Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

I think the media will serve the public better if they feel that it's in their own interest to do this, that they'll profit from doing it. And I think many of them could profit greatly from taking a different role.

According to the statistics here and here, in my country, Sweden, the number of TV sets is very roughly the same as the newspaper circulation, while in the United States the number of TV sets is very roughly four times as high as the newspaper circulation. If American newspapers should start selling like Swedish papers do, they'd see their market more than doubled.

And in the process the political discourse would gain considerable depth.

They should be able to do this. The media play a crucial role in democracy. For democracy to function properly the people must be vigilant, checking their government all the time. But you can't have all your millions and millions of people traveling to the White House, Congress and all other places to check everything. Instead you must have a few people doing the checking and then reporting to the rest.

That's the most important role and responsibility of the press.

When I mention this role of the media, Americans often say that no, the media don't have this role, instead there are institutions that provide checks and balances. That arrangement is certainly indispensable, but institutions can never replace the vigilance of the people.

The people must also keep the media in check. Every person contributes to this (or should contribute to this) by choosing which papers etc to buy, subscribe to etc.

TV and newspapers have different roles here. TV is by necessity shallow while newspapers analyse things in depth, since TV has soundbites where papers have whole articles. On TV you can get to know a politician's charisma, charm, friendliness, humour, quick intellect etc. In the newspaper you can find analyses, you can choose what to skip, skim or read in depth, you can read at your own pace and stop to think and then read on without losing information, you can cut out and keep material for reference. You end up with completely different information.

Many Americans say "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Well, yes, it is! So don't stop there! What's the price of eternal vigilance? How is it paid? Are you willing to pay this price?

Considering that people have died for democracy, the price is ridiculously low. The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and a few hours of your time every week, to support and read the paper or papers that you think do the best job of checking your government and defending your democracy.

It is easy to motivate people to donate money with absolute statements, but not with reasoned centrist viewpoints.  Without that base of support, there is no one to donate money, nor is there a block of votes to be had.  In order for a group to be influential, they need to deliver either money and/or votes.  How can a centrist caucus succeed in that environment?

I'm Swedish, and here we don't have split-scream shows, I don't know what that is. From articles on the Web I get the impression that people actually shout at each other rather than discuss, and that they aim to raise anger and exacerbate conflicts rather than clarify, explain and convince.

If I've understood this correctly, maybe this can explain some of the tragic difficulties in understanding between the United States and Europe. It may mean that certain tones and attitudes are okay on one side of the Atlantic while they're baffling and incomprehensible on the other side.

Before the Iraq war, when the Bush administration lost patience with the countries that opposed their view, Bush expressed their stance as "Either you're with us or you're against us."

Assuming shouts and anger in political discourse doesn't raise eyebrows over there, maybe Bush's wording is seen as acceptable. Perhaps it's even seen as a way to clearly and purposefully take a stand. But on my side of the Atlantic such a wording is weird and baffling, because it's an outrageous show of disrespect for your counterpart, and, what's even worse, outrageous disrespect for the democratic mindset.

Of course international relationships aren't democratic. Still, one does expect a democratic mindset in the relationships between democratic countries. Democracy is based on discussion rather than the strong enforcing their will on everyone else. When this is no longer possible you can lose your patience, you can say that the time for debate has run out and urgent action is indispensable, you can even force action -- but still the way you do it has to express interest in and concern for the democratic mindset.

And of course, in addition to that, it must also show some respect for your counterpart.

Considering how destructive the rift has been, and how unnecessary it seems, maybe Bush's wordings, and many other things, are seen in such different light on the two sides of the Atlantic that only highly specialised experts in diplomacy can bridge the gap.

The reports claimed that this also happens in the United States. They said that Bush always gets to either pre-screen his questions or choose his reporters. Is this true?

Do all American politicians get to pre-screen their questions and choose their reporters?

Why is there such a political divide in the US? or Perhaps why aren't the political centrists more in the forefront?

Do you believe that there can be a political party in power that would implement and balance fiscally conservative policies with socially responsible ones?

I get the impression that politicians get very little respect. Sometimes it seems as if the word politician were an invective. At the same time the United States prides itself on its democracy and freedom.

You can't have democracy without politicians. Democracy is what politicians do. You entrust your democracy to politicians. Politicians embody your democracy.

How can you be proud of your democracy and at the same time despise it?

If this contradiction indeed exists, doesn't this entail a danger? Your pride in your democracy defines the United States and keeps it together. It's an essential uniting force. It seems necessary for the existence of the country. What would the United States be without it?

You need to be proud of your democracy, you can't afford to despise it.

I'm also worried that maybe I come across as arrogant and negative toward the United States.

I can't judge this. Sometimes it's very difficult to judge something you've written yourself. If there isn't time for voting you'll have to decide. I'll understand if you choose not to include my questions.