The problem is, or perhaps I should say what depresses me is, even if a candidate had good intentions (I’m sure they do everyonce in awhile :D), they would get crushed under a pile of partisan bickering and filibustering. It seems as if it’s impossible for the government to accomplish anything positive these days.
If that’s the case, then what’s your alternative? Anarchy? Election by lottery? Because, if running for political office is itself an indication of evilness, then in a democratic republic, we have to have evil leaders, and our political process hasn’t been seized by self-serving, evil men…our country was founded by self-serving evil men, and has always been controlled by them.
You said in the OP (bolding mine)
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
If that’s the case, then what’s your alternative? Anarchy? Election by lottery? Because, if running for political office is itself an indication of evilness, then in a democratic republic, we have to have evil leaders, and our political process hasn’t been seized by self-serving, evil men…our country was founded by self-serving evil men, and has always been controlled by them…QUOTE]
I am not sure that I have a proposed solution to this problem. People a hell of a lot smarter than I have been looking for one since we all started banding together in caves because that made it easier to fight jackals. I am, however, still allowed to not like it.
As to the whole time issue, I suppose that I could have been clearer. I have no issue with standing in line to vote, or spending time on jury duty or on any of those civic activities that are part of my duty as a citizen. I simply am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it is not usually time well spent.
Fair enough. I would say you’ve got the right idea in conscienciously voting in local elections, and for state & federal representation. Major parties change their platforms when the party machinery (i.e. the venal and corrupt leadership of the party) perceives a major movement in the attitudes and voting patterns of their core constituency. Witness the “Gingrich revolution” in the GOP of the early 90’s. They ran to the right, following some critical voting blocs, while the DLC was running to the center chasing the “American middle”, and doing so they managed to move the whole political structure of the country to the right. (What happens in a game of tug-o-war when one team fakes toward the center but the other team pulls even harder? -This is why the Democratic party pretty much landed with its face in the mud in 2000 and 2002.)
In order to move the major parties away from a particular direction, enough people have got to vote for alternative candidates/positions over a long enough time period that political inertia is overcome. The best way to introduce those alternative candidates/positions into the system is through local and state representation. It takes a long time, but so would any other democratic sea change.
Which is not to say at all that Presidential elections are meaningless. When any new Pres takes office, he installs an administration. Although many, and the most important, of these executive branch offices must be confirmed by the legislature, many others are purely appointed positions. A President has tremendous potential power to shape the political landscape to favor his particular ideology (or his particular self-interest if you prefer).
In 2004, IMO we have a choice between:[ul][li]a rich, venal white man who’s shown willingness to pursue ideological goals which favor a select set of the population and which damage the country in long-lasting and hard to correct ways, and who surrounds himself with fellow ideologues who act in lock-step on those issues which serve those goals, ora rich, venal white man whose connections with special interests tend to serve goals which benefit select sections of the population but which do not damage the country in long-lasting or hard to correct ways, and whose political persuasion is peopled by a variety of individual perspectives which do not tend to reinforce a single ideological direction.[/ul][/li]If the second choice is largely unpalatable, it is still a clear winner, to my eyes, over the first choice. If this means putting up with an irritating child of privelege with a willingness to compromise principle when politically expedient, but who won’t bullshit my country into a war of aggression, promote the highest deficits in history, work to curtail civil liberties on religious grounds, and most importantly who can’t drag most of the government in enthusiastic unanimity behind a particular faith based set of political ideals… then I’ll try to contain my happy dance to only twice a week for the next few years.
:::Clap Clap Clap:::
Great post, especially the final paragraph.
:o
It wasn’t all that, but I hope it made up for my earlier rudeness.
This has been an interesting thread (mostly due to the interchange between Binarydrone and xenophon41, coming from broadly opposing political viewpoints), but this claim by Captain Amazing is absolute bullshit. Ferchrissakes, Washington could have been a fucking king, but he turned down the chance, and also voluntarily abdicated after two terms, therby setting the precedent for future Presidents until FDR. So don’t be dissin’ George! :mad: 
Heh heh…
bovinespy, I’m afraid you may have been the victim of a “Whoosh” there. Captain Amazing was responding to Binarydrone’s comment that the mere act of seeking office indicates a predilection toward evil. The Cap’n’s reply points out that if so, then the claim that our government has been “seized” at some point by self-serving men is false, since as a democracy it would’ve started out that way.
I don’t believe any disrespect to the first GW was intended.
(btw, I don’t think there’s that much difference between my political views and those of Binarydrone…)
I am sensing that as well. I think that if anything I am just a bit more ranty about things at the moment because the cynicism with which I have been tying to protect my optimism has been starting to crack a bit.
I know the feeling. I’m almost afraid to be hopeful for positive change anymore, but I do see some signs that more than a few voters are experiencing “buyer’s remorse” right now. Maybe not a major turn of the tide, but a real reaction none-the-less.
Perhaps another perspective is in order. I am a 26 year old college student. I am a registered Republican because, back in those naive days of my youth (or at least the days before I became so jaded), I believed that the parties and their respective members believed in their platforms and would actually work towards them. My personal political outlook is largely in accordance with that of Nineteenth Century Liberalism - which has little or no connection to our current American concepts of the Conservative/Liberal dichotomy. I have become convinced that, while the rhetoric of the two parties is often in opposition, the actions (whether through pragmatic concerns or because there is no difference) of the two parties and their members are often seperated only by small degrees.
In my estimation, both parties are controlled by powerbrokers and special interests. The interests they serve are largely the same, and really do not reflect the interests and well-being of the majority of the American people. The small (and largely radical) areas of difference in these interests are relatively unimportant as they are counter-balanced both by the opposing party and by the central party controls within their respective parties. Remember, the rhetoric may get heated and extreme, but the actual action - what really counts - tends to stay rather centered. Only extreme situations (9/11, the Great Depression, etc.) can force actions outside this comfortably centered zone, and they are generally largely supported (in action) by both parties at the time, only to be decried later in the rhetoric.
I was rather pleased in the early going when Howard Dean was the front-runner in the Democratic race. For once in my lifetime, it seemed that a major party would nominate a candidate who (at least) seemed to hold actual convictions that he would act on. I was seriously considering voting for him, even though his ideas were very different than my own. The conviction alone was enough for me. Alas, it seems that the “electability” of the candidate was more important to primary voters and Dean has withdrawn. (I do not mean to disparage voters who actually prefer Kerry, Edwards, or another candidate - only those who voted for them because they are more “electable” than Dean, who they would otherwise prefer.)
For those who are satisfied with this status quo then continue to bicker about and vote for the major party of your choice - Republocrat or Demican. Nothing will change in the long run.
For those who want change in the system, do something different entirely. Do not support these parties. Refuse them your time, your money, your vote. Find a party or a candidate that actually matches what you want. Don’t worry about electability or other such pragmatic concerns. Large numbers of people voting for “third” parties will send a message to the major parties, and, if enough finally come to their senses, will elect members to legislatures and even executive positions. There are parties out there across the political spectrum, not just the donkey and the elephant.
Refusing to vote will not change the system. You merely give away your voice. Rather we should listen to the words of Thoreau, 'Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."