Bush Bashing - "Not Just for Joking Anymore"

[dcwrestlefan]

What would make our systems democracies?

in the united states, lets start by getting rid of the electoral college and making sure, as much as we can, that all votes count. the country would be a very different place today had that been the case in november 2000.

don't see too much movement on either of these fronts. guess nobody in washington gives a damn. theres a newsflash.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Well, they've very flawed.
But seriously, dong, what would you wish to see different?
You could take this a thousand directions. I want to know your direction.
What would make our systems democracies?

Dissolution of political parties would be a start... and some law reform would definitely help. Partisan politics will never loosen its death grip, though, and career politicians will never give up their manifest destiny of pork-barrel legislation.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Dissolution of political parties would be a start... and some law reform would definitely help. Partisan politics will never loosen its death grip, though, and career politicians will never give up their manifest destiny of pork-barrel legislation.

What is democratic about (I assume forced) dissolution of political parties?
That would be a step away from democracy.
Law reforms? Sure. But which ones. Please specify.
Democracy in nations of modern scale will inevitably be a lumbering beast. Citizens will not really feel their hands on the levers.
But the fact is that we can throw people we don't like, out of office.
Reagan's 1980 victory (much though I'm no fan of his) was an expression of popular will.
Closer victories reflect ambiguity among the electorate. Nothing undemocratic about that.
Now, Duby'a 2000 and 2004 victories were more problematical.
Dissolution of the Electoral College is long over-due and would stiffen democracy's American bona fides.
Better voting machinery would avoid repetitions of the 2004 debacle, which clearly frustrated the popular will.
But these, though necessary, are really tweaks.
What can we really do to make the system more democratic?
Not much, that I can see.
Yet, paraphrasing Churchill, the system now in place is the worst system, except for all the others.

 

[DC_DEEP]

What is democratic about (I assume forced) dissolution of political parties?
That would be a step away from democracy.

I'm not sure how you figure it would be a step away from democracy for the people to be able to have a choice that not served up in the usual two-party way. Let me start here: How many states have Democratic primaries? Republican primaries? Independent primaries? Not only is it exceptionally difficult for an independent (or anyone outside the usual two) to get on a ballot; they don't get the dollar support that the big two get; and once they clear those hurdles, the public, in general, are so terrified that "the OTHER party" will gain the upper hand, they vote along party lines regardless of policies. How often do you hear one party or the other accusing the opposition of "partisan politics" and using it in a very unflattering way? If there were not party affiliations, can you imagine this: "They are blocking my supreme court nominee based on dirty partisan politics... wait, sorry, we are all independents now. Must be because he's a slimebag."

Law reforms? Sure. But which ones. Please specify.

Very specifically, pork-barreling should become grounds for dismissal from the House. The initial phrase in all federal, state, and local laws "Any other law notwithstanding" should be stricken. Each and every law should address one specific topic, and one only. I could go on for some time, but that's a couple of prime examples of the direction that our country desperately needs to go. And by the way, the United States was neither created as, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It is a representational federal republic.

But the fact is that we can throw people we don't like, out of office.

Theoretically, yes... but in practice, not easy.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Maybe from the fact that we're governed by popularly elected representative officials?

The problem with this concept is that we have very little choice in who governs us.

Bush vs Kerry is no more of a choice than Harper vs Martin, or Khrushchev vs Beria (had there been a popular vote), for that matter. We can change the colour scheme, but we wind up with essentially the same result no matter who we vote for.

The people who really have a say in (western) government are the lobbyists and corporate interests who have the money to get their interests addressed.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The problem with this concept is that we have very little choice in who governs us.

Bush vs Kerry is no more of a choice than Harper vs Martin, or Khrushchev vs Beria (had there been a popular vote), for that matter. We can change the colour scheme, but we wind up with essentially the same result no matter who we vote for.

The people who really have a say in (western) government are the lobbyists and corporate interests who have the money to get their interests addressed.

EXACTLY!!!! Going to the polls gives the sheep a sense of participation and importance, but the fact remains that your choices have already been made for you. Being offered the choice of a red turd or a blue turd does not alter the fact that it's still a turd.

 

[dong20]

Well, they've very flawed.
But seriously, dong, what would you wish to see different?
You could take this a thousand directions. I want to know your direction.
What would make our systems democracies?

Good question and while I’m no expert I'd start with.

Existing systems:

• Dissolution of traditional organised parties, parties represent and protect their interests not ours.
• Introduce Proportional representation - It never ceases to amaze me that a party with more votes against it than for it can form a Government.
• Representatives at Ministerial level and above to forgo all external business interests for the duration of their term of office, if they wish to be ‘politicians’ then that’s what they should be and that alone, not a conduit for lobbying and personal financial advance.

At a theoretical level:

I remember discussing this at school doing 'A' levels and this is the core of what we decided as idealistic 17 year olds:

Three layer government:

Ward level:

Elected by residents of an electoral ward and accountable directly to them.

Unitary authority Level:

A number of ward level representatives (chosen by citizens of said unitary authority) to be responsible for dealing with their central government equivalents on central Government core responsibilities:

Central Government Level:

Members of central government to have authority for the enforcing the following only:

• Defence
• Foreign Policy
• Core education services
• Core health care provision
• Core police and homeland security
• Core infrastucture (power, water etc)
• Primary legislation
• Core taxation to support the above
• (Whatever else we missed )

Terms of office:

• Ward level - 1 year renewable for up to 5 consecutive terms, minimum 2 term break thereafter, no maximum terms.
• Unitary authority level – 1 year renewable up to 3 consecutive terms minimum three term break thereafter, maximum of 10 terms.
• Central level – 3 years non renewable without two term break. Maximum of 3 terms.

Extents of authority:

Ward level:

No power beyond advisory, and they are entirely responsible to passing up the requests of local residents.

Unitary authority level:

Representatives to be accountable to local residents via Ward level representatives. They have the authority to act within defined parameters beyond which they must seek a mandate from ward level representatives.

Local authorities have authourity to allocate resources to provide core services, and the authority to raise additional revenue though taxation for example to provide enhanced services should they so desire should they have a mandate from local residents.

Central Government:

Accountable to citizens via the two levels below them, they have authority to act within defined parameters. They may formulate domestic and foreign policies but these may not be enacted (except in case of clear and present danger) without the consent of 60% of Local authority representatives, who may themselves not assent without the same mandate of Ward level representatives, who in turn are of course accountable to citizens.

Representatives at all levels above ward level have the absolute responsibility to carry out the wishes of those below them where:

• Resources are available.
• There is no direct conflict between those wishes and human rights/agreed legislation.
• There is no conflict with existing policies.

Grounds for instant dismissal at all levels:

• Blatant incompetence and/or breach of terms of service;
• Conviction of an imprisonable offence.
• Behaviour incompatible with duties.

This would mean in theory that a minister can be dismissed should enough of the citizenry demand it. The decision is taken out their hands and put in ours.

I know this is all fraught with practicality issues and demands a very high level of involvement from citizens, but any workable democracy in a true sense demands that and we should accept no less. In essense policy for example, may be promulgated at any level but is authorised from the bottom up.

Please also remember that this was the construct of idealist teens but I think the basic concept had merit.:biggrin1:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Bush vs Kerry is no more of a choice than Harper vs Martin, or Khrushchev vs Beria (had there been a popular vote), for that matter. We can change the colour scheme, but we wind up with essentially the same result no matter who we vote for.

I think Bush vs Kerry was a huge choice, and if I were Iraqi, I would be still more convinced of it. Domestically, Kerry wouldn't have brought forth these insane tax cuts. He would have been far more concerned about the environment. There are lots of differences.

Khrushchev vs Beria ... who is to say? Beria was supposedly moving in a more Liberal direction in his last couple of years. Perhaps he would have ended up at no great remove from Krushchev.

Harper vs. Martin ... oh, I don't know. Harper is doing lots of things that Martin would probably never have gotten around to doing. I would have taken Martin's vision and Harper's determination to proceed ... together, that would be an estimable leader. But to say they are interchangeable ... no way.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

in the united states, lets start by getting rid of the electoral college and making sure, as much as we can, that all votes count.

Couldn't possibly argue with this.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

QUOTED FROM DC_DEEP:
I'm not sure how you figure it would be a step away from democracy for the people to be able to have a choice that not served up in the usual two-party way.

Of course, the mere having a choice not served up in the usual two-party way would be democratic, by itself. But the party system is the product, over time, of the exercise of democracy. Most people have dominant allegiance to one party or the other. Many want their preferred party in place. Taking this away, unless democratically willed, would be undemocratic. It’s that simple.

But having only two parties is unfortunate. I’m a Canadian, and we had five parties in the 2004 election, though one of them, the Bloc Quebecois, was operating only in the province of Quebec.

In the 2006 election, after two right-wing parties had amalgamated, we had four parites.

This is far healthier. Few countries are as bifurcated politically as the United States, and yes, it’s unhealthy. But the only democratic solution is for new parties to form, find strength over successive elections, and move into real contention.

Law reforms: Very specifically, pork-barreling should become grounds for dismissal from the House. The initial phrase in all federal, state, and local laws "Any other law notwithstanding" should be stricken. Each and every law should address one specific topic, and one only. I could go on for some time, but that's a couple of prime examples of the direction that our country desperately needs to go.

These may be good ideas. But practically, it’s difficult to see how such changes could be enforced. Just what is pork-barreling, for example? Agricultural subsidies are often mentioned as classic pork-barreling policies – but you won’t wipe them off the slate without many people saying they require an exception. And on and on.

Having each law address only one specific topic would often be tricky. But if you're referring to the Omnibus bills that bring together a range of measures that almost no one is entirely in support of or opposed to, of course, those are horse shit, and should not be allowed.

And by the way, the United States was neither created as, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It is a representational federal republic.

The implication is that ‘democracy’ and ‘representative federal republic’ are mutually exclusive terms. But not in my dictionary.
What do you mean by ‘democracy’? What, then, could qualify as a democracy? Has there ever been a democracy, in terms you accept?

You're a purist, DC_DEEP. I respect that. But since so few people are purists, the purist's vision, in the exercise of the democracy you so evidently value, can never carry the day.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

You're a purist, DC_DEEP. I respect that. But since so few people are purists, the purist's vision, in the exercise of the democracy you so evidently value, can never carry the day.

I wasn't clear enough. I don't mean that purists are nice but disposable. They are essential in helping set the centre of gravity. We need purists. And I'm sincere when I say I respect the purism of DC_DEEP.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I know this is all fraught with practicality issues and demands a very high level of involvement from citizens, but any workable democracy in a true sense demands that and we should accept no less. In essense policy for example, may be promulgated at any level but is authorised from the bottom up.

Please also remember that this was the construct of idealist teens but I think the basic concept had merit.:biggrin1:

Well, of course, there are huge practicality issues. But if we were starting from scratch, I think there would be a great deal of merit in virtually everything there.

One thing bothers me, though:
Central level – 3 years non renewable without two term break. Maximum of 3 terms.
I couldn't buy this. It takes time to gain momentum at the senior levels. Why not just say a maximum of three terms, or even maximum of two terms, and forgo the insistence that consecutive terms were not allowable?
Under your suggestion, it would take 21 years to get the three allowable terms in. Considerations of mortality, if nothing else, make this a bit useless.
But it was interesting. Thanks for a lengthy and thoughtful post.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...These may be good ideas. But practically, it’s difficult to see how such changes could be enforced. Just what is pork-barreling, for example? Agricultural subsidies are often mentioned as classic pork-barreling policies – but you won’t wipe them off the slate without many people saying they require an exception. And on and on.

"Pork-barrel legislation" is the practice of taking a bill which has already been debated on the floor, and chances are it will pass; the pork starts when a representative somehow manages to get a totally unrelated appropriation addendum added which enriches his district... the "bridge to nowhere" (I think that was what everyone called it) is a prime example.

Having each law address only one specific topic would often be tricky. But if you're referring to the Omnibus bills that bring together a range of measures that almost no one is entirely in support of or opposed to, of course, those are horse shit, and should not be allowed.

When I say one topic per bill, I mean a bill should not address farm subsidies in one paragraph and grants for geological research in another paragraph. Or (as in the so-called patriot act) outline probable cause for seizure of financial records in one paragraph, and provide blanket immunity against lawsuits for a specific drug company in the next paragraph.

The implication is that ‘democracy’ and ‘representative federal republic’ are mutually exclusive terms. But not in my dictionary.
What do you mean by ‘democracy’? What, then, could qualify as a democracy? .Has there ever been a democracy, in terms you accept?

No, not that I am aware of. By democracy, I mean that all the people have direct input on the decisions. Hence, election of officials is a democratic process, but our government is not a democracy. (keep in mind, I understand that in a country this size, a true democracy would be an unmanageable lumbering beast; I actually think our federal republic is an excellent idea, just not in the hands of those greedy bastard motherfuckers who are in there now.)

You're a purist, DC_DEEP. I respect that. But since so few people are purists, the purist's vision, in the exercise of the democracy you so evidently value, can never carry the day.

I am a purist, and an idealist. You are correct, it will NEVER carry the day. But the only reason is that there are so few like me who actually think they can make a difference. The sad thing is, the great majority of people think that unless they play the games that have been set out for them, they can never carry the day. But if we ALL told the politicians, all at once, that we are TIRED of their corruption, we actually WOULD carry the day. But it just won't fuckin' happen.

 

[dcwrestlefan]

EXACTLY!!!! Going to the polls gives the sheep a sense of participation and importance, but the fact remains that your choices have already been made for you. Being offered the choice of a red turd or a blue turd does not alter the fact that it's still a turd.

this sheep will take the blue turd. it stinks less. this is not a personal slam DC, i love your posts. but think we disagree here.

i really have never gotten why some people don't see the differences between parties and candidates. would we be in iraq based on a lie if gore or kerry were prez? betting not. would the deficit be through the roof? betting not - the dems did not advocate huge tax cuts for rich people (trickle down economics is bs...both W and reagan proved it). would we be planning to drill in the alaska wilderness for oil? no. would we have to worry about the supreme court being packed with anti-choice anti-gay judges? no. would there be a push to have my tax dollars go to "faith based groups" that don't care much for me? no. would environmental regulation have some more teeth? yes. i could go on.

bush is once again pushing the gay marriage ban thing. this is as predictable as sunrise/sunset. its getting close to congressional election time, and he is unpopular. he has to pull out an issue that makes his small minded base cheer. kerry or gore would not have done this.

republicans - love god and guns. hate gays. the death penalty is awesome. thats what they stand for. its not me.

if someone offers you $60 and another offers $15, i'd go for the $60, even though i want $100. no one will ever find a perfect candidate or party. it does not exist nor will it ever. i just want one closer to my views. the current bunch of pukes is about as far from what i want as can be imagined.

thinking that having tons of political parties and independents will solve the nations ills is not logical. am open minded on the subject, but after what happened with nader in 2000, am pretty pissed off still at 3rd party candidates. the guy is an asshole. he and his voters helped to put our country in the state it is in today.

 

[dong20]

Well, of course, there are huge practicality issues. But if we were starting from scratch, I think there would be a great deal of merit in virtually everything there.

One thing bothers me, though:
Central level – 3 years non renewable without two term break. Maximum of 3 terms.
I couldn't buy this. It takes time to gain momentum at the senior levels. Why not just say a maximum of three terms, or even maximum of two terms, and forgo the insistence that consecutive terms were not allowable?
Under your suggestion, it would take 21 years to get the three allowable terms in. Considerations of mortality, if nothing else, make this a bit useless.
But it was interesting. Thanks for a lengthy and thoughtful post.

Looking back, I agree....I was only 17 doing my General Studies 'A' Level and we covered politics... In essence the idea was to prevent entrenchment and to try and separate policies from individuals (who may have a personal agenda).

The theory being that if a policy was sound, anyone competent could execute it. Of course if a person were doing a fine job there should be scope for change but I was just looking back into my notes and memory; both of which are fallable. :biggrin1:

In reality 3/5 years renewable and max 3 terms for example could be better, it would all depend on the detail....and as they say the devil is in the detail. I don't think it was too bad for a teen!!

One can only dream I certainly stand by the spirit of the suggestions at the top of my post, especially the second and third which were current thinking.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

In essence the idea was to prevent entrenchment and to try and separate policies from individuals (who may have a personal agenda).

That's the specific naivete. You wouldn't say, in 1943, let's put Churchill out to pasture and let a new man show promise.
Now, I know that sounds stupid. That was the emergency of the century. No one would seriously have urged that Churchill be replaced, mid war.
But in many ways, the same idea that engagement brings familiarity, which brings competence, is born out in any challenge that one who governs will be facing. So there are good reasons to keep someone who has not yet become coagulated or self-interested, in position. So no rule can be given. Only close observation and readiness to decide, when evidence is present, that change is due.
But I know you know this. I'm just noodling.
You play good badminton.
Appreciate that.:smile:

 

[rob_just_rob]

if someone offers you $60 and another offers $15, i'd go for the $60, even though i want $100.

It's more like $15 and $10, out of a possible hundred.

With the Dems in the WH, corporations would still be dictating economic policy, money would still be going to the military as opposed to schools and affordable housing, and roughly the same portion of the citizenry would still be living in poverty.

Maybe gays would be allowed to marry. And maybe the US wouldn't be in Iraq. But, as important as these issues are, they're details in the big picture.

 

[dong20]

That's the specific naivete. You wouldn't say, in 1943, let's put Churchill out to pasture and let a new man show promise.
Now, I know that sounds stupid. That was the emergency of the century. No one would seriously have urged that Churchill be replaced, mid war.
But in many ways, the same idea that engagement brings familiarity, which brings competence, is born out in any challenge that one who governs will be facing. So there are good reasons to keep someone who has not yet become coagulated or self-interested, in position. So no rule can be given. Only close observation and readiness to decide, when evidence is present, that change is due.
But I know you know this. I'm just noodling.
You play good badminton.
Appreciate that.:smile:

Noodling is good; that's how flaws of logic are found and corrected, indeed, the following was intended to address that:

...They may formulate domestic and foreign policies but these may not be enacted (except in case of clear and present danger) without the consent of 60% of Local authority representatives.....

Said policy could for example be to suspend normal electoral processes for a period of time. As you say a change of leadership should not be undertaken lightly or even at all in times of national crisis. Of course that could also be the exact time to to so....oh so fraught with uncertainties! The weakness of of such a citizen driven structure is that it is inherently vulnerable to the fickleness of human nature.

I completely agree there is a case for suspending 'business as usual' under extreme circumstances, as I see it, the problem is not so much recognising a crisis is upon us but but accepting that it has 'passed' and then handing that power back and resuming 'business as usual'.

I wonder that this very situation is unfolding in the US and Britain and other countries right now. I'm not saying that the danger of terrorism has passed but I do believe that danger was 'courted' has definately been 'milked' for dubious purposes and is almost certainly overstated.

 

[rhino_horn]

for all i know, the government might be you - but it sure as hell ain't me. i didn't vote for any of them; hell, i didn't even choose who was up for election, and neither did you, nor anyone else here. all you did was make your mark next to the name of someone who'd already been chosen for you by institutionalized politics.

bingo. there is no party system in my opinnion, its only a distraction every 4 years to keep our sights off of what they r really doing; and so is the controversy on gay marriage, abortion, healthcare, religion and all this other shit...no politician gives a f*ck, he just wants to know where his next 5000 dollar hooker is comin from.

they dont give a crap if its arabs in iraq/palestine that are suffering, or the people in new orleans...by the time they piss off the people enough for them to do something, itll be too late.

my respect has to be earned - it won't be squeezed out of me through fear of reprisal.

yes it will.

*madison once wrote, "...the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."--this government certainly isnt. they've sold our army to the arab "royalty," they sold our ports, we're indebted to the chinese in more than one way, they've wiped their asses with the constitution.....whats next? what else can they sell/take?...maybe its time we reminded them why they should be afraid of the people(shaves head)....


**to NSA- just kidding...:wank:,i didnt mean any of that^^^, also im a coward.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...if someone offers you $60 and another offers $15, i'd go for the $60, even though i want $100. no one will ever find a perfect candidate or party. it does not exist nor will it ever. i just want one closer to my views. the current bunch of pukes is about as far from what i want as can be imagined.

thinking that having tons of political parties and independents will solve the nations ills is not logical. am open minded on the subject, but after what happened with nader in 2000, am pretty pissed off still at 3rd party candidates. the guy is an asshole. he and his voters helped to put our country in the state it is in today.

No, one will never find the perfect candidate, nor (especially) the perfect party. But your last paragraph proves my point. If Nader had been the candidate for the Dems, and not for a 3rd, do you think he would have gotten more votes? Well, duh, yeah, of course he would have. That is exactly what I'm talking about - people are voting for political parties, not individual candidates. I'm just saying that the parties detract from people being able to vote for the better candidate, out of fear that their party may not retain power. If there were no political parties, then that would not be an issue.