The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I just don't hear many such stories here on ET. There was someone (Detlef?) who ran for a local seat and won. There have been policy papers written, LTE's etc, but I don't see much participation in direct democracy, in the process itself. Not like you see at MyDD or Daily Kos, where people are actively doing organizing, field work, running for things themselves. In America the process is broken -campaign finance & media consolidation being the culprits- but people are actively trying to fix it, to improve it, to do something besides complain about it. And while there is a long way to go, the tide is turning. You can bitch about the end product being the same, that the new dems are no better than the old GOPers -we do too!- but the process is undergoing a change. There are places in this country which have had no progressive political organization for 35 years or more. That's going to take a long time to change, but it is being changed. People all over are being educated on how to run campaign, new media outlets are popping up and gaining influence and attention, candidates are starting to pander to activists instead of just to millionaires, at the local level seats are being challenged for the 1st time in decades, and if they aren't won, they have the effect of making incumbents defend their records. I'd invite you to come spend a week in my shoes and still tell me democracy is dead in America. It's not dead in my America. Yet. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Except that in every legislature, real power is concentrated at the centre. I'm sure it was very energising to be so invovled in Illinois politics, but Cheney still pulls the strings everywhere. Habeas Corpus has gone, the Constitution has been shredded and the foundations laid for the Imperial Presidency, the Unitary Excutive, unless a significant group of National figures choose to do something about it.
Meanwhile back here, you're right. We don't get invovled. In the UK even MPs have been rendered irrelevant, nobody even knows what local councillors do, except that they can get sued if they get it wrong.
And lacking a primary system, unless you scratch the right backs, you never get to positions where you get elected anyway.
No, we don't participate, because we've been deliberately excluded. But then again when you look at who might get to Washington, is there any place for non-squillionaires either ? keep to the Fen Causeway
And the big plan Dean has -basically modelled after the GOP's rise to power- is that these local politicians can start out in the ward or town board and work their way up to Congress. It's called a "farm team" - like in sports. Minor leagues->Major Leagues.
Can a non-squillionaire win? It's certainly difficult. I bet not simply because of fundraising, but having friends on boards of networks, or having no qualms about taking money from Big Pharma, etc. But if it puts anything into perspective, Obama, in his race for Senator, ran against a self-funded millionaire in the Primary. The millionaire lost... "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
But when it comes to core issues, which are more or less the same as the ones in the US - health care and education, economic policy, foreign policy - ordinary people are completely disenfranchised.
We aren't given the choice to vote for populist, bottom-up policies. The rules are set by Big Money, Big Oil, and Big Death, and they're the ones who are steering the ship.
We're allowed to rearrange the deck chairs. But we're not allowed to avoid the rocks or join the pillage party in the big ballroom.
Bill Wyatt is a liberal Republican and was a candidate for the U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination, 2004. He is a 43-year-old T-shirt maker and father of three from California. Wyatt left the Democratic Party to become a Republican after Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, an action he saw as a betrayal. He hopes to have a greater voice as a member of the Republican Party. Wyatt has traveled 12,000 miles and spent an estimated $20,000 on his Presidential campaign. He managed to qualify for ballot status in New Hampshire, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, and even the Democratic Primary ballot in Arizona. His early showings were disheartening but not surprising. He finished tenth in the New Hampshire primary with 0.23% of the vote (153 votes). However, a major upset occurred on Mini-Tuesday when Wyatt won just over 10% of the vote in Oklahoma. He also placed second in Missouri, where he gained 1,268 votes (1.03%). Wyatt also received 233 votes (0.10%) in the Arizona Democratic primary. Wyatt has stated that the Louisiana primary was his last stand, since it was the final state where he qualified for ballot status. He gained 4% of the vote there, which he considered a symbolic victory against George W. Bush that sent a message to the Republican Party. Wyatt has declared that he will be a candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Wyatt has traveled 12,000 miles and spent an estimated $20,000 on his Presidential campaign. He managed to qualify for ballot status in New Hampshire, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, and even the Democratic Primary ballot in Arizona.
His early showings were disheartening but not surprising. He finished tenth in the New Hampshire primary with 0.23% of the vote (153 votes).
However, a major upset occurred on Mini-Tuesday when Wyatt won just over 10% of the vote in Oklahoma. He also placed second in Missouri, where he gained 1,268 votes (1.03%). Wyatt also received 233 votes (0.10%) in the Arizona Democratic primary.
Wyatt has stated that the Louisiana primary was his last stand, since it was the final state where he qualified for ballot status. He gained 4% of the vote there, which he considered a symbolic victory against George W. Bush that sent a message to the Republican Party. Wyatt has declared that he will be a candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
What was particulary interesting was his failed attempts to get on the primary ballots in the first place. The reason he ran in the Arizona Democratic primary was that the republican was cancelled because of lack of other candidates then Bush. That he was a republican and wanted to participated did not matter (this was also the case in a number of other states). So he ran in the Arizona Democratic primary to get more votes then Bush in Arizona.
To be a candidate for the presidency in the US you apparently have to be a candidate accepted by the media or have enough money to be buy media time. As a comparision: to be a candidate for the presidency of Iran you have to be acceptable to a group of mullahs (or possibly buy their acceptance). Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
The Administration and Congress may have diddled with Habeas Corpus, but by no means is that process or American justice in its death throes as a result; and the justice system is still more than capable of dealing with any liberties that have been taken with the Constitution and law.
This New Yorker article makes interesting reading. I dare say the fight is not over. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
Some parties are more internally democratic than others, but generally the party apparatus controls who can get on the "shortlist" that is presented to the membership for candidate selection. I think in the US the barriers to enter a party's primary are as low as simply having to change your partisan voter registration. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Independents often stand and occasionally win. One of the best moments of the last election was watching the father of someone who died in Iraq laying into Blair in public on election night, because he'd stood as an independent in Blair's constituency and won a good proportion of the votes.
But generally it's the party machine that keeps things running, and parties are very definitely run top-down - to the extent that Westminster is almost irrelevant anyway.
I think in the US the barriers to enter a party's primary are as low as simply having to change your partisan voter registration.
Yes, compare Michael Bloomberg (mayor of New York, and this week's media fascination as he coyly denies that he's running for President). Since he couldn't win the mayoral primary in his own party (the Democrats), he registered Republican and won that way. (At least that's how Newsweek reports it.) This is not seen as unfair, just unusual; it's up to the primary voters to decide whether they accept it.
(And why I would know Majette's name of the top of my head remains a mystery even to me) "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
McKinney protested the result in court, claiming that thousands of Republicans, knowing they had no realistic chance of defeating her in November, had participated in the Democratic primary to vote against McKinney in revenge for her anti-Bush administration views and allegations of possible voter fraud in Florida in the 2000 Presidential Election. Like 20 other states, Georgia operates an open primary: voters do not claim a political party when they register to vote, and may participate in whichever party's primary election they choose.
Nowadays it's worse as there's a professional political class who have been working as advisers and media consultnts for years till they get parachuted into safe constituencies. Jobs for the boys (and it usually is boys) keep to the Fen Causeway
Party membership is very small and it's really hard to join and make a difference because the local party will essentially be a clique (or a few of them).
Also, note that party membership implies paying dues. There is no equivalent of partisan voter registration and voluntary involvement from outside the party is minimal. And, in addition, public finance of campaigns means that parties don't need to (and often can't really) reach out for donations.
A question about the US: what is the difference between a sympathiser, a registered voter, a volunteer helper, a donor, a dues-paying card-carrying member, and a member of the apparatus of the party? Which categories are important and which are not (or are even nonexistent?) Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
A question about the US: what is the difference between a sympathiser, a registered voter, a volunteer helper, a donor, a dues-paying card-carrying member, and a member of the apparatus of the party? Which categories are important and which are not (or are even nonexistent?)
In my time, I've been a registered in
Having recorded my voter registration with the State (Nebraska, then California, now Nebraska again), I am a member of the party. My citizenship (along with my age and my lack of felony conviction) is my dues. (Some people would say that their taxes are their dues, but —unless you lose the franchise through a felony conviction for tax evasion— that's actually irrelevant.)
I'd say that I sympathise, in various ways, with the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the various small socialist parties (which include Peace and Freedom), although none of them really represent my views. I might also say that I sympathise with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and (somewhat) the small-government wing of the Republican Party, even though I certainly don't sympathise with the parties themselves.
I have been both a volunteer and a donor; ironically, all of my party volunteer work was before I was 18 (voting age), so I was not a party member. For that matter, most of my donations have been to candidates of different parties. I've never donated to any party's campaign committees, but the Democrats keep asking me to, and I'm sure that they'd accept my money even though I haven't been a Democrat for years. (I even got a solicitation from the Republicans once, even though I've never been a member. Clearly these people are just using rented mailing lists, like the charity solicitations I get.)
As for member of the party apparatus …, you should talk to somebody from Iowa about that.
Thanks, Fran!
The converse is making European parties closed dues-paying social clubs, which raises a lot of eyebrows among American ETers. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Sympathizer: Anyone can sympathize with whatever or however many parties they choose. Though mostly there is little sympathy for any party.
Registered voter: Anyone who votes. I believe the laws vary by state, but often you have to choose a party if you want to vote in the primaries. All this means is you tell them what ballot you want. You don't have any obligation to whichever party you choose. Some states don't ask you to declare a party at all. The problem with this is that it can lead to abuse of the primary system.
Volunteer helper: Anyone can volunteer for any candidate they choose. They can also go to their local party organization and ask to volunteer, to do precinct work, canvassing, etc.
Donor: Anyone can give to any party they want, though there are limits on how much you can give. Or you can sidestep the party and give directly to a candidate. Again, there are limits on how much you can give them.
Dues-paying card-carrying member: I am not aware of any "dues." I do know that if you donate any money at all, you get on a mailing list. I don't know if you get a card, but I don't think it really means anything if you do. The card doesn't give you special access to people. Connections and money do...
Member of the apparatus of the party: Depending on your role, you can be elected or appointed. It varies widely from area to area, and from the local party to the national party, from position to position. It's really confusing. I think in most cases you can just start going to meetings, and after you've committed so much time, you can become a voting member, and then you can run for chair of your local party and be elected by fellow voting members. Technically, anyone can do this. Then there is the state-wide party. I don't know if seats in it are elected or appointed. But they don't really do anything either... Then there is the national party: RNC, DNC, etc. You can be hired as a staffer or elected as a voting member. The DNC members I know are basically go-getter politicians. Like the dif. between being a diarist and nd admin at ET. Either way, the main role of the national party is fundraising and nominating a Pres. candidate, which is a formality anyway because this is decided by primary elections. The main role of the local party is fundraising, precinct organization and sometimes community organizing. But all of this varies widely from place to place. The party apparatus is composed of self-organizing entities which are usually devoid of any organization... Bylaws? What are bylaws? sigh....
Then you have every variety of caucus: by region, race, creed, gender, special issues, etc. etc. which can represent a party. I could set up an organization called "Chicago Democrats to impeach Daley" and it would be perfectly legal. The party goons here have no respect for the law, so I might end up with bricks tied to my feet at the bottom of the river, but I could legally do it.
So far as party organizations go, outside the national level, it's really the wild wild west. Which means they can be as corrupt as they want to be and disenfranchise everyone, but you can also start your own organization if you don't like the one you have. This does happen and sometimes these organizations become very successful. But the party apparatus really is a fundraising, gate-keeping entity which few regular citizens ever have any interest in or contact with...
For the average Joe, parties are like sports teams. You pick one and root for them and hope the other team loses. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
You're lucky the party goons haven't caught on to the possibilities of trademark law. The Democratic Party could decide that they want to defend the use of the label "Democrat" as a trademark and defend it by sending out cease-and-desist letters. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
People can identify however they want. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
The smaller the political arena the more power there is in the US system. So yes it may be possible to get, for example, greens elected to city council, but here too an effective take over of the political process is required. So some times it is one group that is frozen out of the political process, and some times it is another group that is frozen out. I don't think I would use Richard J. Daley and his 21 year reign, eventually followed by his son and his potentially longer reign as an example of Democracy in action. It reminds me more of Monarchy and the battles in trying to reign in the Monarchy.
That anyone can run to represent a party means that it is a popularity contest - a money contest - a corruption contest, but not a political contest. It would be easier for an individual to run for the Democratic nomination in the US over me running for party nomination in Canada. I can get a government much closer to my views with Canadian parities than US parties because there is the ability for like minded people to band together and put forward their ideas instead of being atomised and pitted against the majority. (And I haven't mentioned the effects of gerrymandering.)
Even though the Canadian system is basically broken as all first past the post systems are, it is still true that I have, on election night, a much greater chance of having a representative that actually shares some of my values than I would in the US.
The US system is not democratic, but rather it has elements of democracy. In particular it is a tyranny of the majority.
aspiring to genteel poverty
you are the media you consume.
The ability of new political parties to form and to share power in all levels of government shows the difference between the two countries.
While the US is beholden to US multinationals, Canada is beholden to US multinationals too.
And BTW, I see and hear of and participate in a lot more grassroots democracy here in America than I ever even see reported on ET.
That is reasonable and the opposite would be surprising. ET is mostly about the european level of politics, mainly because local politics is shifted along national and laguage boundaries. When I participate in swedish politics, ET is not the main forum for me, as there exists other local forums which are better suited for that purpose (and they are in swedish). Though I try to report some nuggets of it here, that is not the same as seeing the process in action at MyDD or Daily Kos.
So, I see and hear of and participate in a lot more grassroots democracy here in Sweden than I ever report on ET. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 55 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 91 comments
by Oui - Feb 13 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2555 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1034 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments