U.S. political system as seen from abroad

[JamesHackerMP]

I've done a little looking on Google about this. In this first story, it surprised me how much foreigners are skewed toward the Democratic Party. Fortunately, a few have refused to actually take sides (which seems wiser when you're trying to view another country's politics).

http://www.politics1.com/intl.htm

I haven't been able to find much more, even with a search, that didn't come from foreign leaders (except the first link). So since we're on a Canadian website here, how do you view the U.S. political system as seen from Canada? What do most Canadians know about American politics or history? Do they base their judgments on actual knowledge, or just assumptions, rumors and conjecture? How much of the former (actual knowledge) do Canadians possess? And how much the latter (assumption, rumor, conjecture)?

Edited March 18, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

Another one...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/10/21/how-america-is-different-from-other-democracies

But I'v given up on links of how the US political system is viewed. Most of the links seem to be about the 2016 election in general and what people's impressions are of it. Hard to find anything about American politics in general, or the U.S. political system.

Edited March 18, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[-TSS-]

People outside the US don't follow the US politics as much as you might think. Therefore people are basing their views on very superficial prejudices of the US political system.

The main reason why people outside the US overwhelmingly hope for the Democratic candidate to win presidential elections is because the Republicans are viewed as religious bigots and warmongerers. People often fail to realise as there are only two parties the parties are divided into several factions.

[JamesHackerMP]

Interesting. Of course, you don't see too many Americans interested in the local politics of other countries, either. I'm unique among some of my friends in actually being interested in foreign internal politics. One wonders, however, how I would be viewed in, for example, Germany if I said "I like the Social Democrats' candidate for chancellor..." or some such variation on that hypothetical theme.

[eyeball]

I think in the past the notion of the Shining Beacon was enough to inform people. Nowadays that beacon looks more like the flaming eye of Mordor.

[JamesHackerMP]

"...Mordor."
ROFL

[Queenmandy85]

Good one, Eyeball. I think many Canadians see the American system of primaries and the electoral college as overly complicated. The reason for that is due more to unfamiliarity than reality. I think many Americans feel the same way. The Canadian system is basically similar with nominating meetings and leadership conventions. Our system is more fluid and the US system seems to be more entrenched by laws. My anecdotally based view is that Canadians feel a sense of friendly rivalry (who won the war of 1812?) and undeserved superiority. It may even border on mild bigotry. Normally, I don't think Canadians have paid close attention to US politics. President Trump has changed that.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

I think in the past the notion of the Shining Beacon was enough to inform people. Nowadays that beacon looks more like the flaming eye of Mordor.

 

....and yet, more legal and illegal immigrants have gone to the USA than to any other nation or political system on the planet.

They are not citizens, but they can and do vote with their feet for the "flaming eye of Mordor".

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

.... My anecdotally based view is that Canadians feel a sense of friendly rivalry (who won the war of 1812?) and undeserved superiority. It may even border on mild bigotry. Normally, I don't think Canadians have paid close attention to US politics. President Trump has changed that.

 

President Trump has only intensified the keen Canadian interest in U.S. politics that already existed.  

Canadian media has long devoted attention to U.S. politics, to the point of polling Canadians about U.S. presidential candidates they cannot vote for (e.g. Barack Obama).    Canadians volunteered to work on Hillary Clinton's campaign, crossing the border to do so.

My guess is that far more Canadians stay up late to see American election results than do Americans for a Canadian federal election.

Edited March 18, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[marcus]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

President Trump has only intensified the keen Canadian interest in U.S. politics that already existed.  

People just can't turn away from the train wreck that the Trump administration has become.

As far as policies go, the same industries as before continue to receive benefits from successive U.S. administrations. This includes the military industrial complex that continues to make record profits from U.S. military interventionism and sales of weapons to some of the worst human rights abusers around the world like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt. 

Internally, Trump has gone on hyper-establishment Republican mode and not the Maverick he sold himself as during the election campaigns and what most in his base see him as now. This is the only way he will be able to get the Koch Brothers to give him and the party financial backing. As far as foreign policy, most Canadians, on different sides of the political spectrum, don't realize that Obama and Trump have had very similar foreign policies. Perhaps the approach to the Iran nuclear deal will change this parallel. 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

....and yet, more legal and illegal immigrants have gone to the USA than to any other nation or political system on the planet.

They are not citizens, but they can and do vote with their feet for the "flaming eye of Mordor".

I'm pretty sure most of them are only in for it for themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, marcus said:

People just can't turn away from the train wreck that the Trump administration has become.

 

Wouldn't matter either way....Canada gorges itself on American media and "culture".    The U.S. politics ("train wreck") is far more interesting to political junkies and Canadian pundits watching intently from across the border...if only because Canadian politics is far more boring.   To listen to Justin Trudeau and some members here, what happens in the U.S. matters so much because it "effects us".    Most Americans do not view Canadian politics with such concern, if at all, and don't care who/which party is elected to form a government.  

There was a time when Canadian PMs would publicly criticize a sitting American president...but not anymore.   U.S. politics can have a large impact on Canada, but the reverse...not so much.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/why_canadian_prime_minister_justin_trudeau_won_t_criticize_donald_trump.html

 

Quote

...As far as foreign policy, most Canadians, on different sides of the political spectrum, don't realize that Obama and Trump have had very similar foreign policies. Perhaps the approach to the Iran nuclear deal will change this parallel. 

 

Most Canadians fall into the same trap as Americans, because they consume the same media.    Clinton...Bush...Obama...Trump....are all American presidents, elected to prosecute U.S. foreign policy interests, not Canada's.   Iran will always be on the CIA's and Pentagon's top contingency list for a strong dose of "democracy".

[bush_cheney2004]

59 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm pretty sure most of them are only in for it for themselves.

 

As they should be....in many cases, "politics" back home ain't so good in comparison to the U.S.

[Argus]

On 3/18/2018 at 11:48 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

I've done a little looking on Google about this. In this first story, it surprised me how much foreigners are skewed toward the Democratic Party. Fortunately, a few have refused to actually take sides (which seems wiser when you're trying to view another country's politics).

I see the US system as a good one in that it virtually demands compromise and works very hard to prevent one side from running roughshod over the other. The weakness in this, however, is when you get one side which sees compromise as a four letter word, which is case at the moment, particularly among the far right of the Republican party.

I see the US system as horribly corrupted by money and influence peddling, where running for office or staying there requires millions of dollars and thus means sucking up to the big money boys and doing their bidding. The recent tax cuts were a result of that, where the big money donors got payback for their 'investment' in the politicians they have bought and paid for.

As a Canadian conservative I would be forced to vote Democrat simply because I do not see the US Republicans as being a conservative party or representative of the people or country, but basically a party of whores beholden to rich donors who use social hot button issues and their own propaganda outlet of FOX news to keep getting votes. The quality of their representatives has also hugely suffered from gerrymandering in the House, and from totally one sided voter support in some states, where winning a primary means winning the seat. That lets any shrill, fanatic moron win as long as he or she has the big money men behind them.

[H10]

I see the democrats as paid to lose, Republicans are bigots who are corrupt and paid off.  Donald Trump election does not do much to alleviate the view that Americans are ignorant bigots.

[cannuck]

I am a Canadian citizen and resident, but most of my business is located South of the 49th.  That probably destroys my objectivity as a "foreign" observer.   However: I do have an opinion (as a Canadian) of what US politics is all about.

First of all, the Constitution is a fantastic piece of work crafted by some very smart men...a very long time ago.  The party "purists" take a hard line about following it, and, for the most part, that is very appropriate.  If only the democratic part was still democratic, instead of a front for "rule-by-special-interest".  Most Canadians see two parties, I see just one.  All of the partisan bickering is nothing but a front for the golden rule (he who has the gold, makes the rules).  Goldman Sucks has bought every administration for the last several decades, lock stock and barrel (not a second amendment joke, but I'll take the giggles anyhow).   The administrative part of government has grown into a massive self-serving bureaucracy that is out of control of politics, since politics is busy listening to lobbyists and donors instead of constituents.  The business of government at the legislative level has become to dispense privilege at the order of the political machine.

I see a country that is trying to cling to the long dead glory of its productive years, with politicians now so focused on plundering the corpse, nobody is dealing with the real problems (and there are some REAL problems).   It is appropriate that a reality TV personality is now running the show - and I am hopeful for the country as he has at least put on the table for discussion and hopefully action some of the things that really need to be addressed (influence by the Liberal/Globalist media being one of them).

What is entertaining is watching the Democrats and their media bosses squirm.  For example, BOTH sides of the Uniparty had a very long time to do something about North Korea.  What they did was send over reactors and billion$$$ that resulted in a rogue nuclear power.  Trump for all of this theatrics have brought the NoKo leadership to the table...for the first time.  Three decades of trade screw-ups and imbalance have knackered the US economy.   The Uniparty knew it, and what did they do about it?   Trump called it on the money.

Your damned right US politics is interesting...as it determines what happens to the largest (and still leading) economy in the world and Canada's largest trade partner and closest ally.

[JamesHackerMP]

You'd be wrong to say there were never special interests running things. It appears to be a recent epidemic but it only appears that way. Probably because what to us is a "special interest" of today wasn't to the Congress of yesterday. Slavery vs. abolitionists, agrarians vs. industrial barons, railroads, etc., are no longer special interests. But at the time they were (probably the advent of the word "special interest" may be a creation of the last 40 years, but that still means there have always been special interests of some sort).

One wonders, however if other democracies, like Canada or Germany, both of whom claim to be not run by special interests, really are just as much (maybe they hide it better).

The founding fathers weren't prophets. They did the best they could under the circumstances. We forget that the political climate of the United States of the 1780s was quite poisonous, hence the purpose of completely replacing the constitution after just over a decade.

Overall, I think it still is a better system for America than some more "modern" democratic constitutions. And least it's much shorter to read. I am suspicious of constitutions that are so long the average Joe believes that "it's for the lawyers to read." It's four large pages of parchment plus the 27 amendments; according to Wikipedia, 7,591 words (4,543 in the original, un-amended document). Hard to know what's in the constitution if it's too long (India's is about 145,000 words).

A friend of mine took a cruise to Norway, some fellow passengers from Germany mentioned they didn't understand the electoral college. I think that probably mystifies foreigners quite a bit--it certainly mystifies more than a few Americans, I wouldn't doubt it. But to me, what differentiates us from other western democracies is: the belief in those other countries that democracy is all about majority rule. In America, we hold individual liberty as more important than majority rule. It may sound like a contradiction to people outside the U.S., but here it isn't. Majority rule is all well and good, but what bloody good does it do if your rights are trampled on? And the powers-that-be can say "hey, we voted by majority rule to take your house away to build a hyperspace bypass; accept it and don't complain!" In the US, however, just because your party won the election doesn't give it the chance to do everything it wants, even if it was the "choice of the people" via majority vote. The American view is that a bill of rights places limits on the government's ability to act which is, in turn, the choice of the majority to act. If majority rule is paramount, the 51% of society can run roughshod over the rights and privileges of the 49% (or less). Bills of rights don't protect the majority's right to act, they're supposed to protect the minority from a possibly-rapacious majority. Our founding fathers did not see majority rule as commensurate with individual liberty. And thank God for that. The state legislatures in southern states would never, ever have done anything about civil rights unless the courts forced it on them--it wasn't "democratic" but it was certain "more fair". The vast majority of people in those states didn't want black people, for example, to go to good schools with their white children. The minority had to force the majority to change its tune. And that's something they just don't get in a lot of other countries. There is no need to guarantee "group liberty" in a constitution or bill of rights.

The fact that this view is disagreed with by other democratic societies quite frankly scares me a bit.

Another thing: I think other countries' citizens don't look at the big picture when they see U.S. politics. They look at Washington, Washington, Washington; and forget that there are 50 state capitals (and the DC city council) operating. They may be less powerful vis a vis Washington than in 1789; but looking at Washington as the end-all be-all of U.S. politics is missing at least 50% of the picture. The states even have their own constitutions; the federal constitution sets no guidelines as to how the states are to organize themselves (if I'm not mistaken, the 1867 Constitution Act, or British North America Act, does give some guidelines). Washington does not determine our every move in life as the national capitals of others countries do, even some democratic ones. (Canada may be different, though, since it is also a federal structure). This surprises people in other countries, as one of the articles i read mentions.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

....What is entertaining is watching the Democrats and their media bosses squirm.  For example, BOTH sides of the Uniparty had a very long time to do something about North Korea.  What they did was send over reactors and billion$$$ that resulted in a rogue nuclear power.  Trump for all of this theatrics have brought the NoKo leadership to the table...for the first time.  Three decades of trade screw-ups and imbalance have knackered the US economy.   The Uniparty knew it, and what did they do about it?   Trump called it on the money.

 

Agreed, but your post speaks to a much larger point....foreign observers of the U.S. political system are overly invested because many look to the United States as the ultimate source of both stability and instability for geopolitical, economic, and military issues.   Canadian media is more intently focused on this in the Age of Trump, and Foreign Minister Freeland explicitly described a reliance and dependence on the presumed burden that she thinks the U.S. should continue to bear for the preservation of "post WW2" geopolitics  regardless of the cost to American taxpayers/voters.  

World financial markets watch American politics and central banking system intently because they are strong drivers, often in a disproportionate way.   The U.S. dollar is the world's strongest reserve currency (for now), so even domestic politics for more deficit spending and higher national debt levels attract lots of attention.   Markets are very interested in what happens in the U.S., and the political decisions that impact same.

Foreign interest in U.S. politics is both tactical and strategic, for their own national objectives, alliances, and collective security.

 

Quote

Your damned right US politics is interesting...as it determines what happens to the largest (and still leading) economy in the world and Canada's largest trade partner and closest ally.

 

U.S. politics (as a subset of American culture) is very dynamic and readily accessible in the media space to foreign nationals...one could effectively argue that media has become part of the political system.   Media of all types has been "weaponized" for partisan purposes, raising interest even higher.   The spirit of competition is alive and well.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

You'd be wrong to say there were never special interests running things. It appears to be a recent epidemic but it only appears that way. Probably because what to us is a "special interest" of today wasn't to the Congress of yesterday. Slavery vs. abolitionists, agrarians vs. industrial barons, railroads, etc., are no longer special interests. But at the time they were (probably the advent of the word "special interest" may be a creation of the last 40 years, but that still means there have always been special interests of some sort).

 

Agreed....the real testament for a robust American political system has been the very way it has endured and survived many such challenges, including a civil war, only to emerge stronger than ever.  

 

Quote

One wonders, however if other democracies, like Canada or Germany, both of whom claim to be not run by special interests, really are just as much (maybe they hide it better).

The founding fathers weren't prophets. They did the best they could under the circumstances. We forget that the political climate of the United States of the 1780s was quite poisonous, hence the purpose of completely replacing the constitution after just over a decade.

Overall, I think it still is a better system for America than some more "modern" democratic constitutions. And least it's much shorter to read. I am suspicious of constitutions that are so long the average Joe believes that "it's for the lawyers to read." It's four large pages of parchment plus the 27 amendments; according to Wikipedia, 7,591 words (4,543 in the original, un-amended document). Hard to know what's in the constitution if it's too long (India's is about 145,000 words).

 

 

I am amazed that other nations still have not figured this out, for their own needs and circumstances.   I often joke that I have socks that are older than Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982).   IMHO, the most important concept that the U.S. founders understood was the division of power with checks and balances...at the federal and state levels.

 

Quote

A friend of mine took a cruise to Norway, some fellow passengers from Germany mentioned they didn't understand the electoral college. I think that probably mystifies foreigners quite a bit--it certainly mystifies more than a few Americans, I wouldn't doubt it. But to me, what differentiates us from other western democracies is: the belief in those other countries that democracy is all about majority rule. In America, we hold individual liberty as more important than majority rule. It may sound like a contradiction to people outside the U.S., but here it isn't. Majority rule is all well and good, but what bloody good does it do if your rights are trampled on?

 

Good point....many people don't understand that the U.S. is not a "democracy"...it is a constitutional republic with democratic principles.    It would have been impossible to get 13 colonies all on the same page without concessions for large vs. small population states. 

 

Quote

...Another thing: I think other countries' citizens don't look at the big picture when they see U.S. politics. They look at Washington, Washington, Washington; and forget that there are 50 state capitals (and the DC city council) operating. They may be less powerful vis a vis Washington than in 1789; but looking at Washington as the end-all be-all of U.S. politics is missing at least 50% of the picture. The states even have their own constitutions; the federal constitution sets no guidelines as to how the states are to organize themselves (if I'm not mistaken, the 1867 Constitution Act, or British North America Act, does give some guidelines). Washington does not determine our every move in life as the national capitals of others countries do, even some democratic ones. (Canada may be different, though, since it is also a federal structure). This surprises people in other countries, as one of the articles i read mentions.

 

Not for lack of information....an example being Tocqueville's On Democracy in America...taught in most U.S. high school curriculum.   There has been keen interest from outside U.S. borders for a very long time, if only because people wanted to know what all the world's immigrants were fleeing to that was better than back home.   The U.S. had/has more energy...more sizzle...and that remains true today, including U.S. politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[JamesHackerMP]

On 3/19/2018 at 8:48 PM, H10 said:

I see the democrats as paid to lose, Republicans are bigots who are corrupt and paid off.  Donald Trump election does not do much to alleviate the view that Americans are ignorant bigots.

I'm  not sure how to respond to that...except to say that it is itself bigoted.

Edited March 21, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[GostHacked]

On 3/18/2018 at 6:53 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

President Trump has only intensified the keen Canadian interest in U.S. politics that already existed.  

Canadian media has long devoted attention to U.S. politics, to the point of polling Canadians about U.S. presidential candidates they cannot vote for (e.g. Barack Obama).    Canadians volunteered to work on Hillary Clinton's campaign, crossing the border to do so.

My guess is that far more Canadians stay up late to see American election results than do Americans for a Canadian federal election.

Mainly because of the work with Cambridge Analytica , a Canadian data analytics company that helped Trump win the election. 

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Mainly because of the work with Cambridge Analytica , a Canadian data analytics company that helped Trump win the election. 

Ya but a Canadian company relying on US internet servers - we couldn't have undermined America's election without American ingenuity so...USA USA USA!

[GostHacked]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

Ya but a Canadian company relying on US internet servers - we couldn't have undermined America's election without American ingenuity so...USA USA USA!

After a good laugh, I have to end up agreeing with you. The USA could not have done it without Canada and vice versa.!

[Penderyn]

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 7:16 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

I'm  not sure how to respond to that...except to say that it is itself bigoted.

'Bigot' is an eighteenth-century word I don't use much, but surely you'd have your work cut out to find any normal people in the rest of the world who didn't regard President Trump as an extreme-right nutter when he can get enough attention off his sacred Self to involve himelf in politics at all?

[JamesHackerMP]

It was said above that "Americans" are ignorant bigots. I find that view itself to be bigoted. P.S., only 46% of those who voted in 2016 voted for Donald Trump. But this thread isn't specifically about Donald Trump. There are plenty of those.

You can be a decent person and still end up having a twat for a President.

Edited March 24, 2018 by JamesHackerMP