• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The reason politics fail in the United States.

H

hellod9

Senior member
I do no know the name of my state government representatives. I'm willing to bet that very few Americans do either. What about your city council member? County executive? Maybe you know who one of these people are. I'm willing to bet most people know far more about the major players in the "debt ceiling" debacle than they do the major players in their local politics.

The vast majority of people focus on national politics at the highest level. They see the giant machine of power. Most people realize national politics is beyond their control and give up, get angry, or decide the machine, AKA government, is inherently bad. Worse yet, some people spend enormous amounts of energy studying the intricacies of political negotiations between the congress, the white house, the senate, or any such combination.

This is why politics fails in the United States. The vast majority of people spend all their political energy in areas where they have no control.

Politics works when enough people are involved in productive ways. When they're contributing to the process. Using the levers of influence that are under their control. How often does this happen in the United States? Are you involved in local politics in your area? Have you decided to turn away from the glimmering mirage of national politics so that you can get your hands on something real?
 
Where the rubber meets the road in day to day politics: The City Council, the County Commissioners and the local school board.


I bet most know who Snooki is. LOL!

Good post hellod9.
 
a777pilot said:
Where the rubber meets the road in day to day politics: The City Council, the County Commissioners and the local school board.


I bet most know who Snooki is. LOL!

Good post hellod9.
Click to expand...

For once, a777pilot and I are in complete agreement. All politics start local.

On a secondary note, I wish that I didn't know who Snooki is.
 
When the country was new, each congressman represented a few thousand constituents. Today, each one represents hundreds of thousands or even millions. The argument has been made by some conservatives that there should be vastly more members in the house of representatives, like on the order of 5000-10000. This would make it far harder to buy votes with pork and make lobbying far less effective.
 
More politicians in government, that's just what our country needs. I'd love to see a first step towards real smaller government and halve the number of state and federal congressmen. Fewer cooks in the kitchen to screw up the recipe and folks know better who to blame when the food turns out bad.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
More politicians in government, that's just what our country needs. I'd love to see a first step towards real smaller government and halve the number of state and federal congressmen. Fewer cooks in the kitchen to screw up the recipe and folks know better who to blame when the food turns out bad.
Click to expand...

Persuasive argument but I disagree. We don't want a single cook with the power to make or break the entire world economy. More politicians = less chance of a single-point-vulnerability (e.g. Barney Frank blocking all banking reform prior to housing crisis). When has the cook EVER been blamed for the food in the US government?
 
I think in the house and the senate we need blind voting. No one should be able to see the voting numbers till everyone has voted. There is too much maneuvering of votes going on.
 
I think we should cap the total number of representatives for a given state to about 4. I think we have too many deadbeats in public office. I wish all elected offices should all come up for election every 4 years and we could replace them all at once. I also think that after 2 years we could have a no-confidence vote fore all federal offices including all supreme court justices.
 
Last edited:
QuantumPion said:
Persuasive argument but I disagree. We don't want a single cook with the power to make or break the entire world economy. More politicians = less chance of a single-point-vulnerability (e.g. Barney Frank blocking all banking reform prior to housing crisis). When has the cook EVER been blamed for the food in the US government?
Click to expand...

Where am I calling for a single cook? 535/2 is still plenty of congress critters. More politicians = more fingers in the pie.
 
Interesting. Nearly all of the responses to my original post suggest ideas that are incredibly unlikely to happen. It seems the discussion has veered toward focusing on things that most people have almost no power over.

Ironic?

Isn't better to discuss ways in which we already do have influence, so that we can actually be influential?
 
Last edited:
The checks and balances are gone and nobody knows how to put them back so the system is in a runaway state until it finally will hit a wall and crumble. No government last forever, we based ours off of Rome and like they say history repeats, and we are crumbling in the same way and for similar reasons that Rome did.


Reading the wiki page for the fall of Rome, how similar it is:
The Romans had no budgetary system and thus wasted whatever resources they had available. The economy of the Empire was a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed élite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.
An economy based upon slave labor precluded a middle class with buying power. The Roman Empire produced few exportable goods. Material innovation, whether through entrepreneurialism or technological advancement, all but ended long before the final dissolution of the Empire. Meanwhile the costs of military defense and the pomp of Emperors continued. Financial needs continued to increase, but the means of meeting them steadily eroded. In the end, due to economic failure, even the armor of soldiers deteriorated and the weaponry of soldiers became so obsolete that the enemies of the Empire had better armor and weapons as well as larger forces. The decrepit social order offered so little to its subjects that many saw the barbarian invasion as liberation from onerous obligations to the ruling class.



the Roman Empire had developed a complex market economy in which trade was relatively free. Tariffs were low and laws controlling the prices of foodstuffs and other commodities had little impact because they did not fix the prices significantly below their market levels. After the 3rd century, however, debasement of the currency (i.e., the minting of coins with diminishing content of gold, silver, and bronze) led to inflation. The price control laws then resulted in prices that were significantly below their free-market equilibrium levels.
According to Rostovtzeff and Mises, artificially low prices led to the scarcity of foodstuffs, particularly in cities, whose inhabitants depended on trade to obtain them. Despite laws passed to prevent migration from the cities to the countryside, urban areas gradually became depopulated and many Roman citizens abandoned their specialized trades to practice subsistence agriculture. This, coupled with increasingly oppressive and arbitrary taxation, led to a severe net decrease in trade, technical innovation, and the overall wealth of the Empire.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hellod9 said:
Interesting. Nearly all of the responses to my original post suggest ideas that are incredibly unlikely to happen. It seems the discussion has veered toward focusing on things that most people have almost no power over.

Ironic?

Isn't better to discuss ways in which we already do have influence, so that we can actually be influential?
Click to expand...
It's easier to move one town over if you do not like the politics in your current town. Not so much if you want to move to a different country.
 
QuantumPion said:
When the country was new, each congressman represented a few thousand constituents. Today, each one represents hundreds of thousands or even millions. The argument has been made by some conservatives that there should be vastly more members in the house of representatives, like on the order of 5000-10000. This would make it far harder to buy votes with pork and make lobbying far less effective.
Click to expand...
senate_inside.jpg
 
I think it's failing due to extremely large disparities within Society. I'm not talking about Income, but that's an issue as well. The disparities are mostly Cultural. You have mainly 2 groups that are very far apart and the disparity is nearly impossible to effectively compromise in such a way to make anyone happy. Although not entirely, but the lines of this disparity seem to be drawn upon the same regions as what caused the Civil War. It's not insurmountable, however it is unlikely that more than a few will ever look to Washington DC as a place they can relate to.

On principle, the system of compromise in the US Federal Government seems good in the sense that it prevents regions or Political Idealists from being run over with opposing idealism or policy. In practice it ends up to be very inefficient for producing Policy that works best. This lessens the effect of Bad Policy, but it also lessens the effect of Good Policy, resulting in Mediocre Policy.

Here in Canada, and in other Nations which use the British Parliamentary system, we have the opposite issue. Mediocre Policy is limited, but Regions/Idealism are often completely left out of consideration(not always true as there have been significant compromises at times). Here it's Winner Takes All and the Governing Party gets to implement their Policy without concern of what the other Political Representatives think about it. That's not to say they have the power of Dictatorship, Public Opinion is a very powerful force and regularly causes the Governing Party from fully carrying out their agenda.

Which system is better? I dunno. Only time will answer that question, maybe. What I do know is that I wouldn't trade our system with the US System as I can't see how anyone could ever be pleased by the outcomes from Washington.
 
Modelworks said:
The checks and balances are gone and nobody knows how to put them back so the system is in a runaway state until it finally will hit a wall and crumble. No government last forever, we based ours off of Rome and like they say history repeats, and we are crumbling in the same way and for similar reasons that Rome did.


Reading the wiki page for the fall of Rome, how similar it is:
Click to expand...

Rome crumbled because it was attacked by barbarians, dolt. That trumps any other reason for their downfall and it isn't particularly close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
 
hellod9 said:
Interesting. Nearly all of the responses to my original post suggest ideas that are incredibly unlikely to happen. It seems the discussion has veered toward focusing on things that most people have almost no power over.

Ironic?

Isn't better to discuss ways in which we already do have influence, so that we can actually be influential?
Click to expand...
Be more ironic if it didn't veer off, actually.

I can't imagine not knowing the names of my representative and my senators, or remember a time when that was true. Same for my state representative and senator, or my county commissioner. So I can't really think of any constructive response.

First said:
Rome crumbled because it was attacked by barbarians, dolt. That trumps any other reason for their downfall and it isn't particularly close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
Click to expand...
Attacked by barbarians who for centuries had been totally dominated by Rome. His point is quite valid.
 
Genx87 said:
That is your problem, not the system. Learn about who represents you.
Click to expand...

Why? Between Democrats and Republicans the Federal Government has stripped local authorities of all meaning and power. There is no purpose to their existence other than historical left overs. They continue to fade away and in time they'll be nothing more than local managers answering directly to Washington instead of the people.

That's the thing, we've gone from a Union of States to just one State. We've burned and trashed our constitution and have no respect for the authority of the individual. We !@#$ on our people and pat ourselves on the back for it.

The whole fiasco with the TSA should make it painfully obvious. Texas wanted to tell them to shove it, but the State government is nothing more than a slave. A whimper and a cry is all they could muster until their master told them to shut up and sit down. States are dead, and that is why people don't care.

You don't need to know who your Texas reps are - they're a bunch of neutered, gutless men who wouldn't know their god given rights if you walked up and hit them over the head with the constitution. The best example of a strong and independent thinking State is nothing more than a hallow shell of what our once great Union used to be.

Our modern system is laid on the ashes of the constitution.
 
hellod9 said:
This is why politics fails in the United States. The vast majority of people spend all their political energy in areas where they have no control.

Politics works when enough people are involved in productive ways. When they're contributing to the process. Using the levers of influence that are under their control. How often does this happen in the United States? Are you involved in local politics in your area? Have you decided to turn away from the glimmering mirage of national politics so that you can get your hands on something real?
Click to expand...


Right. The US is over 200 years old, the wealthiest country in the world, has some of the most progressive social policies in the world, but our politics don't work now because people are easily distracted and lazy.

In case you haven't noticed 60% of the population recently expressed serious doubt their own president was a US citizen. Do you really want to encourage more of them to get involved in politics?
 
wuliheron said:
Right. The US is over 200 years old, the wealthiest country in the world, has some of the most progressive social policies in the world, but our politics don't work now because people are easily distracted and lazy.

In case you haven't noticed 60% of the population recently expressed serious doubt their own president was a US citizen. Do you really want to encourage more of them to get involved in politics?
Click to expand...

YES!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top