Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Politics Permanently Broken?

   
Human beings have to learn to get along and co-operate in order to live close to each other, or else you get tribal wars. Government is supposed to be the peace broker and consensus of opinion.
Communities form with their own specific laws where they have strong communal views, but they still have to cooperate with the whole.
Almost the very definition of politics is the process of negotiation of opinions and shared decision making. Trade and mutual interest is supposed to bond communities together.

Can the human race separate due to irreconcilable differences? Probably not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madadh View Post
It's not a problem with him representing an electorate but more a problem with the fact that when one is on such an extreme from the 'middle', how exactly is said person ever supposed to make a workable government with someone that holds the opposite views? These candidates are generally of the 'no compromise, veto, fillibuster' side of governing: IE bully the opposition into submission. We've already seen some of that this year with the budget talks. That's no way to run a government.
Come on, politicians on general are like reptiles or amphibians - they assume the temperature of the surroundings, especially when there is expected paying lip services to any ideology. I fully agree that such a situation leave gov dysfunctional, however the problem starts at voters expecting from politician to stick to their believes on all cost including common sense. The politician is merely incarnation of such problems and expectation of their electorate.

From practical reasons - you can try to move your country in to less centralized model. You would need only agreement on external policy, military and what's unique in the US that it can be turned in to a political problem - monetary policy.

I just recently read [an article] that I think runs tangent to this discussion. I almost wonder if it is the "extremism" (polarization might be a better term) of the population being reflected in its candidates.

I think it is worth noting(much like what TW Teczka said) that politicians change themselves to fit the environment. Right now, Republicans are vying in their primaries, which means it is a race to show "who is more conservative." When we get to the general election, I'm sure that the polarized tone will abate somewhat, as each side vies for the all-important independent vote. Santorum's "Christian Sharia Law" will likely be a liability then.

Of course, the above begs the question: Why are we electing cold-blooded reptiles to high office in the first place?

What do you think "extremism" is? I think it is simply an unwillingness to compromise combined with the desire to tell other people what to do. Bullying really.

Sounds about right to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madadh View Post
Except there is no indication that the democratic party is any more reasonable. They're just the incumbents at this point so there's no need to have a dog fight.
See, now this is the problem with US politics. No matter how off the wall, insane, or completely out of touch with the reality most of us enjoy a politician or party may be, there is a large body of people who simply assume that the other choices must be just as bad instead of standing against the obviously insane. Its saying that if a Nazi is running the opposition must be Stalinists. The fact is there is *every* sign that the other party is more reasonable. They had a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the presidency, but held off on pushing through health care reform too quickly because they wanted the other party to weigh in and give a different perspective.

While the Republicans are off on a tangent claiming major employers like hospitals who happen to have a religious affiliation should be exempted from providing their employees with any form of health care that might have to do with reproduction or lady parts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
The fact is there is *every* sign that the other party is more reasonable. They had a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the presidency, but held off on pushing through health care reform too quickly because they wanted the other party to weigh in and give a different perspective.
Except the part where they DID push through health care reform because they had a majority. 'Too quickly?' There was no compromise on the health care bill it was just 'we have the majority, we're going to get this passed' and finally found a way to do it.

And they used the reconciliation process specifically to avoid further input and delays since they lost Kennedy's seat to Brown....

Also, Godwin's Law!

Of course, the fact that the Republican party is ideologically opposed to any for of socialized medicine despite the well documented improvements in both quality of life and affordability had nothing to do with that decision...

The fact is that I still broadly support the Democrats because they still function within the 'reality community' as one Bush staffer once put it. They're still right of center ideologues by the standards of most other western democracies, but the fact is that they are much more willing to compromise and actually accept empirical evidence to guide their decisions rather than functioning primarily off of ideology. Hopefully this will change if the coming election proves that the current Republican ideology is as unelectable as it appears to be to an outside observer. I don't have anything against conservatives inherently, but I much prefer the Eisenhower or, at this point, even the Reagan type of conservative rather than the hard right conservatives that dominate the party discourse in this day and age.

Well this is about to descend into a party war. So I'll weigh in before it gets too bad.

Your both right and both wrong. Madadh is correct in thinking that both sides hate each other too much to actually accomplish anything and silveroak is right about the dem's not being any better. They only tried to compromise on healthcare cause they know that when Obama is out of office (either this year or in 4 more) the GOP is just going to undo it. Hence the need to come-up with something both sides hate enough to keep in place.

The problem is a little deeper than that, IMO anyway. The issue is that both parties fall way too far outside the lines of what most people think is the right thing to-do. It's classic group-think, when you ask a bunch of people what the best solution to a problem is. The answer they will come to a consensus on is more extreme than they believe. It's only the extreme ideas that can get enough support to be agreed upon. That's where we are at now.

On one hand it's a semi-socialist that thinks people are too dumb to decide whats best for themselves. And on the other it's racist-theocratic loonies that think either God or money should run the country. Both of which are bad idea's and I think pretty much everyone agrees with that.

The issue is thus. Given that both sides of the aisle are unpopular(at record setting lows) whats to be done? A third party would never get enough support. So people think the best way to handle it is just to vote for whomever the party that closest shares there ideas is. That way the other-side wont win. Thus the cycle propagates itself once more.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status