Sound and Fury.
The USA has one of the lowest participation rates of any democracy. cite. And that’s for presidential elections. The rates in other elections are even more dismal.
Certainly issues which convulse Americans, e.g. abortion, gun control, intelligent design, using public money to say “Happy Christmas”, don’t really have any traction here. We are nominally a Protestant country with an Established Religion, but in practice a secular country where asking a candidate’s religious views would be seen as rude and intrusive.
‘Cat Deeley’ (if you’ve never heard of her don’t lose sleep over it) recently complained “It’s a lot easier to get Americans to scream and shout and dance and clap … In Britain, it’s almost as if we’re ashamed of having ambition and drive” . Certainly we regard expressing excessive enthusiasm (or dislike) for just about anything as ‘un-English’.
Obama, in his speech to a joint session of Congress, February 2009:
*President Obama pledged Tuesday night to cure Americans from what he called “the crushing cost of health care,” saying the country could not afford to put health-care reform on hold.
“This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes,” Obama said in his speech to a joint session of Congress.
Obama pointed to the increasing number of uninsured and rapidly rising health-care premiums, which he said was one reason small business closed their doors and corporations moved overseas.*
Obama got his facts wrong on the bankruptcies, but that’s not my point. He established at the start of his presidency that health care reform was necessary to control health care costs as the economy was collapsing, and to insure the uninsured.
In numerous speeches throughout the year, these points were hammered (Google it).
But non-partisan bean-counters such as the Congressional Budget Office and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, throughout the year-long process, time and again, have pointed out how the Democratic plans INCREASE costs, deficits, and leave tens of millions uninsured.
Examples:
Here (PDF - see page 4 )
Here (PDF)
Here
The last link cites the Wall Street Journal and insurance companies, so it will be dismissed by the left. Which takes me back to my point of “the truth” no longer mattering, only sides. If what they are saying is untrue, point out specifically where and how. Don’t dismiss based on the source.
But Obama and Pelosi play into this mind-set. They and their supporters portray insurance companies as evil, greedy and uncaring.
Obama in a September 2009 speech said insurers delayed an Illinois man’s treatment and he died because of it. That was false.
Pelosi labeled private insurers “immoral” and “villains.” Reid called them “greedy.”
Insurance companies profits exceeded their revenues by a whopping 2 percent in 2008.
Transforming our health care system, despite large majorities of Americans being opposed to it, was portrayed by Obama and the Democrats as necessary to control costs and insure the uninsured. Their plans do neither, and even where they look good, rely upon gimmicks and sleight-of-hand (read: dishonesty) to do so.
You happened to walk in on a particularly dull election where nobody was in any doubt what the result was going to be. The other side didn’t have anything new to say, the incumbent lot hadn’t (yet) screwed up in a major fashion. Next time’s going to be rather more interesting for politicos.
Political diversity does get on the air - the standard theory I’ve heard is that the political fracturing of the US is a result of the explosion of media outlets: radio, cable news, blogs, etc. This leads to far greater political diversity than could happen when everyone just sat down and watched Walter Cronkite on the evening news. It’s the political system that hasn’t figured out yet how to catch up to the political diversity.
And upon what does the CBO base its assessment? Upon the numbers and gimmicks provided to it by the Democrats. And is the CBO allowed to stray out of the confines of what’s provided to it? It is not.
Many of you seem to be hammering on “death panels” as The Great Dishonest Outrage.
They may not be in the plans by name, but are you denying that bureaucratic government panels will make choices in macro for purposes of cost that don’t lead to the death of (particularly elderly, infirmed) individuals? Are you denying that adding tens of millions of individuals into the system, without any increase in doctors and other medical staff, won’t have an impact of rationing care? And that rationing care won’t lead to the death of (particularly eldery, infirmed) individuals?
It’s one thing to have for-profit health care companies making decisions like that; it’s a little creepier when your government’s doing it, and they become the only game in town.
Well, it’s certainly true that the internet has increased the diversity of opinions in the U.S. But they’re still not considered mainstream by everyone (Sarah Palin derogated the blogger who exposed her emails as someone who lived in his parents’ basement, invoking a myth and fallacy that had been around since the beginning of blogging). Moreover, over a third of Americans get their news from one of just 2 or 3 cable news networks.
As for the timeline of political diversity in the U.S…in the 1920s, socialist candidates were elected to political office. Today, the Greens aren’t allowed into the debates.
Funny that this statement could come equally from hard-core right-winger or a hard-core left-winger. Everyone in the middle realizes how silly that assertion is.
I know of very, very few people that believe everything their chosen political party believes. The vast majority of people who are capable of thinking for themselves realize that they agree with the Democrats about this, the Republicans about that, the Libertarians about something else.
I think if I were to stack up all of the “out and out lies,” misstatements, unverifiable assertions, blatantly false glurge emails, and misleading news stories from the last election, the McCain/Palin stack and the Obama/Biden stack would be pretty darned close to the same size.
I think this is a huge issue. I really do not understand why so many people feel the need to apologize for being intelligent and well-informed. The “dumbing down” of the media is perhaps one of the strongest reasons that people believe that there are only two political belief systems in the U.S., rather than the multi-dimensional spectrum that actually exists.
From the link:
Oh well, then that makes it ok, lets not change… :rolleyes:
As they say, anecdote is not data, and Obama being wrong on that case does not deny what is happening:
What I do think is that on those topics the President is exaggerating, but I think it is a matter of opinion if he was lying. To me those items are not analogous to the “death panels” Where an item is repeated with no support or reference whatsoever.
The “rationing” already happens. In fact, it happens in any system. The difference is that a for-profit system has more of an incentive to deny care. Not to mention the cherry-picking of individuals and other tactics.
And even insurance companies have pointed out that larger health insurance pools decrease overall risk and decrease individual premiums.
Even George Will accepts that the public option would cut costs–he just complains that it ain’t fair to the insurance companies.
Aside from the lack of a profit motive resulting in fairer treatment of individuals, what precisely is the difference between a few companies who aren’t even subject to anti-trust law, and the government? Where is the practical difference in this sense?
Also, the government would not have been “the only game in town”. The public option would be just one of many options for individuals to chosen from, alongside private plans. But you knew that.
It may sound that way, but it not for lack of subjects.
For example, most of the right wing leadership, mouthpieces and media were demonstrated to be scientifically wrong and they are now constantly lying and bullshitting the American public about the science behind global warming.
Ooh, and lest we forget–the Iraq war was supported by a majority (Dem and Pub alike) in the political mainstream. Protesters got short shrift, and their arguments even less so. Meanwhile, on the eve of the war, 46% to 53% of Americans opposed it as it was presented (with respect to justification and conduct) by the administration. Yet, 77 Senators and about 69% of the House voted for the Iraq War resolution. Again, not that representative.
I’ve always thought this interesting about the UK. Do those issues have little traction there because of apathy, as you suggest, or is it that those issues are already sorted out to most peoples’ satisfaction?
From what I’ve heard, Intelligent Design hasn’t gotten anywhere because few in the UK are convinced it merits serious consideration. That wouldn’t qualify as apathy to me - which implies people don’t care about something they should - it’s more like talking about whether the world is flat or round. To ignore that debate isn’t apathy, it’s just shrugging at the wackos who seem to feel it’s important.
In any case, I agree with Zoog - I think we’ve largely chosen this situation. We like our spectacles. Reasoned reporting, analysis and debate such as I see on Lehrer isn’t much in demand.
Some people want to be lied to. Like Pinocchio’s girlfriend.
Maybe so, though I’d like to think that a couple years on the other side of the Atlantic gives me something more than just a tourist eye’s view of the scene. Even if you argue that I’m wrong in my interpretations, it’s still probably objectively true that countries and cultures differ in the degree to which their citizens hold and express diverse political viewpoints, right? And if people from different countries in this thread agree to a certain raucousness in American politics (though they disagree on whether that raucousness is thinking or unthinking), might that not speak to something going on?
Indeed, speaking about Intelligent design/creationism one should check the documentary on the last clash on teaching intelligent design in American schools; of course, as you mentioned not many follow or get their information from PBS.
The Bullshit was even spewed by George Bush when commenting on “teaching the controversy”
How does a third of Americans getting their news from one of just 2 or 3 cable news networks show a lack of media diversity? If anything, looking over your link, it shows just the opposite - more cable channels to choose from, more people getting their news online, etc. Not too long ago those people watching cable news would have had to watch one of the major broadcast networks. 
I agree on the greater raucousness. I disagree on the greater diversity. There is plenty of diversity in European (including UK) politics but it’s in a different region of the spectrum.
I think its because there are many, many people in the United States who don’t trust their government or have very limited trust in their government. There are also those who believe that the government should not involve themselves in things that the private sector can provide. Now personally, I disagree with all of it. If the feds are pulling in 14 trillion a year, the least they can do is built a school, construct a freeway, or provide low-cost health insurance.
Actually that’s pretty much it - the majority of the population is mainly in the centre with the rest a little to the left or a little to the right. Regarding the Big Issues in the US, no you don’t get people screaming about them here because there aren’t that many who feel so passionately about it. Take abortion for example, it’s been long established that people should have the right to have it and whether you like the idea personally you shouldn’t get to decide whether someone else has one because it upsets you. Whilst there are plenty of people who couldn’t face the thought of having one themselves, the number who care so much that they actually want to take away an existing right from other people is negligible.
I can speak with some authority on this as I used to be the UK government official who dealt with controversial issues in science (i.e. creationism) in education, and I still work in the team that deals with it. It’s not that there’s no interest in it - far from it - it’s that the political establishment is completely against this issue filtering into the school system, and both Parliament and Ministers alike won’t even engage in debate with those who want things to be changed. I’ve read plenty of correspondence from people (not just the public, members of the educational establishment also) asking for assurances from the government that it will stay that way too. There are (religious) people who want this to change, but there is no-one in any position of power who is inclined or able to make it happen. The consensus is firmly that if you want religion that badly you stump up the cash to send your child to a religious school where they can be taught pretty much anything, including that the world is flat, you just won’t ever be able to do it on taxpayer’s cash.
Have to say I agree.