Jump to content


Photo

The USA's democracy flaws


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:44 PM

I really liked this article on the flaws of the US government.

Americans like to think of themselves and their country as a model for the world. Indeed, this attitude of self-congratulation is one of the least attractive aspects of US culture when viewed from abroad, even if Americans themselves are barely aware of it. For most Americans, this common faith in the superiority of many aspects of their society - from popular entertainment, to higher education, to the judicial system, and so on - is part of the web of shared assumptions that underlie US culture. And among these, nothing is so firmly fixed in the American mind than the inherent superiority of their democratic political system. Well. The world has been treated in recent weeks to the spectacle of the vaunted two-party American political system as it has driven the government heedlessly to the very brink of a disastrous default on its debt payments. This national financial near-miss, and the profound scepticism it has generated concerning the US' long-term ability to put its fiscal house in order, has roiled global stock markets, and threatens, if not soon addressed, to upend the dollar-based global financial system which has been in place since the end of World War II. Whether such a change in the global financial system is a good or bad thing over the long term I cannot say, but it would not happen without severe global economic dislocations, from which all would suffer.

[...]

In 1994, Newt Gingrich, the then newly-elected Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, announced a new conservative agenda, designed to bring an outsize federal government to heel. Whether one loved or loathed him and his policies, one would have to concede that he had a thorough understanding of the fundamental dynamics of the US governmental system in which he had grown up.

At the heart of his radical agenda was congressional term limits. Though his supposedly small-government Republican colleagues were forced to support him nominally lest they appear hypocritical, they proved to be every bit as attached to their political careers as were their Democratic colleagues. Gingrich failed to reform Congress; and the record since has demonstrated that fundamental reform of the US congressional system will not come from Congress itself.





Interesting read. Not that I'm sure it proves a point for me or not, it at least points out a problem that I think we can find in many of our western governments of hyperbureaucratization. I'm probably the last guy to start complaining about bureaucracy here, as I'm for a certain strong government with focus on positive liberty. But there is a difference in a government with the main interest of protecting the nation and its citizens, compared to a bureaucracy with nothing but self-interest in expanding its power as much as possible.



"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#2 Radspakr Wolfbane

Radspakr Wolfbane

    The John Farnham of modding

  • Members
  • 7,722 posts
  • Location:less than 5 meters from my bed
  • Projects:Comeback tour
  •  The Retired Beard

Posted 20 August 2011 - 12:27 AM

I was actually thinking on this matter earlier and the problems with US democratic system exist in Western political systems.

A US politician (or most politicians) can be bought.
A personal interest can invest or "donate" to a political party and pretty much buy their vote.
If someone said no the Personal interest could then threaten to fund the opponent.
Running an election isn't cheap so the money is very tempting.
Any politician who would hope to change the rules would have a hard to time getting in.
If they wanted to change things they'd have an even harder time getting heard, who's going to throw away their own career?
As said in that article Change won't come from congress it's self, nor would it come from a president.

My second issue is with the Bipartisan system it's self.
It automatically assumes that there are only 2 voices.

I find this quote somewhat fitting for this topic.
philosoraptor-congress.jpg

Break dancing into the hearts of millions


#3 Madin

Madin

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 686 posts

Posted 20 August 2011 - 01:21 AM

Eisenhower & Kennedy both talked frankly about the immense power that special interest groups could have over the executive branch.

Taking a broad look at where America is in it's history, the current issues make sense. There are families (mainly rubber and oil barons) that have built up enormous wealth for well over a century. People whose wealth is based in land, commodities, oil etc often expect special treatment from government, at the very least.
There influence often means that they know or are friends with elected officials, it also lets them run for office.

The battle to restrict the size and power of the monopoly men is a constant one and frankly the American system has lost the battle. The special interest groups have far too much hold over both the legislative branch and the executive branch of government.
Monopoly families on there own are threat, but when multiple massive monopolies work together then practically any form of government ends up working mostly to benefit these powerful groups, and it is always to the detriment of the population.

In America they have the powerful groups of the Council on foreign relations and the Trilateral commission, that serve special interest groups home and abroad.
Barack Obama's white house is loaded with people who have served on either the CFR the TC or both.
The issue for the voters of course is that they do not control the selection process on these private councils, but these councils control the white house.

These days both the American and British election process is nothing more than a pathetic reality show put on for the benefit of the voting public, so they can feel 'involved'.
Once the show is over and the results are sorted then the public gets the time allowed by the special interest groups with their elected officials. The special interest concerns are primary and the public's concerns are secondary.
The right\left paradigm is allowed to play out to a limited script, but if the councils want a war, they get a war. If they want more tax breaks, they get it. Government contracts? no need to ask.

Has for solutions, either America is defeated by another nation or group of nations, or a civil war, or another revolution by the people or lastly, the special interest groups decide that they are interested in the global government model and America has a sovereign nation ceases to exist.

Edited by Madin, 20 August 2011 - 01:26 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users