Two notes: (1) This article was written by a State Department Diplomat. (2) You might be better off reading this at the source since the article is extensively backed up via in text links, and I don't have time to recreate that here.
E.U. Dependence Theory: Blame Canada
A few of our Canadian commentators to our post below regarding welfare reform, dependence theory and the E.U. noted that the phenomena we described could be markedly observed in Canada, where the ruling Liberal Party and the smart set commentariat at the CBC use the term "American-style" as an insult. Certainly, anti-Americanism is as institutionalized in Canada as it is anywhere; it appears to most neutral observers that the Canadian political class spends an untoward amount of time America-bashing. (Generals Claire and Jenny are, of course, pre-emptively exempted from any Canadian-bashing that takes place below).
We are embarrassed, to say the least, to have fallen victim at the starting gate to this most American of afflictions whereby Canada appears to disappear completely. Herein lies a cautionary tale, a tale of the profound difference between the Parliamentary and the Presidential Systems, a difference which threatens to tear the Anglosphere asunder, as well as a tale of dependence theory at work. We plan tonight to address some of the comments left on this topic below, using Canada as our example.
The Parliamentary System
The key to understanding the split in the Anglosphere (which runs roughly with the U.S., U.K. and Australia on one side and Canada and New Zealand on the other) is to understand the overwhelming power inherent in the person of the Prime Minister. Since under this system the entire executive is derived from the legislature, the PM, by definition, has a working majority--either outright or through coalition--in Parliament. In practice, what this means is that whatever legislation the Government wants, the government gets. In addition, the PM usually more or less controls appointments to the Upper Houses (Lords, Senate, etc), though not always. Finally, in many Parliamentary System governments the judiciary is either formally housed in the legislature (Law Lords) or the PM has functional control over almost all judicial appointments (Canada's PM).
The end result is a system which provides for crystal clear results: "vote for us, Party X, and we will enact the Super Party X Platform in its entirety, appoint only Super Party X Platform supporters to the courts, and, in five years or less, you can either keep us or toss us all out of power." This is one reason why the party platform is an extremely important document if you're the Liberal Party and a completely insignificant one if you're the Democratic Party.
This short summary is, of course, an over-generalization (we could go on for hours about the myriad ways in which the executive in Britain is hemmed in by the British Constitution, but we're afraid Labour will have ditched it by the time we've finished), but in general the Parliamentary System produces strong executives, compliant legislatures and a like-minded judiciary.
The Presidential System
By contrast, the Presidential System seeks to diffuse power and keep the three branches of government as independent centers of power, each a king in its own realm. While the U.S. is often held up as a model for this system, other nations, such as France, have their own versions, hybrid though it may be. Under this system, the President is not a member of the legislature and is elected directly or indirectly by popular franchise. Thus, the President is usually not able to call up legislation made-to-order, but, rather, has to engage legislative leaders in the usual give and take. Also, typically, this system is marked by a more aggressively independent judiciary.
This system has a major disadvantage in that, unlike the parliamentary model, the public at large is often unsure who to blame for failed policies and/or missed opportunities. Even when the presidency and the legislature are controlled by the same parties, the President often blames the Congress, which in turn blames the President, while both blame the courts. However, this system has one beautiful shining diamond of an advantage, which we have to go all the way back to 1968 to fully appreciate.
1968 and All That
All the countries of the Anglosphere, like the rest of the Western world, experienced the social and political upheavals of the 1960's, which culminated around the world (or at least in the world's imagination) in 1968. During this time a politically and socially liberal tidal wave crashed over the institutions of the Western governments. As one would expect, each nation took in the radical changes in the public's viewpoints in unique ways.
However, one generalization can be readily made: in the countries where the Parliamentary System was in place and the 1968 Generation constituted a politically significant vote bloc, the 1968 Generation was able to institutionalize itself. For all intents and purposes, the counter-culture became the new establishment, especially in Canada since the geographic focal point of the new wave held the political balance of power. And since the Parliamentary System enabled full-scale platform enactment, the practical scope of the opposition was minor at best. While old-school values and their political standard-bearers would not disappear, and some even eventually returned to power, the fact is that the Government of Canada is the 1960's incarnate, and the Parliamentary System enabled (and enables) the complete shut-out of the opposition, as any sad Western Canadian with his head screwed on straight can tell you.
In those other Western countries lucky enough to have populations where 1968 ideology never fully took hold (Australia) or where the Presidential System diffused the passions of the moment and forced the new wave to compromise with other constituencies (the United States), the 68'ers became just another political bloc, like any other. In the U.S. you can find 68'ers in the Presidency (Bill Clinton), in the Senate (Hillary Clinton), in the judiciary (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), in the press, in business and, well, everywhere; but, unlike in Canada, they have to compete with other ideological blocs for votes and influence.
The end result is an Anglosphere-wide rift between those countries where the 68'ers, for various reasons, have failed to win control of the political machinery (though they may take power from time to time) and those in which the ideologies of the late 1960's/early 1970's have been more or less institutionalized (see, for example, the entire jurisprudence of the Canadian Supreme Court).
1968 Ideology and Dependence Theory
Where this all comes to a head is the behavior of the Government of Canada since the Trudeau permiership which marked the sizing of the state by the 1960's generation in Canada. As Canada fell more and more from the "reliable Cold War partner and WWII ally" to the "hip, hanging with Castro and bragging about peacekeeping operations" Canada we know today, Canada simply dropped off Washington D.C.'s radar. And, as its responsibilities were lifted from its shoulders, Canada became increasingly free to engage in a kind of politics more akin to that of a major university's English department than that of a serious power. (As the great Mark Steyn and David Frum would be happy to explain to you). Interestingly, from a State Department perspective, Canada's move from the EUR bureau to the WHA bureau more-or-less mirrored this demotion in importance in American eyes.
Over the past 25 years, Canada has been increasingly relieved of duties (we even stopped inviting them to NORAD conferences after Sept. 11) and, correspondingly, has grown increasingly shrill in its anti-Americanism. Totally and completely dependent on the United States for its economy and national security, reduced in fact to status of junior partner in a joint North American enterprise, the once-great Dominion has nearly gone mad politically railing against its powerlessness.
If we ever are to reclaim our northern cousins, and re-gain a valuable ally, we would have to re-integrate Canada in important world duties (in this instance, naval almost exclusively). Were Canada's navy responsible in and around Korea or in the Asian sea-lanes, its government would inevitably have to forfeit the empty anti-American soundbite in favor of reasoned, balanced policy.
Ceding Responsibility: Always Not in the Best Interest of the United States
Which brings us back where we started: how to cede responsibility for important world tasks, such as securing Gulf oil, keeping the peace in Europe or rebuilding Iraq to nations which are in full grip of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Many commentators made this point below; for example, my personal favorite, from Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline FSO (note: isn't that a Kraftwerk song?) noted:
"Let's face it, the reason we do so much to maintain open shipping lanes in Asian waters and so forth is that it is most assuredly in the interests of the US to do so. We benefit directly from global peace and free commerce, so we do lotsa stuff that doesn't seem, on the surface, to be our responsibility. Dare we trust, oh, um, I'll say completely at random, THE FRENCH, with any serious responsibilities? What happens to us during the time that it takes the rest of the world to learn to be responsible adults once more? I shudder at the prospect. And there it is. That is how the left (Euro and otherwise) knows that they can continue to carp and gloat as they do. They rightly foresee an endless source of ridicule for their self-righteous moral exhibitionism because they know the US will always be around to clean up the spilled cookies and milk and restock the fridge."
KKTFSFSO is, of course, exactly right. But one thing is overlooked; we are not of infinite power, nor do we have infinite resources. It is assuredly in the U.S. interest to do that "lotsa stuff that doesn't seem, on the surface, to be our responsibility." I never intended to argue, nor would I, that the U.S. patrols the seas, guards the skies, keeps the peace in Europe and Korea, and, now, is rebuilding a major Middle Eastern power simply because we're good guys who like to do good work.
Hell no. We do all those things because we are good guys and, also, because it is in our national interest to do them. Problem is, the list of things we could do in our interest is nearly-infinite. Yes, giving up some of them in the hope that others will fill the vacuum affects us, but, over-all, the ceding of some world responsibility in order to instill responsibility (and thus gain better allies) in other nations is the only possible solution in a world where, like it or not, the U.S. cannot "go it alone" forever, if only for domestic reasons. In addition, the task I see ahead of us is engaging first in partnerships, so that we're able to fill in should the other powers back-slide.
Only when the minor powers realize the the U.S. is ready, willing and able to walk away from Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo and, yes, Iraq, will they begin to act as if they have a stake in these matters. It is not in our short-term interest to walk away from any of these and a case could always be made about how each is "critical" to U.S. policy; long-term, however, the U.S. simply cannot be (and probably cannot domestically keep on being) the only power willing to use power in the world in defense of the West and its values. Right now the U.S. has the worst of all possible worlds: absolute responsibility without absolute power. The situation is untenable and calls for inventive, creative diplomacy. We'll see where Condi leads us.
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/01/eu-dependence-theory-blame-canada.html
E.U. Dependence Theory: Blame Canada
A few of our Canadian commentators to our post below regarding welfare reform, dependence theory and the E.U. noted that the phenomena we described could be markedly observed in Canada, where the ruling Liberal Party and the smart set commentariat at the CBC use the term "American-style" as an insult. Certainly, anti-Americanism is as institutionalized in Canada as it is anywhere; it appears to most neutral observers that the Canadian political class spends an untoward amount of time America-bashing. (Generals Claire and Jenny are, of course, pre-emptively exempted from any Canadian-bashing that takes place below).
We are embarrassed, to say the least, to have fallen victim at the starting gate to this most American of afflictions whereby Canada appears to disappear completely. Herein lies a cautionary tale, a tale of the profound difference between the Parliamentary and the Presidential Systems, a difference which threatens to tear the Anglosphere asunder, as well as a tale of dependence theory at work. We plan tonight to address some of the comments left on this topic below, using Canada as our example.
The Parliamentary System
The key to understanding the split in the Anglosphere (which runs roughly with the U.S., U.K. and Australia on one side and Canada and New Zealand on the other) is to understand the overwhelming power inherent in the person of the Prime Minister. Since under this system the entire executive is derived from the legislature, the PM, by definition, has a working majority--either outright or through coalition--in Parliament. In practice, what this means is that whatever legislation the Government wants, the government gets. In addition, the PM usually more or less controls appointments to the Upper Houses (Lords, Senate, etc), though not always. Finally, in many Parliamentary System governments the judiciary is either formally housed in the legislature (Law Lords) or the PM has functional control over almost all judicial appointments (Canada's PM).
The end result is a system which provides for crystal clear results: "vote for us, Party X, and we will enact the Super Party X Platform in its entirety, appoint only Super Party X Platform supporters to the courts, and, in five years or less, you can either keep us or toss us all out of power." This is one reason why the party platform is an extremely important document if you're the Liberal Party and a completely insignificant one if you're the Democratic Party.
This short summary is, of course, an over-generalization (we could go on for hours about the myriad ways in which the executive in Britain is hemmed in by the British Constitution, but we're afraid Labour will have ditched it by the time we've finished), but in general the Parliamentary System produces strong executives, compliant legislatures and a like-minded judiciary.
The Presidential System
By contrast, the Presidential System seeks to diffuse power and keep the three branches of government as independent centers of power, each a king in its own realm. While the U.S. is often held up as a model for this system, other nations, such as France, have their own versions, hybrid though it may be. Under this system, the President is not a member of the legislature and is elected directly or indirectly by popular franchise. Thus, the President is usually not able to call up legislation made-to-order, but, rather, has to engage legislative leaders in the usual give and take. Also, typically, this system is marked by a more aggressively independent judiciary.
This system has a major disadvantage in that, unlike the parliamentary model, the public at large is often unsure who to blame for failed policies and/or missed opportunities. Even when the presidency and the legislature are controlled by the same parties, the President often blames the Congress, which in turn blames the President, while both blame the courts. However, this system has one beautiful shining diamond of an advantage, which we have to go all the way back to 1968 to fully appreciate.
1968 and All That
All the countries of the Anglosphere, like the rest of the Western world, experienced the social and political upheavals of the 1960's, which culminated around the world (or at least in the world's imagination) in 1968. During this time a politically and socially liberal tidal wave crashed over the institutions of the Western governments. As one would expect, each nation took in the radical changes in the public's viewpoints in unique ways.
However, one generalization can be readily made: in the countries where the Parliamentary System was in place and the 1968 Generation constituted a politically significant vote bloc, the 1968 Generation was able to institutionalize itself. For all intents and purposes, the counter-culture became the new establishment, especially in Canada since the geographic focal point of the new wave held the political balance of power. And since the Parliamentary System enabled full-scale platform enactment, the practical scope of the opposition was minor at best. While old-school values and their political standard-bearers would not disappear, and some even eventually returned to power, the fact is that the Government of Canada is the 1960's incarnate, and the Parliamentary System enabled (and enables) the complete shut-out of the opposition, as any sad Western Canadian with his head screwed on straight can tell you.
In those other Western countries lucky enough to have populations where 1968 ideology never fully took hold (Australia) or where the Presidential System diffused the passions of the moment and forced the new wave to compromise with other constituencies (the United States), the 68'ers became just another political bloc, like any other. In the U.S. you can find 68'ers in the Presidency (Bill Clinton), in the Senate (Hillary Clinton), in the judiciary (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), in the press, in business and, well, everywhere; but, unlike in Canada, they have to compete with other ideological blocs for votes and influence.
The end result is an Anglosphere-wide rift between those countries where the 68'ers, for various reasons, have failed to win control of the political machinery (though they may take power from time to time) and those in which the ideologies of the late 1960's/early 1970's have been more or less institutionalized (see, for example, the entire jurisprudence of the Canadian Supreme Court).
1968 Ideology and Dependence Theory
Where this all comes to a head is the behavior of the Government of Canada since the Trudeau permiership which marked the sizing of the state by the 1960's generation in Canada. As Canada fell more and more from the "reliable Cold War partner and WWII ally" to the "hip, hanging with Castro and bragging about peacekeeping operations" Canada we know today, Canada simply dropped off Washington D.C.'s radar. And, as its responsibilities were lifted from its shoulders, Canada became increasingly free to engage in a kind of politics more akin to that of a major university's English department than that of a serious power. (As the great Mark Steyn and David Frum would be happy to explain to you). Interestingly, from a State Department perspective, Canada's move from the EUR bureau to the WHA bureau more-or-less mirrored this demotion in importance in American eyes.
Over the past 25 years, Canada has been increasingly relieved of duties (we even stopped inviting them to NORAD conferences after Sept. 11) and, correspondingly, has grown increasingly shrill in its anti-Americanism. Totally and completely dependent on the United States for its economy and national security, reduced in fact to status of junior partner in a joint North American enterprise, the once-great Dominion has nearly gone mad politically railing against its powerlessness.
If we ever are to reclaim our northern cousins, and re-gain a valuable ally, we would have to re-integrate Canada in important world duties (in this instance, naval almost exclusively). Were Canada's navy responsible in and around Korea or in the Asian sea-lanes, its government would inevitably have to forfeit the empty anti-American soundbite in favor of reasoned, balanced policy.
Ceding Responsibility: Always Not in the Best Interest of the United States
Which brings us back where we started: how to cede responsibility for important world tasks, such as securing Gulf oil, keeping the peace in Europe or rebuilding Iraq to nations which are in full grip of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Many commentators made this point below; for example, my personal favorite, from Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline FSO (note: isn't that a Kraftwerk song?) noted:
"Let's face it, the reason we do so much to maintain open shipping lanes in Asian waters and so forth is that it is most assuredly in the interests of the US to do so. We benefit directly from global peace and free commerce, so we do lotsa stuff that doesn't seem, on the surface, to be our responsibility. Dare we trust, oh, um, I'll say completely at random, THE FRENCH, with any serious responsibilities? What happens to us during the time that it takes the rest of the world to learn to be responsible adults once more? I shudder at the prospect. And there it is. That is how the left (Euro and otherwise) knows that they can continue to carp and gloat as they do. They rightly foresee an endless source of ridicule for their self-righteous moral exhibitionism because they know the US will always be around to clean up the spilled cookies and milk and restock the fridge."
KKTFSFSO is, of course, exactly right. But one thing is overlooked; we are not of infinite power, nor do we have infinite resources. It is assuredly in the U.S. interest to do that "lotsa stuff that doesn't seem, on the surface, to be our responsibility." I never intended to argue, nor would I, that the U.S. patrols the seas, guards the skies, keeps the peace in Europe and Korea, and, now, is rebuilding a major Middle Eastern power simply because we're good guys who like to do good work.
Hell no. We do all those things because we are good guys and, also, because it is in our national interest to do them. Problem is, the list of things we could do in our interest is nearly-infinite. Yes, giving up some of them in the hope that others will fill the vacuum affects us, but, over-all, the ceding of some world responsibility in order to instill responsibility (and thus gain better allies) in other nations is the only possible solution in a world where, like it or not, the U.S. cannot "go it alone" forever, if only for domestic reasons. In addition, the task I see ahead of us is engaging first in partnerships, so that we're able to fill in should the other powers back-slide.
Only when the minor powers realize the the U.S. is ready, willing and able to walk away from Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo and, yes, Iraq, will they begin to act as if they have a stake in these matters. It is not in our short-term interest to walk away from any of these and a case could always be made about how each is "critical" to U.S. policy; long-term, however, the U.S. simply cannot be (and probably cannot domestically keep on being) the only power willing to use power in the world in defense of the West and its values. Right now the U.S. has the worst of all possible worlds: absolute responsibility without absolute power. The situation is untenable and calls for inventive, creative diplomacy. We'll see where Condi leads us.
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/01/eu-dependence-theory-blame-canada.html