U.S. is Great, But Its Government System Stinks

The system of financial contribution corruption and excessive checks-and-balances has brought the U.S. economy to its knees, along with the rest of the world.

It may be business as usual for Americans, but believe me there is nothing usual about the world any longer and the U.S. political structure is a serious competitive disadvantage going forward for the country.

The U.S. political system has deteriorated into a constant political reality show, corrupted by stunts, personality cults, media manipulation and by special interests.
This is searingly obvious this fall because the U.S. election cycle and economic crisis have collided, bringing its economy, and others, to the brink and Washington is unable to fix anything in a timely, effective manner.

Wall Street has been allowed to run amok because rich guys can buy politicians and Main Street is imperiled.

A tale of two countries

I am binational and live/vote in both the U.S. and Canada. And for my money, parliamentary systems like Canada's are superior because they have streamlined decision-making (majorities do what they want), they are cost-efficient and have faster reaction times if leaders pay attention.

(There are many aspects of the parliamentary system in Canada I don't like such as the monarchy and its Senate which is just a bunch of patronage appointments. But other countries, such as Australia have turned their Senate into regional bloc representatives, as is the case with the U.S. to counterbalance the rep-by-pop tyranny.)

That doesn't mean that every country with a parliamentary system (which blends legislative and executive branches) is superior to the American one. But they are, structurally and sometimes in practice, superior and operate like a modern corporate structure. The U.S. political system is a fossilized, cumbersome, corrupt structure which was devised in the 18th Century.

Jefferson and Adams are spinning in their graves at what has happened to the U.S. system and, for comparison purposes, it's instructive to look at the Canadian parliamentary system, currently undergoing a federal election.

Two systems

Consider the differences this fall. Canadians vote Oct. 14 and Americans Nov. 4.
Canada's federal election will have lasted about 35 days and cost about $240 million, all in. Canuck election laws have virtually eliminated special interest donations and parties are given tax dollars to run their campaigns with strict budgets on spending. This is more appropriate than letting rich people control campaigns with donations. After all, political representatives are supposed to serve the taxpayers not campaign donors.

Canada's Elections Act limits party spending, spurring party leaders to keep campaigns as brief as possible. Companies and unions or non-profits/think tanks can contribute a maximum of $1,000 but this is mostly supplemental.

Estimates are the total American federal race -- Presidential plus Congressional -- will reach more than $3 billion by November. What this means, of course, is that mega-donors wade into this in a big way and buy influence.

There is public campaign financing law in place in the U.S. but everybody ignores it because they can. It was designed to fail. Under its rules, a candidate would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a campaign, but is not allowed to accept private donations, or spend more than that amount.

Most opt out and there are ways around limits by raising funds with committees or state parties. (There's also the anonymity of Presidential Library donations but that's a whole other disgusting loophole.)

The Presidential race has lasted more than 18 months while the Congressional races, frankly, never end. The House of Representative seats are up for grabs every two years as is one-third of the Senate. This guarantees that politics, not policy, are pre-eminent; that compromise, not principle, is first and foremost and that influence peddling never, ever ends.

Status quo not OK

Some may argue that this political system has been around for a couple of centuries and the United States has become a rich and free nation.

But the world has changed the U.S. political system has not. Today, markets, and terrorists, and voters, never wait and operate in real-time. Washington is like a corporation run by amateurs that needs 500 signatures to execute anything.

The economic crisis will pass but America's biggest crisis is the fact that Washington is an 18th Century American political system operating in the 21st.

In a Parliamentary system, a crisis is dealt with by the Prime Minister, his cabinet and experts and then worked through within the party caucus. If there's a majority government then they can force their members to vote in what they want. If it's a minority government, another party with enough votes must be adhered to.

Meanwhile America's federal politicians dither and play around while Rome burns. And in the corridors of power in Washington and on the stump there is only politics, showbiz, grandstanding, railroading, press conferencing, stern speechifying, election stunts and brinkmanship.

I also blog at Financial Post

Comments

[looseisnotlose]

I don't think your thesis lines up with your support. The problem is corruption and campaign finance, not our system of government as laid out by the founding fathers. Within our current system we could pass legislation to mimic Canada's campaign laws. Problem solved. Those elements are not intrinsic to our system of government.

As for "too many checks," I respectfully (but emphatically) disagree. After these last 8 years in this country, I don't know how someone could say with a straight face that we need LESS checks and balances. For years I raged as our congress failed to exercise their power to check the president (and his party). The idea that the inferiority of our system is that it doesn't let the dominant party just do whatever it wants, would be laughable if we weren't crying every day.

Apparently your opinion is informed by the current economic crisis, and you believe that our government institutions are dragging their feet on a needed financial rescue. I would point out that the majority of Americans are against these measures as proposed by the Executive branch. I cannot seriously believe that a better system would be to let a prime minister fly it in without debate.

I believe our system of government (on paper) remains one of our greatest strengths. The failure is not in our system, but in our society. As long as individuals consistently fail in their responsibilities, any system of self-government will break down at times.

[TTigerX2]

Diane, Canada has a rich and diverse democracy, with four parties. The US election is looking more like a one-party election with two faces. However, I would like to make a few points missing in your bold comparison. For starters, Canada's federal system lacks direct representation at the senate level. This means that a representative body like the US Senate would truly reflect the needs of the western and maritime provinces. At present, Canada is really a system dominated by the interests of Ontario and Quebec. In terms of scandals -- and Canada has plenty of those -- the inquiries come to naught because there are too few resources available in Parliament to do much more than the paperwork much less conduct an investigation with legislative teeth. Overall, your comments are parsed so lean as to suggest Canada is superior and has nothing more to learn. You cannot be more wrong.

[Diane Francis - Huffpost Blogger]

I mentioned the Senate problem. It's not democratic but Australia's second house is.

[LastLiberalRepublican]

Ms. Francis:

I agree with many of your sentiments but note that you don't comment on the latter 20th century phenomenum, continuing to today, of career politicians in Washington, which is something we did not have in the 18th century. Would we be better off if the voters were far more attuned to not wanting career hacks in office? It may well be untenable to accomplish by Constitutional Amendment, but should we aggressively let our elected officials know that term limits might be a great idea.

It is a sad commentary that we have succumbed to the level that voters, irrespective of party, must hold their noses on Election Day.

[Diane Francis - Huffpost Blogger]

term limits is a good idea but the real rot is campaign financing. That's why nothing ever gets done that is too difficult or contentious or not in the best interests of rich special interests, such as healthcare.