Fifty House Democrats led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) have sponsored a bill that would form a commission to assess President Donald Trump's mental fitness for office, pursuant to the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
as an aussie that has a parliamentary system, and in that system has had a period where we frequently ousted the PM, it’s not that great of an idea
you want governments to be able to plan for the long term. really, even 4y is not great for long term planning because it kinda implies you need to show results before the term is up
we had a bunch of policy flip-flops during that period, which is very inefficient
i guess it doesn’t really matter if you get 2y no matter what: there’s no more after your 2y, but i think that’d lead to leaders doing a bunch of the “fuck it” last term stuff because they have no reason to make a good impression for their potential reelection
But, to my knowledge, Australia has never faced the prospect of dictatorial takeover.
When an absolute monarchy works well, it can really work well. Give absolute authority to the rare person that is just, kind, determined, and with a vision? They can work miracles. But a good king is an exception rather than the rule. And the loss of freedom exists regardless of how good the king.
Having a president, does, as you note, have certain practical benefits. But giving one person independent elected authority and control of the military and bureaucracy has proven time and time again to be a recipe for authoritarian takeover. It can still happen in a parliamentary system, but it’s a lot harder when the guy controlling the army can be dismissed with a simple majority vote.
that was certainly in the back of my head the whole time… policy flip flop and lack of long term planning in modern politics is pretty much the norm anyway… but i think to encode that into a kind of standard way of operating is perhaps not a good thing… adding an extra layer that’s hard to undo before fixing the core problem is how the US got to where it is now
I totally get where you’re coming from. It’s hard for me not to view the US (being a recovering seppo myself) as an empire doomed to walk the path of all empires. I still really love the idea of a country based on rule of law by the consent of the governed and all that jazz. But, at some point I stopped believing the US government is even able to reform itself adequately in its current form. Too much of that apparatus is of no interest to anyone who could have a positive impact. The sheer un-coolness of local politics means only the deeply uncool get involved. To say nothing of the bad campaign finance laws!
I wish I knew enough about Australian politics to make a worthwhile comparison. For what it’s worth, I think the main thing that makes a government unfit to be reformed is sheer size - your government could never be so large as the US one, so at least there I’m hopeful for positive change towards more stability. Just don’t let them build empires!
as an aussie that has a parliamentary system, and in that system has had a period where we frequently ousted the PM, it’s not that great of an idea
you want governments to be able to plan for the long term. really, even 4y is not great for long term planning because it kinda implies you need to show results before the term is up
we had a bunch of policy flip-flops during that period, which is very inefficient
i guess it doesn’t really matter if you get 2y no matter what: there’s no more after your 2y, but i think that’d lead to leaders doing a bunch of the “fuck it” last term stuff because they have no reason to make a good impression for their potential reelection
But, to my knowledge, Australia has never faced the prospect of dictatorial takeover.
When an absolute monarchy works well, it can really work well. Give absolute authority to the rare person that is just, kind, determined, and with a vision? They can work miracles. But a good king is an exception rather than the rule. And the loss of freedom exists regardless of how good the king.
Having a president, does, as you note, have certain practical benefits. But giving one person independent elected authority and control of the military and bureaucracy has proven time and time again to be a recipe for authoritarian takeover. It can still happen in a parliamentary system, but it’s a lot harder when the guy controlling the army can be dismissed with a simple majority vote.
I think the US has failed to plan for the long term enough that it no longer has to 🫠
that was certainly in the back of my head the whole time… policy flip flop and lack of long term planning in modern politics is pretty much the norm anyway… but i think to encode that into a kind of standard way of operating is perhaps not a good thing… adding an extra layer that’s hard to undo before fixing the core problem is how the US got to where it is now
I totally get where you’re coming from. It’s hard for me not to view the US (being a recovering seppo myself) as an empire doomed to walk the path of all empires. I still really love the idea of a country based on rule of law by the consent of the governed and all that jazz. But, at some point I stopped believing the US government is even able to reform itself adequately in its current form. Too much of that apparatus is of no interest to anyone who could have a positive impact. The sheer un-coolness of local politics means only the deeply uncool get involved. To say nothing of the bad campaign finance laws!
I wish I knew enough about Australian politics to make a worthwhile comparison. For what it’s worth, I think the main thing that makes a government unfit to be reformed is sheer size - your government could never be so large as the US one, so at least there I’m hopeful for positive change towards more stability. Just don’t let them build empires!