Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I haven't got the energy to get into the "ideal system of government" question here, but I want to note that a key issue in the US is that the "checks and balances" of the current system are quite strongly predicated on various actors, particularly those in Congress being more beholden to local forces than national parties.

Thanks to changes in the social/technological/media/money-in-politics landscape, that assumption is becoming untrue.

As such, the US system is sliding towards becoming more and more parliamentary anyway. That in itself might not be cause for concern per se (the French system is quite a hybrid, for example) BUT the slide towards a parliamentary level of party power in the US poses critical challenges for the "checks and balances" system and that does seem an important and worrying issue.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 03:10:24 PM EST
It was my understanding that the checks and balances had been entirely side-stepped by this administration owning every branch of government. The USSC, the DOJ, the White House, K street and (as good as) both houses.

There isn't a single group who can stop Bush doing anything, there isn't a single body capapble of holding him to account that has any desire to do so. This really is the Imperial Presidency and the US does have its boy-king.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Dec 30th, 2007 at 03:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series