The criticism by many that while the current Administration is screwing the pooch, the opposition doesn’t seem to be offering a lot seems reasonably well taken. I’m sure that to some extent they don’t want to give Rove a target, by the 2006 elections Democrats need to give America something to vote for, not vote against.
One way of doing it would be like in many parliaments - setting up a group of Congresspeople with responsibilities for various fields - basically Cabinet jobs. If there could be some level of agreement on things to be for, it would help a lot in defining the opposition. There can’t be a shadow PM for obvious reasons, unless it were someone with absolutely no ambitions about running for President. If Ted Kennedy didn’t have baggage he might be a good choice.
What do you think? How does it work in Great Britain?
I don’t understand. They can give each other responsibility, but how can they give each other authority? When Kerry tried to imply that he had made “secret” contact with foreign heads of state during the election, that didn’t go over very well…
While I can’t speak for Great Britain, each of the three major opposition parties in Canada has their own shadow cabinet.
I imagine each shadow minister serves to keep the real minister on his/her toes during question period, though beyond that I really couldn’t say what real effect shadow ministers have. I’d hazard a guess that the average Canadian would be hard-pressed to name even one specific member of the Conservative shadow cabinet, much less the NDP or the Bloc.
I don’t think our system would blend well with a shadow government scheme. My understanding of the U.K.'s and Canada’s system is that a shadow government is effectively a governmet in waiting - that when the party wins election, the shadow ministers move into their offices.
Congressmen already have power and authority to define what they want via their committee appointments. It’s just that no two of them agree on the same thing. And part of that is the other difference: there is no party discipline to speak of in the U.S. One of the reasons the Republican Party has been so successful lately is a very unusual, very stong, very united party voice. They haven’t been fragmented, though that may be changing.
I just don’t see how a shadow government would work here.
Definitely no authority. And perhaps the shadow government should be for domestic matters only. I agree that being seen as interfering in diplomacy would not work out well.
It couldn’t be just like a parliamentary shadow cabinet, since those ministers do move in, and on the whole these ones would stay in Congress. It would be more for a highly visible person for the news media to go to for an opposing view, and someone with the responsibility for making policy (that would be a plank in the platform at the next convention.) It might get a bit more exciting because without a PM designate, each person in this could be a feasible presidential candidate.
One more benefit I just thought of - in the 2006 election, how could anyone running as a Democrat promise anything? With a shadow cabinet, there could be a plausible campaign platform, shared by a lot of candidates, to, say, improve health care. The ads paid for by the party should attack the administration, but they have to do more.