Although Switzerland is nominally a representative democracy like the United States since by law practically every law enacted by its legislature must be ratified in a popular referendum, in practice it’s the largest direct democracy in the world. Right now the Swiss are preparing to vote themselves the highest minimum wage in the world: annualized it comes to $50,000 per year. By comparison the annualized minimum wage in the U. S. is around $15,000.
The Swiss, like most Western European, tend to be very law-abiding, all the more so since their laws have preponderantly been approved by popular vote. By comparison I’ve always thought that this little speech from the old John Wayne movie, The Comancheros, was quintessentially American:
Major here has told me what your troubles are. I’ve been thinking it over and in light of my forty years experience in legal jurisprudence, I have come to the positive conclusion that there ain’t no way to do this legal and honest… but being good sensible Texans, we’ll do it illegal and dishonest! Now all the boys here in the room have agreed to sign a paper I have prepared. They all are going to commit perjury. That’s legal language for just a plain, dumb blasted lie.
That line was said by the wonderful character actor, Edgar Buchanan. now best known for portraying Uncle Joe in the TV shows Petticoat Junction, Green Acres and The Beverly Hillbillies. Based on my experience in Germany I think the Germans would find that sentiment horrifying, I think the Swiss would as well, while Americans would merely shrug.
Switzerland’s unemployment rate is under 4%.
In the U. S. so high a minimum wage would undoubtedly cause widespread under-the-table deals and, probably, induce increased illegal immigration into the country, as well as, in the unlikely case of it actually being obeyed, causing a major increase in unemployment. IMO in law-abiding Switzerland with so low a level of unemployment it’s unlikely to have much effect at all other than to reduce the number of low wage jobs that will be created and it’s probably intended to reduce immigration into Switzerland.
Hat tip: Bruce Krasting
Here’s a question for you. Imagine that all laws were subject to referendum in the U. S. as they are in Switzerland. Ignoring the cost of such a program, what would happen? What laws would the people underwrite? Which would they reject?
Note that the opinions of most Americans on subjects like trade, immigration, taxes, healthcare, debt, and social policy differ substantially from what are, apparently, the views of their elected representatives.
I strongly suspect that the most important effect in the short term would be to increase the power of the Supreme Court enormously. In the middle term I strongly suspect it would result in the power of the Supreme Court being curtailed.
I think we would constantly be getting into wars and then getting out of them in a year. Otherwise, all of the components of elite internationalism would not happen (free trade, most international treaties). The minimum wage would be higher, but so would the penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants. Lots of free stuff!!!
That could be but I’m not so sure. At the outset of the invasion of Afghanistan my reading of the polls is that a narrow majority of Americans supported the invasion while at the outset of the invasion of Iraq a majority of Americans opposed the invasion. Would a popular vote have sustained the bombing campaign against Libya?
My reading of the pre-invasion polls of the use of force in Desert Storm is that the public opposed it while elites favored it. Interestingly, post-invasion polls supported removal of Saddam Hussein.
I think we’d have a smaller standing military and, consequently, a greater reluctance to use it.
My general interpretation of American public opinion is that we’re pretty Jacksonian, i.e. much more reluctant to get into either treaties or wars but much more likely to support greater force once we’ve begun a war.
It’s hard to predict since greater direct involvement might conceivably lead to deeper study of the issues.
The rich would pay higher taxes, the poor would pay some token amount. We’d have about as many regulations as we have now, but probably some censorship as well — at least until the Supremes stepped in.
We would have a national health plan, French or Dutch style.
Power would flow out of conservative areas into liberal areas because states like ND, NE, WY and so on would lose their disproportionate Senatorial power. Minus the filibuster and the power of the faux states we’d probably be about a degree further left, though we would also swing wildly from outlawing things like gay marriage one year to embracing it the next. The Swiss are not so much prone to wild swings. Or wildness period. Or even swings.
“The Swiss are not so much prone to wild swings. Or wildness period. Or even swings.”
Americans are swingers?
Ben:
Americans are swingers?
If you believe the internet. And I’ve never had any reason to doubt it.
One thing the Swiss have going for them: They don’t have to maintain a large navy.
They also have universal compulsory adult male military service and probably the highest rate of gun possession in the world.
The awful din of interests campaigning for and against one issue or another would be deafening. If you think the rhetoric is polarized now…
Dave, I was thinking more along the line that once a President has made a case for use of military force, he’s generally been able to gain fairly broad support of the public. After that, except perhaps for WWII, the support generally declines at varying rates. I could see Obama building public support for war with Iran, regardless of what the polls currently think about it, and unless the war was over within several months or was being fought with unvarnished success, the public would turn.
The contrary example might be the ’79 hostage crisis, in which I think the public initially supported the President’s refusal to step down to the level of the hostage takers, but as time wore on the public turned on him. Though I think again this is an example of public support for a President that declines as the conflict continues.
BTW/ Didn’t public support in favor of Desert Storm begin with the reporting of atrocities in the Kuwaiti hospitals?
I think I’d say, rather, that the reporting of atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals was part of a deliberate, concerted, and professional PR campaign conducted by the Emir and other prominent Kuwaitis.
I remember Morton Knodrakie (sp?) makinig a case for war against Saddam a week BEFORE Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Ultimately Saddam provided the best PR for Desert Storm. If he was willing to take over Kuwait, why not the oil fields in northern KSA? And he had already tried to win territory from Iran.
Michael,
I’m not so sure the country would head more to the left. After all, the conservatives in blue states would actually have an impact and I seem to recall that polls pretty consistently show that more Americans self-identify as conservative than liberal.
They identify as conservative, but vote for liberally oriented programs like Social Security and Medicare. I have no idea how that would reconcile.
Steve
SS and Medicare have long been popular bipartisan programs. Most other things don’t enjoy such support.
Both Social Security and Medicare were enacted into law with bipartisan support, a distinction the PPACA does not share.
Popular support for Social Security and Medicare represents typical Jacksonian thought: accepting handouts from the federal government presents no problem for Jacksonians as long as the federal government remains remote and disengaged. “Government hands off my Medicare!”, far from being absurd, is a typically Jacksonian sentiment, a point of view that goes back to before the American Civil War.
Just looking loosely at demographics —
Switzerland has a population of about 8 million.
NYC has one of about 8, Houston metro area has one of 6 million, LA metro area has one of 13 million — three different regional cultures, with different sources of wealth and geographical concerns. It’s a fair wonder we’re under the same umbrella at all.
So take the issue of off-shore drilling. NY couldn’t care less so long as there are plenty of pretty beaches to retire to along the east coast, LA hates it and Houston thrives on it. What happens when that comes up for a referendum?