Attitudes towards politics

You seem to be confusing my assertion that voting in elections represents overt consent to be governed (which IT DOES) with an assertion that we should ignore the corrupt system and hope it gets better. The two ideas are in no way related.

Let me break this down so that somebody who has clearly done no reading and only very shallow thinking about this issue can attempt to comprehend what I mean: consent to be governed means what? Does it mean that you accept and support every action of the elected government? NO. You seem to be confusing the idea of "correctness" or "okayness" with "validity." A VALID government is one which deserves to be in place, in a democratic system, a valid government is one which derives its power from the free consent of the governed. This doesn't mean that, because you have accepted the validity of the government, you must be behind all its actions. IF you believe that the system of governance or the electoral system is the problem, and not the particular elected officials, then ANY person elected under that system (Ron Paul or otherwise) is invalid. An election isn't valid *if your candidates win* and invalid *if other people win*. Either the election is valid or it is not. There are no two ways about it. If you believe the election is invalid, you shouldn't vote in it. If you are voting, you may as well be holding up a sign that says "I BELIEVE THIS ELECTION IS VALID." -->If you don't believe this, why are you voting?<-- You can't wait til the election returns come in, after having lent your consent to the system, and then say "this election is bullshit." NOW, if you DO believe the election is valid, the system by which the winners are chosen is Constitutional, etc etc, then you must also accept that the government seated by the election is a valid expression of popular opinion, is a just democratically-elected government, and therefore has the right to rule you and enforce its laws on you. The act of voting entails all of the above.

Perhaps you are under the misapprehension that voting is the only way to express yourself in the world? Honestly the gaps in your logic are so profound I can't even really follow you.

 

It's not my government, I have never participated in it and do not accept its "authority" to make "right choices on my behalf". What proof do they have, to say they can make choices on my behalf? Because they say so?

It is you that is supporting the government with your vote and have thus given them the "written" authority to control your life anyway they see fit.

Yes, there are no worthy candidates but that is not why I don't vote.

It is voting that is the opiate of the people. Make 'em think they have a say in things and they won't buck the system.

Tell me, how do you know that your vote is even counted? Ask the people in Florida if they wanted Gore or Bush to be president.

As for; You can't score any points sitting in the locker room....
That reminds me of the old story of a gambler that saw his buddy sitting and playing in a crooked poker game and so he pulled his friend aside and said; that game is so obviously crooked a blind man could see it. His friend said; I know but it's the only game in town.

So I'll tell you what, if you can show me an excellent form of working government and not just the better of all the evils, then I'll vote, till then I have better things to do than trying to prop up a broken down system of things that is soon to collapse under its own weight.

 

The old "he didn't say anything, so he must agree with me" implied consent, I guess.

 

Yep, so I don't vote.

 

I have a life, i frankly dont have time to worry about other peoples issues and americas greed and jelousy twords other country. i frankly dont give a shit.

 

I am interested in it.
I am sick of the 2 party system here in the states. Both sides are controlled by the same corporate puppet masters. They love to keep the status quo squabbling while they find new ways to rob us and destroy the planet.

Democrats & Republicans walk down different aisles during the day, but they sit at the same table at night.

IF VOTING CHANGED ANYTHING IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL

If you do not have a lobbyist, your voice will not be heard. Thank-you Citizens United.

End rant

 

There are so many corrupt politicians out there. Obama doesnt help. all he does is talk and he does nothing. if he is elected again, we will surely burn to his feet. "when the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix

 

Politics is just an illusion...just like the monetary system and religion. I've washed my hands of being a part of it. I still keep up with the news, though, and every day I find something out that makes me even more disgusted and despondent about the future.

 

This.

The problem is not the election system or the two-party system or anything like that. It's not a fundamental flaw in the ideas of the founding fathers. The problem is the amount of money thrown into politics, which is a relatively new thing. People (corporations and billionaires) would rather pay lobbyists than pay their fair share of taxes. The money attracts the wrong kind of people into Congress. Since politicians are only in it for the money, and the money really only flows during election seasons, they only put on the illusion of having morals during that time. Once they're elected (especially the Supreme Court, because they have total job security) they don't give a shit about helping the constituents who gave them all that power.

The United States is just too big. 300 million people being governed by one body is absurd. An economy of $15 trillion is absurd. One body governing such a geographically diverse area of land is absurd. In my opinion, if each state were self-governing, people would have much more access to their leaders, more of a voice, and therefore more trust in the system.

I always vote because I'm on the same side as those who say if you don't vote you're implicitly encouraging stagnation in the government. We live in a civilized, established society. You're not going to create your own system and overthrow the old one, so if you're upset with the current one, try to change it! Some may disagree with me on this point, but I believe that the Tea Party movement was a true grassroots movement. It was soured by the backing of the billionaires, and though I completely disagree with their philosophy, they showed that a true civilian movement can change the status quo.

I'm not trying to attack anyone who doesn't vote. I think it's your right to choose whether or not to participate in politics, I just don't think it's fair to question the validity of a democratically elected government.

 

Not sure how new it is. Certainly goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. Arguably to post-Civil-War reconstruction. A very strong argument is also to be made the the Constitution was designed to protect the vested interests of the land-owning capitalist business-owners who wrote it, and it did not significantly safeguard (arguably it diminished) the democratic rights or autonomy of any working-class or landless masses.

This is not even surprising. This is a perfectly natural outcome in a large capitalist democracy. Congressional lobbying is one example that fits in a much larger pattern of behavior. The corporatons and billionaires are the true sovereigns in society, as seen by their near-total capability (through media avenues and control of societal institutions) of instilling their values in the populace--a cause which is greatly advanced by the new unlimited capability for campaign spending. The bureaucrats serving in and administering federal departments (and the generals running the military) are, by and large, unelected and often have as much control over implementation of national policy as any elected office-holder. These bureaucrats are demonstrably bought & owned by the corporations and billionaires as well.

The notion that the power of elected officials is given by their constituents is absolute nonsense. Popular sovereignty is a compelling myth but, in fact, as others have pointed out, if the population could actually change anything about the major power-structures in our society, they would be precluded from doing so.

It is troubling to note that all oppressive regimes of the last few centuries have claimed to be acting "for the People," and within certain lenses and assumptions this is always in a sense true. Nevertheless, such regimes (including U.S.-centric global commercialism) are primarily means for the consolidation of power by those who already have it.

Notice that in the United States 90% of incumbent Congressmen are re-elected. When 90% of incumbents are re-elected, one may as well not have elections at all: although they are not manipulated by overt coercion but rather by the heavy-handed intercession of the Public Relations/Propaganda machine, it nevertheless mirrors the situation of other false-democracies (including the Soviet Union) in which elections WERE held, but it was widely understood that they were meaningless.

The elites (bureaucrats, technocrats, and PARTICULARLY the capitalist oligarchs) currently in power would use any method at their disposal to prevent such a shift from taking place. Any movement aimed at the monolith of centralized power in this country would be met with the entire arsenal.

The government is already completely stagnant in terms of most progressive values. Voting does nothing to discourage this tendency. It is institutional and innate to our system.

It meets certain definitions of "civilized" and fails miserably at others.

Society is indeed established. That's why it's called "The Establishment."

Not without constant setbacks, great struggle, and hardship. Many people would certainly die in the attempt.

On the plus side, the "old one" will eventually implode under the weight of its ridiculous economic assumptions and destructive environmental behaviors. The current World Order will collapse, if not sooner then later. This is entirely unavoidable. Those who foresee that eventually should strive diligently to make the transition to the next society a smooth one rather than an apocalyptic and violent one. This means attempting to dismantle or convert as much of the current society as possible, and planting the seed for future structures.

This is impossible through current electoral means. As someone has already stated in this thread, if voting could actually change anything it would be illegal. The notion that the kind of civic participation you are espousing can in any way change the functioning of the engines of our society is an absurd myth propagated by those with a vested interest in allowing people to BELIEVE they are participating meaningfully, when in fact they are doing nothing of the kind and would never be allowed to.

Did they, in fact, effect any meaningful change in the status quo? On trivial things, perhaps, certainly not on any of the central mechanisms of society or institutions of power...They did have an effect on the tone of the rhetoric emerging from our leaders, but as far as I can tell no appreciable effect on the actual functioning of our government.

It is fair to question the validity to the extent that it is possible to imagine a government that is "democratically elected" IN NAME ONLY. You must admit that it's possible, indeed was wildly successful in both fascist and communist countries throughout the 20th century, to make people BELIEVE (as you obviously believe of the U.S.) that they are electing a government by democratic means, when in fact the actual organs of governance are far-removed from the whims of the people and cannot be affected by any elections. If you agree that scenario is even POSSIBLE, then you must allow that it is fair to at least "question the validity" of our "democratically-elected government."

In other words, your line of reasoning is "the government is democratically-elected"-->THEREFORE-->"the government has unquestionable validity." I question the premise, and therefore the conclusion.

What do we mean when we say our "government is democratically elected"? In order for the question to be in any way meaningful, we must understand "government" to mean "that institution that organizes and leads the society" and we must understand "democratically elected" to mean "representing the explicitly- or implicitly-stated concerns of the constituents--that is, under the control of Popular Sovereignty." In my view, the part of our "government" that is subject to democratic elections (namely the actual legislature, Presidency, etc) is rather removed from the actual institution (namely the bureaucracies, law-enforcement agencies, courts and corporate power-structures) that "governs" (the ACTUAL "government"). Conversely, the center of power that actually governs the society is quite isolated from any kind of democratic or popular intercession. This should be readily apparent to anyone who reads the newspaper or has studied the history of the last 100 years.

You begin your post by pointing our with great accuracy that (1) important segments of the government are anti-democratic (you identify the Supreme Court quite correctly), and (2) elections are essentially exercises in theatrics (since elected officials can portray any image they like to get elected and then govern without concern to principles, or to the interests of their so-called constituents). Nevertheless, despite admitting and identifying these readily-apparent truths, you nevertheless circle back to a very contrary assertion that voting in elections is substantially meaningful, and that it is unfair to question the validity of our democratically-elected government. Make up your mind !

 

Raga Mala- I'm not going to go through specific quotes because there was a lot of post in that post. But in the first half-ish, I think you were basically arguing the same points that I was. You may be right about the question of the newness of money in government, but it's recently reached astronomical amounts never seen before. Besides, the point of my saying that was to prove that it's something the founding fathers hadn't anticipated. The fact is that that amount of money does exist in the government and it's detrimental.

The question of bureaucrats and such being unelected, well, there would be more restrictions on corporations' power and who could exact real policy change if morally sound people, who were in politics for the right reasons, did in fact go into politics. I think that would happen if there was less money being thrown around (the politicians we have now would be turned off from their undertakings and go into a more lucrative field).

As for popular sovereignty, my suggestion of smaller communities covers that. If a president had a smaller constituency, in a smaller geographic area, he or she would be much more able to understand the needs of the individuals in said community. It is also my belief that people in one of these smaller communities would be much more benevolent toward their neighbors. Their tax dollars would fund institutions whose effects could be more clearly seen, as those institutions would be based in their own neighborhoods, creating less greed and less power for corporations.

I'm not disputing that this conclusion would be almost impossible to get to, and I don't have any idea how it would happen, but that's why I don't make the rules.

There are two right wing parties in the US - the Republicans and the Democrats. I wish people's fear of change would crumble and make room for the possibility of progress. That's really the only thing in the way, fear. The billionaires are afraid that there will be more regulation on the private sector and oil companies. The Bible thumpers are afraid they'll go to Hell if they don't try to "save" everyone from the heathen gays and abortion-havers. The NRA is afraid their beloved guns will be taken away. I could go on and on.

I don't think there's anything wrong with an establishment, as long as people have faith in it. I think campaign finance laws and Congressional term limits would take care of that, for the most part.

No offense, but the apocalyptic collapse of the system that you're explaining is a little melodramatic in my opinion.

And yes, the Tea Party did create meaningful change. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think they got something like 40 new Congressmen elected in 2010. Those 40 new members of Congress have significantly changed the dynamics of political discourse in Washington. If that's not meaningful, I don't know what is.

In any case, I'm glad there are people on these forums that are capable of having civil discussions, and not just trolling. So thanks for that

 

No such luck on your end, I'm afraid. Quote-by-quote it is.

I have no idea what this means because I have no idea what point you actually are arguing. On the one hand you obviously recognize the vast shortcomings of our entire system of government as currently constituted, on the other hand you end up with the conclusion that we should rely on voting and shouldn't question the validity of the government. This despite the fact that you seem to realize that voting is demonstrably meaningless and all the major mechanisms of governance are currently tainted. Very weird.

Then the only relevant conclusion we can draw is that the current system of governance has little to do with that the Founding Fathers attempted to establish. The Founding Fathers are therefore irrelevant to the discussion and I don't know why they were brought up.

One can argue that the Founding Fathers did, in fact, set up an anti-democratic government with the Constitution, and that our current system is an extension of their failures; or one can argue that the Founding Fathers created a sound and principled democratic government and that the current situation represents a degradation or corruption of their ideal. In fact, either interpretation is irrelevant to the discussion of how to understand and approach the current problems.

So let's shut the fuck up about the Founding Fathers.

This is totally obvious.

And if my aunt had nuts, she'd by my uncle. This scenario is totally meaningless because under the current system it could never happen. Morally sound people who are in it for the right reasons could never succeed in the current political game and would be crushed instantaneously. Money being "thrown around" is in the interests of those currently in power and so it will not stop. You seem to be making a circular argument: (1) if good people get elected, there would be less money in politics and less corporate control, and (2) in order for good people elected, there needs to be less money in politics and less corporate control. Each condition seems to be the pre-condition for the other. Unfortunately at the moment the feedback loop is working in the opposite way.

The most lucrative of all fields is the manipulation and control of people.

Smaller communities would be part of a better world to the extent that all subdividing and breaking up of monoliths of power is beneficial. However, since the actual governing is not done by the elected officials, it doesn't matter one whit whether the president has one constituent or three hundred million. If the gigantic corporate powers are left untouched, they will use whatever means necessary to exert the control they need to, your idealistic views on benevolent neighbors and neighborhood institutions notwithstanding.

Trust me, it ain't by voting... ...Think outside the ballot box.

The main reason you don't make the rules is that you live in a false democracy and don't exercise any power whatsoever over the writing of the rules.

The primary fear that is in the way is the fear of the consequences for the current ruling elites if their power is dismantled. The other things you mention are either symptoms of this central fear or irrelevant distractions unrelated to the basic functioning of power in society.

Please don't.

People should actually understand it. Right now most people have very strong illusions about how it actually works that don't reflect reality. Most people who actually understand it have no faith whatsoever in it.

Since money is speech, campaign finance laws are unconstitutional, remember?

Term limits are a good idea, although they are a far cry from a meaningful reform to the ills of our society. Also, they will never happen. My citation of incumbent-victories was identifying them as a SYMPTOM of the anti-democratic nature of our system, not as a problem that needs to be solved per se.

No offense, but you clearly have not looked at any of the relevant evidence.

If the "dynamics of political discourse" have changed it is only in superficial and meaningless ways. Forty congressmen are a meaningless minority in the House of Representatives, and the House itself is a powerless body in a vast system which, as far as anyone can tell, is functioning no differently than it was before they got elected.

You seem to believe that the content of debates on the House floor has some meaningful bearing on the society. Of course, this is a laughable fantasy.

Most people would agree. You have clearly bought in to some very stupid assumptions, though, if you think this change is significant. The range of change you can conceive is obviously fairly limited if you think this is a "game changer".

Thanks, you too. I don't think you are very well-informed though and you seem to be operating under several prevalent illusions about your society. Most of your ideas seem like half-assed gut-reactions, not reasoned considerations of the evidence of history and current events. I think a little more deep looking into the functioning of our society might reveal that it is a good deal sicker than you seem to think, perhaps in ways that cannot be remedied through the limited exercises of democracy (such as voting) that we currently have available to us.

 

I stopped reading after a while. I'm not going to argue with you anymore because frankly you're getting mean, and it all boils down to a difference of opinion. I'll just leave it at that.

 

Same here. It shows ignorance and a closed mind to insult someone's intelligence when arguing about a matter of opinion.

 

I voted for President Obama and almost all the Presidents that became
President since I was 18, I am 50 now. Yeah , i guess I vote sometimes,
I do not know what good it does though.

 

How can you be so naive? By not voting all you do is contribute to the possibily of having "conservative" or republican government with rediculous policies. (e.g george bush, ronald reagan)... so stupid, you think that old racist dude from arizona isnt going to vote because he decided to join some hippie protest

 

made an account for this one post? ahaha

 

There is still hope for Obama, the current state is not his fault much. And he can't just be the first black president and just go and legalize weed.. He's working witha shitload of white people remember, but he got the wu tang t shirt underneath the suit hes wearing

 

Hope

Change

Bullshit

 

politics suck because if you dont vote you give them all your rights. everyone votes for the wrong person anyway