I have to say this, and you won't like it ...

[Stofsk]

In relation to Mike's essay, I have to ask: how, why, and when did this rot creep in? Has it been a sudden thing or, for the people who are old enough, has this taken place over decades? Has it been a slow downward spiral?

[Flagg]

Because then we get rid of porkbarreling assholes like Byrd, Stevens, and the late Thurmond, and replace them with younger, but less effective porkbarreling assholes. Plus we'll get an entire term where they're not trying to win the next election. It's not a solution, but it's a step in the right direction coupled with lobby reforms.

No, it's not a solution. Term limits would put the reins of government in the hands of the unelected lobbyists, bureaucrats, and party insiders who have time to stick around in DC for years and learn where all the buttons and levers are. There is already a mechanism in place for removing ineffective legislators, one which could be immediately improved with publically financed elections and a ban on gerrymandering.

You definatly have a point, but the lobbyists and party insiders are already there pulling the levers. Hell, I can't remember how many times I've heard of congressmen whose relatives are lobbyists, or who go on to become lobbyists themselves when they leave office. I completly forgot about the gerrymandering, and thanks for bringing that up. The only solution I can see for that is equally represented bipartisan committees. I don't know if those would be state congressmen, or some type of independant group tasked with the job. I also can't ever see that happening outside of a SCOTUS ruling or state ballot initiative, which I'm loath to bring up since they're not the greatest legislative tools.

[RedImperator]

Because then we get rid of porkbarreling assholes like Byrd, Stevens, and the late Thurmond, and replace them with younger, but less effective porkbarreling assholes. Plus we'll get an entire term where they're not trying to win the next election. It's not a solution, but it's a step in the right direction coupled with lobby reforms.

No, it's not a solution. Term limits would put the reins of government in the hands of the unelected lobbyists, bureaucrats, and party insiders who have time to stick around in DC for years and learn where all the buttons and levers are. There is already a mechanism in place for removing ineffective legislators, one which could be immediately improved with publically financed elections and a ban on gerrymandering.

You definatly have a point, but the lobbyists and party insiders are already there pulling the levers.

Yeah, but an entrenched senator or congressman can still tell them to fuck off from time to time.

Hell, I can't remember how many times I've heard of congressmen whose relatives are lobbyists, or who go on to become lobbyists themselves when they leave office.

We desparately need lobbying reform, but I don't see how term limits fits into that. The lobbyists will still be there, except now they'll always have a fresh supply of inexperienced legislators (who doubtless got their jobs by being loyal party flaks for years) to play with.

I completly forgot about the gerrymandering, and thanks for bringing that up. The only solution I can see for that is equally represented bipartisan committees. I don't know if those would be state congressmen, or some type of independant group tasked with the job.

Not bipartisan. The parties are perfectly capable of cooperating to divide up gerrymandered seats equally. Nonpartisan. Say a committe consisting of a mathematician, a geographer, and a retired judge. Competent to make decisions with no vested interest in the outcome.

I also can't ever see that happening outside of a SCOTUS ruling or state ballot initiative, which I'm loath to bring up since they're not the greatest legislative tools.

A powerful enough grassroots push would do it. The US Senate passed the 17th Amendment, after all. You could also go state by state: at least two that I know of, Iowa and New Jersey, by law cannot have gerrymandered districts (which is why the congressional districts in those states look sensible). SCOTUS is no help to you at all: they've already ruled this horseshit constitutional, which is one of the many reasons why you can't count on SCOTUS to fix everything for you.

[Flagg]

No, it's not a solution. Term limits would put the reins of government in the hands of the unelected lobbyists, bureaucrats, and party insiders who have time to stick around in DC for years and learn where all the buttons and levers are. There is already a mechanism in place for removing ineffective legislators, one which could be immediately improved with publically financed elections and a ban on gerrymandering.

You definatly have a point, but the lobbyists and party insiders are already there pulling the levers.

Yeah, but an entrenched senator or congressman can still tell them to fuck off from time to time.

I'll have to go with you on this.

Hell, I can't remember how many times I've heard of congressmen whose relatives are lobbyists, or who go on to become lobbyists themselves when they leave office.

We desparately need lobbying reform, but I don't see how term limits fits into that. The lobbyists will still be there, except now they'll always have a fresh supply of inexperienced legislators (who doubtless got their jobs by being loyal party flaks for years) to play with.

I just hate the idea of assholes like Lieberman who get a few terms under their belt, and then think they're entitled to their seat. I think it's a bad thing when Leislators begin dictating things to the people that vote for them as if they own their position. But I will have to agree that solving the problems with lobbyists is far more pressing an issue, and term limits will likely make the situation worse.

I completly forgot about the gerrymandering, and thanks for bringing that up. The only solution I can see for that is equally represented bipartisan committees. I don't know if those would be state congressmen, or some type of independant group tasked with the job.

Not bipartisan. The parties are perfectly capable of cooperating to divide up gerrymandered seats equally. Nonpartisan. Say a committe consisting of a mathematician, a geographer, and a retired judge. Competent to make decisions with no vested interest in the outcome.

You're completly right again, and I guess it's a testament to how fucked up this country is that I equated bipartisan with independant in my head when typing that paragraph. We really need a strong independant political movement in this country. I'm not talking about a new party, or a bunch of Republicans or Democrats who just don't want to get branded with the party label, but an actual large number of people willing to run for high office with no party affiliation. I can't really see it happening since the 2 parties are virtually legislated in place, but I can fucking dream.

I also can't ever see that happening outside of a SCOTUS ruling or state ballot initiative, which I'm loath to bring up since they're not the greatest legislative tools.

A powerful enough grassroots push would do it. The US Senate passed the 17th Amendment, after all. You could also go state by state: at least two that I know of, Iowa and New Jersey, by law cannot have gerrymandered districts (which is why the congressional districts in those states look sensible). SCOTUS is no help to you at all: they've already ruled this horseshit constitutional, which is one of the many reasons why you can't count on SCOTUS to fix everything for you.

Oh, I'm not relying on SCOTUS to fix the problem, I'm just at a loss for how to effect such a change in a state that is clearly dominated by a single party, and has been for many years without some kind of major outside influence. Even if an Amendment were to get through the Senate I doubt the states would ratify it. It's so very rare to get a group of people in power who are willing to sacrifice a large measure of that power, and our current system definately does not seem to attract those kinds of people anymore.

[Rawtooth]

For some reason, I remember a discussion I had with one of my friends about Bush a while back. We came to the conclusion that he is incompetently evil.

You can apply this to the American public; we get an incompetent president due to an incompetent public.

[Netko]

Somewhat offtopic, but still relevant to the discussion - Stewart on the Daily Show had a hilarious comparison of an American and Hungarian hearing that their goverment is lying to them, showing exactly the kind of indifference of the American voting public we are discussing here.

See for yourself

[Molyneux]

Somewhat offtopic, but still relevant to the discussion - Stewart on the Daily Show had a hilarious comparison of an American and Hungarian hearing that their goverment is lying to them, showing exactly the kind of indifference of the American voting public we are discussing here.

See for yourself

Do you know anywhere I could see that in a different video format - Quicktime, maybe? WMP makes my browser cry.

[Coyote]

I mean, the powers-that-be, Business, Government, Media, etc etc etc, all are determined to take this country wherever they want...

I really don't think there's any conscious Plan as to where the Powers That Be want the country to go. All they want is to remain in power and continue making money; their attention is far too short-term to actually take the country "somewhere".

Yeah, there's not a 'plan' to take the country to ruin, but they do treat the country like a cowboy on someone else's horse-- they saddle up, get on our backs, and ride us to wherever they can make money for themselves. Then they hop off and leave it for the next person to ride. Taking us where they want may not be an insidious plot, but it is a string of short-term profit-oriented plans with no thought to the consequences.

Business and Media cannot change the country...Media especially cannot afford to rock the boat, because if the People do not like what Media tells them, the People will change the channel until they find someone who will tell them what they want to hear.

Media is a passive shaper of the will; they get to choose what to report on and what they don't. Fox News chose to inflate stories about Clinton's shortcomings while downplaying Bush'd. They do this to feed certain segments of the population what they want to hear and keep the advertising dollars rolling in. But, the unintended consequenses is that they apply a coat of paint over things that need to be questioned. Covering up the naked Emporer.

No group of citizens can change anything, because the Media will not give them a voice and the People refuse to listen.

I think the people choose not to listen (unless they find a channel that tells them what they want to hear as you mentioned) because they find certain truths uncomfortable, and we've been raised in a society that maximizes comfort, convenince, and ease. Hearing about something disturbing is scary. So they tune out.

I mean, some disturbing things are listened to-- titillating tales of lurid events in the news-- but it is easier to hear about a guy that was a cannibal-rapist in the next state than it is to hear about how the cabal of guys that run the nation are acting like a third-world junta.

[Elfdart]

In relation to Mike's essay, I have to ask: how, why, and when did this rot creep in? Has it been a sudden thing or, for the people who are old enough, has this taken place over decades? Has it been a slow downward spiral?

Benjamin Franklin saw this coming over 200 years ago:

"There is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The Republic was as good as dead when Truman founded the National Security State. With an economy based on military socialism, which requires a new bogeyman every so often, the constant wars against other countries, and the suppression of dissent, you have an electorate that is ignorant, with a declining standard of living and kept frightened by one monster under the bed after another.

This worked reasonably well until this country ran up such ridiculous debts and started fucking with people who could and would retaliate against the American people.

In a TV interview, Chalmers Johnson pointed out that the corruption of this militarized state is so pervasive that the two "liberal" Senators from Washington turn into warmongering banshees if anyone suggests a cut in military bases or contracts in their state.

The people have been corrupted by sloth, greed, bigotry, ignorance and clownish jingoism for a long time, but the nation's immune system would fight off the infection from time to time. This time it's terminal.

[Crown]

And the President who warned the country about this state of development was the Allied Supreme Commander of World War II ... tragic irony or poetic justice?

[Glocksman]

And the President who warned the country about this state of development was the Allied Supreme Commander of World War II ... tragic irony or poetic justice?

And compounding the irony was that he was roundly condemned by the Democrats in 1960 for allowing the US military to fall behind first in the (no-existent) 'bomber gap' and then in the 'missile gap'.

[Netko]

Do you know anywhere I could see that in a different video format - Quicktime, maybe? WMP makes my browser cry.

Sorry, no - its possible there is a copy somewhere on youtube or crooks and liars but I haven't checked.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I'd reserve my contempt for roughly half of the nation's populace, personally and possibly the system of government in place (which, in my opinion, is not designed very well for holding the head of government accountable until election time). When you get down to it there's very little any person outside of government can effectively do to get rid of a President, to hold him accountable or... well... do anything but moan and maybe go on a protest march. Both elections have been quite close (hell, proportionally he lost the first) and in both cases around half of the electorate wanted him gone. From personal experience a lot of that half outright hates the man (one thing I've heard a LOT about Bush's tenure is that politics has polarised a lot on account of him, there's less apathy around on both sides)

...and no, I'd not expect much from an immidiate future administration. For the average American the economy is ticking away reasonably well and so the status quo is an attractive prospect. I'd not blame Americans for that, that's universal human nature.

[theski]

The DOW is with in 30 points of a ALL TIME HIGH..


wooooooooo


ok back to your scheduled programing..

[General Brock]

Hmmm... anybody motivated to join a special interest group of their choice; any number of which advocate things like universal health care, protecting the environment, and civil liberties? Joining a political party? Taking over the back rooms of the PTA? Writing to a Congressman or Senator... repeatedly? Helping out at a Legion Hall (honestly helping out, not politicking)?

One of the biggest lies about political protest is the myth that individuals don't count, another, that results have to be discrete and dramatic. Not voting at all, for example, is not a protest, but voluntary disempowerment. Don't like the candidate? Join the party and have a say in the nomination. Still shut out? How can one truly be shut out in a democracy?

How is it a relative handful of fundie creationists and amoral opportunists can impose their agenda, but persons of greater intellect and moral capacity cannot? These fools work together and see to it their people are positioned. The intelligent simply stand by, trained to expect appointment for being so smart, and wonder why idiots are in charge of the appointments.

People can make a difference, just by being there and campaigning for things important to their community. I once had the opportunity to study the life of a great woman, Elizabeth Roley, whom I never met but came to admire. She would have been one of the "church ladies" derided in Saturday Night Live" skits, one of the forgotten footsoldiers that made the community I eventually came to live in possible. She didn't make things happen, so much as she was there to help make things happen, as much as she could despite many difficulties in her life.

The big picture is ever-daunting, but the people who got things done stayed focused on the good they could do, and coordinated with others doing the same. They didn't wait passively for the end. They didn't blow stuff up. They didn't wait to see society hang itself. They weren't embarassed about coolness or trendiness, because they understood what they were doing and why. They worked at being positive exemplars to their community, however small the contribution they were capable of, and never gave up learning to be better human beings.

I can't say I disrespect Americans for what they've done and allowed to happen under their watch. Not without saying I disrespect all Canadians for their political failings. The same culture of urban alienation that allows abusers of power to operate in the U.S. also exists here to some extent.

Disappointment, certainly. Canada is also in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for lies, and lying to ourselves that we are still a peaceful nation, and not appeazers to the same trans-national evil bloc that has the U.S. public in its thrall. Canada only lacks the 'critical mass' of population, wealth, and firepower for our own bad guys to rally a mob and detonate their hatreds upon the world as spectacularly.

It must be said that, the most effective opposition to American abuses of power, outside the Resistance in other countries, comes from Americans.

[Frank Hipper]

The people have been corrupted by sloth, greed, bigotry, ignorance and clownish jingoism for a long time, but the nation's immune system would fight off the infection from time to time. This time it's terminal.

I think that if there was a period of true privation in America, something along the lines of mass starvation in the streets, the average bovine in the street could rouse themself and find the principles in order to affect some change.

But no one's going to urge a change in the status quo when they're as fat, as dumb, and as happy as we are.

[Darth Wong]

Didn't Goebbels have a line about keeping the people sedated with entertainment? Our entertainment techniques have come a loooong way since then. But then again, that's true in other countries as well, but I don't see the kind of rabid state loyalism in those countries that I do in America.

Americans' unusually strong pride in their country has often been cited as one of the country's strengths in the past; it is now proving to be a liability. When you're really, really proud of something, you're loathe to admit its flaws.

[Bertie Wooster]

Sorry that this is just an echo, but I think the two big problems in the U.S. are A)lack of ethics and regard for the community-at-large in big business and corporations compared to counterparts in other developed nations and B)pride in having provincial attitudes and worldview.

I think what's happened in America is that people here willfully accept having no power or influence because of the system that's been accepted. In this society, there's an inherent understanding that the minority that have control, power influence are all evil, corrupt, and cunning so not having power or influence or control is OK because no wants wants to be evil or corrupt. People want to think of themselves as good, wholesome and virtuous, and in order to be "good folk", they're willing to live without power and influence and having any interest in the big issues and complicated questions. Most people in this society don't want to ponder the big complicated questions in the world and in life. That's why they have pastors, and make pastors the ones responsible for their salvation. In terms of politics, too many people don't want to have to deal with the big questions and problems and so they look to the past, and want those people with the power and influence to deal with those big questions and problems, since everyone is too good to get involved in such worldly and complicated affairs and questions.

Basically, most people have bought into the idea of being part of the common/under-class that wants to let the corrupt evil people wield the power and pull the strings and deal with the big problems, because most people want to stay good and virtuous and uncorrupted and unconfused by power and complications, and also let those with power and influence make all the decisions about the big issues, since they're smarter and more cunning.

It's basically people not caring that they're not responsible for themselves. And until that sort of mentality and attitude of simply having a provincial worldview and interest (illustrated by this photo), isn't common and typical anymore, we as a society are not going to be up to par with that in other developed countries.

[Frank Hipper]

Didn't Goebbels have a line about keeping the people sedated with entertainment? Our entertainment techniques have come a loooong way since then.

"Strength Through Joy" radios for the people!
To say nothing of when the phrase "Bread and Circuses" was coined...

But then again, that's true in other countries as well, but I don't see the kind of rabid state loyalism in those countries that I do in America.

WWII and other calamities have kinda beaten that out of most other countries.

Americans' unusually strong pride in their country has often been cited as one of the country's strengths in the past; it is now proving to be a liability. When you're really, really proud of something, you're loathe to admit its flaws.

When you have to work so hard at being proud, it's not just it's own problem but symptomatic of bigger problems.

[The Yosemite Bear]

anything in moderation is a virtue, anything in excess or in too strict a forbarance is a vice. -thomas aquinus

[Patrick Degan]

Sorry that this is just an echo, but I think the two big problems in the U.S. are A)lack of ethics and regard for the community-at-large in big business and corporations compared to counterparts in other developed nations and B)pride in having provincial attitudes and worldview.

I think what's happened in America is that people here willfully accept having no power or influence because of the system that's been accepted. In this society, there's an inherent understanding that the minority that have control, power influence are all evil, corrupt, and cunning so not having power or influence or control is OK because no wants wants to be evil or corrupt. People want to think of themselves as good, wholesome and virtuous, and in order to be "good folk", they're willing to live without power and influence and having any interest in the big issues and complicated questions. Most people in this society don't want to ponder the big complicated questions in the world and in life. That's why they have pastors, and make pastors the ones responsible for their salvation. In terms of politics, too many people don't want to have to deal with the big questions and problems and so they look to the past, and want those people with the power and influence to deal with those big questions and problems, since everyone is too good to get involved in such worldly and complicated affairs and questions.

Basically, most people have bought into the idea of being part of the common/under-class that wants to let the corrupt evil people wield the power and pull the strings and deal with the big problems, because most people want to stay good and virtuous and uncorrupted and unconfused by power and complications, and also let those with power and influence make all the decisions about the big issues, since they're smarter and more cunning.

It's basically people not caring that they're not responsible for themselves. And until that sort of mentality and attitude of simply having a provincial worldview and interest (illustrated by this photo), isn't common and typical anymore, we as a society are not going to be up to par with that in other developed countries.

I think it's more that Americans have gotten lazy to the point where they just assume that things are being taken care of, or that things like Medicare or the Hurricane Katrina disaster are somebody else's problem. And you can't have a functioning democracy on those terms.

[Coyote]

Another thing to do is keep people working so hard just to make ends meet that at the end of the day-- and after paying for gas, childcare, taking the kids to soccer, etc etc etc-- they're too damn tired to devote the needed time for social agitation leading to change.

Imagine if all those "soccer moms" had husbands whose salary was sufficient to raise a family, and they could stay home with the kids and do things like write letters to the editor, to Senators & Congressmen, and had time to volunteer during the school year.

Keeping hubby and wifey both so tied down with daily wage struggles virtually guarantees that what little free time they have left they'll gleefully throw awy idling in front of the TV soaking up commercials.

I think half the public is too tired, stupid and disinvolved to care; the other half has given up in the face of the Sisyphean struggle exact change.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't agree with that, Coyote. There are also the people who have severe naivity about the system and honestly believe the propagana. This constitutes a large segment of the population.

Another part is the part that knows about the corruption and is educated about the bullshit and not just accepts it as the way things are but revels in it. For them, lying, stealing, and elitist bullshit is how the world works. They want people to be undereducated and prone to following buzzwords. They love mixing politics and religion because nothing gets the voters out like the True Believers that think Jesus was a Republican. If a member of their party pulls some bullshit, they call it a good thing because they want someone who fights dirty as long as they win elections. The ends, after all, justifies the means and it's all realpolitik, baby. Lobbyist, lawyers, and big business all should be in charge and even if they are corrupt and treat the rest of the populations as ignorant consumers, it's OK. Need to start a war to protect some multinationals business interests, just round up some inner city kids and idealist country boys and send them to die for "Democracy". Or skip that and just fund death squads, so long as the Death Squads are only massacring communists or people that know communists or people that might live in the same village as communists. Those make up a fair bit of the population as well.

[Coyote]

I don't agree with that, Coyote. There are also the people who have severe naivity about the system and honestly believe the propagana. This constitutes a large segment of the population.

That I can believe-- either they accept what they're told and dismiss any questioning of that as 'conspiracy theory BS' or they just feel that they are unable/unqualified to understand and it is best to leave it to the 'experts'.

Another part is the part that knows about the corruption and is educated about the bullshit and not just accepts it as the way things are but revels in it. ...Those make up a fair bit of the population as well.

I dunno about this part. It is cynical beyond imagination-- not because I think people are inherently good or something like that, but because it would require an awareness, comprehension, and understanding of the manipulative evil in our society that I think is beyond the grasp of the ordinary person. The willfully ignorant type described at top is probably the majority, I'd dare to guess 90%. The ones that are aware of the evil and get a hard-on about it? Those are the ones running the scams, not the cheerleaders.

In recent times I'd also venture a guess that Evangelicals are of the belief that the situation on Earth must be pushed to some breaking point in order to force the hand of the Messiah's return. Or, conversely, that they can do as they please because if things get too bad, then the Messiah will show up and save them from any real punishment or consequences.

[Patrick Degan]

In recent times I'd also venture a guess that Evangelicals are of the belief that the situation on Earth must be pushed to some breaking point in order to force the hand of the Messiah's return. Or, conversely, that they can do as they please because if things get too bad, then the Messiah will show up and save them from any real punishment or consequences.

That is exactly the Millenialist worldview, and we've got a crowd of Millenialists running the show here.