It would seem that people in the US have rumbled the truth. The New York Times did a poll in the first week of this year asking whether the political system in that country was broken. What they discovered was that 59 per cent thought it had been broken for decades. Only nine per cent thought it was not broken. Most of those in between thought it had been broken for a few years. About three per cent did not know.
They then sought to differentiate between the supporters of both main US parties. Republicans were a little more pessimistic than Democrats, but there was not a lot in it.
Overwhelmingly, people in the US thought that the system that is delivering them, Donald Trump, is not working.
I think they are right. The US system has been corrupted by corporate money, a two-party system that stifles any real competition of innovation, deliberate vote rigging and gerrymandering, a charade of democracy within parties, and the inability of the rotten system to recruit any real talent into politics, a few notable exceptions apart.
Perhaps we should take comfort in the UK. We are not alone in being possessed of an appalling, rigged and blatantly unfair electoral system. That is what neoliberalism delivers, just as it delivers the antithesis in the economy of the competition that is supposedly worshipped, creating monopolies and consumer abuse instead.
What is to be done about it? That is a much harder question to answer as those with power are not looking minded to relinquish it. But, we factor without three things.
First, there is the power of revolt. Maybe this will be unleashed in the USA. The system might have reached its nadir.
Second, there is the possibility that the system will collapse into such chaos - as is happening in European countries - that replacement might happen, although that direction of travel does not look to be in the direction of democracy right now, and rather more in the direction of fascist autocracy.
Third, there is the chance that the greed that drives those who are corrupting this system might in itself tear the parties that dominate it apart, forcing the need for replacements amongst whom choice will have to be made, requiring system change. This seems entirely plausible in the USA, where the MAGA and Musk divisions within the Republicans are becoming very clear, even before the inauguration has taken place. Far from the swamp being clear, Trump appears intent on increasing the level of the floodwaters. This is not going to go down well. And we can see the disquiet in the Tories here, and Labour is very, very far from being a happy camp.
The system is rotten. What we need is a catalyst for change, which is likely to be found in the system's rottenness.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Coincidentally just read this in the week I’ve also watched The Dropout about Elizabeth Holmes and Telanos. What could possibly go wrong? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-interview.html
Wonder if Trump’s blatant grifting with his meme coin $TRUMP- which I imagine will result in wealth being sucked from his supporters to his corporation -will open any eyes?
Extraordinary stuff. Clear evidence of rottenness and the evilness of greed discussed in the interesting neuroscience piece you posted
https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/constitutional-crypto-how-trumps?r=77avb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
After the “Breaking Bad” TV series you might have thought Americans would be hot on the issue of money laundering. Clearly not and a vote for Trump would appear to put the United States well on the path to greater drug and corruption problems!
Apologies for late arrival.
As others noted:
– after ww2 there was a working class that had witnessed the “benefit” of the establishment leadership at first hand. They “knew”. Comedy reminded (eg The Goons).
– there were 5M or so trained troops who had seen that the world wasn’t quite like rural “England”
– folk wanted a payout for their bit of protecting others wealth ….
– housing & healthcare able to be delivered at almost a flick of a switch …..
When the state feels threatened, it responds… And the international markets know what really matters. Or is it also: the state responds when the establishment is threatened ?
Thank you for a most relevant article.
Might it be more accurate and enabling to asses the validity of a political system labelled as “democratic” by its outcomes instead of/more than by its inputs and processes?
Might a “democracy”/democracy be more validly assessed by ascertaining where it is on a continuum between its benefits to regular people, plus their children, and its benefits to the wealthy/powerful few?
Michael Hudson’s blog entitled “The Secret of the Long March”, from which comes the above paragraph, is relevantly interesting.
A good question. I like it.
I’m hoping that the new Left-leaning party, Collective, will tackle political corruption head-on.
https://we-are-collective.org/
We need people who will speak confidently about real liberal values and not try to accommodate the growing tide of Fascism. Fascism comes from crisis, despair and a longing for easy answers. and binary choices
We also need clear goals for our political economy ( a term I learnt at school in the early 60s but seems to have disappeared except on this blog) ) The two go togther.
It includes taking ”big’ and ‘dark money’ out of politics. A new and better theory of how the economy works -MMT.
I don’t need to list them all. The posters on this blog mention them most days. I think we know what to do. We need courageous politicians who will give a real lead. They may be leading from below as we can’t wait for teh Westminister brigade to act.
“Overwhelmingly, people in the US thought that the system that is delivering them, Donald Trump, is not working.”
I don’t suppose it’s ever occurred to you that people voted for Trump BECAUSE they think the current system is broken and they hope Trump can change it.
No, I didn’t think it had. Your TDS rants on YouTube show you have virtually zero understanding of current American politics.
It did
But you didn’t read the survey
Remember Trump is the system. He has been president already and fixed nothing. He is the problem.
@ Paul Mansfield. I was in America during and after the Trump term. He fixed nothing except giving big tax breaks to the rich. You are a dupe who doesn’t bother to read the small print!
I agree that there are parallels with the U.S and the U.K.
The U.S started not wanting a monarchic system but now has an equivalent one through a system that enabled anyone of any background to get to the top and garner power – usually financial. Britain has had a monarchical system like forever, but the effect is the same, no real accountability for those at the top, impunity – whether Trump or Prince Andrew.
The 79 year old Neil Young has a new single out ‘Big Change is Coming’ :
“Big change is coming, you know what you gotta do/ Big change is coming, could be bad or it could be good,” . The video seems to include a lot of carrying of the Stars and Stripes. ‘Go figure’ as the Americans would say.
Within your 3 factors you list above, where is the Left or the more avowedly ‘progressive’?
Nowhere. What would a movement made up of the ashes of right wing car crash look like?
My hope for the UK, Albeit a small one. We’re not likely to keep Starmer until the next election, I’m not sure how and when there will be a tipping point but there will be.
Whoever replaces him will be looking at electrol destruction, and very likely a reform government.
That would be a good point at which to pull the PR lever. Which while not solving all the UK’s issues will at least provide a way forward and stop the distorted results we’ve had for decades.
If this future PM has the humility and foresight to make this change is probably doubtful. These qualities are not common in MPs of all flavours.
Sadly, PR will probably play into the hands of Reform unless their bubble bursts. It looks like they will eat the Tory vote in Scotland and the Holyrood PR system will give them a substantial number of MSPs (assuming they don’t get a general protest vote such as Labour certainly had last year). They will then be able to foment division from within rather than being noisy bystanders – and all while getting salaries, expenses and exposure.
Look on Scotland and weep!
I have a suspicion that you know remarkably little about Scottish politics.
Might it be more than coincidence that our most regular-person-favourable policies and actions came from Mr Atlee’s government, which was much supported by military service personnel who returned to civilian life as a large group of well trained, battle hardy, cohesive members of society who were determined on socio-economic improvement?
They knew what happened in the 1920 and 1930s and were determined it would not be repeated.
The war helped to break down class barriers and there was sense of community.
One of the worse effects of neo-iberalism is the promotion of individual well being over community well being. Both are needed but should be roughly in balance.
Direct or Electronic Democracy.
‘The People’ E-vote on all policy.
All of the time.
Leashes executive power. Representation has failed, unless it is about representing the highest bidder. Infrequent elections are easily bought. Real democracy in this electronic age? Puts ‘The People’ in control.
The trick is never let democracy be turned off. The moment people get the truth they will vote differently.
An example of Direct or Electronic Democracy.
Email-votes from ‘The People’.
To: hcenquiries@parliament.uk
Subject: Protect winter fuel allowances
Yes
35 million Email-votes needed.
In a real democracy ‘The People’ are sovereign.
Thank you, but no
Hanging, flogging and dunking for witchcraft would be back by Wednesday
Crowds are nit always right because good decision making has to be informed, and too many decisions are required fur that to be possible on this basis.
I don’t agree. Direct Democracy (DD) DOES work ! I’ve lived with it in Switzerland for 50 years and voted for 25. DD – in other words Popular Initiatives and Referendums – at all three levels of Government: Communal / Municipal; Regional and National. The People and Regions control the written constitution and the Politicians, who operate within a normal two house parliamentary system, run the country. If they step out of line, the People move into action and quickly bring them back. We vote on issues – as distinct from electing politicians – four times a year and the electorate is very involved in running the country. It all works on consensus, pragmatism and mutual respect. All players, at all levels, are working for the Common Good. It would fit Scottish Popular Sovereignty like a glove. As for countries with a Monarchy (like England) that’s another story…
Sorry – but because it works in one place – with a massive tradition of using it – does not mean it will work somewhere else with no tradition of using it.
And let’s not pretend politicians and elections have no role in Switzerland – clearly they do. After all, who sets the questions? You response makes no more sense than the orginal claim.
I didn’t say politicians and elections have no role in Switzerland – I said they run the country which means they author all legislation. But if they author what is called in Switzerland “bad” law, then the People can launch a Referendum to object to the Bill and, if the referendum threshold is reached (1% of the electorate signing up within 100 days of publication of the proposed law) then there’s a national referendum on the issue – and that’s a pretty powerful deterrant which could operate right now in the UK ! If you’re interested, I can give you excellent examples.
But that is very different from the idea all law is determined by electronic polling.
Once again, I didn’t say that ! Switzerand’s Direct Democracy system is 100% paper based and all information communicated directly to every voter is provided in a very closely vetted, structured, paper brochure (also available in the reader’s language in pdf) – I’ll send you an example if you want. The Government and Popular signatories are given equal space to set out their arguments and the parliamentary vote-count is detailed for each house. The voter doesn’t need to watch media or read newspapers to form an opinion. I’m guessing, but I reckon we must spend roughly the same amount of money on Direct Democracy as we do on running a full-blown parliamentary system as well.
Posting this many times does not make it right. I disagree with you. Please do not waste my time.
I disagree. Henry Fergusson did not waste your time, it can be argued that you did that yourself by engaging in an exhilarating discussion.
Henry’s post has much to agree with.
There is so much to-ing and fro-ing about how broken our current political system is, yet you dismiss someone positing an alternative (in a very minor way since the Swiss also seem wedded to NeoLib as much as anyone else). Henry’s posts offer an alternative – multiple regular referendums testing the will of the full electorate. I suppose there are many other alternatives to strengthening democracy, but he has described and defended the Swiss model – one that already exists and operates with proven success.
It may be irrelevant to point out that the Swiss have not engaged in an inter-nation war since 1815, though they have indulged in the occasional internal unpleasantness.
It won’t be irrelevant to point out that a similar system in the UK might well have headed off a building-majority for Scottish independence – I can make the ‘majority’ claim by the fact that it has not been tested by a referendum, nor has the majority in the UK who regret leaving the EU.
Why so much fear of the carefully considered will of the electorate? To the best of my knowledge, the Swiss have not voted for the return of hanging, flogging and dunking for witchcraft by Wednesday, though I will check tomorrow just in case.
Your miss the point – which is he was responding to a post claiming that we need direct voting on all political decisions. His comment was not relevant in that context.
He was suggesting something quite different, and I answered his point completely i8n my first comment. This works after centuries of conditioning of an electorate in Switzerland. The tracks record on referenda here is not good. You also miss that point, I think. In that case your opening comments look to be misplaced.
If you can’t contextualise your observations, why make them?
Am hoping that the spectacular explosion of Musk’s Starship is symbolic.