@JPB,
I don't agree with you about lobbying--there is nothing wrong with lobbying per se, it often helps to inform lawmakers about particular issues they might otherwise be unaware of or unconcerned about.
I have problems with lobbying when it involves lobbying groups throwing money at legislators, with campaign donations and other bribes--the politicians then become beholden to these "benefactors" rather than to their constituencies.
I'd rather completely overhaul our system of campaign financing, to prevent the wide-scale influence peddling we have now, before I'd do away with lobbyists.
Quote:The system is broken and the sooner we stand up to the political parties and lobbyist groups the better.
The problem boils down to the voters--those who actually do bother to vote.
If people want to vote by party, rather than on the basis of appeal of individual candidates, that's fine, if that party really reflects the voter's views and preferences.
Everyone has the same opportunity to ignore all the political party-hype, and the campaign ads, and instead really listen to the candidates, and check out their past voting records, and positions on the issues. There are town hall meetings, and debates, for all candidates for state and federal legislative offices, that anyone can attend or watch on TV. How many people actually bother to do most of those things before they decide who to vote for? Do most even watch the pre-election debates that are held for all candidates running to represent a particular Congressional district?
The system isn't really broken, we have a lazy and not always well informed electorate. They wind up getting the government they deserve.
In the end, we each have only one vote, and that vote matters just as much as everyone else's vote. There is no amount of campaign advertising or marketing that is able to buy my vote.
But, if people are going to continue to elect legislators with a virulently anti-government agenda and attitude, as we have seen with the Tea Party movement, they will wind up with a dysfunctional gridlocked government, which is what we are seeing--a Congress really can't govern effectively if you have obstructionists who basically oppose the notion of a strong government. Our two-party system relies on the art of compromise to strike balances which find some middle ground. Extremists will never be happy with that middle ground, but most people will accept it. Once the extremists get the upper hand, and block the ability to compromise, everyone is sunk.
Right now, with the fiscal cliff negotiations, the Republican party has been rendered dysfunctional by its own extremists who have hung Boehner out to dry and made him ineffective as a leader--he can't marshal his own forces. He can try to blame the President for the fiscal cliff impasse, and accuse him of being unwilling to stand up to his Democratic party, as he has just done, but that really doesn't make much sense. The President is holding to the same position he campaigned on, and the schism isn't between the President and his party, or even within the Democratic party, it's clearly within the Republican ranks. When the Republican leaders are able to stand up to their own extremists, instead of cowering before them, they'll be able to strike a reasonable compromise that's more in line with what most voters have said they want--which is some increase on taxes for the wealthy as a way of increasing revenue.
Everyone agrees on the need to cut spending--it's the Republican insistence that spending cuts be linked
right now to the tax issues--for their own face-saving and extremist appeasing reasons--that not only blocks compromise, it significantly threatens the health of our economy if we go over that fiscal cliff--and playing with the economic fate of the country over that sort of partisan nonsense is what's crazy.
