building.
Also unlike in many other democracies, American political figures themselves at all levels are much more in view than party platforms. In fact, while party platforms are contested within the respective parties by various factions, the platforms themselves rarely take center stage in the actual political campaign. No, Americans tend to vote on the individuals involved, rather than the political parties; that is, at least in theory.*** The focus on the candidates and not the parties has caused consternation among some, who feel that "personality" dominates more than substance. During my life I've heard many a person say, "I wish the President (or Governor, or Mayor) would just do what he wants and forget about the polls." That all sounds nice, but it is naive, as American voters do not like to be ignored. During the early years of the Great Depression, admittedly a stressful time, President Herbert Hoover had a tin ear for public opinion. Hoover was not reelected.
Until the last few decades, party affiliation did not necessarily tell us much about a candidate's overall political views, and it still doesn't, especially more where Democrats are concerned. Up until fairly recently, there were Democrats in Congress who often voted with Republicans and Republicans who often voted with Democrats. While I sort of liked those days, the notion they would last was also naive, as much more ideological forces came into play, with the Republican Party becoming more of the true conservative coalition party of the country, including both traditional conservatives on money matters and social ideas, but also much more hard line, "fire breathing" right-wingers and religious fundamentalists. Earlier, generally speaking, Democrats had fashioned a coalition of working class people, organized labor, minorities (especially Black Americans and many non-Cuban Latinos, as voters of Cuban heritage tended to be more Republican), many women's groups, and liberal middle class and liberal wealthy Americans. During the late 1960s and early 1970s the Democratic Party began to have difficulty convincing some Americans about their commitment to the military defense of the country (fairly or unfairly), as anti-war groups (primarily Vietnam War, but even more general) became a highly visible part of the Democratic coalition. Republicans quickly promoted themselves as the party of national defense. Keep in mind, there were always a certain number of independent or swing voters, even within some of the various voter groups noted above.
If you are interested in the subject of political systems, try your local library. A good source, which I used to some degree for the first two parts of this series, is, "The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems," published by Oxford University Press, 2009.
More in "Part Three"
* Presidents don't typically sit down and negotiate every detail of an agreement or treaty, but a President will have the final say on all of the provisions in such treaties. Many American treaties for the first century or more had to do with treaties with various American Indian tribes. Woodrow Wilson went to Europe after World War One to try to help fashion a treaty that would maintain peace. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with other Allied leaders during World War Two, even discussing many details of agreements for the postwar world; still, many of the actual details had been worked out earlier or even during these conferences by other officials.
** Of course one of the most famous presidential interventions came when Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.
*** Straight ticket voting; that is, voting for all candidates from one party, was once very common. Today, voters "tend" to cross back and forth on the ballot, like voting for a President from one party, a senator from the same party, but a congressperson from the other party. Further down the ballot, local offices probably get even more back and forth voting than the state or national offices, as political ideology is not usually seen as being quite as important in these offices. It would be tedious work, coupled with a lot of guessing, but it would be interesting to see how the nation fared during times of "one party" domination; by that I mean, times when the President, and both houses of Congress were substantially controlled by one party. I say "substantially," because while votes in the House of Representatives are based upon a majority vote, the Senate is more complex, and it often requires at least 60 votes (out of the present 100 members) to pass a bill, and, as noted above, a two-thirds affirmative vote is required to ratify a treaty. A two-thirds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress is required to override a presidential veto of legislation, but a veto of legislation in one party domination, in theory, would not be likely. I mention this, as "one party" domination would put the U.S. closer to how other democratic nations operate, as indicated in "Part One." In more recent U.S. history, Americans have seemed to send mixed signals; electing a President from one party, but either putting Congress in control of the opposition party, or making it so evenly divided (especially the Senate) that getting legislation through is difficult, if not at times, impossible. While congressional Republicans in both houses have "tended" to be more unified than their Democratic opponents, still, getting at least 60 Americans to agree what time it is can be very difficult.
WORD HISTORY:
System-This word is actually a compound. It was borrowed into English in the early 1600s, probably from French "systeme," or directly from Latin "systema." Latin had borrowed it from Greek "systema." It goes back to Indo European "syn," which had the notion of "together, united," and Indo European "sta/steh," which meant "to stand;" thus, "stand together, stand united," which is what a "system" is; parts united that make something work or function.
Labels: Commander-in-Chief, Congress, English, etymology, Greek, Latin, political parties, President of the United States, treaties, U.S. Senate
posted by Randy at 7:44 AM
2 Comments:
Was it Churchill who said 'Democracy is the worst type of govt except for all of the others.' It IS tough, and compromise is essential. GOP needs to learn.
Ur comment about religious fundamentalists makes me say, I have religious beliefs, but not the kind of many of these fundamentalist about hating other people. Theyre so 'unreligious.'
Post a Comment
<< Home