So why are we incapable of electing true statesmen to politics anymore? (Representatives, unemployment)

[eskercurve]

Regardless of whether you are democrat or republican, it always amazes me that these days politics are charged and highly divisive. Neither party really cares about working with others except when politically expedient. Even the current President's attempts at bipartisanship are basically him doing what he said he'd do on his campaign.

The Legislative branch is even worse, from fear and hate mongering and zombie-like deferral to the ultra religious nutcases on the right, and idiotic corruption and air headedness on the left, none of these bums are worthwhile to lead our nation. We're capable of more than this, I think.

Even if the ultra religious right have hijacked the Republican party, where there's smoke there's fire and those of us more to the left (like myself) need to understand what's up and ask questions, and NOT assume that "oh it's just because they're nutjobs" or "they're just a bunch of idiots" ... idiots or not they're still holding a position of power and respect elected by their populace.

I mean, take a look at the late Sen. Kennedy. He was one of the most liberal votes in the Senate but he at least talked to the right and tried to understand their issues, then came to a determination on whether they were right or wrong, and whether there's room for negotiation. As fewer of his kind are in those halls, we'll see just more childish bickering and flailing about.

So wht is it with modern politics which makes us incapable of debate, instead of useless ad hominem attacks, voting / legislating for special interests, and nepotism?

[cleanhouse]

On word- Gerrymandering.

Eliminate it and you will see the poltical discourse take a positive turn.
With gerrymandering representatives do not have to appeal to the clear thinking independents. They only have to appeal to the radical wings of their party.

[irspow]

So what is it with modern politics which makes us incapable of debate, instead of useless ad hominem attacks, voting / legislating for special interests, and nepotism?

I would disagree that this is a "modern" problem, but I would like to offer what I believe is at the root of the basic problem. There is a philosophical divide that exists in this country where there can be no compromise because the two sides are diametrically opposed. I am not talking about a Republican/Democrat dispute either. I am talking about the basic beliefs of American people. You have one group that believes that all evil stems from collectivist ideals. You have another group that believes that all evil stems from individual freedom.

These are beliefs, and no matter who is in power or what legislation is being proposed, a very large segment of the population will be in opposition because no one wants to discuss the fundamental beliefs that truly form the deep division in our nation. It basically comes down to whether one believes that government should alter the ability of people to act freely simply to artificially produce outcomes in society which do not benefit everyone being manipulated.

In simplest terms, look at any Federal policy aimed at "curing" poverty. (You could pick any Federal policy, this is just a focus.) One group, the collectivists, of people believe that the poor are the result of society and thus the responsibility of the entire populace. The other group, the individualists, believe the poor are the result of individuals acting freely and thus they believe that they should not be held responsible for the results of the actions of others.

The way I view it is that I should not be compelled by threat of government force in any way to remedy a situation that I personally have done nothing to cause. This is not to say that I should not help someone in need of my own free will, but that I view the mandatory order to do so as evil. Why? First, as I have stated, if I did not cause such "plights", I should not be obligated by law to remedy them. Second, I do not believe that the government should define certain outcomes of people acting freely as "wrong".

I believe government should be used to maximize freedoms and not to determine the "proper" results of said freedoms. While collectivists only seek to create specific outcomes and then determine which freedoms should be expanded or reduced to produce those outcomes.

Finally, to reiterate the basic point, this divide is a philosophical one that resides at the very foundation of our belief system. These beliefs will not shift easily and the opposite sides of these beliefs cannot produce compromise. The "ugliness" of politics will never go away as long as these different foundations exist. Regardless of which side you are on, the other side is the complete antithesis to everything you believe in as these foundational beliefs shape every position taken even on the most trivial of matters regarding government.

[Swingblade]

Very well thought out post and I agree,but you missed the other divide that has been going on since the founders.And that is the argument of a strong centralized gvt or a collection of free states.Both parties are for a strong centralized gvt that is one policy they both have defended.When was the last time you heard a {R} say "that issue belongs to the states"
To me, that is the biggest obstacle of bringing our country together is the strong centralized gvt and one size fits all approach.Like I have brought up before if a state wanted low taxes,less regulation,pro life and no gay marriage.They would be able to exercise their freedom as another state that wanted high taxes,loads of social programs,regulation, and pro abortion.
You would have the freedom to choose the way that you wanted to be governed if your state was to conservative or liberal you could move to a state that has your ideals.I know this will never happen only in my utopia dreams and some of the founders.

[RFSilver]

Why are we incapable? What encourage the grown-ups to be capable in the first place... an enemy!
As long as there was an enemy around, then it brought out the best in grown-ups and their organizations.

Thats what it looks like from a teenager point of view. We can be good capitalist ( donations to communities, look out
for the family... etc ) as long as we're afraid of the red menace taking over the world!

Guess what... China doesn't have a social safety net so I guess they believe in individualism too! Haaahahahaha! Their people have to save their money to protect themselves... social concern was a democratic idea in practice... because of
the Gospel of Jesus... my take and I'm not religious at all.

So the good ole USA is looking more and more like China with this individualism stuff while China is moving foward looking like how a christian nation should look like! How wack is THAT???? Haaaahahahahaha!

Meanwhile the Banker group is f-ing both groups ( repubs and demos )
cause they don't need a nation who can't consume anymore debt!

Time for us kids to take over and I bet we'll do a better job! China doesn't consume, no social programs like unemployment insurance etc so they save and live the basics! China make crude oil deals in Latin America, outbid nations in building construction on that nation's own soil (check out poland lately? ) ... and have cornered the rare earth minerals market!

Meanwhile, the grownups in America are having tea parties!! LOL!!!

If you really believed in justice for all, equality for all, liberty for all, freedom for all, yall would have kicked these phony parties to the curb a long time ago! The standard would have been the ideals and not using these ideals as soundbites
to snowjob people.

China is the future... they educate their young, they're moving toward social safety neting for their people, they control America through her debt, they are the explorers in clean tech, missile tech etc... they drive construction in other
countries by outbidding everybody else and bring in the cheapest labor to work those jobs, and they're civil.

So keep having yall tea parties and all... dreaming you're be in power by 2012. By 2012 the New World Order will be firmly in place! A bunch of dummies...

awww I gotta do my chores! Cya!

Sign me, A Kid who's gonna learn how to live in the New World Order!

RFSilver

[irspow]

True, reinstituting States rights is perhaps the most important battle that should be fought that really hasn't been touched since the Civil War destroyed them. The Constitution, in my opinion, is perfectly clear in this matter placing the Federal Government at the mercy of the States and The People in all but a very very limited way.

I am surprised at the underlying hatred of such a notion though. It seems that the founders intention would present the best of both worlds to the major factions in this country. Collectivists and Individualists could both have States that would serve as their mini-utopias.

The even better reason for returning the States to their proper place of power would be to demonstrate clearly the success or failure of particular ideologies side by side. Then again it is probably the same reason that there is so much resistance to such an idea too. Who really wants a perfect example that their philosophy is counterproductive for all to see given virtually the same environment?

I think the resistance to States rights is strong because a large portion of people already know what the result would look like. You would have entire states look like cities such as Detroit because of their collectivist policies. The paupers and socialists would flock to and then destroy whichever State attracted them.

[RFSilver]

I begged my granny to let me finish ... talking to the grown ups for a minute.

So I gotta hurry up and finish my point. Why do I think kids can see through this malarky? You may ask what malarky?

OK let me run it down to ya. The capiltalists needed social netting to convince everybody they don't have to save. So ya so called socilaism and socialist programs serve capitalists!!! Ok I'll go slow.

If the people dont save, they spend. Spending serves the capitalists and drives ya'll economy. So social netting = to more domestic spending.
Spending benefits bankers and investors. So instead of having tea parties why don't you have thinking parties?

And think at these parties... if capitlaists dont need social netting any more, social safety netting programs so that people can spend and not worry about their futures... where they gonna get their money from?

See how easy that was... I got a guess... they are going to China!!! I betcha they will push social netting over there!!! And this is from a kid...

OK I finished!!
Back to the tea party!! HaahHaahaha


So the point was to make a consumer economy... To be successful you have to have social netting to relieve people's fear. See how smart they were? But not smarter then Me!!! Hahahhahaaaa!!! That's why I hate debt.

Social netting created a consumer economy which made investors rich! Now you don't think they knew that? Yeah they knew it but they also knew you didn't!!! So now they got you running around in tea parties!! Keeping you busy not thinking while they make their deals overseas.

RFSilver

[RareWonder]

::: shakes head laughing ... teases :::

This is what happens when you keep kids away from MTV... they start to think!

Very true asessment RFSilver. Social Safety netting has served Capitalist needs because
people are encouraged to spend and not save... the very opposite of social behavior in
a marxist socialist country (China). In China, people save and not spend, also no social safety net.

So... we are incapable because we have made political parties the enemy in place of
a real enemy to focus on. From an untarnished view, it does appear that we are becoming
a reflection of social behavior practiced in China lead by the Republican party no doubt.

(Apparently being an American excuse us from taking the time to understand
other ways of life, and the correct name of the system under which they live.)

And you are right... social safety netting did benefit the investor class because it allowed
citizens to spend rather than save unlike socialist/marxists.

Truth can be shocking indeed. Keep thinking watching observing listening... I for one
appreciate other points of view, particularly from the youth.


rare

[Azalea City Man]

RFSilver, I'm glad a "kid" is trying to analyze macro social situations instead of the numerous outher unproductive activities one could be doing ... so good for you ... but save the kid "internet-type" please . First, it's easier for others to take you seriously when you speak in a coherent manner. Second, it makes you sound like an immature valley girl or something. But hey - at least you give a crap and that's more than alot of "kids" ...

[RareWonder]

I don't mind him being what he is... I'm more interested in his message and its a powerful one at that.
( Some of us have come to know RFSilver from other threads and yes he is a teenager (kid) )

I teach, and my gosh what kids say and how they say it these days make RFSilver look like a
genuis ... laughing.

Speak as you are RFSilver... Maturity and time will take care of the rest.

rare