Should we try the English way?

No, I don't mean bangers and mash, lager and lime or God forbid, soccer, I mean the parliamentary system of government. Just think, for an administration to remain in power, they must retain the confidence of the majority of the people's representatives, a confidence that can disappear overnight.

The English system presupposes party discipline, that the selection of one's MP is governed more by party than individual positions or legislative effectiveness. Historically, U.S. political parties have been rather amorphous ill-defined entities in which "party discipline" has been an oxymoron.

But now, speaking of (oxy)morons, we see a profound and ultimately disastrous transformation in American politics. The Republican party has reshaped and re-invented itself English style, with discpline and positions dictated from the top, while the Democrats remain, as someone once said a paragraph before, an amorphous ill-defined entity in which "party discipline" IS STILL an oxymoron.

So we get the disadvantages of parliamentary government, with an ideologically-defined party more attuned to national objectives rather than local representation, coupled with an idiot on the job for three more years.

Well, the Brits certainly got this one right. See photo below.