Are we a Democracy or a Republic ? Whats your opinion ?

Hello! Before I discuss I will request you not to upset with present and future America but try your best in making of American Nation.First In USA, Conservatives tend to respond to five moral senses while liberals focus on just two- harm and fairness- in which they have become particularly discerning; but whether it is democratic or republic : The world is not a 'prison house', but a kind of kindergarten, where millions of bewildered infants are trying to spell God with wrong blocks. :[Literature in the Making(1917);Edwin Arlington Robinson(American poet)]. Now let go into the discussion , Purity the final moral sense, is the hardest one for secular liberals to understand, but the psychology of purity isn't necessarily about God; it's the idea, deeply felt by most people that human beings have a nobler, more spiritual self as well as baser, more carnal self. It's the idea that life-both private and communal- should have some higher purpose than the maximisation of pleasure, profit and efficiency. Present president Obama could make greater use of this sense by decraying the degradation and materialism that that have characterised so much American Culture. Once again the economic crisis offers him the opportunity. He has already shown a facility with religious metaphors and narratives of fall and redemption that would resonate with Christian conservatives. He cannot impose moralistic and unconstitutional restrictions on art, movies, commerce, and speech, but he can speak (as most of American Prsidents tried to be done) as a concerned father as a Christian about the ugliness and crassness of pop culture. He can also enact measures to help parents who want to protect their children from exposure to obscenity, violence and advertising.
In thsese ways President Obama can convey to conservatives that, unlike many liberals politicians, he "gets it". He understands that presidency is sacred trust which requires him to guard the identity, order and moral health of the nation. If he can reassure conservatives that he accepts this duty, even as he pursues a generally proressive legislative agenda, he will reduce the odds of a backlash and produce a lasting realignment of the eletoral landscape.Thank you.

We had a referendum on the matter in 1999, but it was lost. The reason for that was that the government not only asked voters whether we agreed with becoming a republic, but included a minimalist option as the means of change.

What I mean by that, is that the recommended way was simply to make the necessary changes to our constitution (which we have had since 1901, by the way) and to rename the position of Governor General to President, and continue to have that post filled by parliamentary appointment rather than by popular election. That is the system Ireland (Southern) has, and it would be my preferred option.

However, the majority of those who are in favour of becoming a republic are for some reason enamoured with the idea of being able to elect their President, while not giving the job any more power than the GG currently has, which includes the power to dismiss a government in exceptional circumstances. Because that option was not included in the referendum, they voted the whole thing down. On hearing the result, Prince Phillip is said to have yelled, "What's wrong with these people? Don't they know what's best for them?".

The problem with the President being elected by the citizens is that the major political parties will then become involved, and a politician will take the job. This could lead to all sorts of constitutional crises if the President were of a different party than that of the Prime Minister and his government. At present, the government of the day selects a suitable candidate for the position of GG from eminent Australians, remembering that the appointee will be our Head of State in situ, and Parliament ratifies that selection.

Personally, I don't care whether or not we become a republic. Our current system has worked excellently since Federation in 1901, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", is my view. Plus, I like being associated with the Queen and royalty in general.

Fair enough. But it does look like an overly complex system and one in which only the super rich, or those backed by the super rich, have any chance of becoming president. There will never again be someone moving direct from a log-cabin existence to the White House.

I'm not going to comment on nitty gritty stuff about the pluses and minuses of your parties because I don't have enough knowledge of them. I will say, however, that I was shocked that the Democrats didn't push through Pres. Obama's original health care plan while they were in the majority in both houses. Actually, bewildered is more appropriate than shocked.

While there is room in our system for multiple parties, as well as independent (nonaligned) members of parliament, the normal reality here is that only one of the two major parties will get the numbers to form government. At the last federal election, however, those two parties ended up with the same number of seats in parliament, and their leaders then had to negotiate with the Greens and the independents to get enough voting numbers to form government.

Our Labor Party, roughly the equivalent of your Democrats, sealed the necessary number of deals but are to some extent now beholden to the minorities and find themselves having to negotiate every piece of proposed legislation with them before putting it before the House (Legislative Assembly) for a vote. So the wheels of government are moving slower than is usual.

The fact that there wasn't a clear winner after the election shows just how disillusioned we average punters have become with both parties and with politicians in general. It's a sad state of affairs.

I recently watched again the speech Robert Kennedy made in Indianapolis the night of MLK's assassination. It was marvellous and is timeless; and I thought, "where have such politicians gone". These days they are all so measured and formulaic, no room for simply having a chat with the people. And that's worldwide, I think.

oh. i don't know. i don't see it as particularly complex. of course, it's the only system that i've ever got to see close up. when the Canadians vote, i watch and consider that quirky.

(shrug)

Jimmy Carter came out nowhere. Obama, literally, did, but he had big money backers from early on.

the democrats are ... not bright. they had just become reinvested in the House and Senate, had wanted to pass Health Care but lacked the political courage to stand up and fight for it.

they needed political 'cover' to get it passed. that way, if it blew up, the republicans would be blamed, too. when they cobbled that piece of crap together, the republicans showed up to add their amendments and so forth and the democrats rejected every single one of them.

at that point the die was cast.


its not really going to matter. the Supreme Court is very likely to overturn the whole thing.


yes. i see that you are backing into a two party system too. its seems money, whether its the australian or american dollar, talks. in Canada, parties rise and fall, so they seem more dynamic than yours or mine.

slow moving wheels of gov't are OK. that's the whole idea of our Senate.. well, not this one. its supposed to require time to get bills through.


RFK. heck. JFK's 'ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country' is almost the exact opposite of Obama blaming the rich for not being 'fair'.

Obama is a mental and political lightweight. i pray every night that we'll be done with him in November...