h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The American political system is flawed for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it is really represented by only two parties, both right-wing, but one more right-wing that the other, while in Britain we're represented by one party, both conservative .

Secondly, in the US of A, you have to be very rich to get anywhere in politics. You have to fund your own campaigns, more or less. In Britain, the party funds the campaign as we elect a party into government rather than voting for a particular individual to run the country. ie We voted for Labour to come into power rather than Tony Blair to be Prime Minister, while in America you voted for Al Gore for President and allegedly the most powerful man in the world and got George Dubya Bush. The upshot is that only the well off are truly represented and the unprivelleged are neglected. While in Britian the poor are potentially represented and subsequently ignored.

A number of compaints concerning American politics, primarily from Americans themseleves, could be rememedied if socialist ideals could be represented as looking after the 'working classes' will ultimately reflect on society as a whole, a 'bottom-up' approach to improving society. Unfortunately, many Americans equate socialist ideals with communism even though they are two entirely different things. It is said that socialism poses a threat to capitalism and free-trade. But many European countries, including France and Sweden, have thriving economies with socialist governments. If America took more interest in trying to look after its own underprivelleged rather than trying to screw every dime and nickel out of them, then perhaps many countries would look more kindly upon the USA.

France isn't socialist, it's just bureaucratic and still has several of it's major corporations Nationalised (and they do very well, defying-accepted-ideology fans!)

The Democrats are not "right wing", they are centerist.

I agree that the American voting system is obviously a shambles, but there seems to be little will in the US to alter the problems. Americans often strike me a little unwilling to accept that anything they've invented is anything other than the best available. Perhaps that will change, if America ever gets leaders with vision again, rather than the string of mediocre suits it's been showing us recently.

Unfortuantely leaders with vision aren't backed by the car or oil industry.

"Firstly, it is really represented by only two parties" - There are actually several parties, and two in particular are far more palatable than the asses and the elephants. It's just that our voters are stupid.

"in the US of A, you have to be very rich to get anywhere in politics. You have to fund your own campaigns, more or less. In Britain, the party funds the campaign" - Where does the British party get its money? I'm guessing the same place the US candidate gets it... from the corporations. Only Ross Perot ever used his own money to fund his campaign. A presidential campaign is funded by the party, once the party convention nominates its candidate.

"could be rememedied if socialist ideals could be represented as looking after the 'working classes' will ultimately reflect on society as a whole, a 'bottom-up' approach to improving society." - That's rhetoric, not a remedy. One of the many great weaknesses of socialism is its lack of concrete solutions.

"One of the many great weaknesses of socialism is its lack of concrete solutions."

And capitalism offers them? The two concrete pillars of free trade fell due to capitalist efficiency.

Blatherskite - British political parties get a lot of money from people paying to belong to that party. Not all of their funds come from business

PS - When was the last time a presidential candidate not a millionaire? Tony Blair was the first millionaire PM candidate for many, many years.

"The two concrete pillars of free trade fell due to capitalist efficiency." - Name the two pillars, and describe how they fell.

"British political parties get a lot of money from people paying to belong to that party. Not all of their funds come from business." - This is the same in the US. However, this isn't nearly enough to fund a successful campaign. It's a pittance in comparison to corporate sponsorship.

And I haven't seen any reason to doubt that it's not the same in the UK, yet.

"When was the last time a presidential candidate not a millionaire?" - Two things. One, the president has great sway over the largest national budget on earth. If he can't show competence in managing his own finances, why should we let him manage the nation's?

Second, the presidency is a rare and powerful office. It should only be bestowed upon people who have shown distinction in some manner over his lifetime (although there are exceptions... especially the last two presidents). Distinction in the world of business will do.

I think the "two pillars" is a reference to the Twin Towers. These were not brought down by a failing of Capitalism, but by Islamic Fundamentalism. Since Osama bin Laden is the main suspect and he made his money on the stockmarket, it could be argued that Capitalist efficiency brought them down, rather than inefficiency.

UK parties *are* funded by corporations and sometimes rich individuals but they are also funded by party members and (in the case of the Labour Party) by Trade Unions. The Conservative Party is probably the party most "dirtied" by corporate money, although Blair has successfully wooed quite a few corporate donors over to the Labour Party.

I don't buy the explanation for why rich men make good Presidents. Running the US is not only about balancing a budget (something the President probably delegates to a deputy anyway) it's about politics and diplomacy. Wealthy men are usually born into money and then simply invested what they had. Others are simply good at supply and demand. This does not necessarily make for good political leadership. Look at Silvio Berlusconi.

I don't see how bin Laden making money on the stock market is a criticism of the capitalist system.

Trade unions and political organizations (such as the ACLU) also contribute to US campaigns. I'm still not seeing how it's any different from the UK.

Good at investing... supply and demand... isn't that what a national economy is all about? Do you really want your government backing bonds when it doesn't know the value of a bond?

Politics and diplomacy are personality issues, so they vary from person to person, and cross economic boundaries. But to manage an economy, one must understand it. Wealth displays an understanding of the economy, whether that wealth was built or simply maintained. The president may delegate the budget, but he must approve it, and he bears ultimate responsibility if it fails. To approve a budget he does not understand would open the door to political suicide.

Who is Silvio Burlusconi?

I didn't say it was a "criticism" of the capitalist system. In fact, it was a reply to the person who posted the initial "twin pillars" post.

Investing is only *one* part of political leadership. Most of the great leaders of history (Elizabeth I, Julius Caesar, Churchill) were not business-minded, they were political-animals and understood diplomacy and the art of making alliances and isolating enemies more than buying and selling. I won't deny business nous is important in a political leader. What I will deny is that it is all that really matters.

And I stand by my point that a great deal of wealthy people (including future US Presidents) are simply born into it.

Silvio Berlusconi is the Prime Minister of Italy. He is a successful businessman and media mogul (the cynical would argue that he used his control of Italy's media to get himself into power). Despite stabalising the notoriously shaky Italian political arena, he is an atrocious diplomat. After 9/11 he made a very ill-advised comment on the differences between European/North American civilisation and Islamic civilisation (one is good a democracy, one isn't basically). He also recently insulted a German politician in the European Parliament and caused a severe cooling of relations between Germany (one of Italy's important trading partners) and Italy.

What may have served him well in business does not necessarily serve him well in politics.

You clarified Das' statement for me. His statement was a criticism of capitalism, so that bit was addressed to him. Sorry for the confusion.

"I won't deny business nous is important in a political leader. What I will deny is that it is all that really matters." - I concur. People with diplomatic skills can be found in any economic strata. Same with political skills. But good money skills can primarily be found in the rich. Therefore, the rich are the best talent pool to find all three skills.

"And I stand by my point that a great deal of wealthy people (including future US Presidents) are simply born into it." - I won't deny this. But the national government is also born into its money... we're already a rich nation. But a rich person must manage their money to remain rich... and so it is also with the country.

What I meant by the twin pillars statement was that the World Trade Center was badly designed and built due to capitalistic cost-cutting. The fire-proof insulation wasn't applied properly thus allowing the fire to spread. There were also structural flaws which meant they couldn't withstand the impact of the aeroplanes. Admittedly, a fair amount of damage would have occurred had they been better designed and built. However, they weren't and plans went better than expected for Osama bin Laden when they fell down.

Also I agree with what has been said earlier, the idea that a millionaire should make a good president is a pile of cr*p. Yes, managing the economy is important, but it isn't the soul aim of government. And let's be fair though Bush may be a millionaire surrounded by ever richer friends he hasn't done a brilliant job of managing the economy by pandaing to the rich and screwing the poor. Also his diplomatic skills (as well as his sentences) leave a lot to be desired.

It's interesting to note that a number of US presidents are related. Carter and Al Gore (I'm counting him as president as he won the vote but didn't get in due to not having a brother as governor in Florida) through the common relative of Gore Vidal, a major critic of US politics.

The towers withstood the impact of the planes readily enough. They remained standing long after the impact. The problem was that jet fuel burns at such a high temperature that it literally melted through the support beams.

There isn't an insulator in the world strong enough to have prevented that.

As for millionaires and presidents, specific examples of bad presidents do nothing to advance the topic. We're talking about generalities here. For every bad millionaire president you show me, I could show you a million poor people who would have been worse... and neither of us would do anything to advance the topic.

Arguments can't really be settled by generalities as a general rule generalities are flawed. They delve into an abstract world that can bear very little relation to the real life and result in circular arguments, which as many discussion groups on this site have proved, become very tired and hack-kneed all too quickly.

And Bush is only a millionaire because, like most every thing else, his Daddy helped him. The politcal system is deeply flawed to allow a man like him into power. Admittedly this is also true of just about every other politcal system in the world as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, the level of corruption in the British politcal system is far lower than the US (or Italy's - add just about every government you can think of to this list that represents a major power) as no one has absolute power the way a US president has.

(And the insulation of pillars wasn't properly applied.)

In reply to how British politcal parties are funded. Corporations cannot donate moeny to political parties. However, individuals can anonymously. If the donation is over a certain amount, the donation is made public and may be rejected if the individual donating may be thought to be influencing the party's manifesto or goes against the party manifesto. As a result many parties are more or less bankrupt as very rich people aren't giving money to parties whose politics they don't agree with and can't influence.

American parties on the otherhand are very visibly funded by corporations. Bush's campaign was more or less funded by his friends in the oil and automobile industries as it was in their interest that Bush gain power so they could still earn billions, probably by building that pipeline from Afganistan, which will probably connect with the one in Iraq. (Okay, that last clause was a bit cynical, but possibly not far from the truth if Gore Vidal's comments are anything to go by. If only Liberia had similar oil reserves...)

In Britian this sort of funding cannot occur. Instead, the corporations influence politics by deciding whether or not to open industrial plants and create jobs in the area so it works more on a tit-for-tat basis so that corporations can get their way.

Here's a story that describes the insulation of the WTC. I fail to see how capitalism enters into it. It looks like the capitalist constructors were in the process of using the very best insulation available until knee-jerk legislation put a stop to it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html

As for your observations on British politics and the influence of money, I'd have to see some corroborating information. Based on what I've seen in this thread about your knowledge of US politics and the WTC, I'd have to take your claims on British politics with a grain of salt.

Corporations CAN donate to UK political parties. A register of donations is published at

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm

"But good money skills can primarily be found in the rich"

Untrue. I'm good with money and I'm not rich. You can find people in all parts of the economic spectrum who are "good with money". The difference is in how much they earn and how they manage it. Wealth depends on the kind of job they do. An IT person may earn a great deal more than me, because IT is in demand and pays well, but based on my experience of them they don't do a good job. So an IT person would probably be worth more than me but 1) probably doesn't do as good a job as me and 2) probably isn't as good with money with me (in fact a lot of high-earners are frivilous with money, they just replace it quickly via their high-paying job (and tend to go into debt quickly if they lose it)).

Personal wealth is not related to 1) Ability to balance a budget or 2) Ability to do a good job. Thus a man or woman's wealth should not be used to judge whether they would be a good administrator/politician.

"American parties on the otherhand are very visibly funded by corporations. Bush's campaign was more or less funded by his friends in the oil and automobile industries as it was in their interest that Bush gain power so they could still earn billions, probably by building that pipeline from Afganistan, which will probably connect with the one in Iraq. (Okay, that last clause was a bit cynical, but possibly not far from the truth if Gore Vidal's comments are anything to go by. If only Liberia had similar oil reserves...)"

Underneath all this you're repeating the conspiracy-theory that Bush somehow "engineered" the 9/11 attacks as an "excuse" to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.

No one had heard of the Afghan pipeline before Afghanistan was invaded. I think the fact that Afghanistan was a major base for terrorists (including bin Laden) might have influenced Bush's actions.

Bush was not elected on a platform of "going into" the Middle East. He was prepared to ignore it and concentrate on "American issues". He rejected nation-building and embraced isolationism. He was there to cut taxes for his wealthy friends, not defend pipelines.