American Politics

[-Lexus- 2]

If your point is that Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and pay attention to what is happening on the global stage, I agree with you. But I can tell you that many of us have only started to pay attention to what is happening on the national stage.

Well, maybe I wasn't exactly thinking of "sand", but you are correct.

Because of the insular (should I say isolationist) attitude that had been fostered since the beginning of the 20th century in America, it will be an uphill battle to make them more than locally aware. This is not helped by the news media who are entirely in the clutches of the marketing cartels.

There are too many distractions with the doings of the entertainment industry, too many tabloid papers and magazines, and the information tsunami is beyond the ken of most people. They just can't cope with the information overload, and adding something like the Reuters and/or BBC feeds to their lives would probably be a bad thing, let alone the CBC, and we are only next door. The political stuff alone would be just a silly distraction for them, since you have your own problems, but would knowing what was really going on off-continent in other than the Hawaiian island group find any ears? I seriously doubt it.

Just as a matter of instance, what do you think the average Joe thinks about the Fukushima mess beyond thinking, "It's not my problem", and "I hate nuclear power."? Do they think of the human cost? The economic cost? What about the general Japanese disaster? Up here, some automobile plants are closing (including Chrysler) for want of parts that are not shipping from Japan. Does Mr. America notice?

Maybe your problem is now the "huddled masses" you now have on your hands.

Dont think its much better outside America. Sure, the average European might be a little better informed then the average American, but in most cases its only a bit. Do you think most Europeans know about the consequences of the disaster in Japan, let alone care about them? Most of them know that there was a tsunami and that the reactor is damaged but other then that they dont know or care. And honestly I dont blame people for not caring that much about the specific details. If youre a farmer in America or Europe, or if youre working at a construction site, what does all the specific information mean to you? Why would you care about the details that have no significance for your life?

Not knowing stuff only becomes a problem when you have to choose or act on something and you do not have the information needed to make a fully informed decision. And trust me, that doesnt only happen in America. It happens in Europe just as much.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yes, the JIT principle in manufacturing only works if your parts source is operating. This is why putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea, and this is an example of what happens when the basket gets smashed. Multi-sourcing parts would be (slightly) more expensive, and the MBA-type bottom liners wouldn't like that.

I hope you enjoyed your trip to Toronto. I see the exchange rate is not in your favor, and has gotten worse.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

CNN told me that all government workers are getting furlough days (or weeks). I wonder if that includes all workers (state, county, and city) or just national? They are also delaying tax returns. The workers deemed "essential" are forced to work without pay. I honestly see wide-scale tax evasion to make up for the lack of income and protests. There might hit a point where the workers forced to take out loans to cover their lost incomes sueing the government or just not paying their taxes. This is worse than the Romans paying in paper and taxing in gold.

[-Lexus- 2]

CNN told me that all government workers are getting furlough days (or weeks). I wonder if that includes all workers (state, county, and city) or just national? They are also delaying tax returns. The workers deemed "essential" are forced to work without pay. I honestly see wide-scale tax evasion to make up for the lack of income and protests. There might hit a point where the workers forced to take out loans to cover their lost incomes sueing the government or just not paying their taxes. This is worse than the Romans paying in paper and taxing in gold.

I dunno. It doesnt seem very Japanese to either dodge taxes or sue the government in this case. Its a totally different work ethic then in the West.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I don't think Japan is the issue. What happens when the U.S. Feds shut down at midnight tonight for lack of legislative co-operation on an urgent money bill? Isn't that taking partisan politics a step too far? Who is being held to ransom?

I haven't seen the bill, but I suspect the problem is partisan sacred cows that have been tacked on so that the executive is damned if they sign it and damned if they veto it.

Maybe it is time to stop all the stupid party vs. party games and get on with what they were elected to do, namely, govern. Too bad the people can't fire the lot. They are the people's employees, after all.

  Edited April 8, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Easy Bakes 253]

The 1st reform that needs to take place is eliminating the riders on legislation.

IF such and such needs money then vote on that and that only.

some highway construction project in Iowa doesn't need a rider for pot hole repairs in Alabama

[Duke87 1,070]

On a more lighthearted note...

At least they know how to have a little fun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

EB has the right of it. No bill should be amended with something that is irrelevant to the main thrust of the legislation. Surely the rules of the House and Senate can be amended to forbid frivolous or off-topic amendments reaching the floor. If someone wants something voted on, let him raise his own bill for it. No more sneaking around.

Isn't this within the purview of the Speakers now? They are the ones who decide what is in order.

[Larks2242 251]

Maybe it is time to stop all the stupid party vs. party games and get on with what they were elected to do, namely, govern. Too bad the people can't fire the lot. They are the people's employees, after all.

Agreed, the budget could be temporary fixed, but it seems the democrats want no part of it, I can't believe Obama vetoed the bill, just goes to show their true agenda.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Maybe it is time to stop all the stupid party vs. party games and get on with what they were elected to do, namely, govern. Too bad the people can't fire the lot. They are the people's employees, after all.

Agreed, the budget could be temporary fixed, but it seems the democrats want no part of it, I can't believe Obama vetoed the bill, just goes to show their true agenda.

Minor detail--Obama didn't veto "the bill," as no bill whatsoever has yet been passed by the Congress. What was threatened was a veto of any stop-gap measure to temporarily keep a budget-less government functioning while the Congress continues arguing over a partial budget to finish out the remains of this year. The threatened (but not exercised) veto was apparently intended to keep our legislators from putting off the immediate decisions, and it arguably may have worked, in that the parties in Congress ultimately at the last minute agreed to a budget compromise, the details of which are now being drafted into legislation for the Congress to soon vote on.

Admittedly, though, this is a temporary fix, in that all the political drumbeating was over small segments of a partial budget meant to get us through the remains of this year. As the last Congress could not agree to a budget, the government has all this time been operating under short, temporary, stop-gap measures, which is why the spending authorizations for the various government operations were running out, bringing a shutdown.

Amusingly, this budget should have been the easy one, as a good chunk of the year is already passed, and it is really too late to devise, codify, and implement any grand fiscal policy changes that would make any budgetary significance within this year. The real fight will be the 2012 budget next, for which this Congress has yet to really address. They don't have much time--nine months to work out a bipartisan spending compromise for an upcoming election campaign year!

Beyond the short-term yearly budgets, we also have the long-term fiscal direction of the country to deal with, for which we saw the opening shots fired by both the Republican-majority House last week and President Obama today in their greater long-range plans. The outlays for Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and obligatory national debt maintenance all versus incoming tax revenue...that is where the magic needs to happen as that is the equation which is botched. Everything else is sideshow political quibbling and smokescreening, and any politican talking long-term government finances without talking about those five areas is simply lying to us. Don't let them fool you with bait-and-switches of timescales or strawman issues.

As for Democrats versus Republicans, you'll find few if any Republicans willing to realistically address the fiscal issues either. Referring back to A Nonny Moose, the problem is neither of them were elected to "govern"...they were elected to tell their us what we want to hear, which is that we can have our cake and eat it too, and to turn that absurdism into public policy.

  Edited April 14, 2011 by Odainsaker  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You make a good point. In a "democracy" the people get the government they deserve.

We are currently suffering a federal election, and we get go choose between the same old and the old same. I wish Mr. None of the Above was on the ballot.

[Cobraroll 138]

I have a feeling that if there ever was a time for a third party to emerge on the political scene in the US, this is it. The two current parties are just opposing each other, and lodged to deep in the conflict to see or care about everything else, or so it's easily percieved, at least. A more moderate party would easily score some votes in being more flexible and not rooted in old set-in-stone values, or the eternal conflicts between the Democrats and Republicans.

When two parties get too used to rule, or the system allow them to block every decision the ruling party make, the entire system will fall into rot eventually. Let's roll in something new.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I have a feeling that if there ever was a time for a third party to emerge on the political scene in the US, this is it. The two current parties are just opposing each other, and lodged to deep in the conflict to see or care about everything else, or so it's easily percieved, at least. A more moderate party would easily score some votes in being more flexible and not rooted in old set-in-stone values, or the eternal conflicts between the Democrats and Republicans.

When two parties get too used to rule, or the system allow them to block every decision the ruling party make, the entire system will fall into rot eventually. Let's roll in something new.

That will never happen. Look what happened to the Tea Party.

Soon as they started getting any kind of serious attention they got vilified by the other parties

spin doctors, and given the appearance to be a bunch of troublemakers.this appearance stuck and they are now done.

  Edited April 14, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The only thing that would start up a third party in the U.S. is a real, live grassroots movement by the people. Furthermore, none of the new candidates should be beholden to either of the classical parties. Because of the length of campaigns and the funding required due to the size of the electorate, it will need someone with independent wealth to step in to support it. This is very nearly impossible because of the embedded position of the donkeys and the elephants.

The only hope I see is a real, non-radical Green Party. Their problem at the moment is that most people see them as a protest group at best and terrorists at worst. Between now and the 2020 election, they have a lot of cleaning up to do on their image, and should try an penetrate some of the important state legislatures. The federal government doesn't have nearly the vulnerable mess that some of the states have.

Getting a third party in the states is one way to get the people used to having them on the hustings. Taking a crack at the feds is clearly a non-starter at the present time.

Saying it will never happen is a form of despair.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

There are minor extra parties. There are congress members in the Green, Socialist, Tea, and Independent groups.

[Duke87 1,070]

That will never happen. Look what happened to the Tea Party.

Soon as they started getting any kind of serious attention they got vilified by the other parties

spin doctors, and given the appearance to be a bunch of troublemakers.this appearance stuck and they are now done.

The reason the tea party is fading has nothing to do with how anyone in the media portrayed them. It's simply because what got them going and kept them going is no longer in place. The movement gained steam out of reaction to Obama and his progressive friends in congress running wild with their agenda. Now that the progressives no longer control the government and we've put their pet issues (healthcare, cap and trade) behind us (at least for now), the frustration and anger that fed the tea party has gone away.

If a movement is to have staying power, it needs to be founded on motivation that has staying power, not on a temporary emotional fit over the politics of the moment.

The only hope I see is a real, non-radical Green Party. Their problem at the moment is that most people see them as a protest group at best and terrorists at worst.

If there is to be a moderate alternative in the US, the Green Party will not be it. They are decidedly left-wing. This means that if they gain traction they will edge out the Democrats (or by divide and conquer give victories to the Republicans), as they will not draw votes from both ends of the political spectrum.

[hym 358]

The only thing that would start up a third party in the U.S. is a real, live grassroots movement by the people. Furthermore, none of the new candidates should be beholden to either of the classical parties. Because of the length of campaigns and the funding required due to the size of the electorate, it will need someone with independent wealth to step in to support it. This is very nearly impossible because of the embedded position of the donkeys and the elephants.

The only hope I see is a real, non-radical Green Party. Their problem at the moment is that most people see them as a protest group at best and terrorists at worst. Between now and the 2020 election, they have a lot of cleaning up to do on their image, and should try an penetrate some of the important state legislatures. The federal government doesn't have nearly the vulnerable mess that some of the states have.

Getting a third party in the states is one way to get the people used to having them on the hustings. Taking a crack at the feds is clearly a non-starter at the present time.

Saying it will never happen is a form of despair.

Call it despair if you want, but it almost certain that it will indeed never happen. Aside from the issue of generating a significant third wing in American political ideology (which is unlikely to happen), there is the issue of how to prevent the two main parties from either vilifying the upstart party of simply absorbing it (which has been the fate of countless upstart parties in the past). Sure you can pass legislation making such behavior illegal, but enforcement is nearly impossible under modern standards of legal review. You can't make a logical distinction between attempting to absorb an upstart party (which would theoretically be illegal under such a law) and simply promising the electorate what they want (which is perfectly legal and expected). You could solve that problem by simply taking all the party's internal documents and looking for discussions about absorbing another party, but that would run afoul of protections in the Fourth Amendment.

In short, there isn't a solution to this problem.

[Tropic Storm 15]

The only thing that would start up a third party in the U.S. is a real, live grassroots movement by the people. Furthermore, none of the new candidates should be beholden to either of the classical parties. Because of the length of campaigns and the funding required due to the size of the electorate, it will need someone with independent wealth to step in to support it. This is very nearly impossible because of the embedded position of the donkeys and the elephants.

The only hope I see is a real, non-radical Green Party. Their problem at the moment is that most people see them as a protest group at best and terrorists at worst. Between now and the 2020 election, they have a lot of cleaning up to do on their image, and should try an penetrate some of the important state legislatures. The federal government doesn't have nearly the vulnerable mess that some of the states have.

Getting a third party in the states is one way to get the people used to having them on the hustings. Taking a crack at the feds is clearly a non-starter at the present time.

Saying it will never happen is a form of despair.

Call it despair if you want, but it almost certain that it will indeed never happen. Aside from the issue of generating a significant third wing in American political ideology (which is unlikely to happen), there is the issue of how to prevent the two main parties from either vilifying the upstart party of simply absorbing it (which has been the fate of countless upstart parties in the past). Sure you can pass legislation making such behavior illegal, but enforcement is nearly impossible under modern standards of legal review. You can't make a logical distinction between attempting to absorb an upstart party (which would theoretically be illegal under such a law) and simply promising the electorate what they want (which is perfectly legal and expected). You could solve that problem by simply taking all the party's internal documents and looking for discussions about absorbing another party, but that would run afoul of protections in the Fourth Amendment.

In short, there isn't a solution to this problem.

For the US to have a third party sounds alot like oversaturation to me. In such a hot political climate like ours, I'm not saying its impossible, its just doesn't seem not practical. The current grassroots movement many not even count as its base is way too extreme for us average joes. Also, even with two huge (and polar opposite) political parties, its hard enough for any legislation to get through, whether it be 50%, 60% filibuster, or a 2/3 majority to ratify anything. Already we have the third view, the independents, and like what Hym predicted for startup parties, they even side with either two parties as their base is too small give weight on anything.

We may have something like a coalition system like Britain but the difference between Britain and us (and I may be generalizing on this) is that Congress doesn't have the maturity that Parliament has. We need less selfish babies in Congress and more matures ones who've Ego's finally kicked their Ids where they need to be.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

While denying any possible solution to an admitted problem is sounding rather desperate, one must realize that every situation of this nature has a solution. Like it or love it, situations like this (stalemates) can cause the rise of a demagogue with the resulting landslide in an election. You have Germany of the 1930s as a horrible example, but the situation there was economic and not political.

There are cautionary tales around, and everyone interested in what might happen should read Bob Heinlein's 'Revolt in 2100' to see a speculation about what a military dictatorship could be like in the United States.

Whatever happened to patriotism in the United States? How about those people in Congress being true to their country and not exclusively to their party? What you have now appears to be a hung legislature, and the tripartite character of the institution is not working. Your system is showing its cracks, just as ours is. You have no relief valve, while we have four sitting parties in Parliament and one about to be seated.

The news this morning states that Arizona has passed its 'birther' bill. Obama will have to waste time in the courts now proving the validity of his birth certificate to get on the ballot in Arizona. Must be a lot of elephants in the Sonora desert. Back-ends of donkeys too. It is a ridiculous point for this to come up now. It is four years too late.

  Edited April 15, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Larks2242 251]

I wish Mr. None of the Above was on the ballot.

I hear Micky Mouse is still is getting a large sum of votes

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I wish Mr. None of the Above was on the ballot.

I hear Micky Mouse is still is getting a large sum of votes

I think I posted that in the Canadian Politics thread. We don't have write-ins, so anything on the ballot other than an X spoils it.

What would the American people do if Mickey Mouse won?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Since Disney Co owns MM. I guess that would put Michel EisnerBob Iger in charge.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Since Disney Co owns MM. I guess that would put Michel EisnerBob Iger in charge.

And probably get you a theme park to replace the present circus (Pentagon).

[Duke87 1,070]

It is worth noting that not every state allows write-in votes.

Connecticut has a curious setup where write-ins are allowed but only if the person you're writing in is on the approved list of write-in candidates (why not just put their name on the ballot, then? Yeah, it makes no sense). So, if you vote for Mickey Mouse, it won't be counted.

Spoiling your vote on one office or item doesn't spoil the entire ballot, though. Anything else which you properly cast a vote for will be counted.

And it isn't an X, it's a filled in bubble. Connecticut counts its votes by scantron.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Apparently there are a lot of moderate people in the United States, but we only have a choice between the far left and far right. I am social liberal and fiscal conservative, if I can find a candidate who combines both qualities I'll throw my support behind them.

[Duke87 1,070]

Right, well, that's the problem with only members of the party getting to select the candidate. They select the candidate who most suits them, without necessarily giving regard to how others might view them. This is how we get candidates like Christine O'Donnell.

As for candidates combining social liberal and fiscal conservative, you might want to look into who's running on the Libertarian ticket.

[Larks2242 251]

As for candidates combining social liberal and fiscal conservative, you might want to look into who's running on the Libertarian ticket.

Not much of a chance of them winning, Your basicly just throwing your vote away.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Apparently there are a lot of moderate people in the United States, but we only have a choice between the far left and far right. I am social liberal and fiscal conservative, if I can find a candidate who combines both qualities I'll throw my support behind them.

I think 'far' is rather exaggerated. Your parries are center-left and center-right. Now, there are some extreme factions, but if you really had candidates that were far from the center, you would soon have a different country.

[hym 358]

As for candidates combining social liberal and fiscal conservative, you might want to look into who's running on the Libertarian ticket.

Not much of a chance of them winning, Your basicly just throwing your vote away.

This attitude is one of the problems for creating viable third parties in the US. It also helps perpetuate the status quo, which is not a good thing.

Furthermore, if you want to discuss the question of whether voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, you might as well discuss the question of whether your vote really matters at all. One of the fun facts of the current political demographic is that unless you live in a "battleground state," your vote is really somewhat irrelevant, as your vote isn't going to have a significant impact on whether your state goes for the Democrat or Republican candidate. So, for example, if you're a Democrat in Texas and you're voting for Obama, you're as good as throwing your vote away, because he'll never carry Texas.

People need to vote for the candidate that they most want to see in the position, not whether he is affiliated with a particular party or whether he has a real chance of getting elected or not. (Admittedly, this standpoint does ignore the question of whether a voter should cast his vote for a candidate he doesn't like as a means of preventing another, more detested, candidate from gaining the office.)

[Duke87 1,070]

This attitude is one of the problems for creating viable third parties in the US.

Indeed.

One of the fun facts of the current political demographic is that unless you live in a "battleground state," your vote is really somewhat irrelevant, as your vote isn't going to have a significant impact on whether your state goes for the Democrat or Republican candidate. So, for example, if you're a Democrat in Texas and you're voting for Obama, you're as good as throwing your vote away, because he'll never carry Texas.

This is why this business of winner takes all in the electoral college is bad. There is no rule that says it has to work that way, a state is perfectly entitled to divide up its electors as it sees fit (indeed, there is not even a requirement that a popular vote of the people decide it, in the old old days several states had the state legislature decide who to give the electoral votes to). The reason this doesn't happen, of course, is because any state that isn't a battleground state would be shooting itself in the foot by doing so. Do you think the people in charge in California would rather give 55 electoral votes to Obama, or maybe 30 to Obama and 25 to his opponent? They're never going to go for that.

This, I think, is as good an argument as any for ditching the electoral college system... 'course, that'll never happen, either, since the support for the necessary constitutional amendment isn't there.

And this is the problem in American politics. No good idea is ever popular. The phrase "it'll never happen because it makes too much sense" exists for a reason.