Some differences between American and British politics
As someone who is intensely interested in politics generally, and British and American politics most especially, I’m fascinated by some of the differences between the political scenes on the two sides of the Atlantic. Inevitably, I’m oversimplifying somewhat, but the following differences strike me as instructive:
- In the USA, blue signifies the Democratic Party, the more left-wing; in the UK, blue identifies the Conservative Party, the more right-wing.
- In the USA, red signifies the Republican Party, the more right-wing; in the UK, red identifies the Labour Party, the more left-wing.
- In America, the term ‘conservative’ means really right-wing, especially on social issues; in Britain the name ‘Conservative’ means mainstream right-wing, especially on economic issues.
- In America, the term ‘liberal’ generally means quite left-wing; in Britain, the name ‘Liberal’ means broadly centrist.
- In the States, it is considered necessary for a politician to emphasize their patriotism; in Britain, it is assumed that anyone who wants to run for national office cares for his or her country.
- In the States, virtually every political speech seems to mention God, especially in the final call “God bless America”; in Britain, no politician mentions God and none would think of inviting Him to show a special preference for his or her nation state.
- In the US, politicians frequently refer to their position on social issues like abortion and homosexuality; a British politician would think it unnecessary and inappropriate to talk about such issues unless asked.
- In the US, politicians constantly talk about the problems and the aspirations of the middle class; in the UK, politicians tend to talk more on the needs of the working class.
- So many political speeches in the US include the phrase “my fellow Americans”; in British political terminology, there is simply no equivalent phrase.
- Few American political speeches make much use of facts and figures; many British political speeches use figures to highlight problems and make comparisons with the policies or the performance of one’s opponents.
- The American general election effectively lasts almost two years, starting with the declaration of candidates for the primaries; the British general election lasts around four weeks.
- American elections depend on vast sums to purchase broadcasting time; parties and candidates in British elections cannot buy broadcasting time.
- In the States, there are some outstanding political speakers, led by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama; in Britain, there is no politician who can be so inspirational, although Tony Blair at his best came close (but he’s gone).
- In the States, almost 40 million television viewers watched the Convention speeches of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin; no party conference speech in Britain would attract more than a few million.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Mostly negative about America, so let’s add one positive one. In Britain, if the head of government decides to quit, a replacement can be selected from within the ruling party without any opposition and without any public mandate. And if he were to decide to quit too, his party would be under no legal obligation to go to the voters – nor would they be obligated to give even party members a say in who replaces him.
In the USA on the other hand, we saw this year the extraordinary process by which tens of millions of individual citizens selected the candidates who will lead the various parties — in what were often fierce primary battles. Obama and McCain may not use a lot of statistics in their speeches, but they’ve had to stand up and face their opponents in dozens of states, in numerous face-to-face debates, and so on. It could be a shorter process and it could be made cheaper and fairer, but we have nothing like it here in the UK and that’s unfortunate.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hey Roger — very insightful.
No. 12 is the most interesting to me from a media policy perspective. I would add it’s not only candidates and parties that cannot advertise on television, but also unions, special interest groups (animal rights, Make Poverty History), religions, etc. As the UK shifts more towards the internet, I wonder what will happen? Already UK politicians are paying more attention to YouTube, etc.
Will the UK government (i) shift that regulation over to the internet (and thus shut down many NGO and political websites) or (ii) abandon it for television or (iii) maintain an increasingly artificial distinction between competing media platforms.
What do you think will happen and should happen?
With the fragmentation and democratisation of the media that the internet and tools like blogging bring, I personally think the UK’s ban on certain forms of political advertising is going to be a huge issue in coming elections.
It also has to do with television needing more money to fund better drama, children’s programming and current affairs. If politicians are paying to put their points of view across on the internet, surely the broadcasters will argue they are entitled to compete with YouTube on fair terms.
And if you allow political advertising, is pharma next? Or religious groups (which are very active on the internet)?
It’s what I think will be one of the more interesting issues to come in the next few years.
It should be exciting…
Russ
September 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
This was really interesting, Roger. Of course, you add to your list of speakers (also gone and, indeed, deceased) Winston Churchill.
The issues of abortion and homosexuality attract interest because our parties are so very divided on them, and often voters will select a candidate on the basis of how they feel about these issues over any others. I don’t know this for a fact, but my hunch based on what you have said here is that Britain is not as bitterly divided on these issues as America is.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
On British political speakers, Dana, I did not mention Churchill because he is not contemporary. Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock – both former Labour Party leaders – were impressive orators but both (though still alive) are not really active in today’s speaking arenas.
You are right: abortion and homosexuality are less controversial in the UK. But, in addition to that, differences are regarded as personal matters of conscience and not a basis for political debate and division.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
You raise a very interesting and important point, Russ, and I have no clear or easy answers.
I suspect that the UK will in the short-term work with the European Audio-visual Media Services Directive and try to distinguish between ‘push’ (broadcasting) services and ‘pull’ (Net) services, but I agree with you that technologies are increasingly blurring the divide.
I suspect that broadcasting regulation will become more like Internet regulation – that is, some content illegal and some governed by self-regulation – rather than Internet regulation becoming like broadcasting regulation or all regulation being abandoned.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
For some reason I didn’t think “contemporary only” until after I posted the comment, but of course, you’re right or else you’d have included Lincoln and Reagan among American presidents or candidates with a gift for oratory.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
This may be a bit of nuance, but the use of blue and red does not apply directly to the parties, it applies to the individual states and their voting patterns. The US voting system awards the Electoral College votes from each state to delegates committed to vote for a certain candidate in a “winner take all” system, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine (which award their Electoral College votes according to Congressional Districts rather than for the state as a whole). The terms “blue states” and “red states” were first used in the media on the night of the 2000 election by Tim Russert, a well known TV journalist and commentator (he died recently). On the election night broadcast he used a US map showing the states that voted for Al Gore in blue, and for George W. Bush in red, to explain what was going on. He started using the term “blue states” and “red states” to simplify, and the terms “stuck”, and the rest of the US media adopted them. There is an article about it on wikipedia, that gives the history in detail.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Roger – mainly well written and researched however number 13 is nothing more than opinion and number 14 is quite ridiculous since the population of the UK is much smaller than that of the USA. Thanks.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
If number 13 is only my opinion, then please give me yours, Chris. Who are the British politicians who can communicate as effectively as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama?
On number 14, if you divide the American numbers by five to make the numbers proportionate, no British politician could command a viewer audience of 8 million.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am
Roger – The reason I said number 13 is merely opinion was to point out its invalidity. Of course the politicians will vary in style from country to country. They are not all clones. I would also hasten to add that one of the finest political orators in terms of how inspiring he was to his audience and how well he put his views across was a man named Adolf Hitler.
On point 14 – firstly ALMOST 40 million divided by 5 is not 8 million. It is less than 8 million. Where are these viewing figures that you so readily draw upon?
And finally… watching television is not the only means by which information can be disseminated. Especially in these information driven days. So how viewing figures make American politics superior to British politics escapes me.
I’ll try to reply in under 7 months next time!!
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
THANKS A LOT
January 20th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
to the who belives that the american people actually pick their own president is deluded.these candidates and the eventuall winner is chosen well in advance