The Great Depression of Today

[laglaeske]

You know how like recently we've had a sort of great recession. From reading and hearing in class about how people felt that democracy was failing during the Great Depression. Hitler completely removed democracy once elected chancellor & became Der Führer then boosted the German economy back into temporary health. Today, however, i don't see a similar trend. The rights to speak, to vote, to privacy, association, religious practice, etc. are all held to a transcendant value. Is this because democracy today is more of the model for the world to look at? Or because that the tragedies of more authoritarian gov.'ts made precedent for the future?

Personally, i feel that some of the more conservative policies in Canadian gov.'t could follow a more American model, i.e. elected senate, more autonomous provinces, only two political parties, etc.
And vice-versa as well, i.e. "socialist" (not communist) type economy, protection of people from corporations, changing the right to bear arms into a restricted privilege to bear arms, etc.

[Mr. Delainey]

I actually like the idea of having more than two political parties.

In the USA, Americans have the option of voting Republican and Democrat. One of the more recent allegations levied against both parties is they both play to the special interest and lobby groups; that is, technically speaking they are supposed to be at different points on the political spectrum but in practice they're both beholden to "big money" and "corporate interests".

If there were a third party, a socialist-minded party, then this would force the other two parties to jockey with one another to gain support. In a two party system (which America is by convention and not by law), there's not enough creative tension between the two parties to establish competitive and innovative platforms. Again, one of the problems affecting the American political system right now is that money talks and both parties are after it (because you need it to win elections).

The last election (2008) seemed somewhat of a departure from money talks. Instead, I think Obama was elected on the basis of promising genuine change. I confess to having been somewhat encouraged by Obama's election because I thought he might address some of the short-comings of the American political system; however, he has been hampered significantly in his attempts at reform by the Republicans who have the filibuster technique to prevent needed reforms to pass into law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

If there were three parties in the USA that occupied seats in Congress, etc. I'm thinking the Filibuster would be less effective of a strategy of one party to block the attempts of the other party to better society.

The weakness of having multiple parties I suppose is it spreads the votes of the electorate across more candidates; therefore, it is more difficult in practice to have a government form a majority. Yet, if you look at this situation in the right way you could argue this: more peoples' interest are represented in a minority government and the political party in power has to share power (therefore find common ground) with other parties. I personally like that--it's not terribly efficient but it creates a certain creative tension that is healthy for a democratic state.