dagblog - Comments for "American Politics in One Lesson"

I'm not holding my breath on

DF — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:01:37 +0000

I'm not holding my breath on third-parties. They aren't going to happen. There's never really been a viable third-party in America and that holds true for pretty much every other system like ours around the world. Two parties is the product of the structure of our election system.

As for hammering the MSM, you must have missed some of my previous posts. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I agree with almost

Steven Thompson — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:15:49 +0000

In reply to American Politics in One Lesson

I agree with almost everything you're saying.

Geithner? He helped create the mess. President Obama showed his lack of fiscal intellect when he hired Rubin, Summers and Geithner to establish and manage his fiscal policy.

Independents: This is where we really differ. Real Reformers will never receive the nomination of either the RNC or DNC... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech and couldn't be restricted from politics.

We cannot force the Supreme Court to undue their ruling unless we take political control of Congress and hold a Constitution Convention to address this and other modern day flaws with the original document.

If common sense cannot infiltrate the RNC/DNC then what other option do we have? The non-violent solution is elect Independent candidates to do our work or, god forbid, civil war.

How can an army of Independents get elected? We're starting that process right now by typing these comments... Hammering those who are already considering running for public office as an Independent is counter-productive...

If you want to hammer someone? Hammer the corrupt salesman of status quo, The MSM...

Steven Thompson, editor

Freedom From The Press

The two parties most

DF — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:18:48 +0000

In reply to No, the problem is that the

The two parties most certainly have different agendas, but how much of that is just the structural legacy of special interest musical chairs? Take tort reform for example. This had typically been a Republican issue, but why is that? One reason for it is that doctors tend to support the Republicans. The group that would stand to lose from tort reform, aside from patients with genuine grievances, would be trial lawyers, a group that traditionally supports the Democrats. The actual savings from typically proposed reforms, many of which have already been put into place at the state level, would amount to mere fractions of a percentage point of total spending on healthcare over the next decade. The real reason for pushing tort reform is because it would benefit doctors and doctors typically help to get Republicans elected rather than Democrats.

Similarly, we can ask ourselves whether the Democrats support labor because they really care about labor issues or because labor organizations help pay to get them elected.

I guess my question back to you would be, "More corrupt when they used to be when?" Twenty years ago? Thirty? In the 1930s? The 1890s?

More to the point perhaps is that I know of no other industrialized democracy that spends as much on campaigning and lobbying as we do. I'm sure that, assuming you wanted to nail down endpoints, you could do a study that would show you exactly how the flow of those funds may have changed over time, but that assumes that you think the important point is whether corruption now is relatively worse than it used to be.

I'm inclined to say, "Who cares?" I think the important question is whether the status quo is acceptable. I don't think that it is. The healthcare effort has illustrated very clearly that our biggest problem isn't that our leaders won't take unpopular stands when it might be necessary, but rather that they won't even do what's popular because the popular will is secondary to who pays their campaign bills. The finance situation looks even worse. No one is even pretending toward doing anything that the financial sector might not approve of.

So, my question to you is, relative comparisons aside, do you find the status quo to be acceptable? Do you think that these increasingly large sums of money are being spent to no effect?

No, the problem is that the

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:29:03 +0000

In reply to American Politics in One Lesson

No, the problem is that the two parties are little different when it comes to one issue, but that's because it's a systemic issue and they function within that system.

This is a nice distinction, more nuanced and accurate than the "both parties are the same" rhetoric one hears from Naderites.

I wonder though, are the parties any more corrupt than they used to be? The mechanisms of corruption have certainly changed, but how does one quantify differences in the level of corruption?

Good post, DF. The system's

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:03:46 +0000

In reply to American Politics in One Lesson

Good post, DF.

The system's primary interest is to preserve the system. And that's what it's doing even now that it's no longer quite adequate to do anything else.

Exactly right, DF. A perfect

acanuck — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:06:52 +0000

In reply to American Politics in One Lesson

Exactly right, DF. A perfect example is the way lobbyists and corporate campaign contributions are paralyzing the drive for meaningful health reform. McCain-Feingold has holes in it just big enough to drive trailer-truckloads of money through. Guess what? That's what it was designed to permit. Congress's lifeblood is free money.

Coincidentally, Transparency International released its annual corruption rankings today. Out of 180 countries surveyed, the U.S. slipped a notch to 19th-least-corrupt. Canada gained a spot, to tie for eighth. Afghanistan and Somalia came in last. Here's the full list:

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table