I thought it was a good post. Stats are always interesting to study. My only beef these days was the fact that the [R] folks just made some major medicare/medicaid reforms that were sneaked under the radar attached to the alaskan drilling proposals. And the medicaid reforms were approved. This will eventually affect all of us as we will all be old some day. How much of that nest egg do you want your kids to get??? Not much if the [R]'s have their way. All this coming from a person who has typically voted R but will think twice next time around.

 

I concider my self a conservitive republican:
However if I feel that the next guy will do better I have found myself voting for the better/lesser of the two running evils..
I remember when Ross Perot ran for office I voted for him as it sounded good running the country like a business..

Lets face it both party's lie their butts off to get into office & most of what they get passed takes another 2-4yrs before it goes into action....

Are we doomed? is the sky falling? hmmm i dunno..

 

First of all, you consider the electoral process still working. I do not. It isn't clear we will ever be able to "vote" them out of office.

I've never understood this argument against polling. They work for us .. shouldn't they know what we are thinking. Not that they should do what all poll suggest but they should understand where the electorate is.

 

Neither of our two parties represent me but I do vote for who I consider more honest and the less evil.

What I'd like to see is the Libertarians in for a couple of terms to shake things up. But I don't see that happening for the reasons mentioned in post #1.

 

Well, I have what's probably regarded as a lot of weird views, but since we're sharing:

Personally, on that sliding scale, I'd put us in the 7. >From apathy to dependence; stage.

As a student of history, it's always been a prevalant (And sometimes worrysome) idea that Democracies just don't last. Andrew Jackson believed and even advocated that the US should go through a revolution at least politically every 20-50 years, to clean the nation out politically; that it should all be torn down and rebuilt to keep it going strong. (Of course, he also hated the US bank and wanted to close it, and in an ironic twist is now on the $20, the most highly circulated US Bank piece.)

Ideally, it seems, that with electronics, technology, and a scaffolded education system, we're in a perfect place to move from a Republic to a Democracy. Remove the representative system and have direct voting. Back in the day, Republics was the only viable solution, by the time the masses could be educated, vote, and be tallied, years would've gone by. With the internet and whatnot, we're poised to be able to move into the next phase. (You can point out hacking or such problems, but voter IDs and other measures can be used, and even in our current system, there are lots of flaws; votes not counted, the dead voting, 3 times a cities population voting, etc.) In addition, just like a person needs a drivers license, a citizenship license must be acquired to vote. This ensures an education and prompts to keep them informed on the issue. One just doesn't walk in and pull a lever on an issue they've never heard of, instead they get all the facts and the information before for them, and must understand the issue to vote on it. (In addition, being in the service gets you a license as well.) If one fails to vote for 3 elections, they automatically lose their license. That would be a system that I think could do a lot of good, that I'd like to see. Yeah, it's crazy.

Honestly, I think it's time for some new political parties, emphasizing a central theme, and with representatives and a clear interest in the begining, along with accountability for not fulfilling campaign promises. Also crazy.

I usually try to vote for the person I think will do the least amount of damage. *Sigh*

 

I've read 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.' If you're interested in theories about civilizations sliding into ruin, you could do worse than by starting with good old Gibbon. It's also interesting to get the perspective that some Brits have on the whole 'American empire' thing, since they were the last empire on earth and the most recent to go bust (or, you could make the case for the USSR if you wanted). If you're really talking about falling empires (and not some silly partisan hash slinging, in which case go ahead, but I'm not really paying attention to you), we could take a few lessons from them.

For one thing, voter apathy is irresponsible. Disgust with some part of the existing system is no reason for lack of participation, because you have more of an impact than you think; NOT voting is actually the one thing you can do that most supports the status quo (because of huge incumbancy advantages in name recognition and funding, etc.). So if you choose not to vote because you hate the government, then you're going about it completely backwards. VOTE instead- vote against all incumbants if you want, but don't grumble about how it takes too long to be an informed voter. If you don't put even that small amount of effort into trying to change the system or make things better, then you lose your right to complain.

I was in England during the 2004 campaign season and election, and the level of interest there in American politics was astonishing. I remember being on a tour of the Tower of London the weekend before the election, and the beefeater (Tower guard) leading the tour group asked which of us were Americans and then reminded us all to vote absentee. Do you know why they were so interested? Because we, Americans, are the empire now. Our choices affect their world in ways that we can't even imagine; our power is intense and far-reaching and the consequences of the policies that we create or condone at the ballot box are felt by people who have no voice in our elections thousands of miles away in all parts of the world. That's what being a superpower means, especially in a globalized economy.

I'm not just talking about global energy issues, although certainly enough has been said about that in this forum and elsewhere to make the point that the global environmental consequences of American policies are huge. I'm also talking about the impact that our government has on things that most of you and most American voters pay absolutely no attention to: aid money, disease prevention, support for international treaties, respect (or lack thereof) for international courts and tribunals. In these areas, the mere threat of our financial or military might has the power to create change in places we've never heard of which irreversibly affects the lives of millions. Just a little something to think about before this upcoming election. Go ahead and hate government all you want- but if you have real gripes, then please DO something about it besides posting inflammatory remarks on the internet.

 

A footnote to leahbeetle's above remarks - overcommitments wore out the British and Roman Empires. It's happening to America right now. We have overreached and have to prioritize what we can do. Compound to that is the degradation of our educational, intellectual, and ultimately economic prowness that allows us to be a superpower.

 

Agreeing with Delta Flyer: 'Soft' power is much more influential than 'hard' power. Having actual troops on the ground in places all over the world means there's a perception that we couldn't handle any more. Not actually being involved in any conflict keeps everyone else on alert- don't commit genocide or the might of the U.S. military could come down on you, just to take an example. Persuading people with treaties and sanctions, trade commitments and diplomatic connections means that they feel the need to compete for our favor. Other countries have made progress on human rights, or refrained from expanding their nuclear programs, in exchange for money or recognition. We have to make it worth their while and at the same time let them consider the size of our military if they cross the line. It's the much-maligned but very useful concept of the 'global policeman.'

When the U.S. withdrew from the diplomatic process, acted unilaterally, and overcommitted its forces, most of that 'soft' power evaporated. Why should dictatorships in Africa follow international human rights treaties if they know we're too busy elsewhere to pay any attention to the people they're killing?

By the way, Delta Flyer- it's leahbeatle, as in Sir Paul McCartney, not beetle, as in the creepy crawling things.

 

It's either dated contact lens, lack of proofreading, or both...