Except that these coalitions never actually change direction, after every election, we're getting more of the same.
Essentially, in the U.S., the political status quo is preserved via hyperpolarization, while it is preserved by excessive depolarization in Germany.

Other countries in Europe have similar problems btw. It took Italy almost 2 decades to get rid of Berlusconi. Spain's and Belgiums politics are perpetually gridlocked by petty, parochial interests. France's political system inches closer and closer to the breaking point with every subsequent election, the UK got brought to the breaking point by Brexit. Poland has the same hyperpolarization as in America. The Netherlands have a dozen parties between 8 and 20% and require 5-party abominations to form coalition governments. Simply put, the state of politics in Europe is not as different and not as much better as it might seem from across the pond.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 8 2020 04:09pm

Holding 30% of the votes isn't insignificant. Unless virtually all the rest want them gone I don't think they should be able to be removed if they were instated with other parties in coalition.

I'm not familiar with European nations and their faults. Is there something pressing in Germany that needs to be addressed that the majority of people want? Sometimes more of the same is a good thing because it shows stability.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/secretary-defense/617330/

Biden op-ed on appointing Lloyd Austin to Secretary of Defense.

The problem is not with being unable to remove the 30% party from the government coalition altogether - but when there is no hope of replacing the chancellor/head of government no matter which coalition is formed after the election, that's an issue.


We have too much stability, leading to stagnation, a lack of reforms and progress, and a continuation of policies which have already been proven to just not work. Furthermore, the climate of depolarization causes important issues and conflicts to be swept under the rug instead of being argued out.

Everyone was sick and tired of Adenauer, it still took many more years before he was replaced. Everyone was sick and tired of Kohl, his own party was already planning a coup against him in 1988 - he still hung in there for 10 more years before being voted out in 1998. Large swaths of the country were sick and tired of Merkel, she still managed to remain in office for 16 years and could probably get another 4 if she hadnt decided to step down after her current term.

I really envy America for the 22nd amendment/the limitation of presidents to two terms.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 8 2020 04:29pm

The operational expertise is the most convincing thing to me. I know a lot of people are upset about Flournoy and she would be better from a vision standpoint. However, the primary objective at the moment is operational efficacy and no one is better for the job than Austin.

A decent article, except for this section:


That's revisionist history. ISIS and the islamist-dominated Syrian opposition were close to overrunning the Assad regime in the summer of 2015. They were only pushed back when the Russians brought in actual boots on the ground. It was the Russian intervention which turned the tide of the Syrian civil war. And it were the Kurds who bore the brunt of the fight against ISIS, who stopped their expansion and lead the charge during the campaign to reconquer ISIS territory. The US only got significantly involved in the campaign against ISIS when the decisive battles had already been won.

Flournoy convinced Obama to intervene in Libya, which was an unmitigated disaster. I dont really know why so many people have a high opinion of her. From the little information I have, Austin seems a far better choice.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 8 2020 05:05pm

https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1336424386551746571



Solid points.

Congress should still grant the waiver in my opinion, but Biden deserves criticism for effectively solidifying the end of this norm/law.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 8 2020 05:15pm

Putting together a coalition of allies and having the backing of a UN security council vote strikes me as the way the US should handle most interventions. Obama acknowledged that the planning for the aftermath was the biggest mistake of his presidency... but I think non-interventionists act as if these decisions are somehow easy calls, when tens or hundreds of thousands of lives are potentially on the line.

Although from her Wikipedia page:



This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 8 2020 05:13pm