IT'S PARLIAMENTARY MY DEAR WATSON

 

The 1976 Massachusetts Democratic primary was a bit of an outlier for the party – it was won, rather handily, by Washington Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. The eventual nominee and winner of the general election, Jimmy Carter, finished a distant fourth behind Jackson, Morris Udall and George Wallace. However – in one Massachusetts town the results were even more of an outlier. Not only did my hometown (Blandford) make Udall its choice for the Presidential nomination – its second-place choice didn’t even want to be President – they wanted to be Prime Minister.

Robert L. Kelleher was listed as a candidate for President on the Democratic side – but his entire campaign was predicated on the concept of replacing the U.S. model of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) with the British parliamentary model where the leader of the majority party in the legislature was charged with forming a government headed by a prime minister.

Blandford was the only town in the entire country where Kelleher managed to poll so highly. Evidently, in the post-Watergate atmosphere many of the citizens of my hometown would rather do away with the office of President entirely than entrust it to any of the candidates on the ballot.

In a parliamentary system the focus is much more on voting for the party you wish to have in power. While individual candidates are important – they tend to be somewhat secondary to the positions held by the party. In the United States you will often hear someone campaign on the basis that they will “stand up to the party leadership and vote against them if I don’t agree with their position”. In point of fact – for this most recent election – that is the primary position for a number of the candidates. You don’t like tariffs – neither do I. You don’t like the war in Iran – neither do I. You don’t like the Secretary of Defense – Neither do I.

And that’s just the Republicans.

Those sort of things are almost never prominent in a parliamentary election. Candidates who are endorsed by their party are expected to support the party’s positions. This way the voters know what they are getting – a “back bench revolt” is a truly calamitous event, usually prefacing the dissolution of a government and a call for a new election.

The American model is typically most appropriate for our system of government. This is because the Executive (who will be the leader of their party and head of government) is elected separately from the legislature. In the traditional parliamentary system the Prime Minister is (somewhat similar to the Speaker of the House) an actual member of parliament. They are not elected nationally – they stand in their small constituency and are thereafter selected by the other members of parliament within their party to be the leader.

In America the Executive (President) is elected nationally. It is possible for a member of a separate branch of government to go against the Executive’s desire without compromising the legislative priorities in their branch. Examples of this abound. Think of John McCain putting thumbs down on the override of ObamaCare. Of William Fulbright voting against Lyndon Johnson’s Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Of Barry Goldwater leading a delegation to Richard Nixon saying that he could not count on the votes of his own party in an impeachment battle. Of Barney Frank calling for Bill Clinton to resign over the Monica Lewinsky affair. These are all instances of where members of the ruling party told their own leader that they would not follow their dictates. This really could not happen in a parliamentary system without there being a collapse of the government and a new election being held.

What this typically means is that an American election need not have the same degree of reference to party lines as would a parliamentary system.

Typically – but not this year.

This year the system has changed to such an extent that the response “neither do I” has no real validity. Susan Collins would undoubtedly respond to the statement “I don’t like that the President can simply slap a tariff on Canadian exports without reference to the impact on Maine” with exactly that – “Neither do I”. But big deal – obviously there is no appetite in the rest of her party to rein that power in. As long as the Republicans control the Senate there is no capacity to stop the Executive from doing whatever he wishes.

This goes across the board. Don’t like that that Erik Schmitt was able to embarrass himself and the Senate by not knowing the difference between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes? A response of “neither do I” by any Republican is meaningless – as long as they hold the majority they can conduct any hearing they like, however speculative and non-productive (and boy, have they ever).

Don’t like that Pete Hegseth basically conducted a Stalin-like purge of the military, doing away with military men and women who had served their country with distinction for decades? Neither does Roger Wickers, the Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee (who despises Hegseth). Or the aforementioned Collins – who tries to disavow him at every turn. The problem is that Wickers voted to confirm Hegseth and Collins only voted against him when it was clear her vote wasn’t needed. That’s not effectively conducting the check or balance that the legislature is supposed to provide.

Don’t like that the Iran war is dragging into its ninth month? Neither does Rand Paul, seven Republican representatives, Susan Collins (again – no one must be listening Sue) or any number of candidates when confronted on the campaign trail. Yet – last time I looked the war rages on.

Feel that it may not be the best idea to have a Secretary of Health and Human Services whose idea of a well-balanced meal is a hearty portion of roadkill? Neither did Mitch McConnell – who is riding off into the sunset – every other Republican thought RFK Jr was a wonderful choice.

Wondering how Kimberley Guilfoyle ever ended up ambassador to Greece? Well – not a single Republican Senator voted against her – despite the fact that she was allegedly soliciting bribes to pay off her credit card bills. No “Neither do I’s” allowed on that one.

It is clear that this mid-term is an American parliamentary election. The usual checks and balances have proven ineffective – and if you don’t like things like no-bid contracts being awarded to Presidential cronies and relatives, staffers using early drafts of speeches to place bets on futures markets, ambassadorships being pedaled to unqualified appointees – then the option you have is to vote Democratic.

Look – no matter how either side tries to spin this – doing so is not a vote against or for Donald Trump. That referendum will be held in 2028. Whether you support or oppose the President is not the question. This is simply a vote on whether the Republican party has been doing an adequate job of upholding its constitutional mandate. Do you think Congress – the Senate and the House – is working the way it should? If you think they have – let me tell you – you are in an exceedingly small minority.

So why is the election still in question? I would say it’s because people in America are just not used to thinking in a parliamentary fashion. They still see the elections as between individuals – the religion of Abdul El-Sayed being of primary importance as opposed to the control of Congress. The contrariness of Susan Collins being of some impact despite the fact that time and time again it has been shown to be completely ineffective. The loyalty of Ken Paxton being of some benefit to his candidacy despite the fact that when polled on the individual issues Texans – yes Texans – see his actions and positions being contrary to their own. They don’t like the war in Iran or data centers – but the fact that they know – know - Paxton will vote whatever way the administration tells him to doesn’t yet register.

That is why I am calling on Americans to channel their inner 1976 Blandford. Vote to shake up the status quo – you don’t have to love the Democrats – you just have to think that there needs to be a change made. Don’t worry – it doesn’t mean that suddenly Sharia law will govern the courts, that the borders will be opened and Halloween candy handed out at the crossings, that drag queens will take over the kindergartens. What it really means is that the country will get a breather – neither party will be able to do much damage and we can prepare for a true plebiscite in two years’ time when the Presidency, and all it represents, will be at issue.

I don’t know about you – but a breather sounds like a pretty good idea to me.