Lets face it. US democracy is broken

[jmagg]

"free trade has assraped this country" +

Along with illegal immigration. Soon there will be no middle class.



Stay in school kids

 

[GTaudiophile]

It's not broken. The only thing broken are the politicians themselves. They are self-serving liars.

If they governed like they campaigned (from the center, kept promises, etc.) then I don't think we would have the problems that we do.

But as long as people campaign one way and then once in office become beholden to their extreme base, then yes, it will continue to be broken.

Then again, broken government does not sound like that bad of a concept to me.

 

[MotF Bane]

I don't believe you for a second.

As soon a Republicans regain control you will be 110% happy once again.

And the same for you, after all, you voted for Bush.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Democracy is not broken. It is thriving. This is because democracy is about giving people what they want, not what they need. And apparently, what people want in your country is what you are currently getting; heavily biased half-hour rants disguised as news shows looping over and over again 24/7, weak, useless policy aimed at pleasing the masses rather than progressing the country, useless arguments about a leader's race and religion rather than informed, objective discussion about the factors that will affect his actual performance, small, powerful special interests groups affecting or stalling useful policy because of shortsighted asinine greed, etc. etc.

This.

 

[irishScott]

Unsustainable and ultimately self-destructive. You need more than that if you want to survive.

lol since when? Last I checked the violent usually survive in nature, and we're the military super-power.

I'm just looking at history. That route has sustained us since birth. We were at each others' throats, we get the Civil War. Great Depression, we get WWII. Hell look how 9/11 basically united the country for a few months. Likewise when we go into a war where the threat isn't seen as legit (ie: Vietnam, Iraq) all it does is make us go at it or not care.

Don't get me wrong we can recover without a war, but it takes effort and time and quite frankly there are so many morons out there I'm a little unsure if it's an option.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't believe you for a second.

As soon a Republicans regain control you will be 110% happy once again.

So will you, since you voted for Bush.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Both parties are in it for one thing -- themselves. Sadly, not many people see it that way and most are blind, partisan hacks like Craig. The only way to "fix" democracy is to realize this truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
Democracy is not broken. It is thriving. This is because democracy is about giving people what they want, not what they need. And apparently, what people want in your country is what you are currently getting; heavily biased half-hour rants disguised as news shows looping over and over again 24/7, weak, useless policy aimed at pleasing the masses rather than progressing the country, useless arguments about a leader's race and religion rather than informed, objective discussion about the factors that will affect his actual performance, small, powerful special interests groups affecting or stalling useful policy because of shortsighted asinine greed, etc. etc.

This.

Well, I think he's on the right track anyway. We have a democracy that provides us with what we want as he says, but it provides us with what we really want unconsciously, our own self destruction, not what we consciously think we want, a better life for all. We are sick with the disease of self-hate and will not see it, so we work hard with our right hands to build up our egos, while, with our left hand, we stab ourselves in the back.

We are a poor sad people, so full of self-contempt, and so so so afraid to feel what we feel.

Americans have a representative government and what they see in that government is who they are. And in all things we blame the other guy when it's the other guy who is ourself. All that you see that is ugly is who you are and because you reject that simple fact out of vanity, it will never be fixed.

Only the conscious evolution of a people can change that people and the only conscious change you can effect is your own.

All our political struggles and war are the result of a self hate that destroyed our capacity for love. Heal yourself and you will heal the world.

 

[Mursilis]

Politics has always been a team sport. I dont think our democracy is broken.

I think as long as both parties (and their constituencies, which is most of us) continue to spend ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole, democracy is indeed broken. Moonbeam's right on one count; we do seem to be headed toward our own (financial) self-destruction, and no one seems to care.

 

[irishScott]

Well, I think he's on the right track anyway. We have a democracy that provides us with what we want as he says, but it provides us with what we really want unconsciously, our own self destruction, not what we consciously think we want, a better life for all. We are sick with the disease of self-hate and will not see it, so we work hard with our right hands to build up our egos, while, with our left hand, we stab ourselves in the back.

We are a poor sad people, so full of self-contempt, and so so so afraid to feel what we feel.

Americans have a representative government and what they see in that government is who they are. And in all things we blame the other guy when it's the other guy who is ourself. All that you see that is ugly is who you are and because you reject that simple fact out of vanity, it will never be fixed.

Only the conscious evolution of a people can change that people and the only conscious change you can effect is your own.

All our political struggles and war are the result of a self hate that destroyed our capacity for love. Heal yourself and you will heal the world.

And yet for all the weaknesses expounded upon in this forum, we're still the most powerful country on the face of the planet; says a lot about the competition. These weaknesses aren't new by the way. The Good 'Ol Days were just as corrupt and bad as today in many cases.

Once people get screwed over enough, they'll elect people who will actually change things. In the meantime were stuck with relative shit (although I don't mind Obama thus far).

 

[Deudalus]

The recent arrival of 24hr news cycles, and broad adoption of internet access, has essentially paralyzed our democracy,

THIS IS A GREAT THING!

I'm guessing you are a lot like myself and your political views range pretty widely from the far left to the far right and often somewhere in the middle.

This is going to make me sound like a Hannitized idiot but where I have a problem is when some dumb mother fucker from Chicago sells a bunch of lemmings some shit about "hope and change".

We don't need FUNDAMENTAL change. Sure things could always be tweaked but we are the wealthiest country in the world. While we aren't 100% free (which no one is by the way) we are far freer than most.

Our poor people own a car (often times 2), have air conditioning, eat well, and many even own homes.

The poor in other countries are starving to death, living on the streets, and truly have hellish lives.


I WANT GRIDLOCK. I don't want shit to get done. Why ruin a good thing?

I want everyone to get along long enough to:

1: abolish the IRS and move to a flat sales tax
2: legalize weed and tax it to fight the war on drugs
3: allow gay people to get married and serve


Beyond that I would be happy if they referred to each other as Hatfield and McCoy for life.

 

[Moonbeam]

And yet for all the weaknesses expounded upon in this forum, we're still the most powerful country on the face of the planet; says a lot about the competition. These weaknesses aren't new by the way. The Good 'Ol Days were just as corrupt and bad as today in many cases.

Once people get screwed over enough, they'll elect people who will actually change things. In the meantime were stuck with relative shit (although I don't mind Obama thus far).

Why pick my post to tack that onto? I made no reference to our relative standing as a world power nor did I call up past glory. In fact you just illustrate to me how the core issue I defined, a refusal to look at the self as the source of our problems is born out by your post. You do not live in the past. You can only act now. You are probably an American and can have no meaningful influence elsewhere.

 

[Nitemare]

Yes, politicians are two trick ponies now, with both sides kowtowing it to one of their party gods in an attempt to galvanize their parties wackos into supporting them. Until we get rid of primaries or at least make it so that both parties can vote in each parties primaries, we are going to have the choice of lesser of two evils.

 

[QuantumPion]

The problem with democracy is that 51% of the population votes themselves the wealth of 49% of the population, until it all dries up and the whole system collapses.

The point of our constitutional republic was that the government wasn't supposed to be allowed to do that in the first place.

 

[yllus]

I spent some time looking up where and what I read on this topic, so I hope someone gets something out of the article below! There's much more to it than what I've pasted, so I recommend clicking through.

The Economist - America's democracy: A study in paralysis

ACCORDING to Paul Krugman, the winner of a Nobel prize for economics and a columnist for the New York Times, modern America is much like 18th-century Poland. On his telling, Poland was rendered largely ungovernable by the parliament’s requirement for unanimity, and disappeared as a country for more than a century.

James Fallows, after several years in China as a writer for the Atlantic Monthly, wrote on his return that he found in America a vital and self-renewing culture that attracts the world’s talent and “a governing system that increasingly looks like a joke”.

Tom Friedman, another columnist for the New York Times, reported from the annual World Economic Forum in Davos last month that he had never before heard people abroad talking about “political instability” in America. But these days he did.

...

How did as shrewd a politician as Mr Obama find himself stalemated, if not checkmated, so early in his presidency?

The answer can be found in the intersection of a rule, an event and a trend. The rule is Standing Rule XXII of the Senate. The event was last month’s election in Massachusetts for a successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. And the trend is the relentless polarisation in recent decades not only of American political parties, but also of the American people.

Catch-XXII

Take a deep breath and start with the rule. For most of the 19th century the majority in the Senate had no way to move to “cloture”—ie, end a filibuster and force a vote. This (remember Jimmy Stewart in “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”) enabled almost any senator to block almost any measure just by keeping on talking.

In 1917, prompted by a filibuster against Woodrow Wilson’s wish to take America into the first world war, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, which said that it could move to cloture if two-thirds of senators present voted for it. Today’s version requires the assent of three-fifths of all senators, in other words 60 out of the 100.

...

This sequence of events has been miserable for the Democrats. But why portray it as a crisis of governability? The answer is the light it casts on the Senate. With two senators for each state regardless of population, the Senate reflects the founders’ dread of an over-mighty centre and the states’ determination to entrench their prerogatives. But to the modern eye the Senate looks perversely non-majoritarian, especially given Rule XXII. If 41 senators can block a bill, and if they all happen to come from the least-populated states, politicians representing about a tenth of the population can block the work of Congress.

Still, Rule XXII has been on the Senate’s books for almost a century. Why the fuss about it now? Here it is necessary to look at the third point of the legislative Bermuda Triangle into which Mr Obama has sailed: the polarisation of the political parties over the past 20 years.

The supermajority rule would be no bad thing if it forced the majority party to reach out to the other side. The Democrats themselves have often been glad of it, for example to block some of George Bush junior’s judicial appointments. And the rule has not prevented Congress from passing far-reaching social legislation in the past. The creation of Social Security in 1935 and of Medicare in 1965 attracted support from both parties.

But that was when the ideologies of the parties overlapped in the middle and made bipartisanship easier. Now they have grown more polarised, and in Congress the Republicans in particular have become highly disciplined.

 

[irishScott]

Why pick my post to tack that onto? I made no reference to our relative standing as a world power nor did I call up past glory. In fact you just illustrate to me how the core issue I defined, a refusal to look at the self as the source of our problems is born out by your post. You do not live in the past. You can only act now. You are probably an American and can have no meaningful influence elsewhere.

I am an American and proud of it. Yes some of that pride comes from our fairly illustrious past. You basically called every American vain, corrupt, in denial and a few other implied insults. Sorry if I take a little offense.

The remark about the good 'ol days was to counter what I saw as an incoming argument of how great America used to be and how it's now gone to shit. An argument that's been heard since the dawn of time and has correspondingly gotten quite old. If you weren't going to make that argument then great. I was simply pointing out that the future now is no more dark than it was back during Vietnam. In fact it's a hell of a lot brighter IMO.

And no, I currently have no real political influence for the moment, but I don't see how that's relevant. I'm 22 and in college, with an engineering major no less. While I suppose anything's possible, my career isn't exactly heading towards politics. If a real hot button issue comes up that I feel I have an informed opinion about, I'll write my congressman like everyone else.

 

[Anarchist420]

The problem with democracy is that 51% of the population votes themselves the wealth of 49% of the population, until it all dries up and the whole system collapses.

The point of our constitutional republic was that the government wasn't supposed to be allowed to do that in the first place.

Exactly. I think there should be some more legislation that Congress shouldn't be allowed to make and the 10th Amendment/BoR needs to be enforced. Establishing term limits for Senators would be good too.

 

[sandorski]

lol since when? Last I checked the violent usually survive in nature, and we're the military super-power.

I'm just looking at history. That route has sustained us since birth. We were at each others' throats, we get the Civil War. Great Depression, we get WWII. Hell look how 9/11 basically united the country for a few months. Likewise when we go into a war where the threat isn't seen as legit (ie: Vietnam, Iraq) all it does is make us go at it or not care.

Don't get me wrong we can recover without a war, but it takes effort and time and quite frankly there are so many morons out there I'm a little unsure if it's an option.

Since forever. Yes, the Strong survive in Nature, not necessarily Violent. The Meek, Pacifists, and all sorts of others also survive in Nature. "Strong" does not mean "Violent".

Historically speaking, yes, 9/11, WW2(specifically Pearl Harbour), and other events have united Americans, but if that's the only thing that can unite Americans it's a clear sign that something is deeply amiss within American society.

There won't always be an Enemy and as you can see right now, even with an Enemy(Al Queda/Taliban)there's no guarantee of a prolonged unity. So what are you going to do, manufacture Enemies and start Wars just to maintain a sense of unity at home? A 3 year old can see the Immorality of such a thing, why can't you?

 

[irishScott]

Since forever. Yes, the Strong survive in Nature, not necessarily Violent. The Meek, Pacifists, and all sorts of others also survive in Nature. "Strong" does not mean "Violent".

Historically speaking, yes, 9/11, WW2(specifically Pearl Harbour), and other events have united Americans, but if that's the only thing that can unite Americans it's a clear sign that something is deeply amiss within American society.

There won't always be an Enemy and as you can see right now, even with an Enemy(Al Queda/Taliban)there's no guarantee of a prolonged unity. So what are you going to do, manufacture Enemies and start Wars just to maintain a sense of unity at home? A 3 year old can see the Immorality of such a thing, why can't you?

Yes I suppose the meek and pacifists "survive", but they're hardly at the top of the food chain.

As for inventing enemies, did I ever suggest doing such a thing? Orwellian I am not; and no it's not the only way to unite Americans, but it's by far the most immediate and effective. Not wishing for it, I'm just saying I think it's inevitable at this point. People were too damn cutthroat over the last election, where we actually had two decent candidates. Bush v Kerry and Bush v Gore were far less intense. Politically speaking a lot of people in this country, especially those most affected by the economic crisis, are basically looking for a fight. Unless the economy makes a pretty awesome recovery that'll spiral down into something bad. I'm not saying WWIII or the next civil war, but something.

And I'm not buying into "the economy is coming back" just yet. Sure it's shown some good trends, but we're still in shitloads of debt and spending like crazy. Obama's freeze on spending was a nice move, but a little late IMO.

In a nutshell, most people either need to be happy or have something to rage against. Take the latter too far and bad shit starts happening until enough people are affected to band together and actually solve the problems in some form or other. Unfortunately people usually get hurt in the process.

 

[werepossum]

The problem with democracy is that 51% of the population votes themselves the wealth of 49% of the population, until it all dries up and the whole system collapses.

The point of our constitutional republic was that the government wasn't supposed to be allowed to do that in the first place.

Agreed, but the Senate was originally designed to stop this sort of crap. When Senators were appointed by the states (either via the state legislature or directly by the governor) they were not susceptible to pandering to the mob as they were not subject to popular election. And politicians in general had at least some reticence in adopting wholesale giveaway programs, even for the best of causes. When Senators became elected by popular vote, they then had no reason to not pander, to not remove wealth from the few to buy the votes of the many.

As with all politicians though, we the people have taught them to behave this way. Politicians who vote us goodies tend to be re-elected; politicians who vote not to take away more of the goodies we already have tend to be re-elected. Thus all our politicians tend to support low taxes and high spending - the only difference is that some (let's call them, oh, I don't know, Democrats) promise to take away goodies only from people we envy and resent and thus give us even more goodies. Since we have trained our politicians to behave in this manner, they are left to argue only the speed at which our country goes broke, and social issues. So if the Democrat and Republican parties vanished tomorrow, it would make no more than a ripple. Whoever replaced them would rapidly learn what it takes to get elected and stay in power. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

 

[sandorski]

Yes I suppose the meek and pacifists "survive", but they're hardly at the top of the food chain.

As for inventing enemies, did I ever suggest doing such a thing? Orwellian I am not; and no it's not the only way to unite Americans, but it's by far the most immediate and effective. Not wishing for it, I'm just saying I think it's inevitable at this point. People were too damn cutthroat over the last election, where we actually had two decent candidates. Bush v Kerry and Bush v Gore were far less intense. Politically speaking a lot of people in this country, especially those most affected by the economic crisis, are basically looking for a fight. Unless the economy makes a pretty awesome recovery that'll spiral down into something bad. I'm not saying WWIII or the next civil war, but something.

And I'm not buying into "the economy is coming back" just yet. Sure it's shown some good trends, but we're still in shitloads of debt and spending like crazy. Obama's freeze on spending was a nice move, but a little late IMO.

In a nutshell, most people either need to be happy or have something to rage against. Take the latter too far and bad shit starts happening until enough people are affected to band together and actually solve the problems in some form or other. Unfortunately people usually get hurt in the process.

"Top of the Food Chain" is merely a position on an arbitrary construct, not a position of Value. Any lower level gets knocked out and the top gets rather precarious.

Thanks for clarifying your position. My point is mostly that having the Strongest Military is also a rather precarious position, since the US has some very big Dependencies on Foreign Powers willingness to Supply some very basic Needs(Oil and Credit being the big 2).

As for Spending freezes and whatnot, yes it's a little(lot) late. It should have been done before Obama was even known. Bush should have held the line established by Clinton and not introduced such a shift in Economic policy, but he did and now the result needs to be addressed. That's not to say that everything under Clinton was a good thing. The Deregulation that occurred towards the end of Clinton's Presidency was a bad move which was later made worse by further Deregulation and of course the excessive Bush Tax Cuts.

 

[Craig234]

The problem with democracy is that 51% of the population votes themselves the wealth of 49% of the population, until it all dries up and the whole system collapses.

The point of our constitutional republic was that the government wasn't supposed to be allowed to do that in the first place.

This is wrong. It mioght 'sound good' to you but it's not right.

Unfortunately, whe the majority vote themselves thje wealth of the monirity, it usually works pretty well.

Take slavery. OUr nation thrived as 20% of its population worked very cheap, just as illegal aliens pickling its food and washing its dirty dishes cheap, and slaving in factories building us things, enriches us.

No, the very rich and powerful are not abused - they're running wild. Compare their share of the income taxes, their busniness' share of the taxes, to the 1950's.

Think about the robber barons - you didn't see the hordes slaving with their children in factories voting the rich owners into impoverishment - you saw the rich owners doing well at their expense.

The problem isn't the hordes holding back the rich, it's the other way around. Is Wall Street underrepresented in Congress, getting 'robbed from' by the majority of citizens? Hardly.

 

[QuantumPion]

This is wrong. It mioght 'sound good' to you but it's not right.

Unfortunately, whe the majority vote themselves thje wealth of the monirity, it usually works pretty well.

Right. Like Europe (esp. Greece et. al.), Soviet Union, Red China, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Rwanda, etc. etc.

Take slavery. OUr nation thrived as 20% of its population worked very cheap, just as illegal aliens pickling its food and washing its dirty dishes cheap, and slaving in factories building us things, enriches us.

Illegal immigrants wouldn't flood to the US for cheap jobs if they had better prospects at home. First generation immigrants always have it tough, anywhere in the world. The difference is in America their kids can reap the benefits of their hard work and move up in society, as opposed to being perpetual serfs.

No, the very rich and powerful are not abused - they're running wild. Compare their share of the income taxes, their busniness' share of the taxes, to the 1950's.

You say this as if all wealth belongs to "society" and that the rich are somehow unfairly stealing a larger share. Actually I bet this is what you do indeed believe. The only wealthy I see running wild are the Hollywood actors and sports superstars.

Think about the robber barons - you didn't see the hordes slaving with their children in factories voting the rich owners into impoverishment - you saw the rich owners doing well at their expense.

Think about the robber barons? Like the ones that started off as dirt poor immigrants and through their own hard work managed to become gazillionaires? Think about the factories, where the jobs made available were hands down far better then labor jobs previously available (coal miner, etc), and where the standard of living skyrocketed? Ok, sounds good to me.

The problem isn't the hordes holding back the rich, it's the other way around. Is Wall Street underrepresented in Congress, getting 'robbed from' by the majority of citizens? Hardly.

Actually we have both at the same time. We have the welfare class demanding entitlements, and simultaneously the rich elites demand the middle class pay for them. By rich elites I mean the liberals in media and law of course, not the working rich whom actually produce things.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Ever since the arrival of the "information age" so to speak, what kind of significant legislation has been passed in this country? Welfare reform comes to mind, but that required the use of budget reconciliation.

"Reconcilliation" pertains to the Senate.

The senate votes for Welfare Reform back then were 74-25 for 1st passeage, and 78-21 for the compromise (Senate + House versions) bill coming out of committee.

I see no reason to resort to the Reconcilliation process to get the bill passed. If it was passed in reconcilliation, given the votes, I must assume that's because it was proper to do.

Otherwise, I disagree with your premise that information and newly engaged voters are a bad thing for our democratic republic. I don't think American people have, in general, become increasingly dumber over the past two centuries.

I do think the money and influence in politics now is a big problem. Might be the only way to overcome or counter-act that is a louder voice for the average voter, that's what enhanced communication and the internet can provide.

Fern

 

[nick1985]

Its funny how Craig is for something Obama said he was against. Reconciliation.

What a joke.