Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Teach me about the US political process

Logistically, legislatively, is there any reason why they couldn't just legislate a single-payer health care system into place without first seeking broader consensus? I get that it's a bit arrogant and assholic to go around unilaterally doing something that so many people are opposed to, but could they just make it happen if they didn't care about pissing people off and future electability? If not, why not?

6 comments:

Whitney said...

Logistically, if every Democrat in the House and Senate agreed to pass a health dare bill, it could happen. But the first thing to contend with is that the Democratic party isn't all that unified. There are moderates called Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom are opposed to the kind of reform that most Dems are talking about, ie anything close to a public option (scary scary socialism). So getting all of the Democrats, or at least all of the Democratic Senators and enough Democratic Congressmembers, to agree to a single bill would be an obstacle. And then of course there is the reality of the desire to get reelected, and all the shouting, Godwin's-Law-proving, gun-toting protesters (which is strange because protesters are usually liberal) to contend with. But logistically, it's possible. We don't get to kick out our representatives until we vote again.

impudent strumpet said...

So in the US, they don't have any way of making all the party members vote along party lines? Here we have some votes (called free votes) where the members of parliament can vote however they (or, preferably, however their constituents) want, and other votes (whose name slips my mind) where they are required to vote along party lines. I suppose they could break party lines if they wanted to, but it's Not Done and they'd probably get in trouble somehow.

So they don't have any way of doing that in the states?

Whitney said...

There are party leaders who can refuse to support you when you bring up legislation or when you run for reelection. But there's no rule saying that you have to vote along with party lines. That's why almost every sing;e bill is a battlefield. Even Barack Obama, when he was a Senator, occasionally crossed party lines, though he is generally considered a straight-up Democrat.

laura k said...

Parties mean much more in a Parliamentary system.

Republicans tend to be much more unified than the Dems. The Dems have usurped the left (what passes for the left in the US, that is), so they have a broader spectrum. Again, broad in the US context. All the same in the global context.

impudent strumpet said...

So then what is the function of political parties in the US? Here, if you vote for (or vote strategically against) a party, you're saying you want the party's platform (or want to avoid the party's platform, respectively). If in the US they can't make elected representatives vote along party lines, why do they bother to have parties?

laura k said...

I guess because they do vaguely stand for something. But you've hit on one of the many reasons large number of USians don't vote. What they say and what they do have little congruence.