Voting Day

[DeistPaladin]

As an outsider, I find the circus of US domestic politics fascinating and and intrigued by the notion being able to have a president whose party does not have a majority in the lower house. Under our parliamentary system the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the party or coalition with a majority.He/ she can be removed at any time by the party.That happened here a few months ago. We do not have the concept of a 'lame duck'.

I once explained to some British colleagues at the time of the 1994 election (when Clinton faced a Republican sweep in congress) that our system was based heavily on theirs. The president isn't our prime minister, that would be the speaker of the House. Our president is essentially an elected king. The powers of the White House are virtually identical to the powers that King George enjoyed at the time of the revolution.

The conflict in England between king and parliament is reflected in current day struggles in America between president and congress. When the president has a friendly party in control, he can get things done. Otherwise, he has a difficult time and has to negotiate carefully.

For all our bitching about the tyranny of Mother England, it didn't take long for us to fall into similar ways of doing things. We spent several years with the dysfunctional "Articles of Confederation" before we had our Constitutional Convention and essentially said, "um, how did mom run things?". It's a little like the rebellious teen who eventually becomes like the parent. "Apple doesn't fall far from the tree" as we say.

Now technically, we did make a few changes. There was some debate over the powers of the president. It was decided to spin the Supreme Court out into its own branch of government. In England at the time, the king was also the supreme judge and could be the final arbiter of difficult cases.

Another change was the pomp and ceremony of royalty was taken out of the office. There was also some debate about that. John Adams suggested the president be addressed as "his majesty". For a time, the president had a lesser title, something along the lines of "his excellency". Thomas Jefferson was the first to coin the term "Mr. President" to establish the concept of "first among equals".

Perhaps the biggest change was putting it all in stone in a Constitution. British government has changed over time. They have no equivalent to the 4th of July (say, like a Magna Carta day) because for them, democracy came piecemeal, with power shifting over time from king to House of Lords to House of Commons. The stereotype is that British are traditional and Americans enterprising but, politically, the reverse is true. America reveres the constitution like it's a religious document, penned by God Itself. The founders are seen with such sentimentality as to make them like demigods.

Also as an outsider,I've been underwhelmed by Obama from the very beginning

History may view this presidency as a missed opportunity. Obama struck me as an insecure kid who thinks he can buy the love of others and made the critical error of wanting to be liked by everyone. Yes, he's accomplished some historic things but so much more could have been done with a little tougher negotiation and better message management to the people.

My feeling is the Democrats will be handed their heads in this election,leaving Obama a lame duck,one term president.

The same was once said of Clinton. We'll see. The Republicans seem even nuttier now than in 1994. The next two years are going to be a bumpy ride.