The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - The difference between the USA and Australia

Evan Thomas · January 17, 2013, 06:15 PM

Huh.

He does point out that Australia "was granted nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it." He goes on to acknowledge that that might make a some sort of difference... Overall, it's an odd piece, given that he describes how the Australian gun ban worked, agrees that the situation in the U.S. is different (in part because we do have a Bill of Rights), but never says word one about how, exactly, the U.S. might do something similar...

Lots of patting-self-on-back, zero relevance to U.S. situation. I guess he's sort of saying, "You go, Mr. Prez!" -- but there are no actual suggestions there.

They have a parliamentary system, which works differently from ours -- has the possibility of coalition governments, votes of no confidence, etc. Not to mention that the head of ~~state~~ government (the prime minister) is always the leader of the majority party -- or coalition, although in that case it's no doubt stickier to agree on who gets to be the boss. Better system in some ways: easier to get things done, and more accountable to the will of the people if they don't like what is being done (general elections can happen whenever there's a vote of no confidence, not just every so-many years) -- worse in others... e.g. fewer checks and balances.

January 17, 2013, 06:15 PM	#4
Evan Thomas Senior Member Join Date: July 7, 2008 Location: Upper midwest Posts: 5,631	Huh. He does point out that Australia "was granted nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it." He goes on to acknowledge that that might make a some sort of difference... Overall, it's an odd piece, given that he describes how the Australian gun ban worked, agrees that the situation in the U.S. is different (in part because we do have a Bill of Rights), but never says word one about how, exactly, the U.S. might do something similar... Lots of patting-self-on-back, zero relevance to U.S. situation. I guess he's sort of saying, "You go, Mr. Prez!" -- but there are no actual suggestions there. They have a parliamentary system, which works differently from ours -- has the possibility of coalition governments, votes of no confidence, etc. Not to mention that the head of ~~state~~ government (the prime minister) is always the leader of the majority party -- or coalition, although in that case it's no doubt stickier to agree on who gets to be the boss. Better system in some ways: easier to get things done, and more accountable to the will of the people if they don't like what is being done (general elections can happen whenever there's a vote of no confidence, not just every so-many years) -- worse in others... e.g. fewer checks and balances. Last edited by Evan Thomas; January 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason: fixed an oopsie.