Now compare this to the Tea Party. They want to shut everything down, including putting a cap on the debt ceiling. They don’t care if everything falls apart. I do not see any ambiguity in their beliefs. In fact they remind me of the trope called “The Unfettered”.
The interesting part is some polls suggest most people now favor a Government shutdown.
So if 86% of the population wants a shut down, should we?
What if 86% of the population want a cap on the debt ceiling? Should we do it knowing that the results will be bad? Or listen to the morons that don’t understand economic policies?
It’s almost as if your “demands” are mutually exclusive.
Well of course! It’s like the PHB in Dilbert telling him they need to “listen to their customers”. Dilbert rightfully tells him that their customers will endlessly demand new features but not want to pay anything.
And every idiot thinks the entire world thinks like they do except for a small minority. That’s the problem with democracy. Does anyone think that 90% of the interchangable carbon blobs in this country are qualified to make decisions on economics, foreign policy, health care or any other important topic?
It’s astonishing the number of people who think that things like the space program or artistic grants make up a major portion of the budget. Just three things- the defense budget, entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the debt- dwarf everything else put together. We have nearly NO discretionary spending to cut. Frankly if it wasn’t for the fact that everyone else seems as bad off or worse, I’d see the United States going the way of the Spanish Empire- an economically crippled, militarily top-heavy has-been power.
The fact that the recall has traction shows you are mistaken.
I doubt Walker said he would cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and then declare the state was broke. It is called Republican broke now.
he did not say he would kill unions. The fact that he is doing it and the reaction is so strong, shows how far off his policies and your analysis are.
The best hope for the anti-internationalist left (who otherwise would get no electoral support outside of bitter old fanatics and naive young college students) is to form a coalition with the paleocons, the labour unions, and the libertarians to form a popular front opposed to free trade and foreign intervention. So I suggest, respectfully to La Jacquelope to start forming such a movement.
But my point remains that you are criticizing Clinton for ignoring his supporters when he did in fact do what he said he was going to do during the campaign.
Quoted for truth.
You just gotta get in your digs, don’t you? Well, it turns out that the only support that free trade people have in America are among the ignorant and clueless. Fortunately they’re part of a rapidly shrinking minority.
The movement is already formed. We are already the majority.
But I remember him saying he’d fight NAFTA.
Very much so. The problem is the media isn’t giving them any attention. That’s not a good move by society to ignore that many people protesting…
From your link that I assume we wouldn’t read, like that 86 page pdf from yesterday:
“Government should pursue tariffs …36%”
“International trade has been BAD for the U.S. economy…52%”
"If you had to choose, would you prefer…
Policies that reduce the number of products that are imported into the U.S. 38%
Policies that increase the number of products the U.S. exports to other countries 55%
Don’t Know / Refused 7%"
Here’s a link to the speech he made during the campaign supporting NAFTA http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/political-science/speeches/clinton.dir/c151.txt
You remember wrong. That was Ross Perot.
The person who ran for power while opposing NAFTA and then signed the deal after winning was Canada’s Jean Chretien.
Didn’t NAFTA turn out to be great for Canada, 20 years later…
Clinton was a huge supporter of NAFTA. It was practically his idea.
Then put your money where you mouth is and run.
Wasn’t Clinton in favour of NAFTA? I thought I read that some where.
I need to add one more zero to my net worth to afford that. But I’m working on that. 
i propose a very simple law, however imagine the chaos that will ensue.
“elected officials and public servants cannot lie”
apparently there is no such law in existence today. perhaps public figures should while in public be under oath.
to address the original question more directly, the centralization of political power had removed all accountability of politicians. many spend only minimal time within their own constituencies (this is more federal government). most people have never met their elected officials. If we decentralized to a level where people knew their officials (and were less apathetic) there would naturally be a degree of transparency and accountability.
our system in my opinion was designed well. however, time and excessive growth of a few have led to the complete bastardization of it. we need a periodic purge (not a redistribution of wealth, but a purge that dismantles what has grown too big) just as you periodically change the oil in your car, defrag your hard drive, and vacuum your floor.