Politics

[Zachris]

I just ended one of my daily Skype discussions with my FSUW. Since I live in Wisconsin and today is recall election day that became relevant in my answer to her "what did you do today" question. However, I found it difficult to explain the concept of a recall election.

I do not want this thread to devolve into the relative merits of the Wisconsin recall (although I am surprised that this topic has not arisen on our forum).

However, how do you describe (or do you describe) the political process in your country to your FSUW? Of course, I am most interested in how to explain the US political system, but the politics of other Western democracies can be included in this general discussion.

I am not talking about specific political issues (although we could include that if you want) but rather the political process. For example, how do you explain the process of a recall election?

For the record, Svetlana has a habit of changing the subject when it becomes clear that we are not explaining things well to each other. So, this topic got dropped. But, I am wondering how to best approach in the future.

The floor is now open. . .

[Slumba]

It is an election used to remove someone from office, right?  I would guess that focusing on the removal, would be the part to emphasize.

[Zachris]

It is an election used to remove someone from office, right?  I would guess that focusing on the removal, would be the part to emphasize.

While technically correct, that is an overly simplistic summary of what is occurring in Wisconsin right now. The concept of holding an election to remove someone from office is the part that requires a little bit more discussion.

However, while the recall was the example that raised the question for me, I was also thinking about this issue in a more general sense. How do you explain, or do you explain, the political process in your country?

Sex, religion and politics. The three forbidden topics.

There have been threads that discussed how to deal with the first two topics with FSUWs, but I have seen none on the third.

While it has only been a few hours, I am amazed at the silence.

[Slumba]

My view - women's political views are rarely something she will heavily defend - this goes double or triple for someone not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of American politics.

[Larry]

In my experience, very few FSUW I have known well were much interested in US politics.  If other guys' experience matches mine, perhaps that explains the silence.  Some were, however, passionate about politics in their own countries.  For example, during the last election in Belarus my then-girlfriend was really animated about the situation, and was disgusted that Lukashenko won.

If I were dating a FSUW who expressed any interest in US politics, I would tailor my explanation to her interest level.  If she had only a passing interest, I wouldn't bore her with an in-depth explanation, but if her interest level was high, then I would get into more detail.  Eyes can quickly glaze over when subjected to a lengthy explanation of arcane political process.

As an aside, the two RW I have known well-enough to ask about Russian elections both supported Putin.

[Manny]

As a general rule, I find women's eyes glaze over when discussing foreign politics.

In much of the FSU, politics and those involved in it are often criminal and corrupt. My wife's view after half a dozen or so years living here is ours is similarly corrupt and criminal but we hide it better and call it by different names. 

She fails to see the difference in British ministers grinning on Russian oligarch's yachts, blokes putting castle moat maintenance and duck houses on expenses, and Blair - a war criminal to some - being made middle east 'peace' envoy while Putin is criticised for improving Russia.

I have heard from several Russians that they think Russia is a clearer political system because everyone knows everyone else is on the take and the bloke in the big chair will end up with a mansion and a Mercedes come what may. The media are influenced and votes rigged, and everyone knows about it.

In the west, there is more hand wringing and public displays of honesty, but still US presidents are getting quiet BJ's under their desks, Prince Andrew sells run down houses to shady Kazakh companies for many fold their value and open the newspaper this (or any) week and another British minister is grinning surrounded by champagne and girls on another Russian yacht.

How is stuff like Enron and Madoff different to blokes at Aftovaz and Gazprom shovelling out cash for their own use? It isn't.

How is the ultra left, multi ethnic, PC happy clappy BBC given powers to tax every house in the country as long as it sings the governments tune different to the Kremlin exerting influence over Russian media stations? It isn't.

Here's one for the Brits: When a TV licensing guy knocks on your door, have him explain to your wife why she must spend £100+ on a TV tax (or a mandatory subscription that cannot be opted out of without a law degree). Then, sell tickets to your neighbours and have them watch how to send the bloke away doing this  while she does this 

Even for us this side of the pond, US politics is rather complex. I expect to most RW it will be even more yawn-o-rama and complicated than European politics. However, if you are a politician, tell her. She will expect you have sack loads of cash and you may pull off that thirty year age gap you were hoping for.

[clancyhound]

Like this:

LOL

OK  its old, but Im sure it goes on all the time.

Affidavit: $90,000 found in congressman's freezer

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-21/politics/jefferson.search_1_congressman-jefferson-jefferson-aide-fbi-agents?_s=PM:POLITICS

[mendeleyev]

There is an area of politics in which she will be interested and that is what does your country think of Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, etc) and how does that change the future?

No woman wants to be "stuck" in another cold war where she cannot travel to visit her family and they cannot travel to visit her.

Other than that one big foreign policy issue, she probably is somewhat detached.

[Slumba]

There is an area of politics in which she will be interested and that is what does your country think of Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, etc) and how does that change the future?

No woman wants to be "stuck" in another cold war where she cannot travel to visit her family and they cannot travel to visit her.

Other than that one big foreign policy issue, she probably is somewhat detached.

Excellent point, I had not thought of that... surely that would be a main consideration.

[NS1]

Just what we need another thread about politics

[Zachris]

Just what we need another thread about politics

I will agree with the sentiment that NS1 has expressed here. We have got plenty of discussion going on about the political issues and candidates, so we really do not need another.

I too have encountered the glazed look when discussing politics. My lady is particularly reluctant to discuss any current events in her own country -- perhaps because her country is Uzbekistan.

However, if framing this question I was hoping to start a discussion about the mechanics of the Western political systems. That is different from the actual political positions.

In my case the question arose when trying to explain what a recall election was all about. But, that got me to thinking about how I would describe the differences between a Mayor, a Town Supervisor, a County Executive, a Governor and a President. Why can one be subject to a recall and not another? How can there be different rules about these things in different states? And what about those of you that live with parliamentary systems? How do you explain what it means when the "government falls?"

[Larry]

I'll address just one of your questions:

How can there be different rules about these things in different states?

I would go into more detail with a woman who was keenly interested in the US political system, but for 99.99% I would explain it this way:

The states existed before the national government.  State laws governed most disputes between individuals and between the states and individuals. When representatives of the states met to write the US Constitution, which is the principal governing document of the US, they wrote it so that the national government had some powers they judged best suited to the national government, such as national defense, declaration of war, taxation, national courts, regulation of interstate commerce, etc.  (there are a fair number of these; for the full  list see Art. I, sec. 8 of the US Const.)

They left to the states the power to do largely every other governmental function.  But there are limits set out in the Constitution, or in court decisions interpreting the Constitution.  The US Constitution trumps all other law, both federal and state.  For example, neither a state legislature nor the US Congress can enact a statute abridging free speech because the Constitution, as amended a few years after its ratification, contains a bill of rights setting limits on what government can do. 

You probably need to give a brief description of judicial review.
 
                                                                            ***

I'm well aware that the above is a simplification, but I think it will suffice for the level of interest the vast majority of FSUW will have.  If some bright FSUW actually reads the Constitution she might notice some things that will cause her to question the above narrative.  For example, she might notice the bill of rights as written limits only the national government but says nothing about state or local governments.  You might then have to get into the doctrine of incorporation, which courts have used to conclude that some parts of the bill of rights should be applied also to states and local governments.  And if she asks why only some and not all, you can read a bunch of law review articles on the incorporation doctrine, or you can simply tell her, those are the provisions of the bill of rights the judges liked best.

Or if she shows a high level of interest in US law and notices the fifth amendment to the Constitution, one of the bill of rights, which says, in part:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Then she notices that a few people are tried in state court and acquitted and then tried for the same act in federal court, you could read up on the doctrine of dual sovereignty, which was created by judges so that the government could get around the fifth amendment's double jeopardy provision for the types of crimes they really, really, REALLY disliked.

She might read a news story about a federal judge ordering a city/county to raise taxes substantially to build a bunch of super-ritzy schools, one of which contained an Olympic-sized pool with an underwater observation room, an indoor track, a gymnastic center, and racquetball courts, and where the former coach of the Soviet Olympic fencing team was hired to teach students how to thrust and parry (google Jenkins v. Missouri for the full, nauseating details).   She might ask you how does that square with the above description of US law you have previously given her.  At this point you could hire an unemployed constitutional lawyer to explain this, or you could give her the simpler explanation, which I won't go into because this post is already too long.

The material after the asterisks might seem cynical.  It is.  Years of reading what mostly well-meaning judges sometimes do, combined with real-life observations, have left me fairly cynical about many aspects of the US judicial system.

 

[doc holiday]

My lady does not care about politics per se, but does like to learn and wants to know what the system is like.  I mostly just make jokes that Putin wins democratic elections wherein nobody is running against him or that people vote for him because they don't want to disappear while in the US the politicians simply use lies, trickery, and a barrage of vague advertising to get people to vote for them.

[NWIGUY]

"You always know what an old broom will do!". That's what my wife always says. Case in point: Putin. Nina is super interested in Amerikansk politics and enjoys the stupid flare-shooting style of opposing sides trying to convince the uniformed populace of their credibility. Just tell her that the old broom doesn't work anymore and needs to be replaced.