I personally agree on all counts here, and I'm glad the national cognitive dissonance is at least getting some small amount of attention, though given how irresponsible and ill educated most Americans are, it likely will never be tackled.
In trying to explain our political paralysis, analysts cite President Obama's tactical missteps, the obstinacy of congressional Republicans, rising partisanship in Washington, and the Senate filibuster, which has devolved into a super-majority threshold for important legislation. These are large factors to be sure, but that list neglects what may be the biggest culprit of all: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.
Anybody who says you can't have it both ways hasn't been spending much time reading opinion polls lately. One year ago, 59 percent of the American public liked the economic stimulus plan, according to Gallup. A few months later, with the economy still deeply mired in recession, a majority of the same size said Obama was spending too much money on it. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but polls reflect something more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.
t the root of this contradiction is our national-characterological ambivalence about government. We want Washington and the states to fix our problems. At the same time, we want government to shrink, spend less, and reduce our taxes. We dislike government in the abstract: 67 percent of people favor balancing the budget even when the country is in a recession or a war, according to CNN. But we love government in the particular: even larger majorities oppose the kind of spending cuts that would reduce projected deficits, let alone eliminate them. Nearly half the public wants to cancel Obama's stimulus spending, and a strong majority doesn't want another round of it. But 80-plus percent of people want to extend unemployment benefits and put more money into building roads. Another term for that is stimulus spending.
Some say that the public is in an angry, populist, tea-partying mood. But a lot more people are watching American Idol than Glenn Beck, and our collective illogic is mostly passive rather than militant. The better explanation is that the public lives in Candyland, where government can tackle the big problems and get out of the way at the same time. In this respect, the whole country is becoming more and more like California, where the state's bonds have dropped to an A- rating (the same level as Libya's) thanks to a referendum system that allows the people to be even more irresponsible than their elected representatives. We like the idea of sacrifices and hard choices in theory. When was the last time we made one?
The politicians thriving at the moment are those best able to call for the impossible with a straight face. Take Scott Brown, the newly elected senator from Massachusetts. Brown wants government to take in less revenue, has signed a no-new-taxes pledge, and called for an across-the-board tax cut on families and businesses. But Brown doesn't want government to spend less money: he opposes spending cuts of any significance. He says we can lower huge deficits (which his policies would increase) simply by cutting government waste. No sensible person who has spent five minutes looking at the budget thinks that's remotely possible. The charitable interpretation is that Brown embodies the naive optimism of Ronald Reagan. A better explanation is that he is consciously pandering to the public's illusions along with the rest of his Republican colleagues.
I don't mean to suggest that honesty vs. dishonesty is what divides the two parties. Increasingly, the crucial distinction is between the minority of serious politicians on either side who are prepared to speak frankly about our choices and the majority who indulge the public's delusions. I would put President Obama and his economic team in the first category, along with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Republicans are more indulgent of the public's unrealism in general, but Democrats have spent years fostering their own kinds of denial. Where Republicans encourage myths about taxes, spending, and climate change, Democrats tend to stoke our fantasies about the sustainability of entitlement spending and the cost of social programs.
Our inability to address long-term challenges makes a strong case that the United States now faces an era of historical decline. To change this story-line, we need to stop blaming the rascals we elect to office, and look instead to ourselves.
Weisberg is chairman of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy.
I read today that Sarah Palin is gathering popularity again through this Tea Party movement thing. Seriously, you guys need to work on this. If there's the slightest chance of this nutcase being voted into office, it needs quashing now.
EDIT - I would add that we don't get any choice over here, as nutcases are all we have, be they permanently depressed Scotsmen or Overly earnest Eton toffs in desperate need of a clip round the ear.
As i've always said most people talk a big game and like to demand thinks from the goverment, but as soon as the tax is increased to fufill this demand they get angry. goverments can only do what you want if you give them money and effort
If you don't like taxes don't complain about the pot holes
"Increasingly, the crucial distinction is between the minority of serious politicians on either side who are prepared to speak frankly about our choices and the majority who indulge the public's delusions."
I totally agree with this. It's a big problem here in England where the opposition party has been trying to pander to the voters, promising us that our problems will disappear once they are in charge. Then the party in power jumps on the same bandwagon in case their rivals steal a march on them in the polls.
/rant
I'd like to think this would provoke a nation-wide-facepalm, but the sad thing is we have the same state of affairs as the Americans do: People are so used to being given what they want by crap-TV, stupid bank loans and overly generous benefit checks that they fall for it and vote for whoever spends the most money on their advertising campaign so they can get on with watching Popidol and gaking out more rat-faced children rather than getting off their arses and actually thinking about something for once.
/rant
Meh...I'm not american, the flag is mistaken. Politics is always screwy. In fact, "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other kinds that have been tried." I think everyone's at fault for not devising a better system to properly represent everyone's feelings.
I agree with Shuma. America unfortunately labors under a veil of ignorance these days. On my walks to class on campus, for example, I have to put up with idiots alternatively proclaiming that the Democratic and Republican parties are dead.
You know what would solve this problem.....PRINT MORE MONEY!!! Seriously though i agree with what is said here especially about the lack of education in government and outside of it. Also about the lack of being able to make sacrifices.
The thing is, every country has idiotic voters, and almost everywhere they outnumber the informed voters. As a result politics has always, and probably will always, consist of promising to increase spending, decreases taxes and balance the budget.
But the rest of us haven't experienced the rapid decline in the quality of political debate the US has suffered in the last decade or so. I think that's really come from the politicians themselves, from a change in the culture of Washington - I've read a lot pieces about Washington becoming a much nastier place in the last couple of decades.
One of the main problems is that we used to think of college as a way to get a well-rounded education, but now it's just advanced job training. People spend two or four years learning what they need to do a specific job and nothing else, so they're still idiots, albeit with student loans to pay off. People don't read like they used to, they skim headlines on the internet. Also, the U.S. used to have lots of high-paying manufacturing jobs that brought a lot of money into our economy. Now we have lots of low-paying service jobs and are bleeding money like never before. The tax base just can't support all of the infrastructure and social security demands like it used to. If we were a patient in a hospital, the doctors would be thinking about pulling the plug. And by the way, Glenn Beck is a walking argument against the first amendment.
You are also forgetting America is lazy and greedy. Look at that health bill, it gained help from buying off states. Those people are getting bought off why would they care what others are dealing with? Its America land of the secular and selfish.
Yea, we just super size it.. We don't take care of most global issues cause we care, we do it to keep up our obnoxious image. Considering we put ourselves on a pedestal as some great nation we're almost no better than a spoiled brat living off our rich dad(forefathers). Most wait for hand outs and do nothing but help us waste money to pull their lazy ass outta the fire.
Vindicator#9 wrote:You know what would solve this problem.....PRINT MORE MONEY!!!
I'm almost positive that your being sarcastic but no. If Have a loaf of bread that i want to sell for one dollar and you had one dollar then it would cost one dollar however if we both got twice as much money then i would charge two dollars it seems like it would cost more yet it would be the same relative cost. So if you print more money it wouldn't change a damn thing.
sebster wrote:The thing is, every country has idiotic voters, and almost everywhere they outnumber the informed voters. As a result politics has always, and probably will always, consist of promising to increase spending, decreases taxes and balance the budget.
But the rest of us haven't experienced the rapid decline in the quality of political debate the US has suffered in the last decade or so. I think that's really come from the politicians themselves, from a change in the culture of Washington - I've read a lot pieces about Washington becoming a much nastier place in the last couple of decades.
I am going to have to agree with sebster here, I really don't feel that the fault is truly on the people at large. In fact, I would even argue that people in fact ARE more involved, but by way of instant communication, versus word of mouth (and alternative sources of information). If you really want a nation of people with college educations, you are the first step on the path to impossibility.
The amount of people involved in the last presidential election, was mind-boggling quite frankly. There was a massive push politically, from the people at large, on both sides. You have more independents that ever, indicating a general dissatisfaction with the state of both current political parties. People in general, have always, and will continue to want, and ask for, more than they can manage or which is feasible in the first place. There is no news there. Want your cake, AND EAT IT TOO?! No way, Jose, your crazy and your new fangled ways of doing things scare me.
With the addition of more people to the political arena, on a societal level, the amount of ignorance will rise, in proportion to the previous 'whole'. More people involved, more ignorance involved. Not more ignorance involved, less people involved.
The action that takes place now, may have more or less impact, and in different ways, to the generic course of politics in the U.S. Do "million people marches" (which were very rare, in fact almost nonexistent in the past, as they are now, though less frequent in general now) really make a difference in this day and age? Does the fact that information, (though prone to slightly more spinning/'opinionatizing') is now easily accessible and common place, really mean that little? I would argue that as always, politics change, but for the most part, people are pretty much the same; thus the access to information is being USED differently. Not entirely on the Politicians themselves though.
More emotion, more 'appearances', less actual substance from Washington. In general, more involvement from people on the societal level as well, perhaps indicating that this form of pressure being applied via the web (communication in general, etc...) has a detrimental effect, simply due to it's proliferation in the first place.
Translation: It is very, very loud (politically), in the U.S. Most of that noise, does appear to be coming from politicians, though perhaps as a reflection of the pressure from their constituency.
While I agree with the sentiment presented, I also find myself wanting to tell the author to nut up. The average person is of average intelligence. This has always been true, and will always be true. Whining about something which cannot be changed is useless at best, and harmful at worst. If you are both intelligent, and interested in political change, then it is your responsibility to learn how to manipulate the political process.
This means speaking to the hypocrisy that is implicit in an angry public that lacks the knowledge to properly understand the role their desires play in the administration of the state. It also means practicing tight information control, manipulation of the public will, and getting elected. But most importantly, it means understanding that the specific desires of the public are less relevant than the probability of any given choice producing a positive outcome.
What the people really want is prosperity. They may be emotionally attached to one ideology, or another, but most citizens will throw their belief to the wolves when presented with a fat wallet.
WarmasterScott wrote:You are also forgetting America is lazy and greedy. Look at that health bill, it gained help from buying off states. Those people are getting bought off why would they care what others are dealing with? Its America land of the secular and selfish.
WarmasterScott wrote:Yea, we just super size it.. We don't take care of most global issues cause we care, we do it to keep up our obnoxious image. Considering we put ourselves on a pedestal as some great nation we're almost no better than a spoiled brat living off our rich dad(forefathers). Most wait for hand outs and do nothing but help us waste money to pull their lazy ass outta the fire.
Way to spout off without adding anything in the way of solutions to the discussion. Perhaps we should start taxing churches. That would represent a massive influx of fresh federal revenue. After all, they're just as political as any other organization any more, they just aren't honest about it.
sebster wrote:
But the rest of us haven't experienced the rapid decline in the quality of political debate the US has suffered in the last decade or so. I think that's really come from the politicians themselves, from a change in the culture of Washington - I've read a lot pieces about Washington becoming a much nastier place in the last couple of decades.
There is a massive gap between the two partisan blocs. Massive. Its not even substantive, merely brand related, and that makes it almost impossible to overcome. Politicians reflect their constituencies, unless they're particularly brilliant manipulators, so that gap is reflected in Washington.
Seriously, I've seen people get up and leave in the middle of a political science class because we were discussing liberal theory. Not even contemporary liberal theory, just Hobbes and Locke. He had so much hate for the word that he couldn't stay in the room. I've also seen people do the same when discussing the ideology of contemporary position which weren't there own. Ridiculous, but college kids are usually ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarmasterScott wrote:Most wait for hand outs and do nothing but help us waste money to pull their lazy ass outta the fire.
Real unemployment is 15%. That's nowhere near most of the nation, and I'd argue that most people who are unemployed are not lazy.
dogma wrote:There is a massive gap between the two partisan blocs. Massive. Its not even substantive, merely brand related, and that makes it almost impossible to overcome. Politicians reflect their constituencies, unless they're particularly brilliant manipulators, so that gap is reflected in Washington.
Do you think that is the main 'problem' right now? Are people so at odds that progress becomes unbearably slow?
The article speaks about people who want the best of both worlds, with no compromise whatsoever, and I occasionally (though rarely) see that occur in discussions. What seems to be more prominent, is a basic stubbornness when it comes to compromise, in a political setting. Versus sheer focused tenacity, at least from the public's side.
Is there really that little substance to most of these disagreements though? I am not entirely sure of that, as it seems (IMHO) that 'people' have taken two philosophical paths, that are just going in opposite directions. This would lead to lack of compromise in any setting, and with politics that is doubly true. Getting angry roosters (enraged and illogical as they may seem) to stop fighting, is no easy task.
Seriously, I've seen people get up and leave in the middle of a political science class because we were discussing liberal theory. Not even contemporary liberal theory, just Hobbes and Locke. He had so much hate for the word that he couldn't stay in the room. I've also seen people do the same when discussing the ideology of contemporary position which weren't there own. Ridiculous, but college kids are usually ridiculous.
That is pretty unfortunate, as that amount of what I would consider to be passion (I see hate as a form of passion) being lost from a discussion, can be bad thing.
I too agree with the article's sentiment but its an editorial that would fit in every generation of American politics tracing back to the founding fathers. And really just about all democratic nations have these problems.
At least we're not trying to accuse eachother of being Soviet spies and practicing nuclear bomb drills in schools anymore
Wrexasaur wrote:
Do you think that is the main 'problem' right now? Are people so at odds that progress becomes unbearably slow?
I'm conflicted on that idea.
Part of me says that American politics are about as fluid as they've always been, and its simply a function of information society eroding patience which makes us see the process as sluggish. That said, 'slow' is relative. If the political process is slow when it needs to be fast, then there is still a problem. Though not necessarily an unacceptable one; depending on what you want from the state.
The other part of me says that democracy is an even more problematic concept in the information age. Politicians need to develop a sort of resistance to the desire of their constituents, and the average citizen needs to develop a reasonable assessment of what their representatives can achieve. Unfortunately, that's simply a matter of adaptation over time.
Wrexasaur wrote:
The article speaks about people who want the best of both worlds, with no compromise whatsoever, and I occasionally (though rarely) see that occur in discussions. What seems to be more prominent, is a basic stubbornness when it comes to compromise, in a political setting. Versus sheer focused tenacity, at least from the public's side.
Its been my experience that many people in the United States see compromise as a sign of weakness. They're right, of course, but what is often missed is the fact that we are all weak in some sense. People who are open to compromise simply acknowledge that fact.
As for the issue of wanting the best of both worlds: That's partially the fault of survey question writers. If two nominally positive, but contradictory, concepts are tested independently of one another they will both report high desire. Why wouldn't they? Its also partially the fault of the cultural tendency of Americans to engage with political ideas from an idealistic stance. One made all the worse as it is passed off as realism.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Is there really that little substance to most of these disagreements though? I am not entirely sure of that, as it seems (IMHO) that 'people' have taken two philosophical paths, that are just going in opposite directions. This would lead to lack of compromise in any setting, and with politics that is doubly true. Getting angry roosters (enraged and illogical as they may seem) to stop fighting, is no easy task.
There are people who post to this very forum who want portable health care coverage, and yet oppose health care exchanges; which are pretty much the only way to dodge the 10th amendment.
Hoho Im suprised to see that ANY Americans has this amount of awareness, But on the other hand it hadd to happen sooner or later but good jobb with getting a healty attitude towards your problems.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Do you think that is the main 'problem' right now? Are people so at odds that progress becomes unbearably slow?
I'm conflicted on that idea.
Part of me says that American politics are about as fluid as they've always been, and its simply a function of information society eroding patience which makes us see the process as sluggish. That said, 'slow' is relative. If the political process is slow when it needs to be fast, then there is still a problem. Though not necessarily an unacceptable one; depending on what you want from the state.
The other part of me says that democracy is an even more problematic concept in the information age. Politicians need to develop a sort of resistance to the desire of their constituents, and the average citizen needs to develop a reasonable assessment of what their representatives can achieve. Unfortunately, that's simply a matter of adaptation over time.
I would argue from those basic assumptions, that politicians need to me more active in their politics. Perhaps this is already happening in a way that can begin to bring a bit of change to our politics. It is clear enough to me, that the progressives are taking more of the stage up than anyone else, but President Obama has provided a substantial amount of transparency in general. I still sense that he is fresh (in both good and bad ways IMO), but he really has the ability to convey his points with rather concise and direct reasoning. He is a fantastic orator, but I think that he generically serves as a model for future politicians.
Its been my experience that many people in the United States see compromise as a sign of weakness. They're right, of course, but what is often missed is the fact that we are all weak in some sense. People who are open to compromise simply acknowledge that fact.
It seems that the desire to appear strong in general, has always been an 'admirable' trait in Americans. Strong may be the wrong word, perhaps independent, and successful. I do know a lot of people that take that to an unhealthy level, but on many occasions that almost obsessive behavior seems to pay off. We appear to reward that type of obsession in our society.
You will always need support, leading to various forms of compromise, if you want to succeed at nearly anything. Wanting to be able to do everything, and always be right about anything, seems a stupid endeavor.
As for the issue of wanting the best of both worlds: That's partially the fault of survey question writers. If two nominally positive, but contradictory, concepts are tested independently of one another they will both report high desire. Why wouldn't they? Its also partially the fault of the cultural tendency of Americans to engage with political ideas from an idealistic stance. One made all the worse as it is passed off as realism.
Makes sense, my Poli-sci teacher tries to present polls as hard evidence of some kind. I would not argue that they are void of applicable information, but taking them at face value just seems silly to me.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I would argue from those basic assumptions, that politicians need to me more active in their politics. Perhaps this is already happening in a way that can begin to bring a bit of change to our politics. It is clear enough to me, that the progressives are taking more of the stage up than anyone else, but President Obama has provided a substantial amount of transparency in general. I still sense that he is fresh (in both good and bad ways IMO), but he really has the ability to convey his points with rather concise and direct reasoning. He is a fantastic orator, but I think that he generically serves as a model for future politicians.
I mostly agree. I think that, now, conservatives have taken the lead in terms of political activity. However, the progressives did start the trend with the Obama campaign.
Speaking of: Obama has made quite a few mistakes, but I think he has done infinitely better than McCain would have. If only because he is so much younger.
Wrexasaur wrote:
It seems that the desire to appear strong in general, has always been a common trait among Americans. Strong may be the wrong word, perhaps independent, and successful. I do know a lot of people that take that to an unhealthy level, but on many occasions that almost obsessive behavior seems to pay off. We appear to reward that type of obsession in our society.
We do, and it has its benefits. It also has its handicaps. Obsessions are weaknesses, even the ones that relate to strengths.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Makes sense, my Poli-sci teacher tries to present polls as hard evidence of some kind. I would not argue that they are void of applicable information, but taking them at face value just seems silly to me.
It is, and with that realization you're already head-and-shoulders over most people.
dogma wrote:There is a massive gap between the two partisan blocs. Massive. Its not even substantive, merely brand related, and that makes it almost impossible to overcome. Politicians reflect their constituencies, unless they're particularly brilliant manipulators, so that gap is reflected in Washington.
Sure, but where does that brand identification come from? I'd argue that identification with conservatism and liberalism hasn't just appeared out of the blue, but been encouraged by the two major parties. Getting people to identify some part of their identity with a political ideology, and therefore with a political party, is a pretty good way to make sure they turn up to vote. It's a lot more reliable than winning people over with policy debate.
The problem comes when a generation raised to believe in the culture war grows up and starts winning political offices of their own. Before long you see people earnestly claiming healthcare reform is communism.
Silly goose, anything the Democrats do is communism.
Seriously though, you're right. The blame lies on politicians. Well, politicians and their advisers.
Ultimately fault is irrelevant. What is important is cause. The current situation is unacceptable, and my current country must rectify it if they hope to be useful in the future. Of course, that also requires a sense of tax history, so we're all doomed. Good thing I have many Indian friends.
dogma wrote:Silly goose, anything the Democrats do is communism.
Seriously though, you're right. The blame lies on politicians. Well, politicians and their advisers.
Ultimately fault is irrelevant. What is important is cause. The current situation is unacceptable, and my current country must rectify it if they hope to be useful in the future.
Yeah, that's a good point. Ultimately what matters is the solution. I guess a population that stops rewarding divisive rhetoric, and starts rewarding constructive, substantive debate would solve the problem in time, but good luck with that.
The other solution would be for the parties themselves to see where they've managed to steer the country and decide they need to change. This seems more likely, but that doesn't mean its very likely.
I think people need to look to historical means of digging the world out of the hole we are in at the moment. Germany has done it twice in living memory, the first time going from ruined shell to world superpower. Get the unemployed rounded up onto a bus, drive them out into the countryside and give them a spade and get them digging that new road system, or building that new dam.
May as well get something back for the millions/billions spent on welfare, plus it will give some people cause to actually go out and look for a job.
And I think America could do very well from getting business out of politics.
As for voter stupidity/etc, it is possible to remain smart, yet be uninformed, to retain your IQ but be utterly clueless about how the world works. I think this is perhaps fast becoming the norm in todays world. People are being "educated" in how to perform specific functions within society and being given very shoddy teaching on the wider world. The culture and society itself is moving away from educating and informing, and more to peddling the instant gratification and mindless crud that it appears that so many people wish to wipe their minds with, rather than deal with the real world.
I can't think of any way off the top of my head that people will change without radical alterations to our society at every level, which will never happen because too many people (with all the money, and hence influence) have too much vested in the status quo.
This is especially true in the 2 party system of the US. People seem to have lost much of their ability to think for themsleves, which does not help when they are then indoctrinated into the red vs blue mindset created by the very system that has been set up to strip their self determination and ability to think for themsleves.
"But 80-plus percent of people want to extend unemployment benefits and put more money into building roads. Another term for that is stimulus spending."
Another term for that would be "already paid for with taxes". Paying for roads is nothing new and for the most part is handled by the state or local government. This guy seems like a fool to me.
The problem at hand is actually television and radio. They allow a massive flow of information with just turning on the right channel. At least the internet requires some spelling and articulation in order to interact with others.
Another issue is all of the spoiled brats who end up being "activists". The children of the 60's are our leaders today and they ended up screwing it up worse than the people they were initially rebelling from. All this "Political Correctness" makes little to no sense. Who cares about your emotions, the only ones that should care are your spouses and/or parents(unless you pay for someone to care of course). Just go out there and do some work, if you make enough money then maybe you can still afford that Cappucino Grande Half-Caf with whipped cream and sprinkles every day.
It didn't get my point across, but I just saw everybody else ranting and wanted to join in.
In all seriousness though, we need common sense. Churches aren't politically active, but most people who go there are.
America is not a democracy, its a republic seeing as though we don't represent ourselves we have people to represent us. America is so large that a democracy would be impossible.
Warmasterscott wrote:We don't take care of most global issues cause we care, we do it to keep up our obnoxious image. Considering we put ourselves on a pedestal as some great nation we're almost no better than a spoiled brat living off our rich dad(forefathers).
Except for the fact that we've helped out the world on several occassions. In fact, our image for the most part is of the brute. With the Monroe Doctrine, invading Canada, almost going to war with Chile, using cannons to open Japan to trade, sailing a small fleet around the globe just to threaten our enemies, almost going to war with Canada over fishing rights, the whole "my bomb is bigger than your bomb" phase we went through, Roosevelt's Big Stick, an apparent fondness for war(but hey, at least we didn't fight for almost 100 years like some people we know). So maybe, we're just trying to soften up our negative image. People think America and say "Home of the ruffians and land of the Big Mac".
There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but polls reflect something more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.
Which has a very bad underlying assumption, namely that any action on the part of the government in these issues should make people happy.
For instance Healthcare. Yes, many people want healthcare reform. I'd say most would. When a 10ml shot of pain meds costs $400, and a 5 minute bedside consult is billed at $600 people realize that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. The problem is that the government's solution to this made no one happy. It did nothing to fix the problem but it did create a new gargantuan government system that would cost billions, even trillions. So naturally people see this coming which pleases neither those who want nationalized healthcare nor those who just want to look at cost cutting reforms and of course the reaction turns against it.
That's the issue at the core of the situation. People don't just want the government to flail about for a few months and pass a bill. They want the government to actually do something about the issue. It's not good enough to just make any bill that does something, people want it to accomplish something in the process not that leaves the situation roughly the same or worse than when the government got involved.
So yes, people start off wanting a lot but often when they see the Federal government's "solution", they turn against it. The only thing troubling about that is that this idiot writes for a major publication and doesn't get that.
The problem is that the government's solution to this made no one happy. It did nothing to fix the problem but it did create a new gargantuan government system that would cost billions, even trillions. So naturally people see this coming which pleases neither those who want nationalized healthcare nor those who just want to look at cost cutting reforms and of course the reaction turns against it.
Except for the part where 90% of americans had no accurate conception of what the healthcare bill looked like or of the method by which it was being both developed and stalled. People fought tooth and nail because being told your grandparents will be killed for six months does that, not because they had any realistic view on the merits and downsides of the reforms being proposed.
Tyyr wrote: The problem is that the government's solution to this made no one happy.
How could it? It hasn't been put into effect.
Tyyr wrote:
That's the issue at the core of the situation. People don't just want the government to flail about for a few months and pass a bill.
This has been an issue for years. Since Nixon, in fact. Its hardly a debate which has occurred for only a few months. Granted, the burden of remembrance is on the state, but there still must be some measure of offense directed at those who ignore reality for their own emotional benefit.
Tyyr wrote:
They want the government to actually do something about the issue.
Passing a bill is doing something. In fact, its the something that government does. When you write off the principle action of a body as nothing, then you cease to be able to understand what they do. This is a criminal, and uniquely American, affront to thought.
Tyyr wrote:
It's not good enough to just make any bill that does something, people want it to accomplish something in the process not that leaves the situation roughly the same or worse than when the government got involved.
Well, duh. Trouble is that it is impossible to prove certainty when what is being considered is the future. Patience is key, and the mob lacks it; primarily for selfish reasons.
Tyyr wrote:
So yes, people start off wanting a lot but often when they see the Federal government's "solution", they turn against it. The only thing troubling about that is that this idiot writes for a major publication and doesn't get that.
He does get it, he's simply ranting against it. More troubling is you ability to react with emotion without understanding that others also do so. Unless, of course, you do understand and you're simply makinga conscientious choice to behave as a hypocrite.
dogma wrote:It isn't. We have people advocating 70% cuts to the federal government, no mind for the 14 million people that would be dropped on the market.
Emotionally motivated fools. So very sad. Also a good case for tyranny. Hilarious how that happens.
Hmm. What if it occurred over a period of fifty years or so?
dogma wrote:It isn't. We have people advocating 70% cuts to the federal government, no mind for the 14 million people that would be dropped on the market.
Emotionally motivated fools. So very sad. Also a good case for tyranny. Hilarious how that happens.
Hmm. What if it occurred over a period of fifty years or so?
That would require systemic and designed cuts over that time period, with additional ones offsettings additional job gains governed by population increases. Given that we have an 8 year presidential cycle and a nearly equivalent party turnaround that would likely be impossible.
Hasn't it expanded by about the same degree from, say 1890 to 1940? I mean, I'm not forecasting it or anything. It seems that the change could be made if there was sufficient popular support for it, though, so to favor a fairly radical change of policy - but only so long as the change occurs at a slow enough pace for it to be adapted to - doesn't seem particularly short-sighted/ignorant/etc.
(Not that I think whoever is saying that federal spending should drop 70% is advocating this change over such a period of time; just saying that is could work if it was.)
In trying to explain our political paralysis, analysts cite President Obama's tactical missteps, the obstinacy of congressional Republicans, rising partisanship in Washington, and the Senate filibuster, which has devolved into a super-majority threshold for important legislation. These are large factors to be sure, but that list neglects what may be the biggest culprit of all: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.
Ah... here it is. You fat stupid voters don't know what's good for you. You should leave it to Washington.
More Newsweak drivel wrote:
We want Washington and the states to fix our problems.
See that's the thing brainiac. We DONT want Washington to fix our problems. We want as little government as possible.
Even More Newsweak drivel wrote:
Some say that the public is in an angry, populist, tea-partying mood. But a lot more people are watching American Idol than Glenn Beck...
I love how he avoids recognizing the growing groundswell against a centralized power grab in DC by referring to it in the abstract. "Some say that the public is in an angry... mood". Wake up and smell the coffee egghead. We're as mad as hell.
Well at least Beck is getting press out of it. He's such a card. I love Glenn Beck. All that silly talk about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and the lessons on how our levels of debt and spending are unsustainable. He's such a goofball. The fact that he makes these stuff shirts lose their minds is just icing on the cake.
Reaching for the duct tape now to keep my head from exploding wrote:
I don't mean to suggest that honesty vs. dishonesty is what divides the two parties. Increasingly, the crucial distinction is between the minority of serious politicians on either side who are prepared to speak frankly about our choices and the majority who indulge the public's delusions. I would put President Obama and his economic team in the first category...
Really. So Obama is the guy who is speaking frankly to us about how our delusions of Cap & Trade and government bailouts of banks and automakers are bad? Cause I missed that part. I seem to recall PresBO voting for all this gak. I seem to recall things like a $2Million turtle tunnel, $200K laws to remove tattoos from gang members and a program that spent $3 Billion to get people to buy cars they didn't need.
I would suggest that the difference between the two parties is about gone. Both are populated with career politicians who care nothing for their constituencies beyond their ability to provide them an easy life and cushy retirement. Case in point is the recently deceased Senator Murtha. The man was in power 19 terms. NINETEEN. More than 35 years of living off the public teat. He was known for being the master of the backroom pork barrel bill. Hate to speak ill of the dead, but he's an easy mark. There's more on both sides of the aisle.
Has it never occurred to any of you that Washington is a solution running around looking for a problem to justify it's own existence? Wake up!
The final outrage in the whole article wrote:
Our inability to address long-term challenges makes a strong case that the United States now faces an era of historical decline. To change this story-line, we need to stop blaming the rascals we elect to office, and look instead to ourselves.
Yes, we must look to ourselves and ask ourselves "How much longer will you tolerate eroding liberty and fiscal malfeasance on such a grand scale"? Look at Social Security. The only difference between what the Federal Government has done with SS and what Bernie Madoff did is that Bernie went to jail, and no one will go to jail for the $2.4 trillion theft of taxpayer funds. The money that is in the "Trust Fund" is gone... spent by the Washington machine and replaced with IOUs.
Yes, the problem is with us. I pray to God the American people will wake up and take action to correct it and that will begin with voting every incumbent out of office.
The Green Git wrote:
Ah... here it is. You fat stupid voters don't know what's good for you. You should leave it to Washington.
No, you should learn things. Things pertinent to the political process. Things like the meaning of the word 'republic'.
The Green Git wrote:
I love how he avoids recognizing the growing groundswell against a centralized power grab in DC by referring to it in the abstract. "Some say that the public is in an angry... mood". Wake up and smell the coffee egghead. We're as mad as hell.
You're mad. You speak for no one other than yourself. Unless you're a governing individual. Though I expect that would make you implode
.
The Green Git wrote:
Well at least Beck is getting press out of it. He's such a card. I love Glenn Beck. All that silly talk about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and the lessons on how our levels of debt and spending are unsustainable. He's such a goofball. The fact that he makes these stuff shirts lose their minds is just icing on the cake.
You don't know what the word 'republic' means. You cannot speak to anything political until you correct this failure.
The Green Git wrote:
Really. So Obama is the guy who is speaking frankly to us about how our delusions of Cap & Trade and government bailouts of banks and automakers are bad? Cause I missed that part. I seem to recall PresBO voting for all this gak.
Casting a vote does not indicate that something seems good or bad, only that it seems necessary.
The Green Git wrote:
I seem to recall things like a $2Million turtle tunnel, $200K laws to remove tattoos from gang members and a program that spent $3 Billion to get people to buy cars they didn't need.
Tiny numbers indicate a lack of perspective.
The Green Git wrote:
I would suggest that the difference between the two parties is about gone. Both are populated with career politicians who care nothing for their constituencies beyond their ability to provide them an easy life and cushy retirement.
So...they care for the constituencies? What in God's name do you believe exists outside an easy life, and a cushy retirement?
The Green Git wrote:
Case in point is the recently deceased Senator Murtha. The man was in power 19 terms. NINETEEN. More than 35 years of living off the public teat. He was known for being the master of the backroom pork barrel bill. Hate to speak ill of the dead, but he's an easy mark. There's more on both sides of the aisle.
I bet that his constituents did well living of his pork barrel skills.
The Green Git wrote:
Has it never occurred to any of you that Washington is a solution running around looking for a problem to justify it's own existence? Wake up!
What does 'republic' mean?
The Green Git wrote:
no one will go to jail for the $2.4 trillion theft.
Not theft when justified.
The Green Git wrote:
Yes, the problem is with us. I pray to God the American people will wake up and take action to correct it and that will begin with voting every incumbent out of office.
What action? You don't seem to know, therefore you should stop speaking.
The crazy thing is poeple mistake america for a democracy when, in fact, we are a republic, most people do not know this, and that gives polititions an upperhand to push bills and documents restricting our freedom. government is courrupt no matter what form, because no group of people given power will not exploit it, so in general government SUCKS
Howlingmoon wrote:
You just can't quit me can you?
Not until you write something that isn't full of misdirected self hate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Shrike wrote:The crazy thing is poeple mistake america for a democracy when, in fact, we are a republic, most people do not know this, and that gives polititions an upperhand to push bills and documents restricting our freedom.
Exhibit A. This person does not know that democracy is a form of republic, or that a republic is not necessarily respective of freedom. This is the average voter; he is not knowledgeable, or intelligent.
Everyone knows i like most Americans, well, except maybe for the one i live with
So i dont want people thinking this is a case of needlessly insulting a whole nation, but maybe Shuma lots of Brits answered because we generally are alot more clued in with regard to politics?
My girlfriend insists that from general conversations with the people she has worked and socialised with over the past 12 months here in England, people in this country just seem to read more news and take more interest in the running of things.
Ignorance is bliss though? Maybe its because our country is more sucky to live in and Americans are more upbeat and happy with things so they dont take as much interest in politics?
Just a few thoughts there....
If Palin gets in, im going to have to demand that you guys take more of an interest in politics however!
dogma wrote:How could it? It hasn't been put into effect.
So is this you being intentionally daft? Can people not form an opinion on a proposed course of action?
This has been an issue for years. Since Nixon, in fact. Its hardly a debate which has occurred for only a few months. Granted, the burden of remembrance is on the state, but there still must be some measure of offense directed at those who ignore reality for their own emotional benefit.
There can be some, obviously, however when the state continues to enact legislation that it knows will accomplish nothing the lawmakers of the country can't stand around dumbfounded wondering why everyone isn't happy that they passed ineffectual legislation. Both parties share blame, the people who still think the government will actually fix something and the government who thinks their worthless fixes will pacify the people.
Passing a bill is doing something. In fact, its the something that government does. When you write off the principle action of a body as nothing, then you cease to be able to understand what they do. This is a criminal, and uniquely American, affront to thought.
Doing something without accomplishing anything isn't going to make anyone happy. If you take your car to the garage to get it fixed because it won't get out of second gear and when you get it back it won't come out of third now did the mechanic do something? Yes he did. Did he accomplish anything? Not really, and you'd be pissed. The results of what are done matter. I don't discount the legislature's ability to pass bills. However when they pass useless, ineffectual, or just broken legislation its simply a waste of everyone's time. Expecting people to be grateful that the government spun its wheels for a month is ridiculous.
Well, duh. Trouble is that it is impossible to prove certainty when what is being considered is the future. Patience is key, and the mob lacks it; primarily for selfish reasons.
Except we're not operating in a vacuum. Back on healthcare because it's fresh in everyone's minds, when the government's own accounting office says that a bit of proposed legislation will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will do nothing about prices during a time when people are concerned about the deficit and the rising costs of healthcare people are going to start to wonder what the hell the people on the hill are thinking.
He does get it, he's simply ranting against it. More troubling is you ability to react with emotion without understanding that others also do so. Unless, of course, you do understand and you're simply makinga conscientious choice to behave as a hypocrite.
And you miss the point. I get that he's reacting with emotion, and yes I am reacting a bit with my own. However I think he's wrong, and I said so. Every donkey-cave has an opinion *Raises his hand*, but the ones who voice their opinions in major newspapers should probably at least have a well reasoned opinion. I think his emotional reaction is stemming from misplaced blame and I said so. At the very least the blame should be spread between an electorate that wants it all and a government that doesn't understand the people and lacks the backbone to occasionally tell them no.
There can be some, obviously, however when the state continues to enact legislation that it knows will accomplish nothing the lawmakers of the country can't stand around dumbfounded wondering why everyone isn't happy that they passed ineffectual legislation. Both parties share blame, the people who still think the government will actually fix something and the government who thinks their worthless fixes will pacify the people.
A democracy is only a reflection of the will of it's people. Capitulating to the impossible demands of an ill educated populace is their job, and it's what they have been doing for a decade. The only reason it's still not working is because one in ten can't get a job, and amusingly enough thats largely due to a lack of government intervention, and not due to any failing of the governments effort.
Doing something without accomplishing anything isn't going to make anyone happy.
Thats simply not true at all, all an administration needs do is create the perception that their efforts are having a desired effect. The bush era clean air acts and globalization initiative being examples of such dupes.
If you take your car to the garage to get it fixed because it won't get out of second gear and when you get it back it won't come out of third now did the mechanic do something? Yes he did. Did he accomplish anything? Not really, and you'd be pissed.
Thats assuming you know what gears are, and that you yourself are driving your car. Neither of which is a good allegory for the state of the average citizen and the state.
I don't discount the legislature's ability to pass bills. However when they pass useless, ineffectual, or just broken legislation its simply a waste of everyone's time. Expecting people to be grateful that the government spun its wheels for a month is ridiculous.
It should be, it's exactly what the American people repeatedly ask for, and it's exactly what they deserve.
Except we're not operating in a vacuum. Back on healthcare because it's fresh in everyone's minds, when the government's own accounting office says that a bit of proposed legislation will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will do nothing about prices during a time when people are concerned about the deficit and the rising costs of healthcare people are going to start to wonder what the hell the people on the hill are thinking.
Technically, it was going to cost minimally more than the current system while providing longterm savings and paying for it's imbalances within the first decade. What the weakling little idiots on main street want is an instant fix while spending less money and getting better care. Forgive me for thinking that they are little more than children wanting the shiniest toy on the shelf but not wanting to use their allowance to get it.
d you miss the point. I get that he's reacting with emotion, and yes I am reacting a bit with my own. However I think he's wrong, and I said so.
You don't successfully refute an "opinion" that the american public is ill educated and unaware of either what it actually wants or how to achieve it by supporting his assertion.
Every donkey-cave has an opinion *Raises his hand*, but the ones who voice their opinions in major newspapers should probably at least have a well reasoned opinion. I think his emotional reaction is stemming from misplaced blame and I said so. At the very least the blame should be spread between an electorate that wants it all and a government that doesn't understand the people and lacks the backbone to occasionally tell them no.
Isn't that what he did? Though truthfully, I don't understand your complaint. We are a democracy, it is their job to fulfill the wishes of the populace. They are at best hostages of the aggressive idiocy of the infotainment age, and at worst they profiteer off of the arrogance and ignorance of the American public, but regardless of their stance, they can only do it specifically because the civilian market for idiocy and apathy is so virulent that glenn beck can get better ratings than national geographic.
Ok, first off, the United States is a republic. There has been only one true democracy and it's way back in the Greek City states with Spartans and the like. The voter allows a politician to represent their concerns/interests and sadly therein lies the problem. As it was pointed out the recently deceased Murthas served for 36 years. Old 'flip' Strom Thurmond served NC for 47 YEARS before dying. Many problems stem from these pseudo kings getting reelected by ignorant masses and stuffing bills to fullfill favors and pockets. The constiuents only benefit when enough votes are gained from other senators to benefit other voting blocks. And no this isn't good.
Besides, how can you trust someone that can VOTE TO GIVE THEMSELVES RAISES?! Congress needs a term limit so that selfish heads don't make so many connections and deals to become multi millionaires. A while back there was a gov't furlough (state workers are forced to take time off with no pay) and the governor Perdue was riding around in a freakin' helicopter. He could have driven but instead he showed off to another state governor.
I believe that voters made a goodly mess by re-voting these jackals in but new blood would help stem some of this.
I'll also end on a joke via George Carlin
Pro is good and con is bad.
If progress is the act of moving forward, then what is congress?
Anshal wrote:Hoho Im suprised to see that ANY Americans has this amount of awareness, But on the other hand it hadd to happen sooner or later but good jobb with getting a healty attitude towards your problems.
I'M KOREAN
SON OF A BITCH AMERICAN
AMERICAN IS PIG
DO YOU WANT A HAMBURGER?
DO YOU WANT A PIZZA?
AMERICAN IS PIG DISGUSTING
GEORGE WALKER BUSH IS A MURDERER
fething U.S.A
Orkeosaurus wrote:I'M KOREAN
SON OF A BITCH AMERICAN
AMERICAN IS PIG
DO YOU WANT A HAMBURGER?
DO YOU WANT A PIZZA?
AMERICAN IS PIG DISGUSTING
GEORGE WALKER BUSH IS A MURDERER
fething U.S.A
Exactly. I could not have said it better myself.
EDIT: Is it just me or does anyone else feel like a good burger or maybe a slice of pizza?
Tyyr wrote:
So is this you being intentionally daft? Can people not form an opinion on a proposed course of action?
Not one which will make them happy, as you yourself pointed out.
Tyyr wrote:
Doing something without accomplishing anything isn't going to make anyone happy. If you take your car to the garage to get it fixed because it won't get out of second gear and when you get it back it won't come out of third now did the mechanic do something? Yes he did. Did he accomplish anything? Not really, and you'd be pissed.
The change in the stuck gear is an accomplishment, it simply isn't the accomplishment that was desired. The fault lies either in a lack of understanding with respect to what was wanted, or an unrealistic expectation with respect to what could be accomplished. You might get angry, but doing so doesn't help solve the problem as any ability to communicate with specificity is lost in the resultant emotion. That's the problem with an angry electorate. Its almost impossible to determine what it really wants; especially when its desires are conflicting. Indeed, often question whether such an electorate even knows what it wants beyond something, and that's simply the result of lacking a proper vocabulary.
Tyyr wrote:
Except we're not operating in a vacuum. Back on healthcare because it's fresh in everyone's minds, when the government's own accounting office says that a bit of proposed legislation will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will do nothing about prices during a time when people are concerned about the deficit and the rising costs of healthcare people are going to start to wonder what the hell the people on the hill are thinking.
The only way any legislation can do something about prices directly is through price controls, which are almost never a good idea. Really, that illustrates one of the central themes of the original article: that the public doesn't understand what its asking for when voicing its wants.
Tyyr wrote:
And you miss the point. I get that he's reacting with emotion, and yes I am reacting a bit with my own. However I think he's wrong, and I said so. Every donkey-cave has an opinion *Raises his hand*, but the ones who voice their opinions in major newspapers should probably at least have a well reasoned opinion. I think his emotional reaction is stemming from misplaced blame and I said so. At the very least the blame should be spread between an electorate that wants it all and a government that doesn't understand the people and lacks the backbone to occasionally tell them no.
Then I guess I'm confused, because you don't seem to actually think the author is wrong. It seems more like you think he is hyperbolic, polemical, and unfair in attacking only the American public.
Anshal wrote:Hoho Im suprised to see that ANY Americans has this amount of awareness,.
Actually, it's a clever liberal propaganda piece masquerading as enlightened thought while openly bashing the Republicans.
Is it truly propaganda to call a duck a duck? I mean, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and both fully supports stimulus under bush then decrying it later while simultaneously voting for it under obama like a duck then it's probably a duck.
Anshal wrote:Hoho Im suprised to see that ANY Americans has this amount of awareness,.
Actually, it's a clever liberal propaganda piece masquerading as enlightened thought while openly bashing the Republicans.
Is it truly propaganda to call a duck a duck? I mean, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and both fully supports stimulus under bush then decrying it later while simultaneously voting for it under obama like a duck then it's probably a duck.
That's why ducks shouldn't have the right to vote.
Also, isn't it possible that both stimulus plans were different in a way besides who proposed them? Something like, targeted benefactors, cost, etc?
But, ducks like money so of course they're going to want the latest and greatest when it comes to getting more free money. Fething ducks ruining america.
And yet, she was, and still is, vastly more qualified than the monkey that that currently holds the office...
And that DD going racial on us.
Huh?
DD calls Obama a monkey and it's racial.
Wow Shuma. Even for you that's piss poor reading comprehension and misunderstanding.
I actually find it an insult to monkeys. Monkeys at least do something with their time on Earth. That's more than what can be said about our current President.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
And yet, she was, and still is, vastly more qualified than the monkey that that currently holds the office...
She was governor for what, 2.5 years? I'd say that holding the office of President for a year makes you at least as qualified to hold the office of the President as someone who resigned her position once subjected to the pressure of national scrutiny. Was she more qualified, yeah, probably. Is she still more qualified, no, probably not.
Sarah Palin is the governor of fething alaska. Nobody gives a gak about Alaska. I bet a fourth of america forgot about alaska until sarah palin.
She spent a ton of money on fething clothes from her campaign fund. She was the governor for 2 and a half years or so, and resigned when she was under pressure from the country. She can't handle pressure.
She wrote notes on her hand to remind her what to say, "Raise american spirits"? Honestly? Are you that unprofessional that you have to remind yourself to be happy?
Nobody cares if you aren't white, doesn't give you any more rights than a White American.
Karon wrote:She wrote notes on her hand to remind her what to say, "Raise american spirits"? Honestly? Are you that unprofessional that you have to remind yourself to be happy?
Personally I think she's a Necromancer and is planning on conquering North America with an army of undead Native American warriors.
I'm actually considering getting into local politics, partially spurred by a recent scandal with expenses (For example, one MLA expensed a 730 dollar espresso machine..Ok, us Canadians have smaller scandals than everyone else). However, the other employees at the grocery store where I work all seem to have stopped caring (and voting) a long time ago. There are idiots out there to be sure, but in my experience they are a VERY vocal minority.
The "average person" is perfectly intelligent, but uneducated, and this seems to lead to a feeling of powerlessness against the world (Malcom Gladwell called it "entitlement" in his book Outliers). What we really need to do is get people to
A) Feel entitled to help run the world
B) Try to defend their position's on issues, without getting overzealous (as in, learn how to intelligently debate an issue, and accept defeat when necessary).
Working Class Canadians aren't stupid, and I highly doubt that Americans are either.
And if I ever make a "Level-of-debate-o-meter" Palin is going to be on the low end right above "Scientologist." Changey-Hopey my ass, use words and ideas damn you.
heads don't make so many connections and deals to become multi millionaires. A while back there was a gov't furlough (state workers are forced to take time off with no pay) and the governor Perdue was riding around in a freakin' helicopter. He could have driven but instead he showed off to another state governor.
