Home

That’s the opinion of former British diplomat (to Uzbekistan) Craig Murray:

So, there we have British elections today: an unfair electoral system, censorship of candidates’ electoral addresses, little real political choice for voters, widespread postal ballot-rigging and elections administered by partisan council officials in a corrupt political climate.

Some of the “on the ground issues” in both the US and UK are different, some are the same.  For example, local authority control of elections is, if anything, stronger here (as is local control in general) than in the UK.  Most people will think of the fiasco in South Florida in 2000, but it’s wider than that.  Here in Tennessee, for example, all 95 election commissions are run by the party that controls the General Assembly.  That’s compounded by the fact that here, as Murray points out in the UK, “(t)here was a time when honesty in public life was such that the party allegiance of a local authority and its staff would not affect confidence in its ability to conduct a free and fair election.”  Where I live we recently buried an election official who was well known for his fairness even though he was a product of a partisan system.  I’m not sure that his successors can be counted on in the same way.

Turning to broader issues, it seems to me that US elections are hampered by three big factors:

1. The long-term dominance of the two-party system severely restricts expressing the variety of popular opinion in the legislature.  Both Labour and the Tories cast the dread of a “hung parliament” over the electorate.  But the Germans–arguably the strongest economy in Europe right at the moment–have come up from the ashes of World War II with a series of Bundestags where the Free Democrats frequently hold the balance of power.  You have no majority–you make a coalition!  The Anglophone world cannot bring itself to this kind of governance.  In the US, with no prime minister, things are even worse.  (We come closest to coalition rule when we have split party control between the White House and Congress.)  What both countries need is what the French call scrutin de liste, but don’t hold your breath.
2. The dependence by large swaths of the population on government largesse mitigates against meaningful changes in public policy.  This is especially important at a time when both countries are going broke.  The bureaucracy becomes the “shadow bloc” in the election, having infiltrated both parties (and even, via Medicare, the Tea Party.)
3. The influence of what we call “special interest” money insures that both parties are bought and paid for even before primary season.  Given the dreadfully long and expensive American election process, a large wad of cash is indispensible.

Pseudodemocracy run by pseudosophisticates…

As we in the US slog through another tedious (but very important) election cycle, the British accelerate the process with Gordon Brown calling an election on 6 May 2010.

There’s a lot to say about this but let’s start with the fun observation.  The Times has a way cool interactive election chart which is a wonderful way to waste a lot of time with.  But, if you look carefully, there’s more to the fun.  In the US, when we want to get election predictions, we turn to these serious pollsters: Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, etc.  In the UK, who does the Times turn to?  Ladbrokes, the betting house, of course!  Not since Ron Faucheux, the “Political Oddsmaker,” have Americans seen it done this way, and Ladbrokes deals with real money.   (Appropriate: South Louisiana, Faucheux’s home, is a place where people have been living on the edge for 300 years.)

In spite of the Obama Administration’s attempt to ditch the “special relationship” between the UK and the US, the two countries are, in many ways, tied together in fate more now than ever.  Both have been on a quarter century run of prosperity that has only solidified the Anglophone world’s dominance of things.  Both are now in the aftermath of that run, deeply in debt and uncertain of the future.  In many ways, the sharks are circling both countries; both are headed for a major disaster at their current course.  (If my American readers want to get a feel for how many issues are shared, they should take the “Vote Match” survey from the Telegraph.)

The big difference is that the “left” party has been in the saddle in the UK since the last millennium, while in the US it’s only been two years, so they still think they can blame their opposition for the problems.

That being said, and given Gordon Brown’s lack of charisma, it’s amazing how close the UK election really is.  Cameron and the Tories should be having a romp, but they’re not.  This tells me that the UK electorate is realising that real electoral choice, in terms of the quality of the outcome, is very limited these days.  To some extent, the outcome of the 2010 contests in the US will gauge whether the American voters have come to this conclusion or not.

It’s one thing to have the form of representative government, but to lack its power and reality is a major delegitimisation for both countries.

More worried about tax cheats than prosperity:

Capital, and all of its blessings, flows to where it is treated best. The recently passed Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (the “HIRE” Act) imposes new obstacles to the flow of capital into and out of the U.S. While ostensibly limited to “reporting” requirements to address offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons, at some point U.S. investors will balk at the level of reporting and forego profitable investments in the world at large, and foreign investors will simply move on to greener pastures and avoid the U.S. in making capital available. While such enforcement legislation may be considered to be tax revenue enhancing, the lost national revenue from reduced capital investment and tax compliance costs doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar screen – indeed, there is almost a complete absence of attention to the new rules in the national media. Once upon a time, U.S. tax policy was influenced by the impact of the tax code on U.S. economic growth and capital development – sadly for the U.S. economy, such concerns have taken a backseat in the ongoing campaign to root out tax dodgers.

This will also encourage talented younger people with no money but great potential to decide to bail on the U.S. and seek greener pastures (pun intended) elsewhere.  Except that most other money in the world isn’t green…

It’s a story I’ve brought up on this blog (and elsewhere) but Kristof finally puts it in front of the “right” people:

Some 2,400 years ago, a Chinese king invited a legendary military strategist named Sun Tzu to give a demonstration in military training — using women from the palace.

Sun Tzu agreed, organizing 180 of the king’s beautiful young women into two companies. He made the king’s two favorite concubines officers in charge, and explained the principles of marching.

The women treated this as an uproarious joke. An ancient account explains that when Sun Tzu beat the drum to signal “right turn!” “the girls only burst out laughing.”

So Sun Tzu patiently repeated the instructions and beat the drum to signal “left turn!” Again, the women simply burst into laughter. So Sun Tzu seized the two favorite concubines, accused them of failing to maintain discipline — and beheaded them. Now the other terrified women followed orders perfectly.

That’s the kind of historical tale that members of China’s Politburo absorbed while growing up — and reflect today. In battles over Google and the currency exchange rate, they model the hardheaded Sun Tzu, accepting that making omelets will require breaking eggs.

He goes on with the usual American blather than the core failure of the Chinese is to institute “democratic” institutions.  But it’s just that: blather.

First, the relationship between Chinese and their government is vastly different here than in the US.  The Chinese may “want” democracy, but sustaining it in their culture is another ball game altogether.  (The Russians put on a more easily understood display of this problem in the 1990’s.)

Second, if there’s an “egg breaker” in this deal, it’s Barack Obama.  The health care passage shows that Congress and the opinion of the American people are, in his idea, positive nuisances when it comes to doing the “right” thing.   There’s no doubt in my mind that Obama looks on the absolutism of the Zhongnanhai with envy, and that someday he or another of his idea will attempt to replicate that on this soil.

We’d better start worrying about sustaining democracy here rather than throwing rocks at the Chinese.

Some people just haven’t figured this out:

President Barack Obama, after a year of fitfully searching for compromise, is taking a more aggressive tack with his Republican adversaries, hoping to energize Democratic voters and possibly muscle in some Republican support in Congress.

On Thursday, the president challenged Republicans who planned to campaign on repealing his health-care bill with, “Go for it.” Two days later, he made 15 senior appointments without Senate consent, including a union lawyer whose nomination had been blocked by a filibuster.

This whole “bipartisanship” thing is rubbish, as I observed a little while back.  The Democrats’ job is to lead and let the results of their “leadership” determine whether they stand or fall.  The Republicans job is to oppose.  This is something that Republicans need to think about now, especially with the climate change legislation wending its way through the Senate.

I think that Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander is starting to see daylight on this:

The partisanship “may be more visible, and he may be more resolute about it, but as far as most of us are concerned, this is business as usual,” said Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a member of the Republican leadership.

But Mr. Alexander said the recent moves are broader, more public swipes that will hurt the president in the end.

He conceded that Republican leaders have tried to maintain unity in opposition. “When you have 40 Republicans, with your back against the wall and the gallows are right in your face, you’re going to do your best to be unified,” Mr. Alexander said.

The onus, however, is on the president to build relationships with minority leaders, Mr. Alexander said.

“If you’re the president or a governor and you don’t have a good relationship with the other party, that’s your problem to solve,” he said.

At this point, Barack Obama has no interest in such activities.  The only thing that will reverse the situation is when reality hits, and hit it will.

Sure sounds that way, as the U.S. House Third District (TN) Republican candidate’s campaign manager lashes out against Mike Huckabee’s endorsement of her opponent:

“Given Huckabee’s history of denouncing candidates for office that contribute large sums of money to their campaigns in order to win elections, it is curious that he would choose to support the candidate who has ‘raised‘ 73% of his campaign funds from his back pocket.

She reiterated the charge at the Hamilton County Pachyderm Club today, touting her own lack of resources and superior fund-raising ability.

Evidently neither of them has figured out that, in order to self-finance a campaign, you have to be financially successful.  That’s true whether you’re doing it on a purely cash basis or through debt, as current lending standards require ample collateralisation.  And achieving financial success is, of course, what American conservatism is supposed to make possible by government staying out of the way of people.  (Note: none of the people running for this seat are wealth á la Jon Corzine, so we’re not getting into the “Wall street fat cat” realm by any means.)

If there’s one thing that Rush Limbaugh has tried to do in his years, it’s to steer conservatism away from resentment or envy of the success of others.  It seems that, with the success of the noblesse de robe in the Obama era, that kind of resentment is coming out on the right.  If that happens, we’ll end up with class warfare, and in doing so play into the hands of our opponents.