Does the 2 party system keep America in favor with the world, yet still powerful?

I am a conservative, and as much as I’d like to say “screw the U.N. & who cares what Europe thinks” I know that having them on our side doesn’t hurt. It seems conservatives (in general) keep this country strong militarily & economically, but our love of capitalism tends to offend much of the world. Europe tends to dislike Bush. But then power changes hands, and liberals run the show. They concentrate on social programs & foreign affairs, and practice a form of government very popular in Europe. Europe tends to love Clinton. Then power changes again…and so on.

So, as much as I’d like capitalism/conservatism to prevail, is it best for our country in the long run to take this dual approach to government? Example: conservatives push hard to eliminate terrorism in Iraq & North Korea - great for the U.S., but tarnishes our reputation with the world. Liberals, once back in power mend these wounds with the world.

Is this the best possible situation for the U.S., or would it be better if one party was in control indefinitely?

I’m not really sure what you’re suggesting with this.

IMHO, if Europeans don’t like capitalism, they can just sit and whine about it like they always do. Fact is, Europe is on the fast track to irrelevancy. Africa and South America are the future, 100 years down the road, they have the most unused resources right now. Europe is old, it’s a has-been, it’s not the center of the universe anymore. Europe has begun its slide towards socialism, and there’s no telling where they’ll stop. It’s silly to think that the US should adopt socialist policies just to gain the favor of Europe, we should do what’s best for us regardless of what some beret-toting intelligentsia sitting in a Paris coffeehouse thinks.

European antagonism is yet to actually hurt us in any way, so I see no need to adjust policy for it. When the discotechque ravers start pouring out of clubs in Dresden and forming terrorist circles to attack us, then maybe we need to pay heed. Until then, it’s really not a factor and shouldn’t be a factor in how we set our policy. What Europe does might work for Europeans, but we have no obligation to mold ourselves to fit the image of what they want us to be anymore than we have a right to tell other nations how to run themselves.

I would personally say that it’s best to have a balance in goverment. I would hate to have conseratives enternally in power just as much as I would hate to have liberals eternally in power. Anything that remains unchecked can become corrupt, and without competition, one side could easily run amuck.

That’s why I rather liked it when control of congress was split. Or back in the Clinton years where the GOP controlled congress, but the Dems had the white house. Neither side could force through an agenda.


When did Rumsfield start posting press releases on SDMB?

I would hate to have a one-party system. It would undoubtedly become corrupt over time.

A one-party system? Hey, man, did we wake up in Russia this morning?

If you’re trying to get the Europeans to like you, it’s a loosing battle. No matter what you do they’d never be happy. They’ll nitpick at everything you do, and if you even start to be perfect, they’ll just fall back on old American stereotypes to make fun of you.

The reality is, they couldn’t care less what type of government you practice, they hate you for being arrogant and colonialistic. If you really care what other people think about you, those are the things you should be working on.

The Europeans hate us for being colonialistic? I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. Maybe both. How pathetic.

As to the OP, the multi-party system is good for our own internal political health, I don’t think it matters at all to the rest of the world.

I think it is odd that you think of liberals as looking to foreign policy and conservatives as focusing on domestic issues. Usually I have them reversed in my mind. YMMV.

Maybe they’re not mad at your for being colonialistic, just bitter because their heyday is over.

Regular changes of power, and shifts in policy, are good for any society. This has nothing to do with its foreign relations.

Even if you thingk that the Republicans are generally right, unless you’re astonishingly stupid you’ll have to agree that they’re not always right. Having to justify their policies to Democrats and Democratic supporters can only be a good thing for Republicans, and if there was no prospect of the Democrats ever wielding power or influence, this mechanism wouldn’t work.

Exactly the same goes if you are a Democrat.

Europeans frequently disagree with policy positions adopted by US governments (as, indeed, do Americans). That doesn’t mean that Europeans are antagonistic to the US. The whole point about national independence is that different nations can do things different ways, according to their own judgment of what best suits their circumstances.

Forgive my European ignorance, but from these parts it’s sometimes hard to see a two-party system at all. At one extreme, the choice of President seems to be between one millionaire from a patrician family and…another.
At the other extreme, it’s sometimes difficult to see how some Senators and Congressmen can be in the same party - there seem to be some liberal Republicans and some very conservative Democrats.
I’ll admit, it seems to work most of the time, though.