Blog Discussion Group Eight
Please answer one question from the following list. Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on November 19 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on November 22.
Britain
1. Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the United States, or vice versa? Is Parliament prime minister more powerful than Congress, or vice versa?
2. How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
3. Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
Mexico
4. To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
5. What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
6. Mexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
Britain
1. Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the United States, or vice versa? Is Parliament prime minister more powerful than Congress, or vice versa?
2. How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
3. Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
Mexico
4. To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
5. What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
6. Mexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
It is difficult to compare the British Prime Minister to the American President because it is similar to comparing apples to oranges. The United States operates on a presidential system, where Britain operates through a parliamentary system. In a presidential system, the leader, the president is elected to serve a fixed term. The power that the president has is limited by the other branches of government and through the constitution. In a parliamentary system the parliament (the legislative body) is elected by the citizens and the Prime Minister is then appointed by the parliament. There is no fixed term for the prime minister, however this means that they have to serve parliament and the country to satisfaction, or they will be removed. In a parliament, the prime minister can be removed from office by what is called "a vote of no confidence". I believe that it is easier for a prime minister to be removed from power than a president, who has to be impeached, which is a much longer process. Although presidential systems and parliamentary systems are both forms of democracy, and in both systems there is an executive branch or a leader. Like I said it is hard to directly compare the leaders in the systems, in terms of power if I had to choose I think that the Prime Minster has more power, because there is not necessarily checks and balances in the same sense, or constitutional limits in the same sense as in a presidential system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you made. One point that stands out to me is when you talked about the prime minster being more likely to be impeached rather than a president. I agree that it could be easier for prime mister to be impeached but it has happen more with U.S. presidents.
DeleteSarah,
DeleteGreat points about presidential impeachment. I would simply add that a prime minister in Britain has more power because of the improved efficiency of government processes and has less obligation at state events, in which, the Queen may preside and the prime minister can worry about government. This in combination with having the specialty position of head of government serves to make the prime minister position, more relevant and effective in governance. However, I think one could say that the position of prime minister has much more fragile power in terms of longevity due to, as you mentioned, the vote confidence condition.
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI would choose being a prime minster of Great Britain. This is because I am in control of my term because it is not fixed unlike in the United States. Instead of having different branches of government. The prime minster has the control to appoint ministers, control of the armed services and power to negotiate treaties and other diplomatic agreements.
What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why
ReplyDeleteBringing Mexico into the free trade agreement (NAFTA) was a good economic idea for all three countries. It quadrupled trade between the three countries from 1993 to 2018 from $290 billion to $1.23 trillion. It also helped the consumers by lowering the prices of goods. This increase in trade was made by eliminating all tariffs between the three countries. It helped shape agreements on international rights for foreign business investors. This lowered the price of commerce and caused more business investors and owners to want to invest in these countries especially small business and Mexico. Lowered tariffs created low import prices this decreased the risk of inflation and allowed the Federal Reserve in the US to keep interest rates low. It helped to create jobs in all locations. Even with the imports. Around 40% of U.S. imports came from but originated with American companies. They helped to make the products then outsourced some parts to Mexico and without the agreement these jobs wouldn't have been created at all. When NAFTA originated US direct investment in Canada and Mexico tripled to $500.9 billion. I believe that NAFTA was a great idea for all countries to increase their economies through increased trade.
https://www.thebalance.com/advantages-of-nafta-3306271
I am going to disagree with you on this one. Sure, the deal has been great for the bosses and capitalists of multi-million dollar companies- but it has been detrimental to workers and consumers. GDP and other measures of "economic growth" primarily gauge capitals rate of return and have no real bearing on the everyday worker except in recessions. Since 1993 workers wages in all three countries have stagnated, while the profits of the bosses have gone up. NAFTA has allowed US countries to close factories, and lay-off workers for cheap unregulated labour in Mexico. NAFTA also has clauses which limit the type of labour restrictions/ protections each country can create because this would hurt the rate of profit. An example of this is how companies from all three countries have relocated to the northern Mexico border area- as this area has notoriously restricted and punished unions and other forms of worker organization. The deal also allowed US companies to exploit and profit off of natural areas that were protected in Mexico and Canada before the deal, and make possible international projects like the Keystone XL pipeline. Mexico and Canada get the benefit of joining the United States to create a dominant capitalist bloc in the global market but the benefits of this have only gone to the capitalists. This is why I think NAFTA should not be celebrated by any worker in North America.
Delete3. Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI would choose to be the President of the United States because I feel it would be a more collaborative experience. A good President will make sure to have the smartest people in every field in his administration and, whether the President knows the answer to a particular question, they can confer with their cabinet and make the best decision they can.
I would have to agree with you. I would rather serve as the President of the U.S. I think I would rather serve as the President as opposed to the PM because I would not have to worry about making anyone mad or upset and worry about being removed, because it is more difficult to remove the president. I think that I would rather be the President because you are the head of the government and the state.
Delete3. If given the choice- I would likely take the job of President. This would give me more job security and I would be one of only a few people who have served in this position. I could also go freely against my party if I wanted to and wouldn't have to worry about being removed if I pissed everyone off. I would also have way more power to appoint judges and fill certain positions based on peoples qualifications and not party affiliation.
ReplyDeleteHello Cade, I would have to say that I agree with taking the job of the President of the United States. The POTUS has more power to do what he/she wants. In this position the POTUS has a lot more security and protection as far as the public is concerned. I also would like to be the commander-in-chief of the U.S Army and have the power to send out troops to outside countries for foreign aid or war.
Delete5. What bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteThis was a good idea. It would have strengthened the economies and created continental interdependence economically and socially. If mutually beneficial agreements about immigration, trade, tariffs, and environmental impacts could have been found, it would have been great. But the deal was not equitable. It failed to consider the available resources and histories of each country going into the deal. Mexico had a decent agricultural system that then failed when American corn saturated the Mexican market. It was cheap because Americans had been growing corn for 20-30 years already creating a surplus in America. This dropped the price of Mexican corn, that is a staple in the diet of the Mesoamerican-Indian groups that dominate the population. Naturally people bought the cheap products from America leading to economic collapse around agriculture in Mexico. This further enhanced unemployment after the rural to urban migration in the latter half of the 20th century. It created a vacuum towards the United States because of it's economic prosperity. This kick started an already burgeoning northern migration from central America to northern Mexico for the industry and factories that were prospering there at a previous time. This essentially blew-up the immigration crisis to the point that it currently resides at and is aided by political and economic ambiguity about immigration in the United States. Combined with the War on Drugs, and the sensitivity around immigration from the Middle East we have reached the point of bigotry taking place on the national political stage in the US and furthering the damage socially, economically and politically created by NAFTA for Mexico and the US.
To consider the agreement from the perspective of the United States, NAFTA made it easier for American products of all sorts to access Mexico and actually incentivized trade and business of this type.
I have gotten some insights on the negative sides of the free-trade agreement deal as it affects Mexico from your response. Do you think that there are any positive effects of the NAFTA deal for the Mexican government? Or do you think that the terms should be re-negotiated?
DeleteNyima,
DeleteFrom my own opinion, I would say that the symbolic nature of the agreement is one that should be celebrated. It was a good idea, but it was one sided in regards to benefits. The goal of international integration in politics is in my opinion the best goal any nation can pursue. A step towards international government; that said, NAFTA was an impressive step towards this direction. But it is a complicated agreement, that was written much like a bill in the US Congress with too many sides to consider. I also think, however, the terms should be re-negotiated. Will that happen? Probably not anytime soon considering the immigration crisis and public ignorance to the cause and effect relationship NAFTA has had on immigration from Mexico.
Well, personally, I would want to serve as the president of the United States because I am more familiar with the history and policies or issues that exists within the U.S. than I do with Great Britain. But if I consider the power or influence in decision-making held between the president of the U.S. and the PM of Great Britain, I would prefer to be the PM; as the PM I have the ability to pass policies I care about easily, as opposed to having to pass the policies through both chambers of Congress in the U.S. legislative process. According to the article by George Tsebelis, “In parliamentary systems the executive (government) controls the agenda, and the legislature (parliament) accepts or rejects proposals, while in presidential systems the legislature makes the proposals and the executive (president) signs or vetoes them” (325). I find it to be so much more convenient having the ability to propose the bills for important issues, rather than risk having them die in the process of its making before I get the chance to sign them into law.
ReplyDelete4. To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
ReplyDeleteIt is incorrect to generalize the behavior of elitism and hierarchy that is present in Mexican politics to other liberal democracies around the world.
Germany stands in clear opposition that the suggestion that elitism and hierarchy are rampant in liberal democracies. Contemporary German politics are very strictly organized and well established, however, they do not necessarily represent elitism in that country. I believe it would require a more specific context to analyze this question further.
The United States, for example, does have elitist tendencies and hierarchical tendencies towards institutionalized racial bias and wealth. It also demonstrates irrational fear of ethnic minorities.
Mexico is a country in which capitalism has before fueled wealth-based hierarchies that then perpetuate elitist hegemony in a class of elite politicians and business people. Corporatism and clientelism have also existed in Mexico. Therefore, I can't speak to the potential political or social legacy of those systems in Mexico today.
2. How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteBoth the prime minister and the president of the U.S are both leaders of their respective government. The U.S. president cannot declare war on other countries, but congress can. In the parliament system, the prime minister can declare war on other countries if it is derived from the crown. The U.S. president can send out troops without congress approval; he is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. How one gets to become a prime minister or president is the big difference. In order to become a prime minister, first the people vote for a local member of parliament to represent the people's hometown. Once you are elected to be the member of parliament that represents their hometown, all the members of parliament meet in London and discuss how they can better the country. Each member of parliament is also a member of a political party. A party is a group of people who believe in the same things. In a general election, people vote for the party they most agree with. Then the party which has the most members of parliament is the one that gets to choose the prime minister. On the the hand, in order to become the president of the U.S., Americans are voting for people called electors in each state. These electors are each supporting a different person to be President. The process is known as the Electoral College. The more people who live in a state, the more electors it has. There are two political parties in U.S. government which are Democrats and Republicans. The candidate with the most electors wins the whole state. Then, the first person to win enough states to reach 270 electoral votes becomes the President.
Great comparison Ellis. If you had the ability to be US President or PM, which would would choose?
DeleteKeely Crawford
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI would go with being a prime minister over the President of the US. As a prime minister I do not have a fixed term and am elected straight out of the legislature according to a previous chapter in Comparative Politics. I can also call elections when I want and systems such as the Judicial and legislature ride in the back seat. I would also choose to be a PM over US President because of all the power and control I would have to do things my way. Unlike the US President who has a fixed term and can be impeached by his/her peers and even the people if I am not mistaken. Sure I would hold power BUT I would have to go through the house for bills to be passed.
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
DeleteI would go with being a prime minister over the President of the US. As a prime minister I do not have a fixed term and am elected straight out of the legislature according to a previous chapter in Comparative Politics. I can also call elections when I want and systems such as the Judicial and legislature ride in the back seat. I would also choose to be a PM over US President because of all the power and control I would have to do things my way. Unlike the US President who has a fixed term and can be impeached by his/her peers and even the people if I am not mistaken. Sure I would hold power BUT I would have to go through the house for bills to be passed.
Keely Crawford