Glaring faults of US style democracy

blatham, Our great golden state of California has forecast a over 35 billion deficit for the next 18 months. There was no "balance" just because we had democrats and republicans controlling our governor and legislature. "Our" government didn't announce this shortfall until after the elections. Their "corruption" resulted in a deficit equal to $1,000 for every man, woman, and child living in this state. Not only are they irresponsible, but grossly irresponsible. Our kind of democracy just doesn't work, because our government has never learned to control their spending. If they ran their own household budgets the way they run our government, they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. They are all noncompetents, and WE are responsible for putting them into office. Is it working? I don't think so. I calls em the way I sees em. c.i.

ci
my god you are a grumpy old bugger

love
b

blatham, Yes, I'll admit I'm "a grumpy old bugger," but don't you think it's justified? Not enough of us around to change the status quo. The majority of voters feels comfort in revoting in the same people into office, and ignore the damage they continue to foster upon us. It's a frustration, and who amongst us with some rational thinking wouldn't be grumpy? c.i.

The Founding Fathers knew that perfection was not possible, and they did appreciate how easily the best of men can go astray. Meeting secretly some of the best minds in the several States drew up the Constitution. A marvelous document that pits one arm of government against another. Split into small pieces, no one branch can become so powerful as to easily dominate the others. The bicameral legislature is pitted against itself; one part, Congress, representing the propertyless masses, and the other, Senate, representing the interests of the States, and the wealthy. Unfortunately, the Senate has lost some of its function -- though the longer terms do tend to make it more conservative.

People can easily find faults with our system. Its slow and cumbersome. It caters to special interests, and some polititians are corrupt and abuse their positions. The Executive is always seeking to enlarge the powr of it's office, and Judges tend to get out of touch with popular sentiment. On and on it goes.

The system has worked rather well for a couple of hundred years, and I'm not convinced that it's broken now to the point where any radical change is necessary. Many of the faults complained of exist because the government is reflecting the desires of the People. Polititians do whatever they must to be elected, and it is the public they must convince. Bread and Circuses were the foundation of the Roman Republic, and it remains a powerful key to electoral success in America. The People don't always make good choices, but our system lets them be a foolish as they wish. Is that wrong? Who is in a postion to make "better" choices for free individutals? We MIGHT have a more efficient government, a government that made RIGHT choices, but only by giving up our individual freedom.

Cicero, how would you change the Constitution to arrive at a better system?

You seem to dislike President Bush and feel that he is somehow to blame for all of the problems besetting us. These problems are not novel, nor did they begin at the start of the last administration. The problems in the Middle East can easily be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century, and religious conflict between Islam, Judaism and Christianity have always existed. Technilogical advances solve some problems, but create others. At the beginning of the 20th century oil wasn't a big thing, but the automobile hadn't yet revolutionized transportation. Communications have made the world smaller, but has not been able to change the chauvinistic tribalism that exists in every human heart.

Asherman, I'm not so ignorant to think I have a better plan, nor am able to develop a "Constitution" to direct any nation. Many of the current problems I identify are not new, but I would think that the sophistication of the citizenry would dictate otherwise. Yes, I dislike President Bush, because his primary mission now is to make Iraq our enemy, but he has not shown to many how he justifies his stance. I dislike his ten year tax cut plan, because nobody in this world is capable of predicting any economy for ten years, nor creating any budget that can possibly be accurate. I also dislike his pro-industry stance, while not doing much to support our ecology. Other than his war on terrorism, I don't see much coming out of the Bush white house. He's losing support of our allies, and the many individuals that live on this globe. His stupid statement that "Sharon is a man of peace" has only outraged many peace loving peoples, including many in the Arab world. The only good thing he has done, with the influence of Powell, and possibly Rice, is that he has back peddled his rhetoric on the pre-emptive strike on Iraq, and is now working with the UN. You don't need to tell me about Bush's high approval rating, because I'm usually in the minority on my thinking anyway. c.i.

Cicero,

Actually, I agree with many of your criticisms of the President and his policies. However, Saddam's Iraq was an enemy of the Western world long before either Bush came into office. I think the Shrub should be doing a better job of telling the world why Saddam has to go, and go he must. I would worry much more if Powell, Rumsfield and the Vice President weren't around to provide adult supervision. On the other hand, the President has been decisive and moved against our enemies with determination. I doubt that the U.N. is going to be of much use in the coming months, but by all means we need to use it constructively to build whatever support we can. The world will not be safe from the sort of Al Queda-like terrorism so long as there are rogue nations, like Iraq, that supply safe-haven, and resources to them.

For what it's worth, I dislike the appearance of favoritism when we insist on a hard-line against one nation in defiance of UN resolutions, while ignoring the defiance of another. We seem inconsistent, and the distinction is probably too great for most people in the world appreciate.

Cicero,

Sorry about that large red typeface -- I just had to try it out. People always want to complain about the government, but no one has any idea about how to make it better. We fail to appreciate just how hard it is to govern a super-State in the modern world. We ignor the blessings we share, to pick at the little things that must always annoy. All in all the government is pretty much doing what it's supposed to do. There isn't any grand conspiracy to subvert the Constitution, and most government officials are doing the best they can and with good motives.

We, as a People, became increasingly disillusioned with our government back in the 60s when LBJ tried to fight an unpopular war while conducting the greatest social revolution in the nation's history. Nixon and his crowd actually did try to subvert the Constitution. Nixon did some very good things for this country, but in the end he was an enemy of our system. Carter was, and is, a great man and allround good fellow, but he was a disaster as a Presidental leader. Clinton, in my view, was a bad as Nixon for the country. I believe that Clinton gave sensitive intelligence to operatives of the PRC, and sold Executive influence to the highest bidder. Clinton was impeached on the wrong grounds, and should have been convicted. Hillary is, in my view, just as opportunistic as her spouse -- I feel sorry for the shame their child must feel.

BTW, I'm a Federalist, with just a touch of Whig, by politics. Jeffersonian politics make for good idealism, but has undermined the good work of the Federalist Party. However, the People abandoned us in the war fever that led to the War of 1812. Federalism now, and forever.

It's difficult for many to seperate fact from fiction with the advent of the Internet. The American people tend to make judgements of their politicians from sound bites and sarcastic humor a la Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, among others. With the complexity of society and world problems today, the President has even a longer time learning in office and it seems to take virtually their entire first term and sometimes two terms into their second term if they are fortunate to have one. And then, has anyone noticed how few Presidents survive the slings and arrows of their second term? Part of that is the inclination of the voter to give the Senate and/or Congress over to the opposing party because they are dissatisfied with the learning on the job performance. This gives the opposing party the leverage to roil up all sorts of garbage in the pot. In doing so, they roil up some of their own garbage. And that's politics -- it's also not just our national politics but state, county and city politics.

You identify another sticking point about Bush: He's playing favoritism about UN resolutions and who complies and who doesn't. Inconsistencies drive me nuts, especially where it pertains to international policies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why many nations abhor our politics. On the other hand, I see a whole lot of negative rhetoric about the US, but not many countries put their money where their mouth is. It's all talk and no action. Look at all the Arab countries that speak against the US's support of Israel, but we don't see any Arab country supporting their Palestinian brothers except by terrorism. They seem blind to their own failings. Look at France, a country we saved from two world wars. All they do is treat and speak negatively against the US and Americans. They have no sense of obligation, but are willing to support the stance of a dictator like Saddam. Go figure. It's more like, the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. c.i.

In the world of international politics it is dangerous for any nation to pursue idealism, rather than Real Politic. Pragmatic policies to advance the nation's interests are the only sound approach. We need to see clearly what motivates and drives international political policy, not what we believe should be. Today's friend may be tomorrows foe, and those we fought yesterday are today's best allies. We need to ask ourselves what is each of the player's capabilities, then prepare for the worst case scenario. We have come to rely too heavily on electronic and satelite intelligence, and should become much more active in developing and maintaining solid Humint sources everywhere. English has become the lingua francois of the modern era, so we don't have adequate speakers of those tongues favored by our enemies.

The West will not be brought down by a nuclear strike, but the credible threat of a nuclear strike might persuade central governments to acquiess to demands. Are we willing to risk a major city and millions of casualties to back, say the South Korean government from an invasion of the North? If China were in the midst of a great famine, invaded southeast Asia, and warned the United States to stay out of it or suffer a nuclear strike against Los Angeles -- would we send troops to protect Vietnam? The threat is the weapon, not the device. One wins not be crushing the opponent, but by undermining his will to continue the struggle. Some of these folks who wish us ill are sophisticated. Don't underestimate the enemy. Don't over estimate him either. We are strong, but we have to remain dedicated to the fight and willing to accept a certain amount of loss and damage.

There will be more attacks on Western interests. We will suffer more deaths, and economic disruption. The enemy will exploit our weaknesses, and use our openess, our sensitivity and values against us. Propaganda designed to make us hesitate, question ourselves and back away from difficult situations play into the enemy's hands.

Asherman

I very much admire your reasoning, sense of history, and desire to apply pragmatism to help us understand the factors causing the events shaping our world of today however your generalities are not very helpful in identifying problem areas and developing possible solutions. I also appreciate the fact that what we have has worked fairly well for 200 plus years but that doesn't mean we should not try to make it better. I can also appreciate the fact that the founding fathers made it very difficult to make changes knowing that it was all too easy for fools to think they were improving something when in actual fact they were only creating more problems than they were solving.

I voted for the legislative branch being the most vulnerable to corruption--both the senate and the congress, for the following reasons:
1. It is all too easy for them to vote themselves pay raises, penion plans, exemptions for this and that.
2. With no limits on terms, those who have hoodwinked their constituents with pork barrel projects(becoming so powerful they control all deals) keep getting elected because of the pork, I believe have formed such a corrupt society within the system, that they are untouchable and are doing great harm to our society and the system. These people are much too powerful you must agree.
3. Most of them are lawyers(and you know what position lawyers occupy on the totem pole of integrity) and have found every loophole known to man and are creating new loopholes daily as they write more laws and rules to perpetuate their own selfish lives.

You only have to listen to them pontificate and point fingers at the the victims(excluding the crooks of the corporate scandals) of their hearings. Then as soon as the cameras are gone they go back to their offices and devote all their time to getting re-elected and stuffing their pockets.

These are the real crooks----certainly this is a bad generality but the percentage of crooks is getting higher every day.

This is my opinion only but I have been observing it for many, many years and if observing makes one an authority then I --ARE--one

I know lawyers are tempting targets, but of the literally thousands I have known and had dealings with only a few were as crooked as their clients. The Law is a great and noble profession, for it is the foundation of all civil society.

"Lawyer: one who protects us against robbery by taking away the temptation." H. L. Mencken

Asherman

So then we are doomed to just let them pontificate, point their fingers and stuff their pockets at our expense----oh sure we can vote them out of office. Well they couldn't or wouldn't vote Strom Thurmond out of office but yet he has been brain dead for years.

Lawyers aren't so bad when they are called upon in their profession to find ways to circumvent the law on your behalf. However, once we elect them as our political leaders and they are taken away from the auspices of the courtroom with a judge in the room that the shenanigans begin. They're not educated and trained to make laws, but to interpret and manipulate them. That gives them the talent to write laws that are open to interpretation and easily manipulated. They purposefully on the behalf of their wealthiest constituents write laws with loopholes.

Abraham Lincoln: As a nation, we began by declaring that "All men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." Soon, it will read "All men are created equal, except Negroes, and Foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty. To Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy

dyslexia

I think you're on the wrong thread))))))))----How can you suddenly jump to racism and prejudice out of anything said on this thread?

oops

LW

We have found something on which we can agree.

perception, I was thinking the same thing about you! Your post to Asherman sounded very close to what I believe, except my thoughts are about all branches of government's ability for misbehavior and misdirection. It's a good thing we live in the US where we are free to express our disagreements about almost any subject under the sun about our government. c.i.