Why are you too lazy to actually look stuff up? Why are you twitchy and ignorant and easily swayed by emotional arguments?
Or is it only the “others” who are lazy and ignorant?
This simply betrays a profound ignorance of history. The U.S. system of government was designed to protect the interests of the wealthy, and thus it has ever been. James Madison, the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution explained in the Constitutional Convention that the primary role of government is to “protect the minority of the opulent against the minority.” His colleag and first SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Jay, expressed similar sentiments when he said that “Those who own the country ought to govern it.”
The winner-take-all two-party system is designed to make sure that the powerful maintain their power regardless of what we do every few years in a voting booth. Given these institutional structures, it is completely predictable that politics would revolve around totally cosmetic issues that have nothing to do with basic policy decisions. Indeed, it would be miraculous if it were any different. You can blame the people for the system they live under for not changing it, but in that case you are blaming them for not starting a revolution.
How so?
From everything I have observed, political leaders are not exceptionally bright. To get an idea of the political landscape, take a listen at a sports radio talk show. The people who call in are acquainted with the most arcane knowledge, and have a very sophisticated understanding of the complex workings of sports. This degree of understanding far surpasses the understanding exhibited by political leaders.
To take the most obvious example, our president is a total moron. The average man on the street is far more intelligent, and orders of magnitude more wise. In general, our political leaders display a maniacal anti-intellectual contempt. Indeed, the political class in the U.S. is the most decadent that has ever existed.
I don’t think political decisions require all that much expertise. At least, the degree of expertise required for political decisions is no greater than what is required for decisions about football strategy, and the “common man” displays quite a sophisticated understanding in areas where he is engaged.
The problem is that a very extensive effort has been made to de-politicize the populace. We have the most de-politicized populace in the industrialized world, maybe the world. When a working person decides to engage his intellect in something like football, it is a perfectly rational decision, from his point of view. Football is something he can participate in vicariously, and feel a part of, in whatever poor way. In politics, though, a great effort is made to alienate the populace, to make people feel that they are not a part of it.
You are doing it right now, though, with your implicit claim that political decisions require some “expertise” that is beyond the grasp of the common man.
However, I don’t think that you have more capacity to understand politics than the average man. Certainly George Bush doesn’t, nor do the members of congress, who are, with very few exceptions, completely lost in self-deception.
Well, yes. For the most part. I take pride in doing research into the positions of those I will vote for. And there are many others who do the same.
However, in my exerience with my acquaintances, the primary reason they don’t vote is laziness. They don’t want to take the fifteen minutes to go down to the polling place. They don’t want to spend a few hours researching the positions and true voting records of the candidates. And they don’t want to vote for someone they don’t know the positions of. So it’s sort of a vicious cycle.
Now, I may be completely wrong in my assumption that this applies to the majority of voters in the country, but in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume it applies.
I find your claim that I have a profound ignorance of history to be laughable. I suspect I have a better understanding than you. But to the point…
Now then, I agree completely that the Founders were completely suspicious of the rabble and wished to limit their participation and influence in the process. There is no arguing about that. Fortunately, many of the ways they sought to achieve this are no longer in place or relevent. For instance, we now have universal suffrage and the Senate is popularly elected among other things. Really, the only vestiges left of their attempt to insulate the government from the passions of the people are the Electoral College, which aside from the Recent Unpleasantness, has been pretty much irrelevent for quite a while as the person who has won the most popular votes also won the Electoral College. To a lesser extent, also the apportionment of Senators. Of course, this has less to do with an evil cabal of business interests and class warfare than the fact that the smaller states would be insane to give up their relative advantage in determining policy.
Nonsense. The winner-take-all system is about as much of a deliberate plot to subvert the will of the people as Big Macs are. The two party system is a natural outgrowth of the beginnings of our country when the main issue was how much power the gubmint should have. Those who wanted more centralized power took one side and those who wanted more decentralized power took the other. The modern two-party system is simply an outgrowth of these two competing parties setting up an opposition to each other, but never straying to far from the center lest they cede it to the other side. In recent years the apparent center is further to the right than it should be since it is skewed by low voter turnout. The right has been better (generally) at mobilizing the troops relative to the left so it appears that more people are to the right of where they really are. If that makes any sense. If not, I’m willing to make another go at it, especially if there’s anything in particular you need me to clarify.
And how have you observed these political leaders? Have you worked in a Congressional office (I recommend House, much more intimate and more likely to really get to know the Rep)? I would suggest you do so before you begin making blanket statements about who is or is not bright. Or what their motivations are. You will probably be surprised at what you find out. I don’t hold my breath, however.
As for sports talk shows…you’re kidding right? The people who call in are mostly full of crap and would get laughed out of a coach’s office or even a serious discussion among coaches, players, former players, and former coaches. Most sports fans have a completely shallow understanding of the complex workings of sports, including the people who call in to sports radio shows and profess to know what the heck they are talking about. No, I’m sorry, for the most part political leaders have an extremely good understanding of what they are doing. And many times, they take a road they are personally against knowing that that is what the people want and they will suffer poliltically for taking a stand. Gutless? Definitely. Showing a lack of understanding? Not at all.
Oh. Please. I’m still having a hard time believing that you are serious. And I’d like a cite for the political class being the most decadent that has ever existed. I’m curious as to how you would prove that.
As for the whole football analogy. Sorry, but the “common man” (whoever he is) puts on a show of sophisticated understanding, but is not even in the same league as a player or a coordinator or a head coach. In fact, if you were to put the “common man” up against someone like Bill Belichik or Mike Martz or really any NFL or even Division III head coach, the “common man” would have his head handed to him on a stick.
Aw, fuck. Let me try that again. If a mod wants to clean up the coding error up there (the bolded part that is supposed to be a quote) and maybe delete the part of Chumpsky’s post that I left in at the end (starting with "The problem is that a very extensive effort…and going until the end of my post). I will requote that and respond in this post.
Well, thank you for that glowing compliment. I, myself, don’t believe that I have more capacity to understand politics than the average man, but the difference is that I actually try to fill that capacity whereas the average man does not. And I’m sorry, but the average member of Congress would likely blow you out of the water if you were to get into a private argument with them. Never confuse what they let out in the public with what they are actually capable of. Remember Eisenhower. Many members deliberately craft a “down-homey” image, but are actually extremely sharp, knowledgeable in private. Bush may or may not be one of these (I’ll wait for the tapes and diaries to come out in a few decades before making a statement).
And I’m sorry, but making a political decision DOES require some “expertise.” Read up on your history. You’ll find that many of the disasters currently causing problems here in the modern world stem from people who thought they knew what they were doing, but didn’t. However, this expertise is not beyond the common man. It’s completely within his grasp. He just makes no effort to try for it.
The person de-politicizing folks in this thread is you, Chumpsky. Always telling people that they have no voice. The structure is set, you have no chance to really affect public policy. I encourage all of my friends to make a difference. I tell them to inform themselves. I send them articles. I help them research questions they may have. I tell them they can make a difference if they try. A far cry from the pathetic apathy that you seem to peddle.
Again, go experience how the political process works first hand. Then come back and talk to me about how Congress “really is.”