The US political debacle

Starrfall on 8/9/2008 at 15:03

Quote Posted by theBlackman

And it has gotten worse over the years. Obama and McCain can't change much, WE can, but only if we start taking responsibility for ourselves, our actions and the results thereof and seriously considering whether those we elect are, in fact, doing what we selflessly consider best for all of us.

As far as I know only one of the two main candidates has taken criticism for telling a large group of his supporters that they need to stand up and be more responsible.

And as far as I know only one frequently makes the point that change comes from us and that we can't just wait for things to get better.

If these things are important to you than I don't think american politics is a lost cause for you quite yet. There's still hope.

BEAR on 8/9/2008 at 15:34

Quote Posted by theBlackman

In the thirty's and forty's you helped your neighbors. The incomes at that time were such that you lived within your means. If it broke, you fixed it, or you went without. The neighborhood was, in essence, an extended family. Not enough food, three or more households would chip in and make a meal for all. Like "Stone soup". If you don't know the story look it up. Everyone had something. A little flour, some chicken, a few vegetables, etc. No one had enough for a full meal, but all together the families could put a feast together.

I think the fundamental difference between how you think and how I think is this: you have this sense that things were as they were because of some virtue that past generations had, and that current generations lack this specific thing that past generations had by their own efforts and therefor can be given credit for. Do you really think that there are just "bad" generations and "good" ones where the good qualities of one can be taken credit for and the bad qualities of others can be used to blame?

This is something I'm struggling against more and more. In the larger view of history, the lines tend to blur. When we are not personally affected by events we tend to have much more clear views than when we are, which is why even historians cannot help but be caught up in the events of their own time, and therefore be biased at times, but able to view past events with more objectivity. Rather than curse those lazy teenagers and remember fondly back to the good old days of <insert timeframe> when men were men and things were much better than they actually were. In hindsight, we can look at history and ask ourselves WHY things were as they were and what events and situations influenced society. When we look at our current generations, everyone seems to feel like its somebody's fault and they need to get their shit together, when really its much more complex.

I'm not talking metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology or anything, but I think some realization needs to be made that things are as they are because they are, not because of the lazy hippy down the street or those teenagers and their rap music. Human civilization goes back 10000 years, if we think we are experiencing anything unique here we're wrong. Clearly there are some changes, and technology is molding our society more than in the past, but a large amount of what we deal with has been dealt with by EVERY generation. Same emotions, different date.

Could things really be that different than they are? Can we blame the current situation on a past generation, who can blame their shortcomings on the generation before and so on, or do we just blame the closest scapegoats while refusing to look at the bigger picture?

We get so caught up in our own personal struggles and feelings I think it detracts from being able to really view what is happening, and without that I think its almost impossible to act with any real hope of accomplishing anything. As I've said before: politics needs a serious shot of science. If you want to get anywhere with this (besides just the cathartic effect of a good rant which we all enjoy) I think you have to realize that we are all products of our environment, you, me, and everyone else. Want to change people? Change their environment. Why are people all over the world so different? Because they want to be? Because they are lazy or hard working? No: environment and genetics baby, that's about all there is. That thought scares the shit out of people (and me too) but its getting to the point where I can't see any other way that explains things.

The people in the 30's were different because their world was different, that's why I'm always so surprised that people are surprised that things are as they are, when they cant be any different. They COULD have been different if something in the past was different, but how can people not see that pretty much everything makes sense because if it didn't the whole universe would tear itself apart? You cant have an effect without a cause, so can you blame the effect for the cause?

Does this make any sense to anyone but me? I have this feeling this sounds like complete bullshit and possibly totally irrelevant to the conversation, but whenever I hear anyone talking about "the good old days" it gets me like this. Though, by my own reasoning I'm not sure if I can expect anyone to see things differently than they do, I know I cant take credit (or blame muaha) for how I feel, so is there any point? I don't know, its a work in progress. It sure as hell beats pointing fingers at everything I don't like or understand.

That doesn't mean I disagree with you, because for the most part I do. In fact I know the exact emotion you feel when you say such things, everyone does, because everyone feels the same except it can be about totally different things. This is a good way to know that how you feel isn't a very good barometer for how things are. Regardless of what I said above, I'm still guilty of feeling like everyone else, but deep down I don't really believe that it is necessarily right.

Quote Posted by theBlackman

Yeah I also liked that part of Obama's speech. I'm glad everyone watched it instead of harping on about all the things he's said that they just didn't see or understand.

heywood on 8/9/2008 at 17:17

Quote Posted by Chade

Quote Posted by heretic

It's not like that's particularly unique to American politics though. This type of anti-intellectual groupthink benefits the powers that be just about everywhere, and clanish distractions have kept us in the dark for millenia.

The "powers that be"? And here I was thinking that it was just human nature ...

(Except mine, of course.)

Obviously, I agree about groupthink. But I do think that the two-party system is inherently polarizing. The parties will always seek to split the population, and will adjust their platforms over time to maintain that split. The system prevents any broad national consensus on the issues from forming and gives too much political power to those on the extremes.

I hate it when commentators look at election and poll results which remain close to 50/50 and conclude that the country is deeply divided. No, it's not. Right now the views of most Americans are pretty centrist, and there is a consensus on a lot of major issues that the parties keep fighting over. For example, a poll earlier this year found that 88% support abortion rights with some limitations, and another poll found that 72% believe in an individual right to own guns. You can find a similar consensus looking at fiscal issues, environmental issues, energy, etc.

So the country is really not divided too much on the issues, but the parties are. The Democrats "own" half of the majority positions and the Republicans "own" the other half, and the split is a natural result of two parties adjusting positions to divide and conquer voters. The 50/50 split reflects the fact that the parties are playing the political game equally well, not that the voting population is split 50/50 between Republican ideologues and Democrat ideologues. As a result, we continue to hotly debate issues for which a consensus has already formed, and most voters feel like they're stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Since I haven't lived under a multi-party system, I don't know how much of the bi-polarization we have is inherent to the two-party system vs. human nature. But I think in a multi-party system, the parties are closer and more accountable to their members, and it's easier for centrist parties to form when excessive political fighting renders the government ineffective.

Quote Posted by Muzman

Not entirely sure what you mean by this but as time wears on I've become more and more suspicious of modern conservatism's claim to speak for the founding fathers. The version we hear nowadays is contorted through Ford, Disney, Hitler and Stalin etc. We hear the depression-ww2-cold war paranoia verson with a huge dose of protestant suffering on earth in the mix (the latter congealed in the early 20th and is not as traditional as many would like us to think).
All this aspirational stuff; it sounds similar, but the spirit isn't quite the same (can't really be under the circumstances). They were old time liberals, sure, but their vision for 'freedom' wasn't as rigid and didactic as many would have us believe. So it seems in my vague wanderings anyway.

The founding fathers were as divided as modern American leaders. Modern conservative views are most closely associated with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, who favored a limited federal government, state sovereignty, a strongly independent foreign policy, and Christianity.

The original two national political parties were the Federalist Party and the Democrat-Republican Party. The Federalist Party was formed by Alexander Hamilton. It supported a strong federal government, a national bank, economic modernization, higher tariffs to fund public works, federal laws subordinating states rights, and looser separation of church and state. The Democrat-Republican party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and favored limited government, strict interpretation of Constitutional powers, state sovereignty, farmers, low tariffs, and strict separation of the state from religion or business.

The Democrat-Republican party became dominant around 1800, and the Federalist party dissolved after 1820. When people speak now about the politics of the founding fathers, they are generally referring to the Jeffersonian view that dominated the early 1800s. However, Jeffersonian democracy is more closely embodied by the modern Libertarian party than the modern Republican party, ever since the rise of Christian evangelicals in the Republican party. And ironically, the politics of the modern Democratic party are closer to that of the Federalist party than the Democrat-Republican party it originated from.

paloalto90 on 8/9/2008 at 17:33

I'm not sure it was like it was portrayed in Cinderella Man when getting help or not paying your way was looked down upon.Having him pay the money back was seen as a virtue.

Quote:

The Democrat-Republican party became dominant around 1800, and the Federalist party dissolved after 1820. When people speak now about the politics of the founding fathers, they are generally referring to the Jeffersonian view that dominated the early 1800s. However, Jeffersonian democracy is more closely embodied by the modern Libertarian party than the modern Republican party, ever since the rise of Christian evangelicals in the Republican party. And ironically, the politics of the modern Democratic party are closer to that of the Federalist party than the Democrat-Republican party it originated from.

I think it would be fair to say that in the 1800's both dems and republicans were both mostly Christian.
That it wasn't an issue.

Sypha Nadon on 8/9/2008 at 17:45

Palin's pastor problems don't just end there... I heard that her church is promoting a conference that they promise will convert gays into heterosexuals through the "power of prayer." "Pray the Gay Away" and all that.

Turtle on 8/9/2008 at 17:48

Where do I sign up?

Sulphur on 8/9/2008 at 18:17

Praying for gays to turn into heterosexuals?

They might as well pray that the pope doesn't look like he'd eat an altar boy for breakfast given half a chance.

Okay, maybe that was too harsh. As a strictly brought up catholic and one-time altar boy who studied in a boys-only Jesuit school, I can vouch that I wasn't molested or 'cupped' in private by the head priest.

But the other altar boy sure as hell was. Looks like the Padre only favoured the dark, scrawny, innocently wide-eyed type. Frickin' racist pervert.

heretic on 8/9/2008 at 18:41

Quote Posted by heywood

Obviously, I agree about groupthink. But I do think that the two-party system is inherently polarizing.

I don't think I disagree with anything you've posted thus far, I only meant to suggest that the problem exists outside of our two party sytem as well. Maybe that really didn't need pointed out as it was a no-brainer, but sometimes I'm silly like that.

I agree that out 2-party system is particularly troubling, as do most Americans. Until our media driven circus gets behind this concept or even a candidate though, it's a wash.

heywood on 8/9/2008 at 19:13

Quote Posted by paloalto90

I think it would be fair to say that in the 1800's both dems and republicans were both mostly Christian.
That it wasn't an issue.

What I meant was that the Christian right's attempts over the last few decades to break down the barriers between church and state differentiate the current Republican party platform from Jeffersonian democracy.

And I don't know what you mean when you say it wasn't an issue in the 1800s. I would say the role of religion in politics has always been an issue, even for the founding fathers. Although the founding fathers were generally raised either Congregationalist, Anglican/Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, many were Freemasons. Freemasonry teaches naturalism and deism. Some of the masons who were founding fathers seem to have been closet deists while others openly criticized Christianity, like Ben Franklin. Though not masons, Thomas Jefferson and Ethan Allen were deists and John Adams was a Unitarian. Thomas Paine was an atheist who advocated abolishing religion. And even among the founding fathers who were Christian, there was a split over the separation of government and religion. For example, Hamilton in his later years created the Christian Constitutional Society, which still advocates for religion in government. But James Madison, the "father of the Constitution" and a practicing Episcopalian, advocated for the strict separation of church and state.

By the way, I think you hit the nail on the head here:

Quote Posted by paloalto90

I'm against govt funded enterprises on principle that it destroys initiative and that people tend to value things more when they directly work for them.

However if their isn't a way to solve a problem staying with your principles
then what good are they?Maybe you can bend them a little.

Exactly. Being guided by principles is a good thing, being blinded or enslaved by them is not. I'm also generally opposed to government enterprise on principle. But I recognize that some enterprises have to be organized and managed by the government because they serve a collective purpose that can't be valued in the market. And some markets only remain stable and healthy under government regulation. And some problems only get solved when the government takes action.

Quote Posted by heretic

I agree that out 2-party system is particularly troubling, as do most Americans. Until our media driven circus gets behind this concept or even a candidate though, it's a wash.

I agree. Our media is too entrenched in the Democratic vs. Republican battle. And I don't see the landscape being redrawn unless one of our parties fractures.

howie on 8/9/2008 at 20:51

After turtle made the comment about banging car doors....it got to thinking.... I wonder if McCain wins? Will Mrs. McCain give Mrs. Palin a kiss like Madonna & Spears did at the music awards? :eww:

Look out, I think turtle's fantasy is somehow getting his wife to be part of this event. :o