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.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part One

"Governing and Political Systems"

Politics is rough business, and it has gotten progressively worse in more recent times. Political parties came into being to help bring people together who had similar ideas, where they could then use common resources to elect candidates to office to enact those ideas into law. American politics has been a bit odd in some ways, as the two major parties have been around since before the Civil War, but they haven't always been terribly ideological in their make up, at least not in a broad-based ideology sense. In times past, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both had liberal/progressive wings that may well have shared more in common with one another than they did with the respective conservative wing of their own party, with the same only being somewhat true of the conservative wings. I say "somewhat," because, unless you know about American political history, this will be hard for you to understand, as the most conservative elements in the country were in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY until relatively recent times. Actually too, for a while, some of the most liberal elements of the country were in the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Don't faint, it's true!

You have to understand, the American governmental system is different from most other democracies. Quite a number of other democratic nations have what are typically called "parliamentary systems," and they vary, and this is only a very basic explanation, but there is a "head of state," often an elected president, but, for example, in the case of our close ally Britain (technically, "the United Kingdom"), the monarch is the head of state. For the past 60 + years that monarch has been Queen Elizabeth II. The "head of state" often has little direct power, but rather acts as the ceremonial head of the nation, meeting heads of state from other countries and attending state dinners both at home and abroad. Then there is the actual "government;" that is, the various departments or bureaus that comprise the governing structure of a nation. Each department, often termed a "ministry," has a head official, a "minister," with cabinet status. Then there is a prime minister (in some countries called a "premier" or a "chancellor"), who acts as the head of the cabinet; that is, the government, which is typically really very powerful. Then there is a "parliament" (again, with various other names according to nation), a legislative body that acts upon proposals for the laws of the nation.

The political parties in these parliamentary nations tend to be much more ideological than has been the case in America; until fairly recently, at least. Also, there are typically two or three (occasionally more) major political parties in parliamentary nations, along with some minor parties, sometimes even a multitude of smaller parties. The political parties lay out their party platforms and voters then really vote for a particular party, rather than party candidates.* If a party receives a clear majority of seats in the parliament, they enact their party's ideas into law, as the party representatives seldom stray from what the party has presented to the voters; after all, the voters were presented ideas, not really candidates, and they voted a particular party into power to enact those ideas. The leader of  the winning party becomes prime minister. The winning party gets to enact its program. The voters will then be able to see if they like or dislike the enacted and implemented polices of the ruling party. Typically, there are no excuses in a situation like this. Prime Minister XYZ can't say, "We tried to govern, but the opposition party/parties wouldn't pass what we wanted." If things go terribly awry in the nation, or if there is some major scandal involving a member or members of the government, the parliament can hold a vote of "no confidence," and the head of state must decide if new elections should be called, or if the ruling party can still continue to form a government. (This can also apply to a coalition government, covered right below.)

There are, however, times when one party does not get a majority. Depending upon their percentage of the vote, the leading party will likely attempt to work a deal with one or more other parties to form a government, in which case, it is called a "coalition government." In coalition governments there have to be compromises. These compromises typically involve giving certain cabinet positions to coalition partners. Remember, and this can't really be overemphasized, the ministers who head the various government ministries are very powerful.

So, how does this compare to the American system? That will be covered in "Part Two"

* Of course, this is the general theory behind it, but naturally, at times, there may be a party leader whose personality draws people to vote for his/her political party. You can't factor the human element out of any of this, then again, strong personality Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Britain throughout much of World War Two, only to be ousted by voters near the very end of the war. Also an interesting note, Churchill changed political parties a couple of times during his long career.

WORD HISTORY:
Coalition/Coalesce-These words are so closely linked, it is impossible to really do them separately. "Coalition" is a compound word that is rather complicated; perhaps as complicated as building coalitions in politics, but hopefully you will be able to follow this. The first part, "co," is from Latin "co(m)," which simply means "together," as in "cooperation," which means "operate (work) together." The "co" prefix was/is typically used before vowels and "com" typically before consonants, as in "compost." The second part of the word traces back to Latin "alescere," which meant "to grow (up)," and it was derived from Latin "alere," which meant "to nourish." This all gave Latin "coalescere," which meant "to grow together, to unite," and this seems to have been borrowed by English directly from Latin in the 1500s as "coalesce;" that is, "unite, combine parts into one, merge." The past participle root of Latin "coalescere" was "coalit(o)," which gave French "coalition," meaning "fused together, united, joined parts." This was then borrowed into English in the early 1600s. Close English relative German also borrowed the word as "Koalition."