The Apathy of the American People
Quaunaut
The longest seven days in history... Join Date: 2003-03-21 Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
The longest seven days in history... Join Date: 2003-03-21 Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think.</div>I'm not so sure the title of this thread really applies, but its the closest I could come to with what I wanted to ask those who frequent here, and off topic.
How is it that we can have a country that heralds democracy without practicing it, has settled into a mindset where political scandals not only are not surprising, but are expected? Where such rampant insulting of our leader can be on every television channel but the one that everyone knows to be tilted extremely to the right, yet it seems no one ever has the guts to point these things out to people around them?
How is it that we, as a country, could so easily forget our Bill of Rights, and not take to the streets in riots over the complete slaughter of our rights? Even if they aren't actively being used against us, the fact that we even entertain the notion without getting angry is stunning.
How is it that we can have a 28% approval rating, with dozens of illegalities committed, but every time the word impeachment is uttered, the person is ushered into the crazy booth?
It doesn't even matter if you're democrat or republican at this point. Look at the above, imagine the right turned to the left, a different president, whatever it is- how is it that as a country, we've become so passively ignorant about our country that we'll protest war harder than we'll protest the tearing down of our rights?
How is it that we can have a country that heralds democracy without practicing it, has settled into a mindset where political scandals not only are not surprising, but are expected? Where such rampant insulting of our leader can be on every television channel but the one that everyone knows to be tilted extremely to the right, yet it seems no one ever has the guts to point these things out to people around them?
How is it that we, as a country, could so easily forget our Bill of Rights, and not take to the streets in riots over the complete slaughter of our rights? Even if they aren't actively being used against us, the fact that we even entertain the notion without getting angry is stunning.
How is it that we can have a 28% approval rating, with dozens of illegalities committed, but every time the word impeachment is uttered, the person is ushered into the crazy booth?
It doesn't even matter if you're democrat or republican at this point. Look at the above, imagine the right turned to the left, a different president, whatever it is- how is it that as a country, we've become so passively ignorant about our country that we'll protest war harder than we'll protest the tearing down of our rights?
Comments
I refuse to travel to America now. The previous time I was there I was passing through to Costa Rica on a business trip and I got what can only be described as abuse from customs. ( no, no rubber glove, thankfully ). Now apparently I have to submit my finger prints and financial history to homeland security before I'd be allowed entry. Anyway, the powers that be in the corporation I work for totally empathise with my position, so it hasn't been a problem in practice, but I expect it will be at some stage in my career, and I don't expect the next government, be it Republican or Democrat to overturn the draconian immigration control.
My two cents on the root cause and solution is: Dismantle the cosy relationship between big business and big government. A free and healthy democracy depends on a free and healthy press. When the vote is the currency on which change is purchased, the flow of criticism and analysis has to be ( to the degree to which it is practically possible to establish ) free of government influence. The recent erosions of media protection enacted by Bush immediately after re-election are examples of how Corporate media is trying to monopolise the airwaves in the interest of profit.
I should add that I disagree with the basic thesis of this post. The American people are no more or no less ignorant than people the world over. It is enough to worry about ones one affairs, and most people are stretched to consider their immediate neighbourhood, not to mention their government. It is only when government impacts on the daily life of a citizen, to the detriment of their happiness and wellbeing, that you generally get a mandate for coordinated activism and change.
It is a young nation, that had only a rather short development phase.
This also means that there has been no real cultural development. The pilgrams swooped in, killed some indians and then simply instated their own culture.
As an opposite lets look at the first forming of a german and a french state: The treaty of Verdun in 843.
A huge number of our settlements range back B.C. ;Before Christ.
Another thing that always struck me was the fact, the the US seems the be a land of opposites.:
You have the highest ###### [love the filter] sex industry turnover per capita, but you also have to strongest and biggest no sex before marriage movement of all westtern countrys.
To pick up cultur again: The average cultural level usually reflects itself in a countrys broadcasting media. I mean, we have crappy shows over here. Every nation has crappy shows. But why can I see live car chases with real people getting injured, maybe even killed and yet Janet Jacksons breast cause an uproar.
On a note: When it comes to videogames in Germany and the US it comes down to this:
US: Naked flesh= NO NO!!!; Violence = OK
Germany: Violence = NO NO!!!; Naked flesh = OK
I dont want to get deeper into this, cause it is quite stupid but I simpy want to underline the difference in thinking.
And you cannot really speak of the American ingorance. You might notice that everyone is ignorant in one way or the other. It is just getting nighly noticeable when a lot of ignorant people are sitting at the right levers at the same time.
My two cents on the root cause and solution is: Dismantle the cosy relationship between big business and big government. A free and healthy democracy depends on a free and healthy press. When the vote is the currency on which change is purchased, the flow of criticism and analysis has to be ( to the degree to which it is practically possible to establish ) free of government influence. The recent erosions of media protection enacted by Bush immediately after re-election are examples of how Corporate media is trying to monopolise the airwaves in the interest of profit.
I should add that I disagree with the basic thesis of this post. The American people are no more or no less ignorant than people the world over. It is enough to worry about ones one affairs, and most people are stretched to consider their immediate neighbourhood, not to mention their government. It is only when government impacts on the daily life of a citizen, to the detriment of their happiness and wellbeing, that you generally get a mandate for coordinated activism and change.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Will probably post more on this topic later (if it hasn't been locked..)
Agree with Puzl completely that there needs to be greater separation between corporations and the US government. Of course, a complete separation would be unnecessary and probably counter-productive but its plain to many that the current relationship severely undermines the rhetoric of America's free democracy.
I'd like to also add that not only business and politics need to be separated more, but <i>religion</i> and politics too. Religion is ultimately based on faith and tends to irrationality***. Having irrationality in your policies is not something which should be desired.
Finally, as Puzl implies, using the word "ignorance" may be a touch too harsh. I find that the word nowadays has a much more subjective (and negative) slant to it. I doubt many US citizens are deliberately and wilfully blind/ignorant to issues, it's imo more down to the fact that they dont have access to objective and critical information. In other words, blame the media and the government not the people.
***Please don't take that line and derail this interesting thread into a religious debate. If you have an issue, please just PM me or start another topic.
Many would agree that the proudest years of the Norwegian people the last century (as it probably was for a lot of countries battered down during the war) were right after the second world war, when solidarity and bipartisanship followed the hard work to rebuild the country. After we discovered oil in the seventies and became filthy rich, we no longer care about the country as a whole, it's all about the individual.
Perhaps we have to lose a lot of liberties to fight to regain them, as puzl is implying. It's scary though, you never know how much better government will become at sedating the activism of their people.
Even people who do care are either too busy or too lazy to do anything but complain about things on the internet. And even if they wanted to do something its not exactly easy. Contrary to what they try to teach you in school its kinda hard (not impossible) for one person to make a difference. Also its easy to point out problems and mistakes, but much much harder to find real viable solutions.
In order to understand the US attitude, you need to have a look at its history.
It is a young nation, that had only a rather short development phase.
This also means that there has been no real cultural development. The pilgrams swooped in, killed some indians and then simply instated their own culture.
As an opposite lets look at the first forming of a german and a french state: The treaty of Verdun in 843.
A huge number of our settlements range back B.C. ;Before Christ.
Another thing that always struck me was the fact, the the US seems the be a land of opposites.:
You have the highest ###### [love the filter] sex industry turnover per capita, but you also have to strongest and biggest no sex before marriage movement of all westtern countrys.
To pick up cultur again: The average cultural level usually reflects itself in a countrys broadcasting media. I mean, we have crappy shows over here. Every nation has crappy shows. But why can I see live car chases with real people getting injured, maybe even killed and yet Janet Jacksons breast cause an uproar.
On a note: When it comes to videogames in Germany and the US it comes down to this:
US: Naked flesh= NO NO!!!; Violence = OK
Germany: Violence = NO NO!!!; Naked flesh = OK
I dont want to get deeper into this, cause it is quite stupid but I simpy want to underline the difference in thinking.
And you cannot really speak of the American ingorance. You might notice that everyone is ignorant in one way or the other. It is just getting nighly noticeable when a lot of ignorant people are sitting at the right levers at the same time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll start with this first, and say you've simplified Franco-Germanic and American history to such an obscure point that there's no weight in almost everything you just said (...that, and considering the creation of the current German state to be some sort of artifact from the Carolingians is like thinking the US is a result of Alfred the Great fending off the Danes in Britain). The most useful information that can potentially be garnered from what you're trying to say is that the immediate history of a nation has the most drastic impact on its (domestic and foreign) politics.
The US is a resource driven monster that still caters to the 1800s ideas of 'a land of infinite resources' (from a time when much of Appalachia and the Midwest was forest and swaths of fertile land in Kentucky/Tennesse were just being broken), still augmented by the 1600-1700 views of extreme piety and arguably absurd religiousness - generally only in decline in urban areas. As a counter to that, present-day Germany is essentially the result of 'no more fascism' and the problems of German reunification; essentially resulting in a state that's about subduing anything anti-humanitarian (generally violence when looking at media), while still grumbling over the 'Ossies' Soviet-scrap economic state (in a more domestic view).
Such culturally bound stigmas are nearly impossible to direct. As an attempt to be prophetic, I'd say US foreign and domestic policy will change greatly once we finally manage to deforest the Rockies and run out of easily-mined resources. I know that even I have the sense of 'manifest destiny' that sweeps over nearly every American (usually simply through interaction within American society). You might think it's not there, but it takes a lot of work to root it out (and it's not necessarily bad, as long as you keep the idea of 'American exceptionalism' in check). I'd rather not explain the complex dependencies that develop in a state through its history, but hopefully it is sufficient to say that - while I am rather 'non-American' in my thinking - only living in Europe (I would assume some other non-US place would work as well) allowed me to properly observe American culture (ironically, the best observations of American culture that I've made were made when I wasn't in America...).
The attempt to discover one's own national biases by looking at another nation is a bit difficult for some Europeans, because the close-knit (sort of) community provided by the EU permits more cultural mixing between nations (funnily enough, the EU, provision for one of the world's first supranational states, also seems to be a catalyst for political devolution), while still allowing for good ol' stereotypes to survive (I've heard "typical [nationality]" here in 3 months than 20 years in the US). It does seem a bit easier for newer EU members like the Czechs and Bulgarians, who tend to be a bit disheartened at the effect on their economy, society and politics and don't have quite the same level of homogenity present in earlier member nations (not that the level of homogenity is really even that high).
Also, a large region for the 'oppositeness' is the vast expanse that encompasses the US and the various histories of the land. It's also important to realize the differences between urban and rural life (even in Germany the situation is similar, as rural towns tend to be more conservative). The individual American isn't all that different from everyone else, and their views depend a lot on their upbringing, their location and their disposition - just like in every other country.
<!--QuoteBegin-puzl+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the normal boom/bust cycle of civic responsibility. The activists of the 60s came from the complacency of the previous decade. Likewise, we live in a time of relative plenty. People care about their SUVs and their kids college funds. It will be the next generation who will wake up in a world that has regressed from the liberties we took for granted and hopefully they will be in a position to claw back what has been lost.
I refuse to travel to America now. The previous time I was there I was passing through to Costa Rica on a business trip and I got what can only be described as abuse from customs. ( no, no rubber glove, thankfully ). Now apparently I have to submit my finger prints and financial history to homeland security before I'd be allowed entry. Anyway, the powers that be in the corporation I work for totally empathise with my position, so it hasn't been a problem in practice, but I expect it will be at some stage in my career, and I don't expect the next government, be it Republican or Democrat to overturn the draconian immigration control.
My two cents on the root cause and solution is: Dismantle the cosy relationship between big business and big government. A free and healthy democracy depends on a free and healthy press. When the vote is the currency on which change is purchased, the flow of criticism and analysis has to be ( to the degree to which it is practically possible to establish ) free of government influence. The recent erosions of media protection enacted by Bush immediately after re-election are examples of how Corporate media is trying to monopolise the airwaves in the interest of profit.
I should add that I disagree with the basic thesis of this post. The American people are no more or no less ignorant than people the world over. It is enough to worry about ones one affairs, and most people are stretched to consider their immediate neighbourhood, not to mention their government. It is only when government impacts on the daily life of a citizen, to the detriment of their happiness and wellbeing, that you generally get a mandate for coordinated activism and change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say puzl is also right on many accounts, as political activism in the US does tend to come in noticeable waves, and the apathy present in the system during the current administration will likely not suffer another bleakly horrible president.
I think numerous problems could be solved by forcing candidates to be independent of lobby-based income; this would likely increase the amount of airtime and coverage for smaller candidates, but I would also assume it'd become a sector of politics rife with loopholes and corruption and hard to implement. I think an oil crash could also push the US government back on track (...or into some crazy dystopic dictatorship, but hey, who's to say). I'm very much hoping for a return to 1990ish security concerns and a less crazy political atmosphere (although I'm also greatly saddened, because there's just about a non-existant chance of it happening).
<!--QuoteBegin-quaunaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is it that we can have a 28% approval rating, with dozens of illegalities committed, but every time the word impeachment is uttered, the person is ushered into the crazy booth?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Much of the reason that nothing is being done about Bush now, is that there's little incentive; any effort to impeach or censure Bush would be a waste of taxpayer money (there were actually calls to censure Bush (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=1715495&page=1" target="_blank">like this</a>)). Unfortunately, being in his second term and already close to the end of that term means that any action would like be ineffectual (and judging by Clinton, take too long anyway). For the specific call to censure Bush, this is why it was idiotic: "When the President is censured, it serves merely as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of presidency, nor are there any other particular legal consequences."
Impeachment is similarily improbable, because it would require Bush to commit treason or bribery (although some may consider the suspension of habeas corpus a sort of treason...) or other 'high crimes'. Clinton's process was begun because of perjury and obstruction of justice...so we just needed to get Bush in a courtroom and to get him to lie...Unfortunately saying "We're going there for WMDs" and then "We didn't come here for WMDs" wasn't taken under oath (although it does make you wonder if Kerry did indeed have a 'flip-flopping' issue).
<!--QuoteBegin-quaunaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is it that we can have a country that heralds democracy without practicing it, has settled into a mindset where political scandals not only are not surprising, but are expected? Where such rampant insulting of our leader can be on every television channel but the one that everyone knows to be tilted extremely to the right, yet it seems no one ever has the guts to point these things out to people around them?
How is it that we, as a country, could so easily forget our Bill of Rights, and not take to the streets in riots over the complete slaughter of our rights? Even if they aren't actively being used against us, the fact that we even entertain the notion without getting angry is stunning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also similar to puzl, I think one of the greatest problems in the US today is the lack of a truly free media. Much of the matter is (I feel) properly explained by Jon Stewart in various interviews and news show appearances. The news today is an attention-grabbing, rating-raising circus of misinformation and political bias (thinking about it now, probably one of the reasons the Daily Show is so popular is because it insults both sides, not just one). I'd love to see some sort of media reform...unfortunately I don't see FOX news or CNN cleaning up anything soon.
(I'd recommend changing the title to "Apathy of the American people") I think apathy is the best description available. I'm not sure how Bush got re-elected, but I'm hoping very much that most of those people have come to learn that voting for a truthiness-reliant, psuedo-Machiavellian - yet moronic, super-Christian with big business interests isn't the best person to vote for. For all the apathy shown towards federal government, back home in Wisconsin the state and local governments seem to be teeming with life, so I'm not even sure I know where the specific problem is anymore. I guess most people are just waiting until they can elect someone new and correct all the crap that's gone down in the last 8 years.
Is this a good time for the "I'd be more apathetic if I wasn't so lethargic" Family Guy quips?
[edit]I can spell supranational, devolution and homogenity but not "states" ("or" is also one of those tough words)...[/edit]
How are we not practicing democracy? Was President Bush and the members of Congress unelected? Did your state legislature appoint itself? I think not. I think that "current" scandals are no less surprising than prior ones, public officials are people just like us, they do dumb things they shouldn't. I see no major increase now compared to any other time period. What does insulting Bush have to do with anything? If Fox and friends don't want to, they don't have to. You don't think they know they're the only ones not doing this?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is it that we, as a country, could so easily forget our Bill of Rights, and not take to the streets in riots over the complete slaughter of our rights? Even if they aren't actively being used against us, the fact that we even entertain the notion without getting angry is stunning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people's rights aren't being trampled yet, it's ok as long as its Habib down in Gitmo for the moment. People willingly trade security for rights when frightened, and a lot of Americans are still frightened from 9/11 and the spin Carl Rove and friends dish out. I suspect this will change with the next administration, especially a democratic one.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How is it that we can have a 28% approval rating, with dozens of illegalities committed, but every time the word impeachment is uttered, the person is ushered into the crazy booth?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't impeach a president because he isn't popular, this isn't Europe, we just can't replace our leader because we don't like him anymore. What illegalities has Bush committed that would fit into the requirements to impeach him? Everyone knows there are not enough votes to impeach Bush, and it would be unlikely to pass appeal if he were impeached, as he's done nothing to warrant it because be unpopular, which isn't impeachable.
Though, even there, I have trouble believe its really apathy- most people I get close to these days, I'll ask them about their political mind. I find out how knowledgable they are on things- and funny enough, when I tell them of some of the atrocities(what the Patriot Act really does, the stuff in Guantanamo(though some endorse torture, and hey, thats their view), the attorneys and Gonzalez, etc), they actively ask me, "Where did you hear that?" and go further, and I get an outraged state from them.
After that, the apathy sets in, though. I think at first it really is ignorance, but it devolves into apathy even if you tell them. Only once thus far has someone gotten active about it.
I agree that apathy when it comes to the situation my country is in is a bad thing, but I admit I do suffer from it myself. Well I don't know if its necessarily apathy. I'm so busy with my life that I don't have much free time. The free time I do have, I like to spend relaxing playing games/watching TV, not expanding my knowledge of current affairs.
How are we not practicing democracy? Was President Bush and the members of Congress unelected? Did your state legislature appoint itself? I think not.
[...]
Most people's rights aren't being trampled yet,
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) contested
2) wikipedia on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander" target="_blank">Gerrymandering</a>
3) phone/internet taps
2) wikipedia on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander" target="_blank">Gerrymandering</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>democracy at its finest</i>
I think the root of the problem here is that any idiot can point out a discrepancy of the way things are running, but those actually capable of fixing things are far and few between, and usually not in positions of political power anyways. Because of the nature of democracy, and all the checks and balances preventing any type of real power from being wielded, I really doubt we'll see any of these problems accurately addressed in our lifetime.
In my opinion the American government has become stale and outdated in a massive degree, and we're now approaching a point where the world will continue to speed up past it until eventually some major reforms are forced in order to remain competitive. Hopefully that doesn't mean revolution, but I'm not dismissing the possibility.
1800's style democracy can't work the way it's supposed to in this world any more. There is too much data flying back and forth, and change happens too quickly for the slow indecisive and unknowledgable government to effectively maintain efficient order within it's countries.
Think back to the latest big screw-up congress has passed, whichever that happens to be under your line of thought. Chances are, its something that was passed quickly, efficiently, and with little debate. For example, isn't that exactly the accusation leveled at the PATRIOT act all the time?
Efficiency in government isn't always a good thing.
I was always taught that our government was designed to be slow and inefficient intentionally, under the theory that an efficient government has more time to do random stupid stuff to ruin our lives, while an inefficient government will be almost out of time by the time they finish screwing up the really important stuff.
Think back to the latest big screw-up congress has passed, whichever that happens to be under your line of thought. Chances are, its something that was passed quickly, efficiently, and with little debate. For example, isn't that exactly the accusation leveled at the PATRIOT act all the time?
Efficiency in government isn't always a good thing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Efficiency is not the handmaiden of idiocy.
An efficient government wouldn't have people making laws who don't understand the inticricies of the mediums they are mediating over. Efficency is about doing it right the first time, not ###### up over and over and over until you finally reach a point where things work properly.
I look at it this way: As long as everybody has different interests in this nation, <b>we're absolutely fine</b>.
Political gridlock makes for a stable and prosperous system, because all the idiots are arguing while the people in the know are making money. We've got the best system EVER.
Efficiency and competency are totally different things, and often times mutually exclusive, Swiftspear.
I look at it this way: As long as everybody has different interests in this nation, <b>we're absolutely fine</b>.
Political gridlock makes for a stable and prosperous system, because all the idiots are arguing while the people in the know are making money. We've got the best system EVER.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're being sarcastic, right?
Efficiency and competency are totally different things, and often times mutually exclusive, Swiftspear.
I look at it this way: As long as everybody has different interests in this nation, <b>we're absolutely fine</b>.
Political gridlock makes for a stable and prosperous system, because all the idiots are arguing while the people in the know are making money. We've got the best system EVER.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, Cold War Russia was stable and prosperous. Some people made lots of money over there from that.
That doesn't necessarily mean its a good thing.
Efficiency and competency are totally different things, and often times mutually exclusive, Swiftspear.
I look at it this way: As long as everybody has different interests in this nation, <b>we're absolutely fine</b>.
Political gridlock makes for a stable and prosperous system, because all the idiots are arguing while the people in the know are making money. We've got the best system EVER.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
Your causality is totally and utterly flawed.
There is no competency without efficiency.
Political gridlock does not make the system "stable" or "good". It remains tolerable, but it's far from ideal.
No.
Your causality is totally and utterly flawed.
There is no competency without efficiency.
Political gridlock does not make the system "stable" or "good". It remains tolerable, but it's far from ideal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Political ideals, in general, are great in theory but never quite work out in practice. They tend to fall over when introduced to human corruption. Taking human corruption as a given, and assuming that politicians have greater than normal temptation to corruption, I much prefer gridlock to allowing congress to pass <i>any</i> of the things they've proposed over the last few months. "Tolerable" is usually just about the best you can ask from a political system.
No.
Your causality is totally and utterly flawed.
There is no competency without efficiency.
Political gridlock does not make the system "stable" or "good". It remains tolerable, but it's far from ideal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, I have to agree with him that competency and efficiency are two very different, very seperate, things.
You're being sarcastic, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is, most likely, not. I've been reading a lot of Rapier's posts over the past months, and he is either a really good actor or completely serious.
You know, Cold War Russia was stable and prosperous. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have an amusing conception of stability.
You have an amusing conception of stability.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, it kept up without too many major changes for a really long time. It just eventually got a bit too top heavy.
Efficiency and competency are totally different things, and often times mutually exclusive, Swiftspear.
I look at it this way: As long as everybody has different interests in this nation, <b>we're absolutely fine</b>.
Political gridlock makes for a stable and prosperous system, because all the idiots are arguing while the people in the know are making money.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a sense, I agree with this. The self-correcting mechanisms of democracy will kick in if allowed to. The problem right now though is that the tail is wagging the dog and public opinion is being crafted and not formed. Take examples of the last presidential election. Mud stuck to John Kerry ( The draft dodger questioning the war heroe's record, the trillionaire scare mongering about the billionaire ) and go further back to the Starr investigations into the Clinton finances and contrast it with the clean slate Bush/Cheney get over their corporate ties and misadventures.
So, people might be disagreeing, but there is clear bias in the media and news is being sold as infotainment. So although the contrasts in society should be pulling policy to a compromise, right now it isn't very effective.
It really is rather sad that the most effective political commentary in the US right now is running on comedy central.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
We've got the best system EVER.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd question that. You are not the richest country in the world ( per capita ), you are not the most productive country in the world ( per capita GDP ), you are not the most educated country in the world. There is a pile of OECD reports that rank several countries above the US as destinations to live in. Your current prosperity is being propped up by militiary and economic hegemony. The petro dollar and the refusal to support a trans-national world currency base allow you to run a horrifically bad balance of trade with little or no consequences. You consume much more per capita than anywhere else in the world, and waste most of what is left over.
Don't get me wrong, I love the fundamentals of American democracy and the innovation and creativity your nation has bestowed on the world is possibly only equalled by France or Britain. But right now, the suits are calling the shots, and they most certainly are not a government of the people, and most certainly are not a government for the people. It probably isn't worth getting into the detail of why exactly the Bush administration is not a government by the people.
Political ideals, in general, are great in theory but never quite work out in practice. They tend to fall over when introduced to human corruption. Taking human corruption as a given, and assuming that politicians have greater than normal temptation to corruption, I much prefer gridlock to allowing congress to pass <i>any</i> of the things they've proposed over the last few months. "Tolerable" is usually just about the best you can ask from a political system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about ideals. Running a leadership system properly shouldn't be a figment of human imagination.
I'll take tolerable and functional in practice over ideal in any form.
There is too much data flying back and forth, and change happens too quickly for the slow indecisive and unknowledgable government to effectively maintain efficient order within it's countries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is, the government simply can't be knowledgeable about everything. Take lawmakers for example. They have to pass or reject laws about topics as diverse as scientific research, technology, international politics and business. No one person can be an expert on all those things. Sure they call in experts to testify, but do they really understand what's being said? I think not. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a viable solution to fix this. You work with what you got I suppose.