Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Sunday afternoon in Istanbul, and I'm sitting here with a Turkish friend -- we'll call him Mustafa X -- who has some questions about the American political system. They're good questions and interesting ones. I thought it would be interesting for him to put his questions directly to a panel of Ricochet readers. Anyone want to help? This is absolutely serious, by the way -- he really wants to know how Americans answer these questions.
He asks:
1) "How do minorities express themselves politically in a two-party system? Is it healthy to cut a nation into two parties?"
2) "Would a two-party system work in a less stable country like Turkey? Think about the bloody Left-Right divisions that characterized political life here before the 1980 coup. Would it be possible to have a two-party system here that wouldn't lead to extreme, violent polarization?"
3) "Don't Americans feel constrained by a lack of choice in their political parties? We have political parties to suit almost any viewpoint -- communist, center-right, social democrat, soft Islamist, hard Islamist. Don't you find it hard to find a place for yourself when you only have two to choose between?"
4) "Do you worry that you might be excluding potentially talented politicians by demanding that they conform to the platforms and traditions of the two parties? How would, for example, a libertarian fit in?
5) "How do you stop your party elites and your nepotists from taking over politics when there are only two parties? In Turkey we counter this tendency by creating new parties: What do Americans do?"
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
I explain it this way: in a two-party system, we form coalitions then hold elections. In multi-party systems, they have the elections first, then form coalitions. I tried explaining this to a left-wing Greek aquaintance who was complaining about the lack of choices in American politics, but he was having none of it.
So: 1) Minorities form pressure groups within parties. A Party which contained Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen simultaneausly is a broad-based Party indeed.
2) My guess is that a two-party system would work best in Turkey, because broadly centrist coalitions would have to form themselves before presenting themselves to voters.
3) I don't feel at all constrained. If I were to support a minor Party, the purpose would not be to win and govern. It would be to for agitation/education, and to send a message to the GOP.
4)The mark of a talented politician is that he makes the party system work for him, not the other way around.
5) elites at war with each other will be to busy to steal absolutely everything.
Jun '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Good morning, Claire (it's 0630 in Santa Fe). Tell Mustafa that I am pleased to make his acquaintance, so far as it's possible in cyberspace. I will present a few key words to answer some of your questions and let Claire provide the details.
#1. Gerrymander: A system by which minorities are guaranteed representation. The downside is that career politicians in such districts can never be tossed out no matter how corrupt they become.
#2. I don't know enough about Turkish politics to know whether a two party system would work or not. The chief advantage of two parties is that the winning side always has a governing majority without the chaos that results from coalition governments. The situation works best in the US when one party holds the executive branch and the opposition holds congress.
#3. Lack of choice does limit our preferences, but there's a trade-off. See point #2 above.
#4. The Libertarian viewpoint can be found on the extremes of both parties. It depends on what's important to you. Are you a laissez-faire capitalist or an advocate of legalized marijuana?
#5. We don't. We just suffer.
Jun '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
I would like to ask Mustafa X a question if you would be kind enough to indulge me. Ataturk modernized and secularized Turkey some 90 years ago. Four generations later do you see Turkish culture reverting to a more Islamic state of mind?
Jul '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
It seems that most of the questions assume a parliamentary system rather than the US's congressional system of government. Both with Japan, where I currently reside, and other countries with parliamentary systems, it seems that the primary point of consideration for voters is the party of the person running in their district, rather than any individual characteristics of the candidate himself.
In the US, it's been my observation that much more focus is put on the individual candidate by voters than in other countries. mesquito is absolutely right; candidates choose their party of choice (forming coalitions) before elections. No matter what party a candidate is running under, he will still be an individual vote with a constituency that will be expecting him to vote how they want him to that he has to answer to. Party leadership and the party line is important, but not nearly as important as it is in multi-party parliamentary democracies.
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Paules--
Mustafa X says:
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Paules--
You didn't ask me, but I'd note that since the AKP came to power there has been a rise (measurable, empirical) in the number of women who cover their heads, particularly in a fashion that is associated with political Islam. However, polls have shown a drop in the number of Turks who wish to see the country governed by sharia.
Jun '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
I was thinking along similar lines. It is my observation that by and large, many Americans are unaware of the content of the platforms that define the major parties. Further, the politicians are not constrained by those platforms, but are free to "vote their conscience." The result is that Americans often select their preferred candidates as much on the basis of personality as they do on party. One consequence is the apparent dilution of bedrock principles, and the feeding of cyncism against the entire political class no matter the party.
Thus, on #4, it seems to me that the more common occurrence in the U.S. is that talented people who would otherwise make great principled, political leaders avoid politics altogether, which results in the situation described by #5.
Jun '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
1) In order to have a healthy two-party system, you need a lively wide-open primary contest on both sides, or at least the option of one. In that way, a two-party general election becomes almost a runoff election. We have third and fourth parties, but only two parties with the kind of deep party infrastructure it takes to win.
2) Depends. Does the legal system work, or not? If the legal system is corrupt, or powerless, nothing else works either, especially elections.
3) In nationwide and statewide elections, the voters--especially Independent voters--tend to see the contest as between candidates, and not between parties. That's why they're Independent. Independents often provide the margin of victory in close races. That's why candidates run toward the political center at the end.
4) Platforms can change, depending on who shows up to seek party leadership roles. It depends on who's motivated enough to get involved, and which candidate gets nominated.
5) You either have fair elections--free from coercion--for local party leadership (and everything above) or you don't. The first step is fair elections at every level.
Jun '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
An afterthought on #5. Periodically, Americans do get disgusted with the state of their parties. Sometimes third party candidates (Reform Party comes to mind) get some traction - but by and large, Americans work from within the two-party system to corral their politicians. Hence the factions mesquito defines in his answer to #1.
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Our system was not designed to have parties at all. The parties we have are a natural outgrowth of bands of people with similar ideas coming together to get some of what each interest area wants. As said above " we form coalitions then hold elections". I think we get less extreme government that way.
Also, by voting for the man, people can cross party lines to vote as they choose. That forces a moderation on the party in power. The Electoral College also helps balance out the effects of majority rule. The big cities don't get to run the country.
Finally, I am not sure our system works on less than a continent-wide scale. The goal is to have a balance of interest against interest even out.
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
A two-party system fosters moderation and accountability:
It promotes moderation because a party which consists of roughly 50% of voters must by definition be mainstream. If radicals want to be relevant, they need to get with the program and moderate. If they want to be forever irrelevant (Naderites, fervent libertarians, communists, whatever...), they can remain active outside the two parties and garner 1% of the vote. A harmless situation. In a multi-party system, the radicals remain relevant and exert power by offering or denying their support to whichever minority party is in need of coalition partners. In effect, the radicals can hold the moderates hostage.
A two-party system fosters accountability by preventing parties from denying culpability based on the fact that they are but one of many within a coalition. In the US today, the culpability for the Stimulus and Obamacare, say, is manifest: it lies with the Democrats.
Jun '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Thank you Claire and Mustafa for your elucidation. The ability of the Internet that allows for cross-cultural contact is one of its more salutary benefits. Especially so because I understand that Turkish is one of the more difficult languages to learn. When I visited Turkey in 1988, I relied heavily on my ability to speak German and got along quite well.
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Turkish is insanely difficult. I'm humbled by it daily. Mustafa X has decamped, but before leaving he was wondering out loud whether Scott's point -- "a party which consists of roughly 50% of voters must by definition be mainstream" wasn't also a negative, in the sense that it would discourage politicians with innovative political ideas and lead to a kind of permanent cultural stagnation within the parties. I replied that the one thing I never worried about was an insufficiency of openness to new ideas in America, but I wonder if that's more to do with American culture than the party system: Might he have a point?
Jul '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
It was Twain who said "the radical of one century is the conservative of the next." The two-party system allows those with more radical or innovative views to participate and influence the political process, just not overwhelm it. New and innovative ideas are not barred from the policy making process, but gradually make their way into the political mainstream.
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
I want to expand on Mr. Ahmad's point. America's two party system thrives because we chose not to embrace the parliamentary tradition. At times, America openly embraces split government, allowing one party to legislate and the other to run the executive branch. This is impossible in Turkey (or the UK, Canada, et al).
America is only now starting to revolt against the elitism in our politics. David Gergen, did Scott Brown a BIG service when he asked him about running for the "Kennedy Seat" in Massachusetts. It allowed Brown to look another Washington elite in the eye and reassert the idea that it belonged to the people, not the man.
Between 1952 and 2004, 2 men and one family dominated presidential politics on the GOP side. One of the following names appeared on every ticket in every year but 1964: Nixon ('52, '56, '60, '68, '72), Dole ('76, '96) and Bush ('80, '84, 88, 92, '00, '04).
And Claire, do you really worry about the lack of "innovative political ideas?" Liberty is the goal, not "different." Political freedom is not a product to be changed and marketed as "new and improved." It exists or it doesn't.
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
I'd actually never worried about it for a nanosecond before. When he said that, it was the first time I'd ever considered it. But because the question took me by surprise, I wondered why exactly it was that I'd never worried about it.
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Claire Berlinski: Paules--
Mustafa X says:
Jul 11 at 7:01am
Well, what is the methodology for this numerical estimate?
It is no secret that since the times of Ataturk the proportion of Anatolian (read: more traditional, less Europeanized) versus Rumelian (read: more Europeanized) Turks has mushroomed orders of magnitude. I realize that this is a very crude measure (there can be quite a few Anatolians who are tolerant and democratic at heart). Still, it is this trend -- and the practically universal agreement among the Western democracies that they are in decline -- that contributes mightily to the ascendancy of Islamism.
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
I don't think it discourages new ideas, but I do think it forces the innovators to tighten up their arguments and more fully develop their ideas so as to make them appealing to the mainstream. If their best efforts garner only, say, 10% approval, then it probably wasn't that great an idea in the first place, and it's time to go back to the drawing board.
May '10
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
Until now, the genius of the American system of government has always been based on a certain set of self-evident, universal truths. Foremost among these is that equality is a question of law and not economic result and that freedom and rights come from God not man.
This is why we stand where we do today. We have allowed our opponents to frame the question of equality into a purely economic one. We talk of race and gender gaps and the gap between rich and poor. And we have allowed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act to become more important than the Constitution itself, thereby allowing the Democratic Party to declare that the most important rights among men flow from them, not God.
We are reduced to worshiping the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice the way our European brethren worship the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Re: Mustafa X has some Questions for Ricochet readers
2) Depends. Does the legal system work, or not? If the legal system is corrupt, or powerless, nothing else works either, especially elections.
Nothing makes you appreciate how true this is more than living in Turkey--where the legal system doesn't work.