Full Version: What is Wrong With Politics Today?
Today, it seems that politics simply does not work the way it used to. There have always been partisan hacks, back-room deals, and manipulations of the system. However, in the past, most politicians were willing to compromise, consider new approaches and address the issues of the day with what they believe were true solutions, even if those solutions would cost votes. The would go to the public with their Ideas and try to sell them on what is good, while those opposed to the ideas would try to educate the public on what is wrong with it. They would focus on facts favoring their opinion but the "Spin" rarely rose to the level of today (though the demonizing of opponents has been around longer then the country itself).
These days, Partisanship has taken over and completely overwhelmed both conscience and reason. Politicians will not address issues that could cost them votes, they will not deviate from their parties "line" and they will not focus on what needs to be done because it might cost them if they take their eye off the reelection ball. Politicians have dropped all sense of decency. They are willing to lie or "spin" anything to make the opposition look terrible, hide their own misdeeds, or sell the public down the river for political gain.
As the system gets worse and worse with both sides focused on gaining or maintaining power by painting the other side as the servants of the devil, the destroyers of the planet, or whatever else, we all suffer due to lack of real action on real problems.
Question for Debate:
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
To me, All of the above is the best answer. However, If I had to choose one it would be Partisanship as I see it as the route of all the rest. The parties have become so focused on power acquisition that they are abandoning their own ideals and platforms to gain any advantage in the war to gain or maintain power in politics. Worse, then seem to ignore any out-of-the-box thinking because it is rarely clearly right or left and thus does not fit into their sales pitch.
Some say partisanship is the definition of politics. For example:
To some extent that is true. One usually joins the political party that best represents their thinking because they want to support those ideals. But, what about when partisanship because all important? Where are the voices of outrage in the Republican Party when it comes to our recent complete lack of fiscal responsibility in congress? Where are the voices of descent within the Democratic party when it comes to the parties wishy-washy position on gay marriage? As the political parties shift from focusing on making policy based on ideology to getting elected / reelected by any means necessary where are the voices of disgust from the members of either party?
There are a few voices of descent in both parties but those men and women know that by choosing to oppose the status quo in either party they are dooming any chances they might have at a political future. This is a major deterrent to those that are up and coming within either party. It is also the reason why so many staffers in Washington act more like rabid attack donkeys and elephants then thinkers and policy shapers.
So in the end, I think that route of all of the above is blind partisanship and the quest for power for powers sake alone.
These days, Partisanship has taken over and completely overwhelmed both conscience and reason. Politicians will not address issues that could cost them votes, they will not deviate from their parties "line" and they will not focus on what needs to be done because it might cost them if they take their eye off the reelection ball. Politicians have dropped all sense of decency. They are willing to lie or "spin" anything to make the opposition look terrible, hide their own misdeeds, or sell the public down the river for political gain.
As the system gets worse and worse with both sides focused on gaining or maintaining power by painting the other side as the servants of the devil, the destroyers of the planet, or whatever else, we all suffer due to lack of real action on real problems.
Question for Debate:
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
To me, All of the above is the best answer. However, If I had to choose one it would be Partisanship as I see it as the route of all the rest. The parties have become so focused on power acquisition that they are abandoning their own ideals and platforms to gain any advantage in the war to gain or maintain power in politics. Worse, then seem to ignore any out-of-the-box thinking because it is rarely clearly right or left and thus does not fit into their sales pitch.
Some say partisanship is the definition of politics. For example:
QUOTE
I once was asked "What is a person that is anti-partisan?" That question at face value can be taken two ways. I will address the person who refuses to participate in any party. I will then address the nonsense that parties should be nonpartisan in their actions.
1. A person who is anti-partisan is one who will have no impact upon the policies of the parties that run this country. By this definition although they may 'make a statement' and may to small degrees effect the greater dialog will have no actual bearing upon the direction of this country.
source1. A person who is anti-partisan is one who will have no impact upon the policies of the parties that run this country. By this definition although they may 'make a statement' and may to small degrees effect the greater dialog will have no actual bearing upon the direction of this country.
To some extent that is true. One usually joins the political party that best represents their thinking because they want to support those ideals. But, what about when partisanship because all important? Where are the voices of outrage in the Republican Party when it comes to our recent complete lack of fiscal responsibility in congress? Where are the voices of descent within the Democratic party when it comes to the parties wishy-washy position on gay marriage? As the political parties shift from focusing on making policy based on ideology to getting elected / reelected by any means necessary where are the voices of disgust from the members of either party?
There are a few voices of descent in both parties but those men and women know that by choosing to oppose the status quo in either party they are dooming any chances they might have at a political future. This is a major deterrent to those that are up and coming within either party. It is also the reason why so many staffers in Washington act more like rabid attack donkeys and elephants then thinkers and policy shapers.
So in the end, I think that route of all of the above is blind partisanship and the quest for power for powers sake alone.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
The professionalization and specialization of politics. Our system had been running relatively smoothly and too many Americans stopped paying real attention to our government. The greatest deterrent to our good government today is the lack of ownership of the government by the people. In this I hold the American people to blame. Special interests will always arise to try to gain an undue influence over the government. Politicians will always be tempted to place personal gain over the public good. It is harder for the common citizen to have an influence over this government that represents 290 million people, but public opinion is an overwhelming force in our government.
We need to look back to Thomas Jefferson and his view that government needed to be simplified. We pass laws that are hundreds of pages long. How many of us really feel that all of our legislators have gained a complete understanding of all of the provisions of a bill 100 pages long? These laws are open for easy corruption and insertion of language that will not be detected until the change in policy has already been accomplished.
We pass omnibus spending bills to keep the government going. This takes frugality out of the system of legislators are able to staple pet pork projects to the massive bill as it lumbers through Congress.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
The lack of will. The people in place in American government are largely products and defenders of the status quo. Instead of best interest of the public as the prime factor for consideration our politicians look at the effects on their warchests and their chances for reelection. While this sometimes creates overlapping interests, it is not the honorable way to approach the job of political representative.
The professionalization and specialization of politics. Our system had been running relatively smoothly and too many Americans stopped paying real attention to our government. The greatest deterrent to our good government today is the lack of ownership of the government by the people. In this I hold the American people to blame. Special interests will always arise to try to gain an undue influence over the government. Politicians will always be tempted to place personal gain over the public good. It is harder for the common citizen to have an influence over this government that represents 290 million people, but public opinion is an overwhelming force in our government.
We need to look back to Thomas Jefferson and his view that government needed to be simplified. We pass laws that are hundreds of pages long. How many of us really feel that all of our legislators have gained a complete understanding of all of the provisions of a bill 100 pages long? These laws are open for easy corruption and insertion of language that will not be detected until the change in policy has already been accomplished.
We pass omnibus spending bills to keep the government going. This takes frugality out of the system of legislators are able to staple pet pork projects to the massive bill as it lumbers through Congress.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
The lack of will. The people in place in American government are largely products and defenders of the status quo. Instead of best interest of the public as the prime factor for consideration our politicians look at the effects on their warchests and their chances for reelection. While this sometimes creates overlapping interests, it is not the honorable way to approach the job of political representative.
I think politics have become over important in one aspect. I mean if you will engage in such that is truly unlawful to our system in order to get your way, it sets a pattern that others will either have to agree to in their own desire or to simply just exist in the system, like sports with contracts and steroids for example. Another issue is the education level to me of 290 million americans in relation to the government, not many people can speak at any length of the constitution anymore then the amount of people i find that can name branches of such a system. Then you have the cut throat nature of voters, and on some issues the lack of abilty to have an open mind or even rationalize, like people that will vote for a party regardless of anything, or a holy crusade back in the day for example, or just blind faith.
I got in a debate for six hours with a fellow employee over the drug war, i feel very confident that i won, but the person simply for no reason would ever admit to it, and would just buckle down even more to almost a level of perversion really. i feel many issues can become like this in america due to scope of understanding, and of course i feel politicians can become aware of such and use suck like marketing for voters, i dont find it ethical really to conduct politics like such, its really who has the best propaganda and then never really deals with the issues at hand.
It can go on more and more, and just how like generations change you get new faces and such to a already running and living thing such as the government, so from clinton america goes to bush, and then on and on, and of course you have all the people that know the truth or facts or correct way to do things, and then you have reality. I will skip personal rants the best i can on this one
I got in a debate for six hours with a fellow employee over the drug war, i feel very confident that i won, but the person simply for no reason would ever admit to it, and would just buckle down even more to almost a level of perversion really. i feel many issues can become like this in america due to scope of understanding, and of course i feel politicians can become aware of such and use suck like marketing for voters, i dont find it ethical really to conduct politics like such, its really who has the best propaganda and then never really deals with the issues at hand.
It can go on more and more, and just how like generations change you get new faces and such to a already running and living thing such as the government, so from clinton america goes to bush, and then on and on, and of course you have all the people that know the truth or facts or correct way to do things, and then you have reality. I will skip personal rants the best i can on this one
Within the "two-party system" that is a creation of....the two parties, there is a state of "mutually assured destruction" so powerful that if one party were to blow the whistle on the other, they would both be obliterated by the truth about the amount of corruption evident. At least, that's my perspective on why we can't change things from within.
I strongly feel that THE ONLY WAY to make a real difference is...well, the third party coalition that I am working hard on making happen. I am not alone. I'd rather focus on what I consider the solution than the problem. No use crying over spilt milk. Your list of poll choices looked like the beginnings of a Coalition Platform. Folks, I am not deranged, and this is not a joke. This is a real movement, brought to you by every day, average Joe Americans. "We the People have got to do something.
Google it for yourself. Look up "Third Parties Unite" or "Third Party Coalition". It is happening. If you want to make a real difference, I think this is the only way.
Sign the petition link in my signature if you want to help. Copy and paste the link and send it to everyone you know. I'm all about it.
Inertia - There is an inertia to overcome within the American People. They are at rest, and need a force to be applied to get them rolling. I am trying to provide that force. Enough division and petty bickering over issues that have no solution. Enough of the corporate and special interest money controlling the government.
The problem with the government is that it is no longer government for and by the people - it is government by and for the corporate shareholders. WE THE PEOPLE need to take our country back through the vote before this becomes a total fascist country. We are well on our way. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
I strongly feel that THE ONLY WAY to make a real difference is...well, the third party coalition that I am working hard on making happen. I am not alone. I'd rather focus on what I consider the solution than the problem. No use crying over spilt milk. Your list of poll choices looked like the beginnings of a Coalition Platform. Folks, I am not deranged, and this is not a joke. This is a real movement, brought to you by every day, average Joe Americans. "We the People have got to do something.
Google it for yourself. Look up "Third Parties Unite" or "Third Party Coalition". It is happening. If you want to make a real difference, I think this is the only way.
Sign the petition link in my signature if you want to help. Copy and paste the link and send it to everyone you know. I'm all about it.
Inertia - There is an inertia to overcome within the American People. They are at rest, and need a force to be applied to get them rolling. I am trying to provide that force. Enough division and petty bickering over issues that have no solution. Enough of the corporate and special interest money controlling the government.
The problem with the government is that it is no longer government for and by the people - it is government by and for the corporate shareholders. WE THE PEOPLE need to take our country back through the vote before this becomes a total fascist country. We are well on our way. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
Money. Hands down. No question. And the money problem can be seen to lead to almost everything else listed in your poll, OverlandSailor
Corporate lobbyists, PACs, and the like have turned this country from an egalitarian system to a new "feudal" system, one of the very things that the Founding Fathers were greatly afraid of. The Boston Tea Party was as much about rebelling against the East India Company itself, as it was about tax increases.
Originally, corporations were established only to allow a group of people to perform something a single-entity company may not have been able to. Building roads and bridges, for example, or the New York Canal and lock system in upstate, NY. Work done for the public good, but which still allowed the investors a chance to make a small profit from the investment. The corporations themselves had a limited lifespan, usually disolved after the originally chartered purpose was complete, and the assets distributed among the shareholders. Also of note, was that the owners, managers and shareholders of the day could be held responsible for any illegal acts performed by, or in the name of, the corporation.
Some corporations were allowed by the states to remain in business, but were usually still subject to severe restrictions. That changed in the mid-to-late 1800's, however. Lawyers working for these corporations, argued successfully, that these corporations should be given the legal "fiction" of personhood. In 1866, lawyers representing this newly-created “person” won a ruling from the Supreme Court saying that, as a legal person, corporations were entitled to be protected by the 14th amendment for “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws.” These provisions of the 14th amendment, were written for the protection of freed slaves after the War Between the States. But since that 1866 ruling it has been used almost exclusively to protect corporations, rather than individual citizens.
This new legal perspective helped the corporation become a self-directed organism. It's behavior was now legally distinct from the personal predilections of its shareholders, managers, or employees. The state no longer created corporations in any way except name only. It merely "rubber stamped" their creation, contingent upon payment of the proper fees, and acknowledged their existance.
This allowed for the start of our current problems, as seen in this quote from Dennis Fox, a researcher and author:
What does all this have to do with your question, you may ask? Well, the corporations, over the last 150 years or so, but most notably in the last forty years, have pushed to be eligible for all of the rights afforded to an individual citizen of this country. Not just rights under the 14th amendment, but under the 4th, 5th and 1st amendments as well.
The consequences of corporate personhood are not trivial. Jerry Mander writes in his book In the Absence of the Sacred:
And it has become insanity. Witness, for example, the influence of money over the political process, and not just in election year advertising. Money, according to the Supreme Court, is no longer just a way of keeping track in the game of business. It's no longer just a commodity. Money is considered speech itself.
Yes, money buys access and consideration to politicians, but it also makes those politicians beholden to those with the money. No longer does an individual have the same influence, because they cannot possibly afford the gifts, use of aircraft and vehicles, and thousands of dollars in contributions a corporation, or PAC, or industry lobbyist can.
And this kind of "consideration" has lead to the greatest abuses of recent years. Withholding the names of corporations involved in helping develop energy and environmental policy.
An FDA that's so chummy with the drug companies, that a whole class of drugs, proven medically more harmful than helpful is passed with little or no comment. But, we cannot import drugs from other countries, identical to the ones sold here, because it "may not be safe". That is, it may not be safe for the drug companies profits.
Or how about this. The RIAA and MPAA, literally writing the laws that will allow them to control how entertainment is distributed in this country. What future technologies will be allowed, etc, and then merely getting some Senator or Representative to put his name on the bill to submit it. This is the kind of stuff that's happening more and more, thanks to the influence of big money. Get rid of that, take the contributions and lobbying back to individual citizens only, and I think we'd have a better chance at getting congress to work for the country again, instead of the corporations and PAC's.
Money. Hands down. No question. And the money problem can be seen to lead to almost everything else listed in your poll, OverlandSailor
Corporate lobbyists, PACs, and the like have turned this country from an egalitarian system to a new "feudal" system, one of the very things that the Founding Fathers were greatly afraid of. The Boston Tea Party was as much about rebelling against the East India Company itself, as it was about tax increases.
Originally, corporations were established only to allow a group of people to perform something a single-entity company may not have been able to. Building roads and bridges, for example, or the New York Canal and lock system in upstate, NY. Work done for the public good, but which still allowed the investors a chance to make a small profit from the investment. The corporations themselves had a limited lifespan, usually disolved after the originally chartered purpose was complete, and the assets distributed among the shareholders. Also of note, was that the owners, managers and shareholders of the day could be held responsible for any illegal acts performed by, or in the name of, the corporation.
Some corporations were allowed by the states to remain in business, but were usually still subject to severe restrictions. That changed in the mid-to-late 1800's, however. Lawyers working for these corporations, argued successfully, that these corporations should be given the legal "fiction" of personhood. In 1866, lawyers representing this newly-created “person” won a ruling from the Supreme Court saying that, as a legal person, corporations were entitled to be protected by the 14th amendment for “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws.” These provisions of the 14th amendment, were written for the protection of freed slaves after the War Between the States. But since that 1866 ruling it has been used almost exclusively to protect corporations, rather than individual citizens.
This new legal perspective helped the corporation become a self-directed organism. It's behavior was now legally distinct from the personal predilections of its shareholders, managers, or employees. The state no longer created corporations in any way except name only. It merely "rubber stamped" their creation, contingent upon payment of the proper fees, and acknowledged their existance.
This allowed for the start of our current problems, as seen in this quote from Dennis Fox, a researcher and author:
QUOTE
Two late-nineteenth century historical trends affected the developing personhood doctrine. First, Alexander Hamilton's government-business alliance finally came into its own as a much larger and more powerful central government worked hand in hand with corporate America. Second, Social Darwinism became intellectually and politically dominant. Judges now had a respectable reason to overturn legislation helping workers, farmers, consumers, and the public. When state legislators interfered with corporations' constitutionally recognized rights, the Supreme Court simply invalidated their efforts. Thus, the rhetoric of competitive free-market capitalism was retained while government intervened as necessary to protect corporate interests.
What does all this have to do with your question, you may ask? Well, the corporations, over the last 150 years or so, but most notably in the last forty years, have pushed to be eligible for all of the rights afforded to an individual citizen of this country. Not just rights under the 14th amendment, but under the 4th, 5th and 1st amendments as well.
The consequences of corporate personhood are not trivial. Jerry Mander writes in his book In the Absence of the Sacred:
QUOTE
Not being human, not having feelings, corporations do not have morals or altruistic goals. A nonhuman entity that cannot possess morals is certainly not fit to be granted equal standing with a person. Indeed, granting amoral entities so-called equal rights with persons, which because of corporations' great wealth and power become greater rights, is so irrational it ought to be considered a kind of insanity.
And it has become insanity. Witness, for example, the influence of money over the political process, and not just in election year advertising. Money, according to the Supreme Court, is no longer just a way of keeping track in the game of business. It's no longer just a commodity. Money is considered speech itself.
Yes, money buys access and consideration to politicians, but it also makes those politicians beholden to those with the money. No longer does an individual have the same influence, because they cannot possibly afford the gifts, use of aircraft and vehicles, and thousands of dollars in contributions a corporation, or PAC, or industry lobbyist can.
And this kind of "consideration" has lead to the greatest abuses of recent years. Withholding the names of corporations involved in helping develop energy and environmental policy.
An FDA that's so chummy with the drug companies, that a whole class of drugs, proven medically more harmful than helpful is passed with little or no comment. But, we cannot import drugs from other countries, identical to the ones sold here, because it "may not be safe". That is, it may not be safe for the drug companies profits.
Or how about this. The RIAA and MPAA, literally writing the laws that will allow them to control how entertainment is distributed in this country. What future technologies will be allowed, etc, and then merely getting some Senator or Representative to put his name on the bill to submit it. This is the kind of stuff that's happening more and more, thanks to the influence of big money. Get rid of that, take the contributions and lobbying back to individual citizens only, and I think we'd have a better chance at getting congress to work for the country again, instead of the corporations and PAC's.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
I voted all of the above, because it most closely fits my thinking. I don't, however, have any problem with lawyers as politicians. There are undoubtedly some sleazy lawyers, but this a stereotype. Sleaze also makes the round of insurance company offices and other endeavors. Lawyers are a goods counterbalance to insurance company lobbyists.
I voted all of the above, because it most closely fits my thinking. I don't, however, have any problem with lawyers as politicians. There are undoubtedly some sleazy lawyers, but this a stereotype. Sleaze also makes the round of insurance company offices and other endeavors. Lawyers are a goods counterbalance to insurance company lobbyists.
Question for Debate:
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Coming from an engineer's perspective, I believe the problem with politics today is that too many people (not all) are more concerned with perception than actually solving our problems. I am a Republican but above all, I want people with solutions. I want people who will confront problems and if it just happens to be a Democrat than I would vote for a Democrat. However, today people are too caught up in partisanship. There is an unfortunatae belief that if you are a republican than you can never vote for, support or work with a Democrat or vice versa.
Another problem is job security, people do not want to offer up new solutions because their constituents might not like it, so they play it safe and just use unsolved issues as campaigning material.
The last problem I see is that too many people are comfortable with how things are. Congress enjoys arguing but not make decisions or thinking outside of the box. There is too much fear of the unknown. Things are relatively ok now, so why suggest anything drastic. I believe that these are the problems with today's politics and why issues like crime, poverty, health care and education just continue on election after election.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Coming from an engineer's perspective, I believe the problem with politics today is that too many people (not all) are more concerned with perception than actually solving our problems. I am a Republican but above all, I want people with solutions. I want people who will confront problems and if it just happens to be a Democrat than I would vote for a Democrat. However, today people are too caught up in partisanship. There is an unfortunatae belief that if you are a republican than you can never vote for, support or work with a Democrat or vice versa.
Another problem is job security, people do not want to offer up new solutions because their constituents might not like it, so they play it safe and just use unsolved issues as campaigning material.
The last problem I see is that too many people are comfortable with how things are. Congress enjoys arguing but not make decisions or thinking outside of the box. There is too much fear of the unknown. Things are relatively ok now, so why suggest anything drastic. I believe that these are the problems with today's politics and why issues like crime, poverty, health care and education just continue on election after election.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
The fact that we really are not given a choice when it comes to candidates.
It is an elite, small group of well-connected wealthy men (with few exceptions)
who find their way to the political platforms. We are given the illusion of choice
in that we have a democrat and republican to choose from (oh, yes, and the
Ralph Naders of the world). But, in truth, they are hand-picked and cut from
the same cloth. Each side has it's own selling points, but in actuality they are
one and the same.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues
of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Special interest groups. Big business; power-hungry corporations who do not
have the greatest good in mind, at all. If we ever want to see a change in
politics we basically would have to have a revolution. And, how many of us
are willing to get off the sofa, turn off the tv, and go do something tangible
and effective. It won't happen until we've lost our luxuries, then maybe we'll
start to effect a positive change.
The fact that we really are not given a choice when it comes to candidates.
It is an elite, small group of well-connected wealthy men (with few exceptions)
who find their way to the political platforms. We are given the illusion of choice
in that we have a democrat and republican to choose from (oh, yes, and the
Ralph Naders of the world). But, in truth, they are hand-picked and cut from
the same cloth. Each side has it's own selling points, but in actuality they are
one and the same.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues
of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Special interest groups. Big business; power-hungry corporations who do not
have the greatest good in mind, at all. If we ever want to see a change in
politics we basically would have to have a revolution. And, how many of us
are willing to get off the sofa, turn off the tv, and go do something tangible
and effective. It won't happen until we've lost our luxuries, then maybe we'll
start to effect a positive change.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
I answered all of the above because all of the issues mentioned play a key role in one way or another in politics. However, I think one of the main issues facing us today is the "corporatization" of our government. Corporations are ruining our democracy today with their increase lust and greed for money and power. Neither political party in my opinion seems to be stepping up to the plate. Right now the Republicans, because of their majority, have an opportunity to stand up for the people. But they stand on the side of corporations. There is a war going on in our government. That war is the 'AMERICAN PEOPLE" vs. "CORPORATE AMERICA".
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Partisianship prevents our politicains from making sound decisions that may benefit the people. They don't stand up for what they believe in. How can we have all of these policies in place to benefit "big business", yet when it come to social programs that mainly help the poor and middle-class we cut them. Just look at whats happening today. Cut the deficit by killing programs that help the poor but finance "tax cuts" for the rich. Huh??
You don't have to be smart to know that s immoral.
I answered all of the above because all of the issues mentioned play a key role in one way or another in politics. However, I think one of the main issues facing us today is the "corporatization" of our government. Corporations are ruining our democracy today with their increase lust and greed for money and power. Neither political party in my opinion seems to be stepping up to the plate. Right now the Republicans, because of their majority, have an opportunity to stand up for the people. But they stand on the side of corporations. There is a war going on in our government. That war is the 'AMERICAN PEOPLE" vs. "CORPORATE AMERICA".
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Partisianship prevents our politicains from making sound decisions that may benefit the people. They don't stand up for what they believe in. How can we have all of these policies in place to benefit "big business", yet when it come to social programs that mainly help the poor and middle-class we cut them. Just look at whats happening today. Cut the deficit by killing programs that help the poor but finance "tax cuts" for the rich. Huh??
You don't have to be smart to know that s immoral.
I had to say 'Other'. In keeping with the current trend of shifting responsibility, I guess...none of the options listed 'voters'. We get exactly the government we vote for. Therefore, we are responsible for most of the ills we see in government. There is a very simple way to get rid of all the other issues mentioned...vote them out! But, that's not likely to happen anytime soon, because we, as voters, seem satisfied with the current system.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
Voter greed and voter apathy. The greed because people are all too willing to vote whoever gives them the most handouts (why do you think PAC's are so prevalent?), and the apathy because nearly everyone admits we don't have the candidates or programs of our choice, but we don't seem to care all that much. It's no one's fault but our own...after all, we voted for them, didn't we? And we continue to do so.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
The fact that voters don't force their representatives to address the real issues and major problems. I'm assuming most will agree that politicians tend to do whatever is necessary to get votes? Well, then, if they're not dealing with the real issues and major problems, its because we don't make them do it to get our votes. That's not their fault...its ours. Pointing the finger anywhere else isn't addressing the real problem.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
Voter greed and voter apathy. The greed because people are all too willing to vote whoever gives them the most handouts (why do you think PAC's are so prevalent?), and the apathy because nearly everyone admits we don't have the candidates or programs of our choice, but we don't seem to care all that much. It's no one's fault but our own...after all, we voted for them, didn't we? And we continue to do so.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
The fact that voters don't force their representatives to address the real issues and major problems. I'm assuming most will agree that politicians tend to do whatever is necessary to get votes? Well, then, if they're not dealing with the real issues and major problems, its because we don't make them do it to get our votes. That's not their fault...its ours. Pointing the finger anywhere else isn't addressing the real problem.
QUOTE(cgorham @ Dec 26 2004, 07:58 PM)
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
Partisianship prevents our politicains from making sound decisions that may benefit the people. They don't stand up for what they believe in. How can we have all of these policies in place to benefit "big business", yet when it come to social programs that mainly help the poor and middle-class we cut them. Just look at whats happening today. Cut the deficit by killing programs that help the poor but finance "tax cuts" for the rich. Huh?? You don't have to be smart to know that s immoral.
Partisianship prevents our politicains from making sound decisions that may benefit the people. They don't stand up for what they believe in. How can we have all of these policies in place to benefit "big business", yet when it come to social programs that mainly help the poor and middle-class we cut them. Just look at whats happening today. Cut the deficit by killing programs that help the poor but finance "tax cuts" for the rich. Huh??
You don't have to be smart to know that s immoral.I don't think it would take a genius to figure out what party you're referring to... hmmm.... seems a little one-sided doesn't it?
The tax cut also benefited a vast majority of the middle class, as every figure ever published will really show. The poor people in America also already benefit from a large portion of our tax structure, i.e. EITC, etc. The percentage of income that our poor people pay is so miniscule in proportion that how could we realistically cut it anymore? Should they not bear a tax burden at all? (actually, they often nearly don't at all).
When referring to "big business" and "corporate tax cuts",etc, please take the time to understand our economic structure and why this "trickle down" idealism has been extremely effective, especially during the mid 90's. Understand that there are plenty of non-partisan economists that agree with such policies and the benefits from said actions.
Lest we never forget that partisanship lies on both sides of the fence. I'm confident that this election showed that liberals and conservatives alike are having a hard time finding common ground.
QUOTE
Lest we never forget that partisanship lies on both sides of the fence. I'm confident that this election showed that liberals and conservatives alike are having a hard time finding common ground.
The Hard Right and Left will of course never agree with each other--don't need the tactics used by both of these groups to see that.
However if the Democrats are to seriously see the closeness of the election as an endorsement of their party and its beliefs--and foolishly try to shift farther left--they will fail, and fail badly.
Republicans and the Hard Right should probably take this to heart as well. Many who supported Bush only did so because of the WOT and not his policies or the agenda of the Right.
I agree with hobbes that people get the government they deserve. The lack of participation is definitely a hindrance to getting good government. However I believe firmly that the ever increasing growth among those that eschew either party gives good reason that if one were to offer effective solutions to todays problems and a rational approach minus the virulent Dogma of the current 2 parties, one could probably gain enough support to effectively drain the strength of the 2 parties. I would be willing to bet that if you could coax the moderates of both parties away and form a united coalition we could break the hold of the 2 parties--who are more interested in dominance and the politics of revenge than what is actually best for America.
The fatal flaw of the 3PO's is that quite often they are merely a more condensed and pure vision of the 2 current parties.
Lib/Greens are simply reflections of the current 2Ps simply more focused on certain elements of either 2P. Merely an even further to the fringe representation of either 2P.
I am not a fan of the Centrist label and feel that a successful attempt would focus on logical effective solutions.
example: GI BIll.
Probably the best comprimise of the Liberal/Conservative idealogies we have ever produced. Offers a helping hand in acheiving a better life but does nothing more than offer aid--a chance. It is up to you to make it successful by doing the work to kmake it succeed. If you work hard you succeed--if not you get nada.
Add in that it rewards giving back to our country by offering oneself for military service and you get an excellent way to increase the public good and raise the bar for positive outcome.
However ideas such as thes will never come from the current 2Ps who will only shoot each others ideas down to prevent the possibilty of the other side gaining "points'
I would have picked two on the list, but I'd have to say the biggest barrier is the cost of what it takes to get into the race and maintain. So many of the other things won't happen until you're actually elected.
Just to start a campaign is a fortune to most people - and that's before you get your party's endorsement and access to those funds. You have to be in a position where you can afford to take off - a regular person wouldn't be able to go to an employer and ask for leave and if you don't win, you get your job back.
So, you've got money out of your own pocket to start, then you have to have the time to devote to the race. No little kids depending on you to take them to school, help them with their homework, go to the dentist.
We are talking about the ultra rich, with ultra rich power connection, with a HUGE support group. Not to mention the utter stamina it takes to put in the endless days and hours with a smile on your face, your vocal chords working, and your stomach willing and able to eat just one more rubber chicken meal.
I think we'll be seeing more people running for office from certain families. Not only do they understand what is expected of them, but the start up funds and time will be there as well.
Just to start a campaign is a fortune to most people - and that's before you get your party's endorsement and access to those funds. You have to be in a position where you can afford to take off - a regular person wouldn't be able to go to an employer and ask for leave and if you don't win, you get your job back.
So, you've got money out of your own pocket to start, then you have to have the time to devote to the race. No little kids depending on you to take them to school, help them with their homework, go to the dentist.
We are talking about the ultra rich, with ultra rich power connection, with a HUGE support group. Not to mention the utter stamina it takes to put in the endless days and hours with a smile on your face, your vocal chords working, and your stomach willing and able to eat just one more rubber chicken meal.
I think we'll be seeing more people running for office from certain families. Not only do they understand what is expected of them, but the start up funds and time will be there as well.
I voted other. I think that big government is the problem. Since FDR we have handed to politicians more and more power and control over our lives. Special interest groups exist and lobby extensively because of the amount of power our government wields. Strip government of its overreaching power and suddenly the interest groups disappear. Mixing power and money with politicians is like mixing car keys and credit cards with a teenager.
First of all, allow me the opportunity to say "thank you" to the hosts and moderators of this forum. This is my first post, and as such, I look forward to the opportunity to read and reply to the many topics covered here.
The question I would ask deerjerkydave is (and by the way, I LOVE deer jerky!), what "overreaching power" do you believe government has?
I couldn't agree more that power, money, and politicians is a bad mix... But what's new about that?
The question I would ask deerjerkydave is (and by the way, I LOVE deer jerky!), what "overreaching power" do you believe government has?
I couldn't agree more that power, money, and politicians is a bad mix... But what's new about that?
I voted "Partisanship (Rabid opposition to one side and blind adherence to the other)"
but it is a bit more than that. I experience it a lot when Republicans call me a liberal and democrats call me a conservative. It seems the entire country has adopted an "if your not with us your against us" policy, problem is they only see 1 opponent... they con not comprehend that someone may agree with them on many issues but not on the single one they are discussing...
John & Ken, hosts of an L.A. area AM talk radio program illustrate this nicely. For the most part they are conservatives but they are sick of Illegal immigration and had a campaign over the summer called "political human sacrifice" their plan was to vote out the 1 democrat and 1 republican from state senate who had done the least to stop illegal immigration... when the conservatives got wind of this the protested with the FEC, if you called the candidates office and asked about his stance on illegal immigration they immediately asked if you listened to the show and then asserted that John and Ken were just spreading liberal propaganda...
this is not an isolated incident, it appears to be happening everywhere, but it is a great example.
but it is a bit more than that. I experience it a lot when Republicans call me a liberal and democrats call me a conservative. It seems the entire country has adopted an "if your not with us your against us" policy, problem is they only see 1 opponent... they con not comprehend that someone may agree with them on many issues but not on the single one they are discussing...
John & Ken, hosts of an L.A. area AM talk radio program illustrate this nicely. For the most part they are conservatives but they are sick of Illegal immigration and had a campaign over the summer called "political human sacrifice" their plan was to vote out the 1 democrat and 1 republican from state senate who had done the least to stop illegal immigration... when the conservatives got wind of this the protested with the FEC, if you called the candidates office and asked about his stance on illegal immigration they immediately asked if you listened to the show and then asserted that John and Ken were just spreading liberal propaganda...
this is not an isolated incident, it appears to be happening everywhere, but it is a great example.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
I voted Lobbyist and PAC money but I think the real problem is corporate influence through lobbying and PACs. It seems like the congress is intent on handing out huge amounts of corporate welfare and outrageous subsidies. For some reason congress seems to think that what's good for Cargill and Merck, is good for America. Often small farmers subsidize the destruction of their livelihoods because the largest donors get most of the subsidies. People who are trusted to be the advocate of the people are totally brazen in rewarding environmental destruction and greed.
It's sort of like America is in a second gilded age. The ultra-wealthy are getting more and more powerful. The interests of anyone without millions of dollars are being overlooked.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future? It seems to me the last two times things have gotten so unbalanced in corporations favor populism has made a comeback. Right now we have an incredibly unpopulist congress and president. If we got rid of them maybe we could get the government back on track. What we need is a new group of people in the congress who aren't empty suits. People more like John McCain and Howard Dean.
I voted Lobbyist and PAC money but I think the real problem is corporate influence through lobbying and PACs. It seems like the congress is intent on handing out huge amounts of corporate welfare and outrageous subsidies. For some reason congress seems to think that what's good for Cargill and Merck, is good for America. Often small farmers subsidize the destruction of their livelihoods because the largest donors get most of the subsidies. People who are trusted to be the advocate of the people are totally brazen in rewarding environmental destruction and greed.
It's sort of like America is in a second gilded age. The ultra-wealthy are getting more and more powerful. The interests of anyone without millions of dollars are being overlooked.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future? It seems to me the last two times things have gotten so unbalanced in corporations favor populism has made a comeback. Right now we have an incredibly unpopulist congress and president. If we got rid of them maybe we could get the government back on track. What we need is a new group of people in the congress who aren't empty suits. People more like John McCain and Howard Dean.
The Poll response "All of the Above" may be remedied if "Partisanship" were first dealt with and defeated.
LINK: Prime Example
LINK: Prime Example
QUOTE(considering it @ Dec 30 2004, 04:41 AM)
The Poll response "All of the Above" may be remedied if "Partisanship" were first dealt with and defeated.
LINK: Prime Example
LINK: Prime Example
You're new so you likely didn't realize one-liners are against the Rules because they are not considered constructive. Also, it helps if you explain why you're posting a link; this is outlined in the Survival Guide.
TOPICS:
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future?
It's hard to choose just one, those are all good points.
I think the ultimate problem is the American people. We just don't demand better. We have the ability to get rid of most of these problems by voting 3rd party candidates or through other political involvement, but we stick with the system.
Every time I start to get mad at a politician or one of our misguided policies, I just blame Americans. We voted these people in, we're all fine with the 2-party tyranny, the control by corporations and the huge costs of getting into politics.
I don't think any issue is insurmountable if people just GET INVOLVED. That's what I would say is the major problem with America today.
I think one reason Americans are so detached from the process is mostly due to having very good economic times. The better things are, the less scrutinizing people will be. It usually takes something horrible to happen before people get involved.
I think the ultimate problem is the American people. We just don't demand better. We have the ability to get rid of most of these problems by voting 3rd party candidates or through other political involvement, but we stick with the system.
Every time I start to get mad at a politician or one of our misguided policies, I just blame Americans. We voted these people in, we're all fine with the 2-party tyranny, the control by corporations and the huge costs of getting into politics.
I don't think any issue is insurmountable if people just GET INVOLVED. That's what I would say is the major problem with America today.
I think one reason Americans are so detached from the process is mostly due to having very good economic times. The better things are, the less scrutinizing people will be. It usually takes something horrible to happen before people get involved.
QUOTE(Tim-Mello @ Jan 16 2005, 10:24 PM)
We have the ability to get rid of most of these problems by voting 3rd party candidates or through other political involvement, but we stick with the system.
Tim-Mello,
You know, I kind of doubt this. Have you read George Orwell's novel, Animal Farm? The pigs took over the operation from the farmer. It wasn't long until the pigs were walking around on two legs and acting just like the farmer they had replaced. The cynical old donkey Benjamin refused to take part in the rebellion an observed from the field as nothing really changed.
Even if we electe a third party candidate, how many election cycles would it take until the new party becomes currupt?
In recent elections neither Ralph Nader or H. Ross Perot was a viable solution. I voted for Anderson in 1980, but he didn't have a chance and god knows George Wallace in 1968 would have been a disaster.
A better approach is to make the Democratic party more viable so that we don't end up with one party--Republican
--rule.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Dec 24 2004, 08:11 AM)
There are a few voices of descent in both parties but those men and women know that by choosing to oppose the status quo in either party they are dooming any chances they might have at a political future. This is a major deterrent to those that are up and coming within either party. It is also the reason why so many staffers in Washington act more like rabid attack donkeys and elephants then thinkers and policy shapers.
So in the end, I think that route of all of the above is blind partisanship and the quest for power for powers sake alone.
So in the end, I think that route of all of the above is blind partisanship and the quest for power for powers sake alone.
Yes, this is the problem, and it is completely within the voters power to change it. Why do we continue to vote for those who obstruct progress over those who embrace it? There is a very simple solution to attack-dog politics--stop voting for those that do it. As the saying goes, we get exactly the government we deserve...its not the politicians fault, its ours. Like spoiled children, they will keep behaving in ways that are in their own best interests...as long as that type of behaviour is not penalized in the polls or within the party, then it will continue.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jan 24 2005, 11:44 AM)
Yes, this is the problem, and it is completely within the voters power to change it. Why do we continue to vote for those who obstruct progress over those who embrace it? There is a very simple solution to attack-dog politics--stop voting for those that do it. As the saying goes, we get exactly the government we deserve...its not the politicians fault, its ours. Like spoiled children, they will keep behaving in ways that are in their own best interests...as long as that type of behaviour is not penalized in the polls or within the party, then it will continue.
The problem is, IMHO, that the political hacks on BOTH sides have so successfully demonized their opponents in the eyes of their faithful. To vote out the attack dogs, you must vote for the other party. When you have been convinced that voting for the other party will lead to the end of the world, you usually decide to stick with the attack dogs over world destruction.
Of course it's ridiculous to think this about either party. Both of the big two parties are the big two parties because of their "big tent" approach. Generalizing about either party is nearly impossible because they are both made up of many diverse points of view.
However, it would seem the vast majority of American voters, at least those who are declared Democrats or Republicans, just don't get that.
If you vote Republican you vote for Back Alley Abortions (never mind the Pro-Choice Republicans out there), an American Police State (Forget the Republican Liberty Caucus), and World War III/World Colonization (Nevermind the large number of isolationists in the party).
If you vote Democrat you vote for infanticide, and all sorts of depravity (never mind all the Catholics and other Religious people, (not to mention the fact that secular does NOT mean Immoral) who are Pro-life and Democrats), Isolationist trade policy (forgetting all the DNC members who supported NAFTA), and turning over rule of the USA to the UN (forget that Democrats are Americans and all but a VERY VERY small minority would never dream of giving up control of our country to anyone other then the people of America).
(There are even participants of this very discussion board that frequently espouse one or the other of these stereotypes. This mindless partisanship seems to be equally represented on AD by some members of both sides of the political spectrum)
It's ridiculous, it's blind, base-less partisanship and it is the driving force that keeps corrupt politicians in power because the masses are so scared of the other side of the aisle they wouldn't dream of voting against their own, even if there own happens to be a thief, a drunk, a womanizer, or simple an idiot. The fact that it keeps incumbents in power more often then not is the REAL reason for the insane level of partisan nonsense these days.
Until Americans wake up to the reality that all politicians are individuals and that party stereotypes are no better then racial stereotypes, it simply will not change.
I'm surprised no one pointed out the flip side of the political courage point.
Not only are politicians afraid to lose votes, they have no real motivation to do anything that won't necessarily gain them votes for the next elections.
This results in an almost total lack of long-term thinking.
Q:The plan in going to take ten-years to come to fruition?
A:The election's in two years, see if I care!
Of course something as complex as a nation desperately needs such long-term planning, rooted not in the popularity of a measure but it's effectiveness. What to do about this I really don't know.
Elect smarter politicians...
Not only are politicians afraid to lose votes, they have no real motivation to do anything that won't necessarily gain them votes for the next elections.
This results in an almost total lack of long-term thinking.
Q:The plan in going to take ten-years to come to fruition?
A:The election's in two years, see if I care!
Of course something as complex as a nation desperately needs such long-term planning, rooted not in the popularity of a measure but it's effectiveness. What to do about this I really don't know.
Elect smarter politicians...
QUOTE(turnea @ Jan 24 2005, 08:48 PM)
What to do about this I really don't know.
Elect smarter politicians...
Elect smarter politicians...
Well, that rather difficult when you consider that most of the really smart people in America are smart enough not to run and become a part of this insanity.
As for:
QUOTE
political courage
I'm not sure that exists anymore outside of fairy tales.
I know I have not seen anything that resembles it in quite some time, from EITHER side.
Darn, I wish I had more time. 
It is very easy to think our political system is worse today but I don't think it is. The public has more access to more information is all. I know I just blew the "debate" but if you think about it -- it is true. Dirty politics didn't start with "I am not a crook" Nixon. The only people who could vote in the beginning were people who owned land or the "rich". A very small percentage of the population wanted to fight for our independence. The anti - war folks didn't have the internet to let them know they weren't alone in the wilderness. I would say Government as a whole is more open to public scrutiny than it ever was. If anyone is to blame it is our education system and the media for not giving us the facts. If the people can't depend on our educators or press to tell the truth and not be partisan, we can't make demands on our government leaders. The liberal press says one thing, the conservative press says another thing and it's up to the people to figure out who is telling the truth. The best we can do is pick our team and root for em, cause no one will really know until we are dead and gone.
It is very easy to think our political system is worse today but I don't think it is. The public has more access to more information is all. I know I just blew the "debate" but if you think about it -- it is true. Dirty politics didn't start with "I am not a crook" Nixon. The only people who could vote in the beginning were people who owned land or the "rich". A very small percentage of the population wanted to fight for our independence. The anti - war folks didn't have the internet to let them know they weren't alone in the wilderness. I would say Government as a whole is more open to public scrutiny than it ever was. If anyone is to blame it is our education system and the media for not giving us the facts. If the people can't depend on our educators or press to tell the truth and not be partisan, we can't make demands on our government leaders. The liberal press says one thing, the conservative press says another thing and it's up to the people to figure out who is telling the truth. The best we can do is pick our team and root for em, cause no one will really know until we are dead and gone.
I see the poll options as symptoms and none are the root of the problem. The problem is the voters. Long have I been trying to solve the problem of why voters pick people who operate in such a poor manner. Here is my list of observations and generalizations:
Voters think anyone who runs for office is dishonest.
Voters think honest people are stupid. It is hard for voters to understand their motivation if they put honesty ahead of self gratification.
Voters will vote for honest people but only if they are think they are not stupid.
Voters are ill informed. They do not take the time to learn about issues or they do not have the skills to understand them.
Voters base their thinking on belief systems.
Voters will base their vote how a person looks and acts over how they think.
Voters think government is by definition corrupt. They want a corrupt person representing them to get their cut of the free stuff.
Voters do not believe in the concept of limited government. They want government to take stuff from others to fund their programs instead of doing it voluntarily. They believe the majority should rule.
Voters think anyone who runs for office is dishonest.
Voters think honest people are stupid. It is hard for voters to understand their motivation if they put honesty ahead of self gratification.
Voters will vote for honest people but only if they are think they are not stupid.
Voters are ill informed. They do not take the time to learn about issues or they do not have the skills to understand them.
Voters base their thinking on belief systems.
Voters will base their vote how a person looks and acts over how they think.
Voters think government is by definition corrupt. They want a corrupt person representing them to get their cut of the free stuff.
Voters do not believe in the concept of limited government. They want government to take stuff from others to fund their programs instead of doing it voluntarily. They believe the majority should rule.
QUOTE
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
Great question as usual OverlandSailor. I chose other for the poll. I believe the answer is simple, Democrats and Republicans can only agree on one thing. That being...Continuing the two party duopoly that has a stranglehold on our country's political system. The media is to blame as well. Have you ever seen a third party candidate on TV? How many times? Third party candidates are not invited to debates, third party candidates are not mentioned by their opponents. Third party ideals are not brought to America's attention by anyone. Third parties are a mystery to most Americans. Worse than that, most third party members are shrugged off as extremists simply because they aren't an R or a D. Not even independents are often looked at seriously. Without a third party Renaissance in America, we will have nothing to look forward to but the same old same old...CP
It seems to me you, ConservPat are placing you vote with choice number one in the poll, partisanship. It seems to me, voters are willing to put up with the obvious duopoly. The two party system is simply accepted even though it has proven to be a system which is full of coercion and self serving policies instead of problem solving.
I do agree it is a major symptom of the problem of voter ineptitude.
I do agree it is a major symptom of the problem of voter ineptitude.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
A few people in this thread have mentioned that Americans need to be smarter in their selection of politicians. I agree, but with a twist. Because of the massive size the U.S. government has become, it is impossible for your average citizen to understand the interworking complexities of the system well enough to vote intelligently for its management. The only way Americans can vote smarter is to shrink government to a size manageable by average Americans.
A few people in this thread have mentioned that Americans need to be smarter in their selection of politicians. I agree, but with a twist. Because of the massive size the U.S. government has become, it is impossible for your average citizen to understand the interworking complexities of the system well enough to vote intelligently for its management. The only way Americans can vote smarter is to shrink government to a size manageable by average Americans.
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Apr 19 2005, 01:14 PM)
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
A few people in this thread have mentioned that Americans need to be smarter in their selection of politicians. I agree, but with a twist. Because of the massive size the U.S. government has become, it is impossible for your average citizen to understand the interworking complexities of the system well enough to vote intelligently for its management. The only way Americans can vote smarter is to shrink government to a size manageable by average Americans.
A few people in this thread have mentioned that Americans need to be smarter in their selection of politicians. I agree, but with a twist. Because of the massive size the U.S. government has become, it is impossible for your average citizen to understand the interworking complexities of the system well enough to vote intelligently for its management. The only way Americans can vote smarter is to shrink government to a size manageable by average Americans.
I don't think your point is without some merit, but there needs to be more of a reasoning than the present complexity of government. When faced with something of complexity, it might make more sense to educate oneself better, than to simplify the subject. Certainly physics is a very complex and large field. Yet the key to more people understanding it is education, not the simplifying of science.
And is your contention true? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Perhaps government isn't too complex; perhaps people are merely apathetic. And by shrinking government, how do we do it? What gets cut? Will people understand government better if we cut out all the "liberal" programs? Should we gut the defense department? Let's think about it logically. It would be inefficient to cut parts of the government that represent a very small portion of its entirety. I mean look, I hear where you are coming from, but I wonder: isn't a democratic republic necessarily complex and in need of a large government? And who decides how to shrink it? If it were up to me, we could cut the defense department by about 90%. That would shrink the government drastically, and we would also save trillions of dollars. I'll bet you disagree.
Of course, the least complex government of all would be an absolute dictatorship.
Which is fine if, as Bush said, "just so long as I'm the dictator."
QUOTE
QUOTE((deerjerkydave @ Apr 19 2005 @ 01:14 PM))
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
A few people in this thread have mentioned that Americans need to be smarter in their selection of politicians. I agree, but with a twist. Because of the massive size the U.S. government has become, it is impossible for your average citizen to understand the interworking complexities of the system well enough to vote intelligently for its management. The only way Americans can vote smarter is to shrink government to a size manageable by average Americans.
*
I don't think your point is without some merit, but there needs to be more of a reasoning than the present complexity of government. When faced with something of complexity, it might make more sense to educate oneself better, than to simplify the subject. Certainly physics is a very complex and large field. Yet the key to more people understanding it is education, not the simplifying of science.
The issue isn't complexity...its economics. With a large federal beauracracry, you have many fringe issues lobbying for funding/support. It is in a politicians interest to cater to as many of these fringe issues as possible, thus garnering the support of those to whom that issue is important. The economics of these issues don't really affect most Americans, so no support is lost. In this manner, politicians are thus able to 'buy' votes merely by telling as many people yes as possible. This is why our budget is in a constant deficit....nobody says no to anything, and most issues aren't big enough to affect the majority. So, fringe groups dominant our politics, and decisions are made for each of these small groups at the expense of the majority. The majority, in essence, has little say, and isn't riled up enough about any of the small issues to denounce their funding.
Actually, I think it all boils down to population- it is easy to be civil when you are not stepping all over your neighbors toes. Conservative, "old fashoined" values fail miserably when you are living in a very diverse, very crowded enviroment, and reality takes over.
To me, this is what it all boils down to, population and lack of enough resources for all - take the medical insurance issue- the debate boils down to the poor saying "hey, we deserve equal access to doctors and health care" and the rich saying "hey, we don't care about you, you didn't earn health care, we don't care if you die a horrible death, it isn't our problem"- and there is no in between area there.
To me, this is what it all boils down to, population and lack of enough resources for all - take the medical insurance issue- the debate boils down to the poor saying "hey, we deserve equal access to doctors and health care" and the rich saying "hey, we don't care about you, you didn't earn health care, we don't care if you die a horrible death, it isn't our problem"- and there is no in between area there.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 1 2005, 03:26 PM)
To me, this is what it all boils down to, population and lack of enough resources for all - take the medical insurance issue- the debate boils down to the poor saying "hey, we deserve equal access to doctors and health care" and the rich saying "hey, we don't care about you, you didn't earn health care, we don't care if you die a horrible death, it isn't our problem"- and there is no in between area there.
I think one of the major problems with politics today is the increasing abuse of blanket statements.
For example take the statement above (not trying to pick on CR specifically, honest
). ALL of the rich feel this way? I would think Hillary Clinton would fall into the rich category and she is the last person I know of that seriously worked with the government to try to design a single payer healthcare system to cover everyone (a program I personally did not agree with). Then of course there are all those rather wealth people that bankroll the Democratic party. I would be surprised to here that everyone of them hold the opinion assigned to the rich that is quoted above.There are the board members of the New America Foundation, a group that cuts back and forth across the aisle with it's membership. It is very well funded, funds raised from the wealthy primarily. They have their own plan to address the needs of all Americans when it comes to healthcare, without also throwing away what works successfully in our system. Link Not to mention a host of other forward thinking ideas and solutions.
I think it would be fair to say that generally, Libertarians feel as described in the quote above, and a good number of Conservatives feel this way as well. But to assign this thinking to all of those we consider to be rich (a definition that varies widely depending on what the politicians are trying to sell to us) really doesn't do anything but perpetuate class warfare and muddle the issues making it harder and harder to work constructively on a solution.
If ALL of the rich felt this way (since, for the most part, they are the ones bankrolling the politicians), I think it would be safe to say that this would be the law of the land, period. It is only because some of the rich believe otherwise that the funds are available to elect politicians who oppose that kind of thinking. It is because of the wealthy who do not follow this line of thinking that organizations like the New America Foundation exist.
Actually- I was making a blanket statement about blanket statements dealing with the great divide in this country, not the very complex problems that both sides of the argument have- we have, what, over 300 million poeple in America? And we want to solve all our problems with bumper sticker solutions. From the poor person without insurance POV- the anti-universal health care types, primarily , to them, rich republicans, thier boogeyman, is the ones denying them health care.
It still boils down to a massive population and declining resources, eventually, someone is going to fight over them!
It still boils down to a massive population and declining resources, eventually, someone is going to fight over them!
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 1 2005, 08:07 PM)
Actually- I was making a blanket statement about blanket statements dealing with the great divide in this country, not the very complex problems that both sides of the argument have- we have, what, over 300 million poeple in America? And we want to solve all our problems with bumper sticker solutions. From the poor person without insurance POV- the anti-universal health care types, primarily , to them, rich republicans, thier boogeyman, is the ones denying them health care.
It still boils down to a massive population and declining resources, eventually, someone is going to fight over them!
It still boils down to a massive population and declining resources, eventually, someone is going to fight over them!
I understand the need for middle ground in discussions, I even advocate it. I guess I became part of my own example here. Your intent was lost on me when I saw "The poor want this" and "the rich want that". Blanket statements tweak my radar and irritate me to no end. As a result, the message you were trying to convey was lost to me because of the blanket statements used.
Similar things happen on both sides of the aisle. Someone on the left side of politics hears "The market will...." as a solution to a problem and the rest of the statement is lost. Someone on the right hears "...their fair share" and whatever was being proposed is lost. Key rhetoric phrases used by either side cause the other side to miss the message being delivered as they are too busy ramping up their defense mode.
And as I illustrated so well, by accident
, you don't have to be on either side of the aisle to do the same.
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
The answer to this wasn't one of the choices....WE are the greatest deterrent. Regardless of which of the other answers one felt was correct, we the people would have the ability to 'vote the suckers' out if we felt it necessary. But, we don't do it. There's only one conclusion to draw from this...we think government is OK this way. Until that thinking changes, politicians won't change their behaviour.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future? Again, we do. We clearly indicate that we would rather see our party 'win' than work with the other side to get something done. But, we keep voting these people in....so who's to blame them for it. They're just playing the game...we set the rules. And time and time again we reward them for such behaviour. So, when it comes to working together to solve the real issues of the day...why should they? Heck, we can't even get ourselves to do that here...why should we expect the greater poplulation to be any different? How many times have most people here heard an idea from the opposite side of the aisle, and supported it? Has any here written their Congressmen and told them to stop the rhetoric? I doubt it...and the numbers would certainly be few at best. Until that changes, we're stuck with the system we have. If you don't like it....tell your Congressman, and change how you vote. Then, and only then, will it improve.
The answer to this wasn't one of the choices....WE are the greatest deterrent. Regardless of which of the other answers one felt was correct, we the people would have the ability to 'vote the suckers' out if we felt it necessary. But, we don't do it. There's only one conclusion to draw from this...we think government is OK this way. Until that thinking changes, politicians won't change their behaviour.
What prevents modern American Government from Addressing the real issues of today and the major problems we face in the future? Again, we do. We clearly indicate that we would rather see our party 'win' than work with the other side to get something done. But, we keep voting these people in....so who's to blame them for it. They're just playing the game...we set the rules. And time and time again we reward them for such behaviour. So, when it comes to working together to solve the real issues of the day...why should they? Heck, we can't even get ourselves to do that here...why should we expect the greater poplulation to be any different? How many times have most people here heard an idea from the opposite side of the aisle, and supported it? Has any here written their Congressmen and told them to stop the rhetoric? I doubt it...and the numbers would certainly be few at best. Until that changes, we're stuck with the system we have. If you don't like it....tell your Congressman, and change how you vote. Then, and only then, will it improve.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 1 2005, 10:17 PM)
What is the Greatest Deterrent to "Good Government" today?
The answer to this wasn't one of the choices....WE are the greatest deterrent. Regardless of which of the other answers one felt was correct, we the people would have the ability to 'vote the suckers' out if we felt it necessary. But, we don't do it. There's only one conclusion to draw from this...we think government is OK this way. Until that thinking changes, politicians won't change their behaviour.
I disagree there is more than one conclusion to draw and that isn't the most likely one. I don't believe on greatest deterrent os at wok here know that I think of it.
The electorate is part of the problem, not for their complacency, most people I know can (and do) gripe about the government a length, but for what can only be describe as ignorance...
...most of the electorate doesn't have a concrete idea of what the government is doing.
Aside from a few "major issues" chosen for their sensational appeal the inner working of the US government are totally out of the deception of the average American.
The sources for this problem are myriad. The media, of course, or did everyone else love the coverage of the runaway bride "issue"?
The education system fails to teach civics, most people can't name their senators let alone what they vote on.
The attitude of apathy is a problem but I suspect it is an effect rather than a cause. According to NationMaster citing a study done in the nineties the majority of Americans are at least somewhat interested in politics, if fact by their rating the US is one of the most politically interested nations in the world (go figure).
..but without information interest is fruitless.
There are concrete steps that can be taken to fix politics in America, we need not wait for a "spontaneous uprising of the electorate"
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.