Published: October 16th 2008 - at 12:15 pm

Now I know that many of you are of the opinion that the influence of certain politicians and public figures are corrosive, but is politics irrideemibly corrupting?

With the increasing likelihood that Barack Obama will win the US Predisential election on November 4th, there is a clear level of expectation that the problems of the world can be fixed – but will they? And if so how? Can we really expect the ground-swell of newly motivated citizen activists to translate into a more inclusive style of politics and better policies, or is this the start of a longer-term shift in the balance of power in which something more fundamental is happening?

The old dictum which states that ‘whoever get the most votes in an election the civil service always wins’ will remain true even if Obama recieves an overwhelming endorsement from the voting public, just as it was true when Blair, Brown and New Labour swept away the Conservatives in 1997. The initial enthusiasm which carried over from the hundred days of immediate reforms after May 1997 melted away as a gradual reassertion of the power of Whitehall began once the newly assembled bureaucrats, technocrats and placemen had got their feet under the table – they hit the ground running, but eventually they ran into a brick wall of their own making.

Gore Vidal addressed this question when he memorably argued “there is only one political party in the U.S., and that is the property party, which essentially is corporate America”. Indeed, we may well ask if it is ever possible that the poor and disenfranchised will be able to make their voice heard when the vast body of the population cannot speak coherently with one voice. Yet is this more down to the structure of political debate than the personalities involved. While many of us look outside ourselves for guidance and leadership to solve our problems, it remains unrealistic to wait for a messiah to drop down from his or her cloud to bail us out. We were able to observe the flaws in such a belief when the stock markets across the world continued to behave erratically, even after George W. Bush took the unusual step of appearing simultaneously on multiple networks to address the nation over concerns about the financial intervention.

Uniquely the US Presidency is the single office which inspires devotion across national boundaries as the most capable saviour to our torments. With Obama as the new incumbent he too will recieve unquestioning adulation from many quarters amounting to an almost religious fervour. He too will be stepping into the job at the centre of the storm. He too will come to be the embodiment of all our renewed hopes.

The US President is still the most powerful person on the planet, but the US Presidency enslaves us with the bombastic rhetoric that its holder is the leader of the free world. The US Presidency is the problem.

Over here on the other side of the Atlantic there is another presidential election going on. You may not have heard about it because it being held by those pesky LibDems. It is a different style of presidential election because it is for a different style of presidency.

What is interesting about their election is that they have thrown up three different candidates with three contrasting platforms. Much of the debate seems to be centring on their desire to get noticed and how to go about doing so, but while you may recognise Mr Cheeky Girl, it is almost certain you won’t know about the Baroness or the recent Conservative defector.

So what is the stir all about? After all they already have a leader. Exactly so, but the platform of the unknown newcomer Chandila Fernando is based on influencing the political direction of the party, while Lembit Opik wants to publically represent their aims and aspirations, and Ros Scott strives to facilitate better communication between the different constituent parts of the organisation.

For an outsider like myself the debate surrounding this minor internal election encapsulates and illustrates the problem Obama (assuming he is victorious) will face after inauguration. He will face an immediate choice between balancing all these competing desires or choosing one at the expense of the others. Because the US Presidency combines the role of Head of State with Head of Government, the incumbent is expected to preside and lead simultaneously. This is a clearly incompatible requirement which is written in to the structure of the US constitution and rigidly confines any ability of the President to manoeuver away from the demands of property holders Gore Vidal ascribes as the corrupting influence on US politics.

So perhaps our own third party actually shows a way forward for the next US President which doesn’t involve the greater concentration of capital, greater centralisation of power and greater subservience to vested interests which have conspired against the will of the people to avoid unnecessary and undesirable foreign entanglements.

While it is doubtful that any serious candidate would campaign for reform of the structural problems of the Presidency for fear of seeming unpatriotic, it is exceedingly unlikely that any successful candidate would be able to reform the institution without carrying an overwhelming mandate for change. So winning isn’t enough for Obama to effect a substantial separation of powers, he must wipe the floor with McCain in order to draw calls to restrain his ability to exert power.

About the author
Thomas is an independent-minded community activist and regular commenter at Liberal Conspiracy. We don't seem to be able to get rid of him, so we thought it probably best to let him write for us.
· Other posts by Thomas


Story Filed Under: Blog ,United States

Reader comments

Reactions: Twitter, blogs

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.