I take a slightly different tack on the analysis than this Discovery News article about how political parties flip in their hold of power in D.C. at a very consistent rate. Seems the rate is somewhere around 12-15 years per flip. Let's say that, no matter which party is in power, they end up rife with corruption, ineffective, and disappointing to the voters. At a rate just long enough to erase the (very short) memory of the voting populace, the voters are convinced that the other party will do a better job. That party gets in power, and soon is rife with corruption, ineffectiveness, and also exhibiting the exact same lack of will to represent the issues that people are ACTUALLY worried about as opposed to the non-issues that were trumped up from nowhere during the election cycle (to artificially divide people that actually agree on many other subjects). And, as the kids so like to say these days, "wash, rinse, repeat."
Seems a valid analysis to me, what do you think?
Enjoy poking it with a stick to see if it moves,
Bp
7 comments:
I agree.
"lack of will" has a certain amibguity which I wish to address. It is not that the parties do not have the strength to execute on their desire to represent, it is that the system is about power, not representation, and the parties prefer to accumulate power and the money associated with it over fulfilling their duty to the electorate.
It is exactly this desire for power which I so fear in Hillary Clinton. All the remaining candidates share it to a greater or lesser degree, but in Mrs. Clinton it is sold obviously all-consuming that we must not elect her.
Should Hillary be the Democratic niminee, I will seriosuly consider a write in, third-party vote, or even a vote for McCain, who at least has preserved some shreds of integrity after a long life in government.
yeah "lack of will" is soft, but I didn't change it.
Please please please don't vote for McCain under any circumstances. His will is broken, was broken, long ago by the Rove Machine. Hillary's pro war pro corporate interest pro consolidation of executive power, but he's even worse on all fronts.
That option was well down the list, but I'm not convinced that it is off the list. We cantalk offline about McCain and the Rove machine, I'm interested in your POV on that.
Nonetheless, I aint a votin' for Hillary.
My PoV is well known, but essentially you've described how I like to think of governing forces - it is ONE body, it doesn't essentially shift direction with either "party" (oh, teh irony of that designation)- the body has a "left" side and a "right" side - but BOTH sides serve the same entity - and that entity is NOT "the people" - it serves to maintain its OWN power OVER. . .it is heirarchically structured and uses "efficient" methods that average out its goal - which is self-maintainence.
Witness the "public" being referred to as "consumers" for the last couple of decades - not "citizens", but consumers - that the public role, to consume and feed the govt. , which is a corporate storefront selling "democracy". . .
'cept its a defective commodity - and good luck getting a refund/replacement - the Corporation of America will most likely see "bankruptcy" as it's way out of this. . .
Look at the Carlyle Group, it's cutting off one of it's MANY limbs even as I type. . .bizness as usual!
Hey Babs,
You and I are pretty much in the same place.
The problem is wih the fallacy of contorl and the closely related law of unintended consequences. An economy dirven by consumption creates no wealth and is therefor unsustainable.
The current, very real economic crisis has it roots in failed policies of both parties over the last 25 years.
Stu
hehe stu, I'll see your 25yrs and raise you, oh, let's see. . .jeez, I'm looking back over 200yrs of governance searching for a good one - and counting! ^.~
I'm not a fan of ANY nationstates right now, but this one has shown its true colours lately. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
amerika was "borne" in theft and genocide, the constitution was created to protect the land stolen - so only white male LANDOWNERS had a vote/voice, and everyone else were arranged on the hierarchical descending scale under them, left to jockey for the leftovers. This is called "governance". Wealth is Power, and competition and greed reward.
I honestly see no way OUT by participating withIN the system - voting means you believe in the system, just the "wrong" person is "leading" the way. I don't believe ANY one can get as far as being nominated to run for high political office without massive compromise/selling out of any values one might have had along the way. The very nature of politics in this country is based on barefaced lies, compromise, justification for backtracking, etc. Virtually everyone governing in Washington is at least a millionaire - how they profess to "represent" the majority is way beyond my comprehension.
The system is beyond broke. There are maybe a handful of nationstates in the whole world who function democratically and truly look after their people - and ALL of those are SMALL - like the Scandinavian states.
For me, the real juice is watching what these sociopaths in charge are doing WHILE the "consumers" are con-sumed with electioneering. . .
JP Morgan's "bailing out" Bear Stearns today interests me. . . more consolidation of wealth in fewer hands. . .^^
damn! forgot to add that I agree with much of what you eloquently write here too Stu!
You wrote that "the system is about power, not representation" - mmHmm! and Billary is a package deal we've already seen at work, no need give them any more handouts. . .I joked on another thread about Hillary being pissed about "standing by her man" in the hopes of an eventual payout - power - but I actually meant it. If you look at their WHOLE record, going back to Arkansas, and his blatant disrespect for their "marriage" you can see that it's more a partnership based on acquisition of power than a "traditional" marriage. (Tho' given the way this country is set up, heterosexual marriage is/has been a traditional way to accumulate more wealth and power for women).
(stirring the pot, letting out some steam - hehe)
Post a Comment