Posted on 06/20/2019 2:46:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The deadlock that has set in on Capitol Hill since the 2018 Congressional elections was not hard to predict. Presidential systems have this variety of chaos in their very DNA. But whilst a democratically elected American president currently struggles to get things done because of his opponents in a democratically elected House of Representatives, Donald Trump has uniquely suffered even beyond these factors due to the inherent flaws of all presidential systems.
In some ways, Donald Trump would have had a more difficult road to power in a parliamentary system because he would have had to work through the ranks of existing parties in order to attain a leadership position. That being said, it is equally possible that Trump could have formed his own political party and knowing Trump, in a parliamentary system this is exactly what he might have done. In such a scenario, due to the drastic socio-economic changes befalling the US, it is not inconceivable that a populist Trump fronted party could win a majority of seats in a would-be US parliament. Just as upstart parties in Malaysia, Pakistan, Britain and Italy have seen major upticks in their recent electoral fortunes, the same could happen in respect of a Trump party in an American parliamentary system.
In a parliamentary system, Trump would be able to do several things he is not able to do in a presidential system.
First of all, if his party won a majority of seats or was able to otherwise form a parliamentary coalition, the deadlock he has faced from Congress in a presidential system would simply not be there. In a parliamentary system, if the American people wanted Trumpism, they would get Trumpism implemented in a more full, more rapid and more efficient fashion. This is clearly more rational than a system in which costly and democratically insufficient deadlock cuts both ways.
Secondly, it must be acknowledged that a great deal of resistance to Trump has come from his own Republican party due to the de-centralised, undisciplined and often meandering style of party (dis)organisation in presidential systems. In a parliamentary system, a would-be Trump party would only attract those committed to Donald Trump’s ideological manifesto. Others could obviously join rival parties and what’s more is that if a member of parliament for the Trump party began behaving in a manner that could undermine Trump’s vision, the party leadership could simply withdraw the whip and such a troublemaker would have to sit as an independent member of parliament or else join another party. This would allow Trump to build a genuine political machine to serve his agenda and his multiple opponents could do the same in respect of their political agendas. This is vastly preferable to the current system in which both major US parties often appear to display all the functionality of a brain dead dog chasing its own tail.
hirdly, it is clear that Donald Trump likes a good confrontational debate. Imagine if Trump operated within a Westminster style parliamentary system and had weekly (at minimum) face-to-face debates with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Not only would this test the actual debating skills of the aforementioned politicians, but Trump would likely relish the opportunity to take his infamous insults directly to his chief opponents. As for his opponents, they would have the ability to fire rhetorical missiles back at Trump in real time. This of course is impossible within the confines of rhetorically lugubrious presidential systems.
The point of this thought exercise is neither to endorse nor condemn Donald Trump’s policies but it instead serves as a demonstration of the fact that even in a country famed for its presidential system, its current leader would actually benefit from shifting to a parliamentary system, as would his opponents who could debate Trump in real time.
There are zero advantages of a presidential system over a Westminster style parliamentary system. This is even true of the United States whose system is unfortunately too ingrained to change.
This article is idiotic. If we had a parliamentary system of government, Trump would only be elected by his own district — which means he’d have to run as a DEMOCRAT. And there’s no way any legislative body would ever elect him as the Prime Minister.
Ho hum, and they would have said the same things about Reagan and any other American president they would have disliked at the time.
No thank you! We had more than enough of executives dissolving legislative houses during the revolutionary period.
Not a single governor, nor the President has the power to dissolve any assembly and call for a new election.
In America, the executive is not a creature of the legislature, as in parliamentary systems. The executive is completely separate from the legislative.
And our elections are fixed, by law, occurring on certain dates come he’ll or high water.
In America, powers oppose powers, until the next election. This leads to stability, not the instability and “coalitions” of parliamentary governments.
Does the Parliamentary system make it easier for new parties to flourish? The author assumes it, but doesn’t explain why.
Legislative gridlock is the best thing for all Americans.
The most dangerous thing in the world is Congress that “gets things done.”
“This article is ideotic.”
Absolutely idiotic. Trump is a doer. Not a debater. The parliamentary system relies on professional politicians who spend decades rising through the ranks using their oratorical skills against each other. Parties also take years to gain influence. Thank God we don’t have such a system that would never have enabled Trump or any outsider to actually be elected President. Even here he only was able to make it by working within one of the two established parties.
wait, what?
as for Westminster parliamentary systems, is it not House of LORDS and House of COMMONERS ? caste systems by any other name... America fought a revolution against such political systems
Funny how the article doesn’t mention Question Period, as I’d like to see how Obama would have performed in one if he actually bothered to show up. BTW, Justin Trudeau has one of the poorer attendance records concerning something like that.
what a bullshit article. Not worthy of the bandwidth it wasted.
Look how well it’s worked in England!
I mean they are the worlds greatest superpower...right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.