Canadian stuff

[Diogenes]

I wish I understood the reason that liberals have gone so authoritative in the past few years. Is it as simple as they think they are smarter than us and our lives would be better if they controlled them?

I certainly think they think our lives would be "better" if they controlled our lives. I would say they've simple moved from hyper-partisan activism outside of government to hyper-partisan using the government.

[mossrose]

I certainly think they think our lives would be "better" if they controlled our lives. I would say they've simple moved from hyper-partisan activism outside of government to hyper-partisan using the government.

In the end, they don't care about us. They just want our money.

[Diogenes]

In the end, they don't care about us. They just want our money.

I think it's more about control than just money per se.

[Starlight]

I wish I understood the reason that liberals have gone so authoritative in the past few years. Is it as simple as they think they are smarter than us and our lives would be better if they controlled them?

Well if you really wanted to answer the motives question, you could look at specific incidents and compare the liberal responses to similar incidents previously and look at the differences in the responses and in the reasoning given.

I have a suspicion such an analysis would likely disprove your assume that liberals had got more authoritative.

[Diogenes]

Well if you really wanted to answer the motives question, you could look at specific incidents and compare the liberal responses to similar incidents previously and look at the differences in the responses and in the reasoning given.

I have a suspicion such an analysis would likely disprove your assume that liberals had got more authoritative.

Openly calling for sweeping legislation to be enacted by executive fiat is rather authoritative. If the GOP had done anything like that under Trump, the Nazi comparisons would be endless.

[Starlight]

Openly calling for sweeping legislation to be enacted by executive fiat is rather authoritative.

What are you referring to?

[Diogenes]

What are you referring to?

I find it funny that you would be unable to recall a member of Congress openly advocating dictatorial power, but it was a progressive doing it, so it's okay to memory-hole. In fact, I've just learned that the Progressive had 7 pages of recommendations for executive action, thank you for being a catalyst for that. I thought you were an expert on the US.

[Starlight]

I find it funny that you would be unable to recall a member of Congress openly advocating dictatorial power

Asking you what you are referring to when you make a vague statement isn't an indication I've forgotten anything, it's an indication you need to write clearer posts so people reading them know what you are talking about.

Also, this is a thread about Canada, why are you talking about US things?

I thought you were an expert on the US.

This is a thread about Canada.

[Ronson]

In the end, they don't care about us. They just want our money.

And to control.

[Starlight]

I find it funny that you would be unable to recall a member of Congress openly advocating dictatorial power, but it was a progressive doing it, so it's okay to memory-hole.

I do agree that the US Presidential system is inherently too dictatorial and gives a single individual far too much power and makes them largely unaccountable, even to other members of their own party. I would say that the Canadian parliamentary system is superior in nearly all respects.

As Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau's personal power is checked by the other members of his own party, as well as, currently, by members of a second political party as well. Trudeau, by inherent design of the system, does not wield remotely the level of unaccountable personal power that Biden wields in the US. Likely for this reason we have seen, historically, 100% of the other countries that based their political system on the US model (of which there were a lot), fell into dictatorships. Whereas parliamentary systems have a history of being much more stable. Where they hit times of turbulence they typically end up having a lot of elections, so the populace keeps having to go to the polls, but they're not prone to strong-man dictatorships remotely as much as Presidential systems are.

So as much as Mossrose might hate Trudeau and feel he is passing bad laws and making bad decisions, he's not doing it without the support of the majority of other elected politicians. She might feel persecuted, but he's not being a dictator in the way historians / political scientists would use the term because he's not personally declaring laws into existence and isn't being entirely unaccountable to others. He needs the support of the rest of the democratically elected politicians in his party (and a second party) to do the things he's doing, so he's acting as a democratic leader.

[Diogenes]

I do agree that the US Presidential system is inherently too dictatorial and gives a single individual far too much power and makes them largely unaccountable, even to other members of their own party. I would say that the Canadian parliamentary system is superior in nearly all respects.

I have no problem with the President acting unilaterally within the administration of the Executive Branch. The larger problem is that Congress has overtime surrendered power to the Executive branch. Openly calling for legislation that could not pass Congress to be done so be executive fiat is a hallmark of authoritarianism and yet it's memory-holed because it was the chair of the Progressive Caucus that did so.

As Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau's personal power is checked by the other members of his own party, as well as, currently, by members of a second political party as well. Trudeau, by inherent design of the system, does not wield remotely the level of unaccountable personal power that Biden wields in the US. Likely for this reason we have seen, historically, 100% of the other countries that based their political system on the US model (of which there were a lot), fell into dictatorships. Whereas parliamentary systems have a history of being much more stable. Where they hit times of turbulence they typically end up having a lot of elections, so the populace keeps having to go to the polls, but they're not prone to strong-man dictatorships remotely as much as Presidential systems are.

So as much as Mossrose might hate Trudeau and feel he is passing bad laws and making bad decisions, he's not doing it without the support of the majority of other elected politicians. She might feel persecuted, but he's not being a dictator in the way historians / political scientists would use the term because he's not personally declaring laws into existence and isn't being entirely unaccountable to others. He needs the support of the rest of the democratically elected politicians in his party (and a second party) to do the things he's doing, so he's acting as a democratic leader.

You seem to forget Hitler operated within the confines of the German Parliament. The Enabling Act is what gave Hitler his power. If wish to say that those countries fell into dictatorship solely due to a presidential system, be my guest, but you'll have to account for and exclude other failures of those states that had nothing to do with the structure of the presidential system itself. We could get into Trudeau's govt freezing bank accounts of protestors, something if done to the Left or BLM protestors would be called authoritarian, but you're one of the last people I'd believe would engage in good faith

[Starlight]

I have no problem with the President acting unilaterally within the administration of the Executive Branch. The larger problem is that Congress has overtime surrendered power to the Executive branch.

FDR fundamentally changed the concept of executive orders, and since then, the scope of Presidential executive orders seems to have been getting more expansive.

Openly calling for legislation that could not pass Congress to be done so be executive fiat is a hallmark of authoritarianism and yet it's memory-holed because it was the chair of the Progressive Caucus that did so.

US Presidents do a lot by executive order these days. As I said above, I think it's a fundamentally flawed systems and that the Canadian system is far superior. The level of caringness I have that someone wanted Biden to pass some executive orders is zero. The system is bad for having executive orders, but, given that it does and that they get used all the time, a person wanting particular ones passed is not bad for wanting that.

You seem to forget Hitler operated within the confines of the German Parliament. The Enabling Act is what gave Hitler his power.

I never said parliamentary democracies can't fail or can't fall into dictatorships. But history shows they do it at a much lower rate than presidential systems.

[Diogenes]

FDR fundamentally changed the concept of executive orders, and since then, the scope of Presidential executive orders seems to have been getting more expansive.

Progressives abusing executive power, how novel.

US Presidents do a lot by executive order these days. As I said above, I think it's a fundamentally flawed systems and that the Canadian system is far superior. The level of caringness I have that someone wanted Biden to pass some executive orders is zero. The system is bad for having executive orders, but, given that it does and that they get used all the time, a person wanting particular ones passed is not bad for wanting that.

I'm quite sure you would have no problem with Build Back Better with progressive priorities being enacted by executive fiat.

I never said parliamentary democracies can't fail or can't fall into dictatorships. But history shows they do it at a much lower rate than presidential systems.

You've yet to detail how the presidential system per se caused the failure and the failures being caused by say cultural reasons since I'm sure most of those failures were in Africa. Strange how that's not mentioned.

[rogue06]

I do agree that the US Presidential system is inherently too dictatorial and gives a single individual far too much power and makes them largely unaccountable, even to other members of their own party. I would say that the Canadian parliamentary system is superior in nearly all respects.

In the last couple of decades Congress has ceded a number of their powers to the president. Basically, it allows them to avoid responsibility for doing things that might not turn out to be popular and could hurt their reelection chances.

The president isn't supposed to be as strong as he currently is but when you have a Congress giving him these powers (and both sides are guilty).

[Starlight]

You've yet to detail how the presidential system per se caused the failure and the failures being caused by say cultural reasons since I'm sure most of those failures were in Africa. Strange how that's not mentioned.

? Central and South America far more than Africa, as far as I am aware.

What typically happens is that congress gridlocks endlessly, the populace get really sick of it, the President offers to act unilaterally to seize power and Get Stuff Actually Done, and the populace is then pleased by this offer and largely supports it, and the President is able to use the military which he has authority over to quell any dissent. The Presidential system inherently makes this possible by: making the President separate to the Congress; giving the President a lot of personal power via the executive branch with a significant amount government staff and military taking orders from him exclusively (and not other politicians) already; and tends to gum up the Congressional works with a two-party system and "checks and balances" that lead to gridlock. Parliamentary systems inherently most some of that, and sometimes all of it, depending on their exact design.