Terminalcoffee discussion
Rants / Debates (Serious)
>
WTF is going on (and other general WTFs)?
Scout,As Bun points out, the Buckley case came down in ’76. Though the cases are dissimilar, the recent decision in Citizens United certainly exacerbates the consequences of Buckley v. Valejo.
With term limits there’s an argument to be made against them on the basis of the value of experience, and an argument to be made for them on the basis of reduced attention to reelection. But if you leave that discussion aside, there’s no guarantee that with term limits elected officials won’t do either what is in their long term general economic or political interest, or advocate in a way that directly benefits them in their future pursuits (sitting on corporate boards, lobbying, running a company or a financial institution) And this brings us to the central paradox in the argument for limiting terms: terms are limited with the intent of deterring elected officials from making decisions overly concerned with their re-election, though that means less concern for the wishes and desires and demands of the people, who of course do the voting. And paradoxically, term limits make it easier for an elected official to do what he or she deems wisest, without regard to the voters’, in other words the peoples' interest. So to some extent, from your point of view, you get more of what you want WITHOUT term limits, and less of what you want with them.
Term limits certainly can be construed as an abdication of voter responsibility, not only when it comes to measuring candidates, but also the commitment to the process of education about and understanding of issues pertinent to voters’ lives. And that process is clearly absent on the part of far too many voters, though to some degree understandable given the complexity of today’s issues and the demands on Americans’ time and energy. But that process of education and understanding is really the best available answer.
And unfortunately, there are segments of our polity whose intent is to capitalize politically on voters’ faulty grasp of facts, and in fact to directly misinform or to mis-educate them. And this is another factor missing from the debate on limiting terms: how many people are persuaded through media and political propagandists (and the vested interests behind them) to vote in direct opposition to their own economic interests. I would suggest this is a very large and very persistent dilemma for our democracy at the moment.
A constitutional amendment is technically feasible though practically all but impossible. If effective reform cannot be achieved through the process of legislating and signing laws, reform is unlikely to be achieved through the much more burdensome process of achieving super-majorities in Congress and of the states’ legislatures.
I know that you’re well-meaning in your interest, and I wish I weren’t so generally pessimistic, but I see no real panacea other than the kind of vast reform prevented by the Buckley decision, or a more enlightened citizenry.
At the risk of being overly verbose...Ditto.
Another disadvantage of term limits is that it could lead to a government takeover by the wealthy. Most Middle class and poor people can not leave a job for a couple years then expect to return to the same, or similar, paying job when they returned.
Arminius wrote: "Another disadvantage of term limits is that it could lead to a government takeover by the wealthy. "Are you sure that that isn't the case already?
Yes I am. My rep worked as an Insurance man.
Ken, thanks for sharing your ideas about term limits. I see now that my expectation that those elected would carry out their campaign promises without the threat of losing their jobs was naive. You didn't say anything about taking the money out of campaigning or about lobbyists. I agree with BunWat that "monied interests will always try to find a way into the political process." If money rules behind the scenes, then what kind of democracy is this?
Please explain your statement: "I see no real panacea other than the kind of vast reform prevented by the Buckley decision . . ."
Patience is a virtue:)
I wouldn’t go so far as to say NO member of congress will keep campaign promises without the threat of losing their job. There are still some elected officials who will keep promises to the best of their ability on the basis of principle, or because they sincerely believe in the agenda on which they campaigned. It’s simply that limited terms don’t limit the opportunity for craven, entirely self-interested, or irresponsible behavior.As for reducing money’s influence in our politics (you’re never going to remove it entirely of course), it’s precisely the effects of the Buckley and Citizens United decisions that gutted the legislative ability to effectively restrict or restrain campaign spending through regulation. The legislative and regulatory remedies sanctioned by the courts during the century before Citizens United have been relatively weak and tepid when it came to containing the influence of large moneyed interests. What Citizens United did was wipe away nearly all of what modicum of restriction existed, and open the floodgates virtually without restraint.
Lobbying already is highly regulated. But it’s difficult to find a constitutional way to limit access to public officials, even though that access is exploited by groups with the financial ability to maintain permanent residence in Washington, form and sustain relationships with members of Congress, and retain leverage through their ability to give large amounts to campaigns. That’s what is particularly unfortunate about rulings such as Buckley and Citizens United: individuals and ordinary citizens always have been at great disadvantage comparatively, and these rulings simply enhanced the advantages the rich and powerful held already. And if that weren’t bad enough, as the upper income brackets continue to take a larger and larger share of the nation’s GDP, their political influence grows commensurately.
Anyone who takes the time to read the Citizens United decision, or at least Justice Stevens’ dissent will be astonished at the extremity of what the majority is asserting. It’s not only radical in its conclusions, breathtaking in the degree to which it sweeps away all former legislative action and Supreme Court precedent, but worse, it was achieved through considerable procedural irregularity by the majority.
And this brings us to the responsibility of the voters. Those Supreme Court Justices didn’t simply materialize. Those who voted for the presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush who appointed those extremely right-wing justices are somewhat accountable themselves. Citizens can’t avoid responsibility for the actions of those they have empowered.
Beyond that, as I mentioned before, in my view, too many voters are simply misinformed about what is in their own, and worse, the country’s economic and overall interest. It’s true they are barraged by misleading and misinforming campaign advertising, flooded with falsehoods and cockamamie ideas from tv and radio demagogues ((Give us your Becks, your Limbaughs, your charlatans yearning to exhale methane). And the “mainstream” media do a sorry job of separating the food from the garbage. If I make the claim the sun rises in the west, and you counter that it rises in the east, most media outlets will present the two claims and say, “but we’re not so biased as to tell you who is actually right.”
So there’s clearly a real burden on citizens to educate themselves as much as humanly possible about historical and economic facts, and how the world (in the geographic sense as well) actually works. Because frankly, too many American voters don’t. I’m not saying it’s easy to do so or even particularly fair that so much is required of citizens in this day and age. But it’s the reality.
AND THE REALITY SUCKS!The Buckley decision marked the onslaught of our next elected politicians. It's flabberghasting that this new crop that has gotten into the fray will sweep. The new crop being startling idiotic, speaking in tongues I don't understand at all. Lessee - Detroit is a fanatical Muslim city, masturbation should be outlawed, etc. WTF indeed.
I read the other day that this millionaire or billionaire who has always donated millions to the Dems is not doing it this year because he thinks it's hopeless.
Ken, thanks for your reply. I get it that we're where we are due, in part, to voters' choices (or lack of making a choice, which is a choice in itself). You admit, though, that money influences politicians, and that the voters can't change that. This is a big thing to me. Money shouldn't be allowed to rule in a democracy. Why aren't more people upset about this? Why aren't we all upset about this? Do we just accept that in the US, the people who have money should have more power? I think this is why most people don't vote. Ever heard of learned helplessness? Most voters no longer believe that they have any power. And we have no direct influence on who becomes a member of the Supreme Court. This is the most powerful branch of the government, yet we have to depend on elected officials with vested interests to choose the justices. I say to you that we can educate ourselves out the wahzoo and still not be fairly represented.
No, money shouldn’t be “allowed to rule” in a democracy. And the list of things that “shouldn’t” occur but long have occurred is boundless. But I’m hardly excusing the influence of money and its commensurate power. I’m categorically condemning it, and further asserting the degree to which government and American capitalism are corrupted by the persistent effort to rig them. I think you’re mistaking my attempts at explaining some of the history and mechanics of how money and power influence our democracy with contempt for your idealism, which they are not. But when you ask, “Why aren't more people upset about this? Why aren't we all upset about this?” you’ve asked the Sixty-four Thousand Dollar questions. Since most Americans don’t belong to the elite individual income brackets or the small groups of powerful corporate or other interests, why do so many Americans support their agenda, and vote in way that results in empowering the already powerful even more than they otherwise would be? This empowerment is the result of specific policies by officials elected by citizens, and enforced by judges likewise appointed by officials elected by voters.
Because in fact, for the last thirty years the reach of and hold over government of extremely conservative ideology strongly favoring this segment of America in everything from regulatory, to tax and spending policy to the shape, content and priorities of American government have been elevated and enshrined through voter complicity. There’s an adage that all Americans believe they can and may be rich some day, and to the extent many Americans hold this fanciful belief, it still does not explain why they believe the powerful are morally or practically sanctioned to seek and leverage power in such a morally dubious and socially and economically damaging way.
It speaks to the power of propaganda, and the manipulation of voter sentiment with misinformation, outright falsehood and the stoking of myriad resentments that some voters may mistakenly believe concentrated wealth contributes to economic growth in ways it has proven not to, in favoring capital over labor so lopsidedly as has been the trend for several decades in our consumer-driven economy; in a failure to understand the comparatively minimal size of America’s government and safety net compared to other first-world democracies, and similarly a failing awareness of the pampering of America’s upper brackets during this same thirty or so year period. If you have any ideas on how to effectively alter this dynamic god knows I’m interested.
As for the Supreme Court, it’s not about how justices are picked, but rather what kind of philosophy motivates the president who is doing the choosing. The Supreme Court isn’t directly elected in order to put it beyond the reach of ephemeral public sentiment so that majority rights cannot extinguish minority rights, the Supreme Court being the final protector of all Americans’ rights. So it’s doubly unfortunate when a court majority is so weighted on the side of entrenched wealth and corporate dominance as this one is. But in the end, the present make-up of the court is a voter-generated result.
When you say, “we can educate ourselves out the wahzoo and still not be fairly represented,” it certainly is true that the socially and economically less powerful or their interests will never be represented in government in a ratio commensurate to their actual numbers (and never have been in American or English democracies). But there have been periods when government has shifted much more favorably in that direction (and encouraged the creation of the American middle class). Unfortunately, this isn’t such a period, to say the least.
I think if the Teabaggers can congregate in a publc venue, and shout horrible things about Obama, they've got the rights they insist have been taken away from them.
"teabaggers" is such a derogatory term...
Mod
And yet, they have much more power than they think. If your Congressperson or Senator gets a whole bunch of calls about an issue, it will affect their actions. They pay attention to those calls. They very much fear an angry or aroused electorate.
Senator Hatch cares not one whit about a democrat in southern Utah. Congressman Matheson is not much better. He keeps his seat by taking a right-hand turn on major legislation. Otherwise, he'd be out in favor of a Bircher or some such.
Mod
Oh, did you see that article in the NY Times today, LG?Well, I don't know that I'm allowed to answer for my entire state but I'll outline my perspective. I don't think Feingold is easy to categorize at a time when there's safety is grabbing onto a clear and direct banner. Also, Feingold's brashness can come over as arrogant as hell, and I think Wisconsites are pretty sensitive to that. There's a lot of whispering/subtext about how took for granted he would have his position for as long as he wanted it. Feingold is more responsive to big ideas and grandstanding action (e.g. being the only person to vote against the Patriot Act, I believe) than people; he really doesn't connect well with the electorate outside of ultra-liberal Madison. Now, that said, he's dedicated and unique and works across party lines and there's really no one out there like him. So I can respect him on that level. Also, his opponent is completely new to politics (although that attracts some people, I think) and is taking on the underdog role that's so key, in my eyes, to Feingold's appeal.
I think that Feingold has a hard time connecting with a lot of people, it seems to be in his nature, but he always made hay with his stands on a lot of bills. His main problem this go around seems to be that he represents himself (grandstands)more than he represents his constituency.
I think he is secretly the son of Soupy Sales.
Mod
No, I think it was a blog post at least a week old.
Well, I don't know that I'm allowed to answer for my entire state
Sure you are.
he really doesn't connect well with the electorate outside of ultra-liberal Madison."
I always wondered about that. (Of course I don't think of Madison as being ultra-liberal. Just regular liberal.) It's hard to imagine the snowmobiling crowd up north voting for a cosmopolitan Jew.
Mod
I don't really understand what this means.
Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to reply to each of my statements and questions, Ken. You believe that voters have ultimate power and are therefore responsible for everything from government policy to Supreme Court appointments. I disagree. Politicians are influenced by those who made campaign contributions, by lobbyists, and by their own desire to stay in office. Once they're elected, the voter has no power, except to vote them out in the next election.
This is what it comes down to for me: Take the money out of politics and you'll get good people who are in government because they want to do what their constituents have voted them into office to do. No elected person should leave the office richer than when they came into it. That should be a rule. I think about Washington, Jefferson and Adams. Were they in it for the money?
My question to you, Ken, is how can we make politicians more interested in pushing for things that help their constituents and less interested in making money or soliciting contributions for re-election?
I do expect politics to be a philanthropic enterprise. I didn't say that Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were plaster saints - just that they weren't in it for the money.
Well if govt officials weren't paid, then you'd only have rich people. That doesn't serve us well.It's in our constitution that they get paid, I think, specifically for this purpose, that anyone can serve. Not just the aristocrats.
Scout,Well, yes, an elected official may be influenced by financial considerations, and certainly, as Bun points out, by the need for fund-raising in order to finance highly expensive political campaigns, much of that due to media costs. But in the short-term at least, that is a reality beyond the control of the politician. And of course, you the voter elected the person to office. For a voter concerned about the negative influence of money in government it is important to elect a candidate committed to the support of campaign finance reform, less likely to respond to the influence of larger vested interests. In my opinion it is within the ability of the voter to know whether a candidate meets these criteria or not.
It’s not just politicians influenced by money, but voters too. Most of the money spent in politics is on communication. And in the end, it’s up to the voters to assess the common sense, accuracy and honesty of what they hear. If the voter is swayed to the wrong candidate (in this case, the candidate most likely to do the bidding of powerful vested interests) whether due to basic inability, laziness, stubbornness, foolish preconceptions or after a noble failure to comprehend the issues the voter also has been influenced by money. If a voter expresses disdain for government programs but votes against a candidate who opposed a defense contract that created jobs in the voter’s district, though in the best judgment of the official it was a poor expenditure, the voter not only behaved hypocritically, but has been influenced by his own narrow financial interest. If a voter rails against government spending but votes against her member of congress for opposing a project good for the economy of that district, but considered wasteful, unnecessary or ineffective in the best judgment of the member of congress, the voter likewise has been influenced by money.
One can debate and discuss just how much power voters in a democracy really have now or throughout American or British history: is it ultimately a cannily orchestrated show designed to make ordinary people FEEL empowered, while the affluent and powerful go on about the business of running society as they always have? There’s certainly a discussion there.
I would have to say we have a system whose framework provides a lot of potential opportunity for ordinary citizens to see their considerations elevated in the political process. One still has to account for human nature, and a limited supply of altruism and high-mindedness in politicians and ordinary people. Some folks don’t give a damn who runs the world; some don’t care as long as their own narrow interests appear to be served; some retain the philosophical view that if you can get into a position to rig the system you deserve to do so, and one should aspire to achieving that position; voters and politicians alike are susceptible to greed, pettiness, prejudice, stupidity, ignorance, lousy judgment and pernicious philosophy and ideology from which no political system has immunity.
Ken, thanks for your reply.You said, "One can debate and discuss just how much power voters in a democracy really have now or throughout American or British history: is it ultimately a cannily orchestrated show designed to make ordinary people FEEL empowered, while the affluent and powerful go on about the business of running society as they always have? There’s certainly a discussion there."
We have the Supreme Court saying it's OK for politicians to accept large amounts of money from special interest groups. When it comes to a vote, the politician must consider the wishes of the people who contributed money to his campaign and who might contribute in the future. The interests of his constituents, the people who actually voted for him and expect him to represent them, are secondary. The will of the people doesn't have as much power as the will of the wealthy and powerful.
Most voters know this, and that's why so few vote. They know it's an exercise in futility.
I know this; yet I vote and go through the motions because I want to believe in democracy.
What people like me really want to know is what we can do, step by step, to make politicians responsive to us instead of to people or insitutions with money and power. We're tired of the status quo.
I like this Jefferson quote: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Scout, when you say, “The will of the people doesn't have as much power as the will of the wealthy and powerful,” what you aren’t accounting for is how many of “the people” are deferring to and enabling “the will” of the wealthy and powerful. Otherwise, the wealthy and powerful, in this country at least, wouldn’t have the extraordinary influence over government and society they now enjoy. It’s remarkable the degree to which citizens vote (and to some extent always have) and advocate politically against their own economic and other interests, the degree to which some continue to assist in the manufacture of the ropes eventually used to hang them. So many of our citizens, in a process only enhanced with changes in media and technology, have been and continue to be served such a steady and potent diet of myth, false information, confabulated history, fantasy economics, cultural, social and ethnic prejudice, dubious nostalgia, nativism, nationalism, slogans substituting for ideas, clichés disguised as reliable verities, and frankly, brazenly, in fact mirthfully perpetrated outright lies, it’s a staggering challenge attempting to neutralize as much of it as possible, and to disabuse otherwise well-meaning and well-intended citizens of what they have been convinced is true.
Look at health reform. Unless the American health insurance companies are the wisest guardians of human health known to man, every modern nation in the world has committed health suicide by adopting a universal system. Of course, in terms of costs and health outcomes the statistical evidence continues to confirm the superiority of universal care, in which, by the way, for-profit health insurance companies are not a part. Yet, many of our citizens have been convinced through the power of massive and relentless propaganda subsidized by this powerful interest and those who do its political bidding, that healthcare in those nations is a horror to avoid at all cost (our cost here of course being more than twice the percentage of GDP than in those nations). Fighting that degree of effective power always seems like a Sisyphean challenge.
In the larger sense, in terms of the basic social structure and the fundamentals of government and society one can certainly argue there’s a limit to what a vote will ever accomplish. Still, IF a citizen cares at all about the state of government and American life generally, then the failure to vote is indefensible, because there are always choices, and never ideal ones (more often than not lousy ones). But without question, one of those choices will be worse for your interests than the other one will, even if neither will dramatically improve your life or the nation as a whole immediately.
The fact is, you’re probably doing all you can do through your votes and your advocacy. The best one can do is to vote for and support those in government or running for office who do not further the interests of these vested interests whose quest for profit, power and influence advance agendas so often at odds with the best interests, health and welfare of most Americans, and in this day and age, with common sense, rationality and basic survival. In the effort to reduce the influence of money in politics, the work of groups like Common Cause, Democracy 21 and The Center for Public Integrity certainly is invaluable.
Large campaign contributions are bribes. True or False?
Scout wrote: "Large campaign contributions are bribes. True or False?"True.
I don't agree, so I hope you'll explain, BunWat.
Scout wrote: "Large campaign contributions are bribes. True or False?"False.
I think large contributions are "insurance". They insure that the pols will give the contributors the deference of listening to what they want. It does not GET the contributors what they want.
Seriously, if a contribution was all it took to get thing done, A LOT more would get done in this country.
Michelle wrote: "You also have to look at the fact that a lot of politicians get contributions from competing interests - an oil refinery and a windmill manufacturer, for instance (actual case from a race I covered..."So either contributions do not buy influence, or someone is getting ripped off.
Thanks for your replies. I just think that elected officials should represent the people who voted for them and not the people who gave them money during the election or the people who lobby them afterwards. Is that too idealistic? If so, I say WTF? What I want to know is how to make this happen. Or is it hopeless?
Thanks for your replies. I just think that elected officials should represent the people who voted for them and not the people who gave them money during the election or the people who lobby them afterwards. Is that too idealistic? If so, I say WTF? What I want to know is how to make this happen. Or is it hopeless? Money is the issue.
Well Scout, while large campaign contributions do not meet the legal definition of bribery, since no explicit quid pro quo exists, they are in my view the moral equivalent of bribery. In very rare cases are these contributions a disinterested expression intended to advance the general good, but rather a specific investment by a specific vested interest in expectation of, and with the goal of specific legislative or governmental outcomes. That’s close enough for me. If, as the court has determined, money is speech, then those with a great deal of money get to do a great deal of speaking. And for all practical purposes they may drown out the speech of ordinary people.Of course historically the wealthy and influential always have held a preponderance of elective positions, if for no other reason than that ordinary people cannot leave their careers or professions for long or indefinite periods of time to serve, with any expectation of returning to those careers, or doing so without serious economic consequences, consequences and considerations that to do not apply to the very wealthy. For this reason alone, a class element is built into the system from the very beginning, even before the matter of outside influence enters the picture. In other words, that’s before even accounting for the effects of the present day requirement for staggering sums of money simply to wage a campaign with any reasonable expectation of success.
Still, there are no available shortcuts, nor clean and simple routes to reform. To some extent, your frustration is with the basic structure of our government and the intrinsic dynamics of our politics. Almost all progress in America has come only after long, difficult slogs through the political process, at times long after the initial impulse for change or reform was apparent in the population. Because once again, in the end, whether directly or indirectly every official in a position of power at the federal level of our government is there as the result of voter choice.
And unfortunately many voters, many of “the people,” cast votes only on the basis of immediate circumstances, short-term considerations, snapshots of the moment, with no long-term, informed, well considered philosophical or political foundation for what they are doing.
Take the elections a week away. The distinct and increasingly radical philosophies of one segment of our polity have dominated our government policies for thirty or so years (that segment in large part committed to preventing campaign reform and any reduction of the influence of wealth and power in the political process), with a slight interruption only several years ago at the congressional level and two years ago at the executive level. That political segment’s policies bankrupted the country, ruined the economy, set in motion foreign adventures that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and countless thousands in other nations, and in the end made our nation less safe. Yet on the basis of purely contemporaneous circumstances isolated from any long-term view of what is in the nation’s best interest, and in large part swayed by effective but wholly misleading propaganda, distortion, mis-education and outright lies, many voters will punish those who pulled the nation back from the brink of something approaching economic Armageddon, and embarked on a rectification of the long-building problems that led to so many unfortunate consequences for the country, while rewarding the segment of the polity responsible so recently for creating all manner of havoc and misery.
I don’t know how “the people” escape responsibility for that, no matter how egregious and insidious has been the effort to manipulate them.
My idea for getting this excessive campaign contribution/spending under control is to tax it 100%.For ever dollar contributed/spent on a campaign, a dollar is paid in federal tax.
Filing taxes is a type of disclosure and this will help with the budget problem that all the politicians all say they are concerned about.
(I know, keep dreaming)
Pat wrote: "My idea for getting this excessive campaign contribution/spending under control is to tax it 100%.For ever dollar contributed/spent on a campaign, a dollar is paid in federal tax.
Filing taxes is..."
I would think that would keep ordinary citizens from ever contributing to campaigns, but not keep the corporate interests from jumping in.
Ken, in the first two paragraphs of your reply, you very eloquently stated my opinions about the influence of money on those in power. You then go on to say that those in power are put there by the voters, which is true. My point is that voters can vote for those who seem to reflect their beliefs, but once the officials are in office, they no longer represent the electorate: They represent the people who gave them the money to run their campaigns. The voters don't have the power, and they know that viscerally.
I sent in my absentee ballot a couple of days ago with no expectation that I would be fairly represented by anyone who was elected.
Though the recent SCOTUS ruling has allowed for an additional flood of money, and legal loopholes make it possible for corporations and other large donors to funnel large donations anonymously, the direct contributors to campaigns, and contributions to many pacs can be publicly scrutinized (opensecrets.org is one excellent source among quite a few websites that catalogue contributions and spending) if a voter is sufficiently interested and takes the trouble to check. In this day and age, simply by learning a candidate’s positions or an incumbent’s voting record one can get a pretty good idea which interests he or she will represent. Again, what disturbs me is how many voters, for whatever reason, do not fully comprehend the degree to which the candidate for whom they vote represents the exclusive interests of powerful entities to the exclusion of concerns for the welfare of any other interests, or the nation as a whole, including that specific voter. It’s troubling how often voters’ views are shaped on the basis of mythologies, wishful thinking, false assumptions, bad history, empty nostrums and ludicrous prescriptions. I, like many others, do what I can, and support anyone else who does their best to disabuse fellow citizens of what I consider to be or know to be erroneous perceptions, conclusions and understandings. And I certainly loathe those who have made a cottage industry (and built and sustained a political movement) out of disinformation and false propaganda. But voters are empowered to make a choice, and if the choice is ill-advised nor not in the voter’s OWN interest, there’s a limit to what systemic reform is able to accomplish.
In the representative systems in England and America historically, elected officials have never been obligated to directly represent constituents’ specific wishes, but are expected instead to use their own judgment and make decisions based not only on local or regional preference, but what is judged best for the nation as a whole. Naturally, an official whose record is perceived as entirely or unreasonably antagonistic to local interests will be punished at the ballot box. But it’s unfortunate that many of our elected officials, and so much of the citizenry supporting them willfully and cheerfully do the bidding of concentrated wealth, extremist ideology and generally selfish and ultimately self-defeating beliefs and actions. But it’s less a matter of elected officials doing other than they said they would, than of doing exactly as they promised, having convinced a segment of the electorate of both the wisdom and the benefits of their positions.
Phil wrote: "My wife just got home. As she was driving past the local grocery, she noticed a table set up on the curb at the corner. There was a group of people there with signs, trying to get people to suppor..."Derailing a bit from the current topic to go back to the original WTF topic, but I had to share :
...and just because I like signs and saw this when looking at the other one :
Hee! Great signs, Stacia!
Ken, thanks for your reply. I think this is where we differ in our thinking:
You believe voters have power and have been deluded and swayed by politicians into voting for those who don't have their best interests at heart. Therefore, voters are responsible for the mess we're in.
I believe voters don't have power. No matter whom they vote for, the elected are indebted to those who contributed money to their campaigns and lent them political power. Therefore, voters are not responsible for the mess we're in.
Here's what it comes down to: When a politician votes, will he think first of the people who elected him, or will he think of the people who put him in office? And is this a decision he should have to make in a democratic society?
Anyone else have an opinion?
Thanks, Misha, I see your point. I just wish that money didn't figure at all in the election process. What do you think? Is there a way around it?
I think that we become lemmings to a certain extent, and don't stop to think for ourselves, and therefore Scout's scenario does kick in, and our vote matters less than the contributions.
Terminalcoffee
Books mentioned in this topic
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals (other topics)Room (other topics)
Mockingjay (other topics)
Catching Fire (other topics)
El cuaderno de Maya (other topics)
More...
Was Buckley v. Valejo the recent SC decision? If so, it's the one that astounded me - giving carte blanche to special interests. What about an amendment to the Constitution? Is that a means to change? If so, how would we go about it?
Relying on the "wisdom and judgment" of elected persons who are very interested in doing what it takes to be re-elected - not a good bet. That's why I like term limits. A person gets a finite amount of time to make an impact, hopefully somewhat true to his campaign promises. He's not looking for income; he's not interested in making deals that will benefit him in the future or get him re-elected or make him wealthy. Somehow, we have remove the personal incentives for politicians. I'd like to see true statesmen in government.
It seems that the foxes are guarding the hen house, and we need to get out the (metaphorical) shotgun. I think that sensible people want reform , but we just don't know how to go about accomplishing it.