Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
[/b]
Might as well with the do nothing Congress. You do know the public has little to no trust in our elected officials don't you in many polls? Why do you think the outsider is getting more votes, the ones that get elected turn into puppets of some sort or another.
|
Sure; I fully realize the frustration that lies like a thick cake of mud that covers this election. And I wasn't picking on the person I responded to- I was simply using that post to ask some basic and important questions to all of us here, including myself.
All the questions I asked really revolve around only two of them:
1.If you do not trust our government, then who do you trust?
Voting is nothing more than officially trusting the candidate will do the job he's seeking. Everything in our government works (or doesn't) based on trust alone. It is important to trust the government.
If you cannot, then a person has to have a viable alternative to what now exists. No one "Sends a message" with their vote except for this; I trust that person. I don't trust the other person.
Every other 'message' is so vague that it cannot ever be interpreted accurately. So no elected official really knows what the true meaning of the message is. Since they are all obligated by oath to follow the laws of the United States, the best they can do is to uphold their pledge and follow those laws, with an attempt to decypher what the 'message' is supposed to be.
This can lead to a government collapse. One person's vague message can be different than another person's. Our officials have no way of really knowing which to follow or not, or which is vital or not. And the messages that are sent are continually shifting in all directions from the pressures of the moment on our society.
No 'message' is 'loud and clear'. Discontent can sure be loud, but it's the loud static of the mob. Lots of voices all saying different things, producing only a lot of noise that has no definition. Only a babble of opposing loud voices.
Any misunderstanding can do massive damage to all of us, especially when there is no understanding or overwhelming belief to be found in the noise.
Brexit is a perfect example of this. Enough voters were angry enough to vote for something they didn't know enough about. The vote was nothing more than a signal of angry unhappiness.
So the government, obeying the will of the people, had to go along with the voters. And when they did, every single person suddenly found they lost 1 of every 3 dollars they owned. That certainly wasn't the message they intended to send.
And then, because their political leaders cannot read minds, they began to resign. Leaving the government both crippled and leaderless in very uncertain times all around the world.
i don't think we want to do that to ourselves.
2. If you must trust someone, why is it better to trust someone you do not know more than someone you know? How is a stranger more worthy of blind trust than a person a voter can already estimate what actions he will take?
All voters are faced with this question every election. There is always a brand-new person who wants the job. Sometimes, our choice is between two brand-new people, but most often, it is between someone we know and someone we don't.
They will both promise tempting promises. They will both claim they are the absolutely best person for the job. They will both offer their qualifications. We, as voters, judge all of this, and choose the one who will lead us all- those who voted for the person and those who did not alike. And then, only time will inform us if our judgement was good or not.
If the stranger proves worthy of delivering on his promises, and enough people are happy enough with his work, then he will be the known person the next time around, facing another stranger. Our trust has been vindicated in him.
There will always be those who think that person did a lousy job. Or that he was a crook. Or that he did nothing at all except take his salary.
There will always be those who think that the person said one thing to get elected and then did another. Since all we have is our trust in that guy, if he doesn't go the way some people think he should, then he's either doing his job, or he's somehow a traitor, a quisling, or a weakling that bows down to some un-defined mysterious power that's out there in the shadows someplace.
Because every decision any elected person makes is not going to ever make some voters happy. Some will always be disappointed over some decision, no matter what it is. That is the essential nature of a republican system of democracy.
And it is always the greatest strength and the greatest weakness, at the same time, of any democracy. Any democracy can fail instantly when enough voters make the wrong choices and continue to make them a few times.
Look at Venezuela. Brazil. England. Haiti. All are modern failed democracies. There are dozens of failed democracies in the past.
Failure is what comes when too many citizens vote their emotions over their best and most serious judgement. That's very easy to do, especially when a nation is in trying times with a lot of unfocused but wide discontent.
Sometimes, a democracy offers no choices that are very appealing to us all. Sometimes, one person is so appealing as to dominate the other contender, and the choice is very simple. Sometimes, both are so appealing either would be as good on the job as the other.
That's always the way it is at some level of our government. But no matter the outcome, we all put our trust in someone. The alternative is no government at all. Anarchy.
Anarchy was once considered to be viable, 100 years ago or more. It's a romantic belief that the common man is noble, pure in all intentions, and is always wise and thoughtful. That with no government to rule us, we would all be happier, more prosperous, and more content wihtout the burdensome yoke of the government on our necks.
Has there ever been a time like that? No. Because human beings are simply not like that, even though it is the very most pleasant thought we all share. A century ago, it was even more romantic than nowadays.