>Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens.<

Mr Sarkozy won 53%/47%, and called that "a mandate".

Mr Bush won 52%/47%/1% and that's called a slim margin?

>The Labour party moved to the centre in order to get elected, and the Conservatives have recently done the same ... There are people in both parties who would prefer a more distinct position, ...<

Here in the US, the political center moved right with Reagan's election, continued to slowly move right with Bush1 and Clinton, and took a jump to the right with Bush2.

Current polls show about 1/3 definite left, 1/3 definite right and 1/3 centrist (usually self-declared "independent&quot.

Most of our current candidates for President are more centrist than their parties, but have to woo the fringes in order to be nominated (recall Lieberman's loss in the primary).

It's highly likely that the nominees of both parties will be centrist and that the 2008 turnout will be fairly small, as the true believers, feeling betrayed, won't vote.

I prefer centrist candidates.

But if the question is Political diversity within Europe as opposed Britain or France, then surely it is hugely more than the US? The European Parliament with its proportional representation has such diverse groups as Socialist Greens to almost theocratic nationalists.

I thik the perception of "more or less" Diversity is a function of distance. The whole notion of saying that the US is more diverse than Europe because Californians and the inhabitants of Alabama sound different seems absurd from this side of the Atlantic.

In the same way that I can see very little difference between the UK Labour and Conservative parties, the Republicans and Democrats seem to me, to be minor differences around a central point.

Whichever gets into power would make minor changes to taxes, military spending and welfare possibly, but no "tectonic" movement.

Because one block has set ideas on a subject (e.g almost universal approval of pro choice view in Europe, Acceptance of 'Gun Culture' in the US) doesn't mean it is politically immature, or lacking in ability to question.

Ira, it was meant as a response to smueller. Since you didn't see the meaning behind the words I rephrase it:
"Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens' POLITICAL GOALS."

<<doesn't mean it is politically immature, or lacking in ability to question.>>
Inter4esting comments Willit. I wonder what it does mean.
Certainly there is a distinction between pro-chioce and gun control.
I think one distinction is the way the US hangs on to certain rights unable (unwilling?) to revise or ammend them. I am thinking about the "freedom" to bear arms [isn't that one of those oxymoron things]. Perhaps also clinging to the absolute right to free speech.

Hi Ingo,

>"Political leaders in Europe represent a HUGE majority of their citizens' POLITICAL GOALS."<

I take it that you are counting every elected official, regardless of party affiliation, whether in power or in opposition.

In which case, the statement is not applicable to the US.

Here, where we do not have a Parliamentary system, it is highly likely that one or more of your representatives at the National, State and Local levels will be of the opposite political party than the one for which you voted.

We not only accept that, we expect it.

At the National level, we often vote for a split government - choosing one party for Pres, and the opposite party for the Senate and/or House.

From 1954 to 1994, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives under Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), Bush1 (R) and Clinton (D).

From 1994 to 2004, Republicans controlled the House under Clinton (D) and Bush2 (R). In 2006, the Democrats won control of the House and Senate under a Republican President.

Similar things happen in the Senate, as well.

Our system is very different.

>..the "freedom" to bear arms [isn't that one of those oxymoron things]. Perhaps also clinging to the absolute right to free speech.<

We don't have unlimited freedom to bear arms. (Why would that be an oxymoron?) There are many limitations on the kind of weapons one may own as well as restrictions on carrying them.

We also have a major debate going concerning the meaning of our 2nd amendment rights.

We don't have absolute right to free speech (or freedom of the press). There are laws concerning libel and slander, rules concerning national security, and the famous dictum against "falsely shouting fire in a theater..".

Fascinating thread! Thank you all for very interesting posts! Some of them were very, very thoughtful.

Personally, I watch Europe as a whole because I think that Europeans, after two very destructive and exhausting internecine wars in the 20th century, are now trying new ways, the ways of peace. The question is: how to combine into a United Europe without giving up one's own identity of language and culture? It's been very interesting to watch this process, more often bumpy than smooth. Polish farmers didn't think the EU would benefit them; while earlier, Ireland - one of the poorer Western Europe nations - jumped over Britain and the English Channel, shook hands with the EU and has not looked back from their new road to prosperity.

It's funny that some people in the US, the Starbucks Nation or McDonaldland, believe that Europeans possess "groupthink". I haven't been to Romania or Bulgaria yet, but don't believe the people there think at all like the Welsh or the Andorrans. The "old Europe" seems to be much newer than anything that had ever existed there before.

Carry on, folks! And thanks again for some very interesting reading!

>Our system is very different.
Not at all! At least not from the German system.

Public BS TV is a continuing disgrace. I've been going to Europe for over 30 years and have lived in Germany and Holland. The only nastiness I ever experienced was a Dutch driver in Maastricht trying to cut me off and then shouting insults at me. He didn't know I was an American. I was driving a car with German tags and that was his issue.

>cut me off and then shouting insults at me.
It might have been the unexpected joy of seeing a german number plate just 10 miles behind the border. Your driving could never have been in issue here of course ;-)

No, ira, it wasn't about the senators, not about the representatives. It was about GW Bush vs. John Kerry, opposed to Angela Merkel vs. Gerhard Schröder.

And I have to agree with logos - the German system knows the checks and balances and is also a split up into Federal government/parliament and states (like Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony ...). It is similar, believe me.

>>Our system is very different.
Not at all! At least not from the German system. <

Unless my own smattering of knowledge and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany are completely wrong, I don't think that I can agree, logos.

Hi ingo,

>It was about GW Bush vs. John Kerry, opposed to Angela Merkel vs. Gerhard Schröder.<

IIRC, in the 2005 election, neither won a majority, so how can one claim that either represents a huge majority of the people.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_
of_Germany
the CDU/CSU coaliton, of which Merkel is the leader, polled 35% - Bush did somewhat better than that.

Furthermore, "Both Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel announced that they had won the election and should become next chancellor.

On October 10, talks were held between Franz Müntefering, the SPD chairman, Gerhard Schröder, Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber, the CSU chairman. In the afternoon it was announced that the CDU/CSU and SPD will begin formal coalition negotiations with the aim of a Grand Coalition with Angela Merkel as the next German chancellor".

To, I hope, help you to see just how different our systems are, I give you a US view of that election:

Germany has a Chancellor (not a President) coming from a minority party, chosen by a few politicos behind closed doors.

This is not how we do it in the US.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the vote, but a majority of the Electoral votes (370).

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won with under 40%, but a majority of electoral votes (180).

There have been 15 elections in which the President was elected with less than 50.1% of the vote, although only 1 has been as low as 35%.

To bring it more in line with your concerns, Gore lost his home state, Clinton's home state and Florida, any one of which would have given him the Presidency.

PS,

I do not mean to imply, or for you to infer, that I think either the Presidential or the Parliamentary system is superior.

They are different, and we have each learned how to live with our own systems.

"if the question is Political diversity within Europe as opposed Britain or France, then surely it is hugely more than the US?"

That was not the question. The original question addressed the diversity of <i>politically viable</i> options and candidates within a European country. In other words, whether or not candidates in western Europe are restricted to a relatively narrow range of ideas and positions if they are to remain viable.

In this context, international comparison are meaningless. A candidate for office in France cannot be elected by campaigning on a platform that is socially and politically acceptable in Latvia, or vice versa.

The original question was whether or not there are any western European nations in which the ideological divide among major potentially-electable candidates and parties are comparable to those in the US?

The example I offered earlier was the contrast between George Bush and John Kerry vs Nicolas Sarkozy and S&eacute;gol&egrave;ne Royal. I believe that the &quot;box&quot; that Bush and Kerry were constrained to remain within by political realities and perceptions was larger.

Also, I was specifically referring to <i>electable</i> candidates. Not minor parties and candidates that stand no plausible chance of success.

We have plenty of fringe elements in US politics as well. They are just less visible and successful because of our &quot;winner take all&quot; electoral system.

Sure, we don't elect a president and the cancellor candidates are proposed at choosen at the party convents. However, the seats in parliament represent the individual peoples vote and not those of a relative majortiy. Someone whose party isn't elected by a vote of more that 50% of individual (counting) voters can't become chancellor and has to seek support from other parties. OTOh how can someone with only 35% of the vote be given so much &quot;unrestricted&quot; power. Do &quot;65%&quot; against don't count?

smueller wrote: &quot;The example I offered earlier was the contrast between George Bush and John Kerry vs Nicolas Sarkozy and S&eacute;gol&egrave;ne Royal. I believe that the &quot;box&quot; that Bush and Kerry were constrained to remain within by political realities and perceptions was larger.&quot;

I believe otherwise. There is a true left-right division in France; there is a right-wing consensus in the US, and the distinction between the two major parties is nuance, not ideology.

Where do such unsupported statements of belief get us?

Note that the title of this post is not quite accurate: the series is America at a Crossroads, not THE crossroad. I wonder why it's crossroadS and not just crossroad? Help, Ira.

All I know is that I think very differently about many issues than the views I read in the press and on Fodors and other places. To me this speaks of tremendous diversity of opinion in the US. Either that or I occupy a very small bubble.

This thread has been an interesting exercise in avoiding the &quot;interminable, action-preventing acrimony&quot; to which Flanner alludes, and which I agree is all too prevalent as a substitute for analysis and debate.

I believe the expression is &quot;a crossroads&quot; because that is the place where two roads cross, nothing more.

Incidentally, despite the assumptions of so many people that the Democratic nominee will be elected as the next president, I believe there is an excellent chance that the Republican nominee will be elected. Well, we'll have to wait more than a year to find out--and I'm getting a bit tired of the candidates already!