Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
False Dichotomies: The American Oligarchy Complex
#1
[SIZE="2"]-Originally posted on FlowsionMS by me.-[/SIZE]

[SIZE="3"]I largely apologize for my inadequacy in substantiating my view on the political candidates and the issues involved. And I also apologize if the points I'm making have already been made. But I am largely curious as to why many of you are stuck discussing McCain and Obama?

Personally, I'm vacillating in my decision to either choose Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party who has a previous history of being a former congressman and also a U.S. attorney for Georgia or Jesse Johnson who is the candidate for the Green Party. My personal indecisiveness in this issue is because I like both candidates after watching them and listening to their views. I also like both parties and the inherent concept both strive to accomplish.

Our first President George Washington warned our country of developing a bipartisan political system due to the cogs and corruption that will ensue. His prediction has substantial application in light of modern American politics. I'm so disillusioned by mainstream politics being corrupted by pork-barrel legislation, gerrmandering, election lawsuits [Bush vs. Gore], fillibusters, soft cash, slander, ect. That I cannot trust either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. But it is not for these reasons alone that I defect from main stream political voting.

When candidate Barack Obama served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee early in 2007, the senator deferred from issuing policy regarding missile defense, counterterrosim, and concern over the waning commitment of European countries to NATO. I do not approve of candidate John McCain either. At first I believed he was a man who wanted to withdraw and deferred from the Republican party. But on closer inspection, he appears to be a man who also walks the same line as the Republican party in terms of policy and treatment of Iraq.

I apologize. These men might make a difference to our country. But I think that it is an extremely small possibility since they are bogged down by bipartisan politics. They have played all the games, won the support of their party, and will continue to balance the line between pleasing their party and pleasing the people.

Our country's politics has no longer become about the people but more about keeping power hungry mongrels who have already assumed power to keep them in power. Examining how much is spent on advertisements and making the American people BELIEVE that their only choice is to vote Republican or Democrat, it apparently pays off. We have had a long history of corruption, debt, and recession because we allowed this bipartisan system to grip a hold of our nation. However, instead of seeking reform, a majority of us realize that voting for other parties will probably not matter and defect to one of the two parties. This is no longer about the right of the people, but has become a game for the elite.

I highly doubt McCain or Obama can cause reform. They might cause ripples in the waters but I'm looking for a candidate who can cause torrents, floods, and who can change the dynamic of the jagged path we are walking as a country. Look at the horrid debt we have accumulated. The sad part is, we have become used to this atrocity. We allows Presidents and Congress to raise the National Debt. We allow our country to go into recession. And we continue the process by employing parties who have been in power to keep their power and to continue this terrible cycle every single time.

[Image: Seriosness.jpg]
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q45/P...bt_log.png

We need a significant change to change the mentality we have adopted as Americans. We have to make our Presidents assume more responsibility. We have to make our leaders admit the truth. To come out and say, "We fucked up. Let's leave. We're only adding more fuel to the fire."

We're not super hero martyrs. We're not perfect. We're a fucked up country. And we love our country for it's imperfections. But we have no right to force Iraq to become our form of ideal-democracy when our country is not run as an ideal-democracy. When we have economic problems on are own hands why should we recommend another country to follow our model? This is not democracy. This is political-strategem. Setting Iraq up to be a political-counterforce to the other Middle Eastern states as a possible origin of influence is not right. The Iraqi people deserve to pick their own government, deserve to have their own freedom, and deserve their own form of democracy regardless of what we as Americans think is the right thing to do.

We need a leader who has not been tainted by the bipartisan political process of lies and decent. Of pure self-preserving bullshit of helping the politician over the people. I believe in my right to vote in a democratic nation, not an oligarhic nation run by two super-power parties.

I believe that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are moving in the right direction. They won't win this election nor may they ever win in the history of American politics. But one cannot deny one's right to have hope in a government that is truly run by the people and not by a community fooled by false dichotomies established by the bipartisan political process.

I'm sorry if I seem condescending and I know I am down right rude. But I thank you if you read all that and still respond politely. I will read your posts. And I do understand that my points have flaws. But these are my views as an American and what I feel should be the American right to democracy.[/SIZE]
Reply
#2
...tl;dr.
Reply
#3
[SIZE="1"]Not sure how to respond to this thread without sounding like a complete uneducated boob. (You make me feel dumb <_____<Wink

----

I concur in the sense that I do not believe much will be solved by political leaders who are bound to trying to maintain the favor of those who put them in power and the largely ignorant public. While I admit to being one of those who do not follow politics as of yet (Only 17, won't be eligible for voting till the next election anyways), I do think that as a whole, nothing will happen unless something truly revolutionary happens as a nation overall. Obviously, this involves the individual getting involved and actually attempting to take responsibility and "make a difference".

Call me pessimistic, but I don't see this happening anytime soon, if at all. Being an avid gamer, one of the issues that is getting increasingly more annoying is the tendency to blame video games on violence. In a way, I see this as a parallel to the overall mindset of this country - we only concern ourselves with what DIRECTLY benefits us with using the least amount of effort. This is also partially shadowed in a sense, with hacking on online games (yeah, best thing I can come up with in a way). The whole mentality of "Why should I have to do legitimately? I'm special, I'll take the easy road, and expect all the benefits once I show up those other losers" is evident in some of the excessive materialism of our culture. This all really loops to how people are concerned with their own little bubbles, nothing more, nothing less.

The media is in part to blame for this as well. The oversensualizing of the news and dive towards "sensationalism" that mass media shits out is detrimental to a successful democracy. They find something that the public will love and just completely play the entire thing out. Over and over and over again. In the end, it doesn't really matter anyways. People just remember little sound bytes, political slander, and singular arguments about candidates. "Oh, he's the guy that has one view that's sorta like mine, I'll cast my vote for him" . "He's the guy everyone calls unpatriotic, I'll vote for the other guy just in case". "My friend said he's dumber than pomegranate, why should I vote for him?"

I think I've lost my point somewhere in there.

"tl;dr" version - I agree.
[/SIZE]
Reply
#4
[SIZE="3"]Thank you very much for your post. In general, you can correct me if I'm wrong, you stated that it seems like society as a whole isn't living up to legitimately achieving what is right and is instead attempting to take shortcuts in order to achieve the same results.

I agree with the associations you made and the theme of your message. Except with American politics, it has become extraordinarily worse in the sense that we have accepted that it is OKAY if our President raises the debt. It is OKAY if our President declares war and totally ignores the opinion of the populace even if they might be vehemently opposed. How we came to accept such a rude and corrupt abomination to become the status quo of our current political system that rules our nation, it's honestly frightening. I believe that if we want 2008 to be the catalyst of reform, we must reform our political system from the corrupt roots that originated from the bipartisan system of Democrats and Republicans. And the last person to fix such a erroneous system would be a Democrat or a Republican. [/SIZE]
Reply
#5
Im not sure how the Green Party works in the states (Im Canadian) but the Green Party here is rather... infamous for taking advantage of the current system the country is run and causing havoc for it. There are times when the Green Party would send people to sleep on roads to logging areas so that logging companies cant go in to do their work. They do that knowing that there's nothing the loggers can do to get them out because of the rules within the province (and they get paid those "unemployment funds" while doing this). The Green Party once sent one of their members to my Grandmother's house (who doesnt speak English really well by the way) and asked her to open her garage to let the raccoons that snuck in and made a nest of babies there out. When she said she didnt understand, they phoned me and DEMANDED I let the racoons out or else they were going to sue me for animal abuse. When I told her I couldnt because I was unable to get to my grandmother's house, they told me "well, you either get her or get sued" >_>. Yeah... green party here doesnt really have much of a good rep in my opinion =X Hopefully your green party is nothing like that.
Reply
#6
I hate to just pounce on one thing, but does your chart there account for inflation?
Reply
#7
Schrodinger Wrote:[SIZE="3"]Thank you very much for your post. In general, you can correct me if I'm wrong, you stated that it seems like society as a whole isn't living up to legitimately achieving what is right and is instead attempting to take shortcuts in order to achieve the same results.

I agree with the associations you made and the theme of your message. Except with American politics, it has become extraordinarily worse in the sense that we have accepted that it is OKAY if our President raises the debt. It is OKAY if our President declares war and totally ignores the opinion of the populace even if they might be vehemently opposed. How we came to accept such a rude and corrupt abomination to become the status quo of our current political system that rules our nation, it's honestly frightening. I believe that if we want 2008 to be the catalyst of reform, we must reform our political system from the corrupt roots that originated from the bipartisan system of Democrats and Republicans. And the last person to fix such a erroneous system would be a Democrat or a Republican. [/SIZE]
[SIZE="1"]
Mmm. Yes, that basically sums up my feelings on the subject.

However, I don't agree with the second statement that you made. If I understood it correctly, then it seems like you're stating the president should only be allowed to do what the public wants him to do. To me at least, it sounds like "Popular = Good", "Unpopular = Bad". Just because it's unpopular doesn't make it a bad decision (not saying I agree / disagree with the Iraq war). I do believe that the leaders should listen to the opinions of the public, and take that into consideration when making choices of such magnitude, but they should retain executive powers. Without that ability, is the president not more than a figurehead that is only a powerful extension of the public?

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the heck would be a reasonable compromise between the two ideas. Completely ignoring the public is bad, but leaving everything in their hands doesn't seem like such a swell idea either. (Assuming we're talking about the current state of the populace, not some hypothetical intelligent one)
[/SIZE]
Reply
#8
I would just love a Libertarian President-
Or a Libertarian-ish Gov.
But that would be REALLY bucking the current US trend of increasing Executive and centralized powers.
Though with Libertarianism if the candidate is not strong you could end up in an anocracy....
...
My Solution ANARCHO-CAPTIALISM!
Reply
#9
I am part American and yet I will never understand how the American goverment system works. Some of the flaws are just like here (Mexico) but yet they're so drastic in the US it's not funny.
I don't know too much about the situation. >.< The little I do know though is that the US needs to get out of Iraq. We have no right to be in that country with intentions of changing it, especially watching how our own is being led to ruin.
Another thing is that sadly, even if our president was to do something good for the country, the majority of the ignorant and selfish citizens would give them hell for making things 'the different way'.
Most people complain and complain about the goverment, but if it were to change they would be even more unsatisfied. People are hard to satisfy, and don't take some things with enough seriousness. Not to mention, people are easily influenced by others. One person that disagrees with the govement can have a hand full of sympathizers, and an entirely city of blank of followers.

Wow, this almost seems like a rant. >.<
Reply
#10
1. It's hardly a false dichotomy. Our system is not set up well to handle more than two parties. Move to a country with a parliamentary system if you want a bajillion parties. And you yourself admit that it is very unlikely that a third-party candidate will be elected president. It therefore seems better to vote for the candidate who you like more/dislike less, depending on your disposition.

2.
Schrodinger Wrote:We allow our country to go into recession.
This is ridiculous. Tweaking policies has very little predictable effect on the economy. Blaming the person in charge is stupid because it has almost nothing to do with him. Granted if you did something ridiculously stupid like nationalizing everything the economy would almost certainly go down the tubes, but the things politicians do to try to make things better very rarely do anything at all. Alternately: business cycle.

3.
Schrodinger Wrote:I'm looking for a candidate who can cause torrents, floods, and who can change the dynamic of the jagged path we are walking as a country.
Actually you're probably not. The things that are going wrong for us right now are actually pretty minor in comparison to the things that are going right for us. You just don't realize it because good news doesn't sell papers. I've been righteously angered on quite a number of occasions by the things our government does, but we're still doing a lot better than most of the rest of the world.

4.
Schrodinger Wrote:Personally, I'm vacillating in my decision to either choose Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party who has a previous history of being a former congressman and also a U.S. attorney for Georgia or Jesse Johnson who is the candidate for the Green Party.

This is a bit confusing. I don't actually know the platforms of the two parties, but in general I feel like libertarians and greens wouldn't get along that well.

5.
Schrodinger Wrote:It is OKAY if our President declares war and totally ignores the opinion of the populace even if they might be vehemently opposed.

So uh...I realize that you did use a hypothetical there, but Americans were decidedly *not* vehemently opposed. There are dozens of articles online with poll data. Here are some of them if you are interested: 2002/before invasion, 2003/After the invasion started, and finally the wikipedia article lol.

I probably had some other problems, but I'm lazy now. Smile
Reply
#11
Zaotsu Wrote:[align=center][SIZE="1"][COLOR=#3366FF]Not sure how to respond to this thread without sounding like a complete uneducated boob. (You make me feel dumb <_____<Wink

You shouldn't feel dumb because his use of big words has been deliberately placed for his argument to sound smarter. An English professor would probably rip this passage apart. In language simplicity is best because you want your reader to understand and relate to what you are saying; and not feel intimidated by what you are saying. I, for one, could always use words such as "indefatigable" and "hypercholesterolemia." However, I'd rather have my audience understand me and relate to me, so I don't.
Reply
#12
Quantact Wrote:You shouldn't feel dumb because his use of big words has been deliberately placed for his argument to sound smarter. An English professor would probably rip this passage apart. In language simplicity is best because you want your reader to understand and relate to what you are saying; and not feel intimidated by what you are saying. I, for one, could always use words such as "indefatigable" and "hypercholesterolemia." However, I'd rather have my audience understand me and relate to me, so I don't.
[SIZE="1"]Not dumb because of a large vocabulary, I get enough of that in my English class. More of because I don't follow politics all too much.
[/SIZE]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)