American Prime Minister?

[jedifunk]

Just read this brief opine, and got me thinking.  i kinda like the idea of a parliamentary system here in the US.  it would kill some of the stupid shit that goes on on the regs right now.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/17/does-america-need-a-prime-minister/?hpt=hp_c2

thoughts?

[rowjimmy]

I think the discussion is a waste of time because nothing would tear at this nation's fabric more than another constitutional convention.

[jedifunk]

i don't subscribe to this doom and gloom outlook... in many ways, i think this is EXACTLY the kind of discussion this country needs to be having.  times have changed, and the sooner this country wakes up and realizes it the better for everyone.  we are still trying to ride the coattails of america 50 yrs ago.

as i said in the taxes thread, i think the people in this country are much closer together than most think... its just that we are letting the political extremes drive the conversation and the politics.  i think the people are much closer.

i also think this sort of political system would allow governing to actually happen.  the people vote say every 6 yrs, and then we let the elected, you know, actually do something... instead of debating & arguing over it.  the people choose and then the government gets shit done.  at least in theory, i know that's not always the case.

[Hicks]

Not gonna happen, Americans aren't so high on the European way of doing things these days.

[gah]

Yeah, while I have a lot of respect for Fareed Zakaria, as he always provides really great analysis and has a good world perspective, I disagree with him here. Just wouldn't happen at this point in our history.

[jedifunk]

Not gonna happen, Americans aren't so high on the European way of doing things these days.

i never said it was gonna happen...

i'm also getting real tired of americans thinking our way of doing things is the only way.  we're not all that anymore... if anything, we're the bag of chips now.

my point is less that we should do this (move to parliamentary politics) as much as it was that we should talk about it, among other things to get this country back on track.  we as so complacent its sad.

[Hicks]

Not gonna happen, Americans aren't so high on the European way of doing things these days.

i never said it was gonna happen...

i'm also getting real tired of americans thinking our way of doing things is the only way.  we're not all that anymore... if anything, we're the bag of chips now.

my point is less that we should do this (move to parliamentary politics) as much as it was that we should talk about it, among other things to get this country back on track.  we as so complacent its sad.

Meh I don't see what talking about an idea that a large portion of the population would be adamantly opposed to achieves.

It would just be another divisive topic, and that's the last thing we need.

[runawayjimbo]

I said this somewhere else, but (as you can probably imagine) I am of the opinion that when the gov't interjects itself more often than not it does more harm than good. Especially during crises, gov't reaction is usually a combination of bad policies, irresponsible decision making, and political bickering that effectively destroys any effectiveness the action may have contained. Just look at the past decade: TARP & unstimulating stimulus bills, Dodd-Frank, the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq (et al), Sarbanes-Oxley. I for one am completely comfortable with allowing our gov't to be so bad at their jobs that they can't do anything. It's when one party controls both the WH and Congress that I start to get worried.

[jedifunk]

Meh I don't see what talking about an idea that a large portion of the population would be adamantly opposed to achieves.

It would just be another divisive topic, and that's the last thing we need.

its worth talking about if for nothing else but to get the country engaged again.  and i don't know that a large portion would be opposed.

i'm neither for it or against it right now, but i would be interested in a debate of its merits as an option.  talking about anyting is a good thing.  the problem is that most people can't keep it civil

[Superfreakie]

Nice to know that Fareed lurks here at the 'paug. Next time I expect a credit bitch, I suggested that 2 weeks ago:

While America's three branches, with their imposed checks and balances and offsetting election cycles, worked well when it was a smaller nation, at present it would best be served with a parliamentary model, one which would put an end to the fractitious lethargy it now suffers from. With the volatility of the multi-polar world we now find ourselves perched on the edge of, states must strive to be nimble as a frigates as opposed to hulking aircraft carriers.

[gah]

Meh I don't see what talking about an idea that a large portion of the population would be adamantly opposed to achieves.

It would just be another divisive topic, and that's the last thing we need.

its worth talking about if for nothing else but to get the country engaged again.  and i don't know that a large portion would be opposed.

i'm neither for it or against it right now, but i would be interested in a debate of its merits as an option.  talking about anyting is a good thing.  the problem is that most people can't keep it civil

looking at the comments section of that article, it only took 4 before it fell apart. So yeah, I know you feel like we're a lot closer on things, and maybe the general population is (or they just don't care), but those that are engaged and involved and discussing seem pretty to be on pretty distant ends of the spectrum.

[twatts]

Just read this brief opine, and got me thinking.  i kinda like the idea of a parliamentary system here in the US.  it would kill some of the stupid shit that goes on on the regs right now.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/17/does-america-need-a-prime-minister/?hpt=hp_c2

thoughts?

Differences aside, I highly doubt that we would ahve any less or any more "stupid shit" as we do now...  Democracy is messy sometimes.  I don't know if having Congess choose our leader instead of The People would make any difference...

Terry

[runawayjimbo]

Meh I don't see what talking about an idea that a large portion of the population would be adamantly opposed to achieves.

It would just be another divisive topic, and that's the last thing we need.

its worth talking about if for nothing else but to get the country engaged again.  and i don't know that a large portion would be opposed.

i'm neither for it or against it right now, but i would be interested in a debate of its merits as an option.  talking about anyting is a good thing.  the problem is that most people can't keep it civil

looking at the comments section of that article, it only took 4 before it fell apart. So yeah, I know you feel like we're a lot closer on things, and maybe the general population is (or they just don't care), but those that are engaged and involved and discussing seem pretty to be on pretty distant ends of the spectrum.

HEY, FUCK YOU! COMMIE BASTARD!!

[gah]

Meh I don't see what talking about an idea that a large portion of the population would be adamantly opposed to achieves.

It would just be another divisive topic, and that's the last thing we need.

its worth talking about if for nothing else but to get the country engaged again.  and i don't know that a large portion would be opposed.

i'm neither for it or against it right now, but i would be interested in a debate of its merits as an option.  talking about anyting is a good thing.  the problem is that most people can't keep it civil

looking at the comments section of that article, it only took 4 before it fell apart. So yeah, I know you feel like we're a lot closer on things, and maybe the general population is (or they just don't care), but those that are engaged and involved and discussing seem pretty to be on pretty distant ends of the spectrum.

HEY, FUCK YOU! COMMIE BASTARD!!

You know you love it! It's a party!

[VDB]

I said this somewhere else, but (as you can probably imagine) I am of the opinion that when the gov't interjects itself more often than not it does more harm than good. Especially during crises, gov't reaction is usually a combination of bad policies, irresponsible decision making, and political bickering that effectively destroys any effectiveness the action may have contained.

I tend to subscribe to this general line of thought as well. It's why I tend to worry less about whether government should be doing XYZ (simplified paradigm = liberals: gov't should be involved in XYZ; conservatives: gov't shouldn't do squat) and more about whether government even can do those things competently. Often, I conclude that it can't, which leads to some conservative/libertarian-style conclusions on issues with regards to which I may or may not necessarily consider myself conservative/libertarian.