lorax

Here's an outside opinion, Pauly - an expat Canadian living in Ecuador. These are two places that the US government raises as hotbeds of the "evil" socialsim.

I have always found the US system of election and governance to be incredibly confusing and unweildy, and almost guaranteed to produce corruption and misrepresentation of the people. In particular, the electoral college seems to me to be a redundant organization in place solely to fix the results of your main elections. There is no surprise to me that the American public in general has become greatly apathetic when it comes to elections - the last three (at least) have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it doesn't matter how they vote.

In contrast, both Canada and Ecuador operate on the more direct (and democratic) system of "the candidate with the most total votes wins." Equally, in Ecuador as in Canada, if you are a citizen and have NOT registered to vote by election day, you can simply show up at your local polling place with your photo ID and your phone or electricity bill, be registered ON THE SPOT, and go on and vote. Ecuador goes the further measure of FINING the people who don't vote $50 (a lot of money, here), which ensures that our voter turnout is always in the high 90% range. Canadians are allowed to be apathetic - but I'd point out that in the Canadian system, we can change the names of our politicians but not the policy, and nothing really gets done without the OK of HRM the Queen (this is a topic for another discussion - Pauly, if you're interested in finding out why this is, pm me). Both countries use UN scrutineers to ensure that no fraud takes place in counting, something the US has always declined.

The other thing that has always confused me about the US system of governance is the bipartisan system. Democracy is supposed to be about choice, and I've always interpreted this as "more than two options." In Canada, there are at least 4 parties in each province (5 in Quebec), and in Ecuador, there are more than 150. What I've noticed about the US is that regardless of which ideology politicians claim to adhere to (ie "conservative" or "liberal" which are the two choices you've got up there...), they are ultimately answerable to only one ideology - "Cash is King" - and therefore can't be counted on to support their declared one. This problem isn't unique to the US, of course - it's just most plainly visible there. Joe Lieberman is an excellent example. The bipartisan system means that the US has never been forced to form minority governments (as is currently the case in Canada, and always the case in Ecuador) and therefore has never learned compromise as a style of governance. This allows the government, which has therefore nearly unlimited power, especially in the case of controlling both house and senate, to act like the proverbial 500lb gorrilla.

And that's the root of the problem.

The other thing that I don't understand (perhaps because I grew up in one "socialist" country and currently live in another), is the violent American fear of socialism. Those of you who know why I can't travel to the US will perhaps laugh about this, but at the same time, I'm not a Communist, and precious few Canadians (or Ecuadoreans for that matter) are. The thing that I've observed is that to most Americans, Socialism = Communism, something that is, to me, a blatant misrepresentation at best, and flat out wrong at worst. Coming around to the health-care debate: there are immense benefits to even a mixed socialist form of governance - which is what Ecuador and Canada both have - the countries provide basic healthcare and hospitals free of charge to all citizens, and there is also a private option for anybody who wants to use it. I've used both systems in both countries, and they're equally excellent. A portion of the income tax paid by each citizen pays for the expense. This system works rather well in a rather large number of countries, in both the old and new world. AND IT IS NOT COMMUNISM. Britain, on whose system Canada is modeled, is a monarchy (which is about as far off Communism as one can get!), Canada is a colony, and Ecuador is a Republic (just like the US, really - our basic constitution is modeled on yours!).

Social benefit does not create a welfare state - if it did, Canada's unemployment rate would be much higher than that of the US. (and I use these two countries because their economies are similar in scale and type.) But it isn't - in fact, in Canada it's currently much lower. There is nothing at all scary or shameful about protecting the vulnerable sections of your population.

Here's the thing:
(and probably the thing that will get me yelled at...)

As the US economy is based almost in its entirety upon killing and destruction, there is perhaps an understandable reluctance to divert some of the (immense!) budget towards programs designed to help people. You're simply not in that business. A peaceful resolution to anything is not the first thing your government traditionally seeks. Thanks to the system of lobbyists and the parallel system of corporate appointments, politicians can be counted on to continue supporting the military-industrial complex. Your own Pres. Truman warned you about this exact situation and was completely ignored.

Your country has a history of revolution. Perhaps it's time.