June 15, 2009
Iran has America's Voting Problem
Iran appears to have an American voting problem. They can’t seem to use their vote to remove politicians from office. Regardless of how the people vote, the incumbent wins. That is the claim of many in Iran.
In America, no matter how bad public disapproval of Congress gets, Americans can't seem to remove 90+ percent of incumbents running for reelection.
There is however, an apparent and enormous difference between Iran and the U.S. voting problem. In Iran, outright voting fraud, bribery, and blackmail are touted as the reason for Ahmadinejad's reelection. In America, incumbents routinely win reelection in a more sophisticated, systemic, and largely legal manner. America has institutionalized incumbency, regardless of public sentiment toward Congress, in some very clever ways.
First and foremost is known as "bringing home the bacon". If a U.S. representative can lay claim to bringing federal tax dollars back to their district, American voters are impressed by this and will tend to reelect them. This, despite the American voter's disgust with pork barrel spending, and earmarks in legislation with no relevant connection to the bill being passed. Republican and Democrat incumbents alike make this theme central to their reelection campaigns, because American voters respond positively to it. Doesn't speak well of American voters.
Equal in importance to bringing home the bacon, is financial advantage. Wikipedia cites:
One of the main reasons incumbents seem to have such a complete advantage over challengers is because of their significantly better financed campaigns. In the 1990s the typical incumbent in a contested election had somewhere between 83 to 93 percent of what was spent by all the candidates in the district, and these incumbents typically captured about 64 to 67 percent of the vote." (Henderson, Harry. 2004. Campaign and Election Reform. New York, NY.: Facts on File.)
Then there is the time honored American tradition of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering occurs when the Congress and states divide up their congressional voting districts into highly contorted geometric shapes on a map, for the clear purpose of insuring the incumbent's voting district shape encompasses a clear majority of voters who vote historically for the incumbent's Party, and even the incumbent them self. Effective and warranted reforms in the gerrymandering system have so far, been like getting CEO's to voluntarily take compensation package cuts.
In typical American fashion, several differing approaches have been touted to remedy the situation that prevents voters from perceiving more choice on election day. These differing approaches serve to divide the electorate on the issue, and prevent them from mandating true reform. Is it any wonder, these approaches are all commended by some elected representatives in accordance with their reelection needs.
Term Limits. Never to be approved by a majority of Congress of their own volition, term limits requires a majority of Congress to pass such legislation. Holding out for the day that a majority of Congress will vote for their own term limits is like holding one's breath for a mega-lottery win. It's possible, but, so unlikely as to insure death as the nearly guaranteed outcome.
The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act. This humorous piece of nonsense had one design, to make the public think the Congress was seeking reform, while actually reforming nothing at the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is money as speech. And virtually no incumbent in Congress is going to earnestly sanction a Constitutional amendment outlawing money as freedom of speech.
The very core of the democratic election process is one person one vote. That core principle is entirely nullified and voided when money is given free speech entitlement and permitted the power to sway votes and legislation in Congress. He/She who has the most bucks controls the most votes. This is all too often demonstrated in American elections and in the relationship between K-Street (lobbyists) and The Hill (Congress persons).
Lastly, on the list of divide and conquer faux reforms to address incumbency advantage over public approval is what is known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. This item doesn't come up very often, but is often bandied about by some State representatives and reform minded groups. This was one of the first amendments to be proposed to our Constitution but failed ratification by 3 votes, and continues to fail State ratification to this day.
In essence, it would require significantly more Representatives in the House per number of persons represented. Anywhere from 600 to 6000 Representatives would be called for in the House, if this Amendment were ratified, depending on how the math algorithm were adjusted and interpreted. From the Wikipedia link above:
According to the Supreme Court's 1939 ruling in Coleman v. Miller, because there is no deadline for its ratification, Article the First is technically still pending before state lawmakers. Today, with 50 states in the Union, the legislatures of 27 more states, for a total of 38, would have to ratify the Amendment in order for it to become part of the federal Constitution. Based on the current U.S. population and the traditions governing the size of the House of Representatives, it is unlikely, however, that the legislatures of any additional states will approve it.
These are the reform measures politicians put forth to the public to appear reform minded. There is however, a reform measure founded by a group of citizens which has vastly more potential than any of the above. It is called Vote Out Incumbents Democracy or VOID, for short. The idea came from Jack Gargin's 1980's campaign called THRO, (Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out) which bankrupted not long after its second election involvement.
The idea is simple, and rests entirely with the American voters, NOT with the Congress. VOID advocates that voters consider voting for a challenger from their own party, or another, if they are not happy with the performance of Congress at large. VOID postulates that even if voters like their own representative, the fact that the same voters disapprove of Congress' performance, means their own representative is, at least, ineffective in bringing about the changes the voter hopes for.
And therefore, if that voter joins millions of other voters who choose to vote for a Congress whose performance they can approve of, instead of 7 or 9% of incumbents losing reelection in an election year, 30, 40, or even 50% of incumbents could lose their seats. It is only logical and rational to conclude that if 1/3 to 1/2 of incumbents in Congress lost reelection, the remaining incumbents and the new freshman coming in, would have no choice but to commit to producing the results from Congress the people expect or, face their own failed reelection bid in the very next election.
So, reforming Congress comes down to proposals that require Congress to act against incumbent's own interests or, one which the voters themselves control and enact of their own accord. The former has virtually a snowball's chance in hell. The latter, at least, is in the control of the voters. And that means voters are not helpless in the matter, unless they choose to be.
Posted by David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 01:45 PMSad but true article David.
Another problem they have set up for us is the way the two party system has radicalized the other party. “I’d love to vote out the incumbent, but that guy running from the other party scares me so much.” This attitude is shown in Eric’s Post “Three Letter Word”. If I felt that way about a candidate, I’d make sure the guy from the other party won. Seldom are the Dems as bad as the Reps say they are, and seldom are the Reps as bad as the Dems say they are. But then the only thing they agree on is to keep the third party out.
Mike the Cynic, one of the beauties of voting anti-incumbent is, one does not have to vote for the other party’s candidate. One can vote for a challenger within their own party. That is what our Primary and Caucus elections are all about. Giving voters the opportunity to unseat an incumbent without having to go outside their own party.
Surprisingly, not many Americans are aware of this.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 05:36 PMdavid
“That is what our Primary and Caucus elections are all about. Giving voters the opportunity to unseat an incumbent without having to go outside their own party.”
the problem is that there usually isn’t a challenger, and if there is many times the party will crush them to protect that incumbent, if they’re seen as a shoe in.
dbs, precisely the way the incumbents and the Party’s want it to be. Perhaps, loyalty to a party, a good thing in the past, isn’t functioning as it once did for the best interests of our nation, oursleves, and our children’s future. :-(
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 06:35 PMdbs, P.S., that would no doubt change dramatically if the voting public demonstrated the awareness and willingness to unseat 1/3 or more incumbents in a single election. The parties would have to compete for new fresh challengers as an alternative to voters crossing party lines like they did in the last election.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 06:37 PMdavid
i think allowing more candidates into major debates would also help. right now we’re stuck with a system that excludes the major minor parties if you will, such as the liberatarian, green, amer. independant, and so on. the two major parties are IMO complicit in shutting out these other options. if people could actually see and hear these other candidates i believe it would open thier eyes. thats exactly what the reps. and dems. don’t want.
Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2009 07:24 PMDavid and dbs, Right on the MSM during the debates the other guy or gal gets no air time if any at all only the big money gets to talk then the spin shows on both spectrums take over there’s some good people out there with good ideas being ignored or shut down.
Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 15, 2009 09:05 PMIranians do not have much choice. It is not mere foolishness on their parts. The Mullahs choose all the candidates. It is a little ironic that they have to rig and election among their own chosen candidates.
Iran presents us with a moral dilema. The President wants to be “realistic” which means dealing with nasty people. We have been down this road many times before. Those calling for realism now will probably be among those complaining in the future about how we “supported” bad guys. The fact is that choices are limited and we don’t have any good choices.
Talking strictly about America - The choices we have in America are not like those of the people of Iran. Some people complain that there are not many differences between the parties. This is good. It is why we have stability.
It is tempting to throw out the crooks, but we just get less experienced versions of the same things. The problem is not with the personnel, but with the system. Washington is corrupted because we have given it too much power. We - the people - have made our country difficult to govern by asking too much of our government and not enough from ourselves. The bigger the government, the more trouble they can get into.
Posted by: Christine at June 15, 2009 09:43 PMdbs said: “the two major parties are IMO complicit in shutting out these other options”
Not just your opinion, but a demonstrable historical fact.
Yes, even with the percentage of kooks that populate some of the third parties, (as if the duopoly party doesn’t have its share), most have valid perspectives, and some commendable and worthy proposals for public scrutiny and consideration.
I personally have not found a single third or Independent Party platform that I could adopt as my own. But, I have found ideas, principles, and potential solutions in several of those parties and out of the mouths of some of their candidates. I believe mainstream Americans would have the same response if exposed to the third parties in Presidential debates. Can’t support the party, but can support some of their ideas, principles, and policy directions.
Here are few I have subscribed to:
- Balanced budget amendment with exclusions for war and economic contraction defined as Recession or Depression, or imminent danger thereof.
- 3 tiered tax system with a flat rate at each tier, corresponding to very wealthy, upper middle class, and below, with respective rates of 50%, 35%, and 18%. Exemption of course for those with incomes under 2.5 times the poverty definition. Corporate income taxes eliminated and government access and service fees levied for businesses which entirely recoup government service costs associated with businesses.
- Businesses held responsible for all negative environmental impacts of their business including cleanup. If that results in bankruptcy, so be it, however, liquidation requires bidders to inherit the clean up debt with a reasonable period for repayment to the government for clean-up costs.
- Non-profit health care delivery enterprises receive preferential contracts and treatment by government agencies, with certain safe harbor provisions not extended to for profit health care deliverers, effectively lowering their insurance costs.
- Government paid vocational retraining provided (if warranted) with repayment, without interest, upon the recipient becoming employed again, on a 10 year repayment plan.
- National Educational benchmarks testing in math and language proficiency to be met by any state, school district, or school receiving federal education dollars. Funding is dropped upon two consecutive semesters of failing benchmarks, or 3 non-consecutive failing semesters in a 3 year period.
- Elimination of federal laws enacted toward victimless crime, elimination of federal laws regarding personal choice ingestion of any materials for any purposes, and reinstatement of enforcement of speedy trial laws in federal criminal courts.
- Elimination of federal death penalties.
- Federally required mandate to States to provide indigent psychiatric hospital care, where the nature of the illness precludes the patient’s ability to self-monitor prescribed maintenance medications
As you can see, some of these come from the Libertarians, some from the Green Party, and some from one or the other of the Independent Parties. They are all worthy of public review, debate, and consideration in the media and halls of Congress. But, without third parties having a national stage or voice in elections, most of these will never come before the public for consideration. And that is very, very bad for America’s future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2009 09:59 PMChristine, I will agree with one sentence in your comment: “We - the people - have made our country difficult to govern by asking too much of our government and not enough from ourselves.”
Which is precisely what I advocate in the article. Waiting for Congress to reform itself is an exercise in futility. Voters don’t NEED the vote to keep incumbents in office. They NEED the vote to remove incumbents from office. Voters in America, unlike in Iran, have that choice. Voters in America, such as yourself, apparently, refuse to exercise that option fearing a fresh face, (which all incumbents were at one time) might lack experience or wisdom. But, given 11% approval rating, it is hard to imagine how fresh Congress persons could do worse than the incumbents at this point.
In America, the responsibility for Congress is not the system, it is the voters. Because in America, voters can vote to elect different representation than the incumbents who run it, as it is, and those election results will be honored. It would take a pretty stupid challenger to be elected and make the same mistakes that caused their predecessor to get the voter’s boot, don’t you think? We do elect stupid people in America occasionally. But, not as a general rule.
I think your stated fears are unfounded. It is rare to find a U.S. Congress person elected without any previous government experience in elected or appointed office. As for experience, it is mathematical certainty that even if half of all voters in America took up the anti-incumbent pledge to produce a sounder Congress, half of all incumbents would continue to be reelected, providing the very institutional and historical experience your comment alludes to being lost. So, again, your stated concerns appear entirely unfounded.
“It is tempting to throw out the crooks, but we just get less experienced versions of the same things.”
Yeah and then we don’t get our fair share in the district/state. The new guy gets the minor committees and is corrupted by the old guys who the other states didn’t vote out.
“The problem is not with the personnel, but with the system.”
I could not agree more Christine.
” Washington is corrupted because we have given it too much power.”
I think it David has it right when he says “The very core of the democratic election process is one person one vote. That core principle is entirely nullified and voided when money is given free speech entitlement and permitted the power to sway votes and legislation in Congress. He/She who has the most bucks controls the most votes. This is all too often demonstrated in American elections and in the relationship between K-Street (lobbyists) and The Hill (Congress persons).”
Posted by: j2t2 at June 15, 2009 10:32 PM
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 16, 2009 12:24 AMj2t2 wrote: That core principle is entirely nullified and voided when money is given free speech entitlement and permitted the power to sway votes and legislation in Congress.Yes, as evidenced by the 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters who are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 16, 2009 12:27 AMj2t2 said: “Yeah and then we don’t get our fair share in the district/state. The new guy gets the minor committees and is corrupted by the old guys who the other states didn’t vote out.”
ONLY if 90% incumbents remain and 10% are freshman. What chance does a freshman have. But, if voters will vote anti-incumbent to the point that 50% of incumbents remain and 50% freshman are coming in, then, the Freshman have a fighting chance at changing what the incumbents had been doing all along to earn an 11% public approval rating.
Why is thinking through the anti-incumbent concept to its logical conclusion so hard for some, I wonder? Or is it hard. Perhaps its just that old party loyalties and holding on to the status quo for dear life is so difficult. Change, even for the better, scares the hell out of some folks, preventing them from making progress and fighting it tooth and nail.
A lot like Republicans are doing now with Democrats in control. Even the good things Democrats are doing, Republicans are fighting tooth and nail. 67% of Americans want a public health insurance option. Republicans are scared witless by this change and to cut off their nose to spite their face, they are opposing the majority of voters on this issue. All the while keeping alive hopes for a comeback.
Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is insane, according to Albert Einstein. He was a pretty smart guy. Voters had better get smart too. America can’t afford incumbent governance anymore, no matter how you cut it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 01:54 AMDavid
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the dealth care debate is in the details. For example, if we have a national health care system, we can/should dispense with most health related lawsuites, since governement rules and regulations would trump the lawyers and compensate victims.
The system would be a lot like workmens’ comp, with predetermined settlements not requiring lawyers. That is more like it works in Europe.
President Obama brought up the subject when he spoke with the AMA, but I am afraid the Democrats in congress are too deep in bed with the lawyers to follow his lead.
This is one place where the American people certainly will NOT get what they want.
David
BTW - Einstein benefits from the halo effect. This was identified by Socrates whereby an expert in one field is thought to know about everything. For example, scientists don’t often do well as leaders or managers, as many firms have learned to their sorrow when they promote their best scientists and engineers into managment.
Einstein was one of the smartest people in history, but he knew physics. His thoughts on politics are not very sophisticated and his statement about doing the same thing and expecting different results may work in a controlled experiment but it is silly and overly broad when applied to other aspects of life because it doesn’t account for changes in conditions and random chance.
Einstein also famously said that God does not play dice with the universe. Steven Hawkings said that not only does God play dice, but sometimes even tosses them where he cannot find them. I am not a scientist. Which of these smart guys is right?
Posted by: Christine at June 16, 2009 07:56 AM“Why is thinking through the anti-incumbent concept to its logical conclusion so hard for some, I wonder? Or is it hard. Perhaps its just that old party loyalties and holding on to the status quo for dear life is so difficult. Change, even for the better, scares the hell out of some folks, preventing them from making progress and fighting it tooth and nail.”
I believe it is a lack of trust David, that prevents some of us from wanting to vote in the new. Trust that the new will be better and trust that my fellow Americans in the other states will do the same. I don’t disagree that voting out the incumbent is one part of getting a more responsive government and perhaps a few more political parties in the future.
David R. Remer wrote: Why is thinking through the anti-incumbent concept to its logical conclusion so hard for some, I wonder?It’s most likely only temporary due to these root causes which all boil down to short-term, short-sighted selfishness, instead of long-term, educated, enlightened self-interest.
However, when enough voters are bankrupt or deep into debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry, then enough voters will have received their much-needed education and enlightenment, and repeat what the majority of unhappy voters did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when the voters ousted 108, 123, and 206 members of Congress (respectively).
Unfortunately, it was already years into the Great Depression, which still lasted for about another decade.
If history repeats itself (or rhymes, sort of), it will be too late again to avoid much pain and misery.
Unfortunately, progress is slow (2.00 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward), but if it were not for education and enlightment via pain and misery, our species would have probably gone extinct a long time ago.
Many say things have to get bad before they can get better. For humans, that is true all too often.
It’s not as if we can’t see the signs.
The problem is we ignore the signs, due to short-term, short-sighted selfishness, instead of long-term, educated, enlightened self-interest.
Also, even after we learn our painful lessons the hard way, it will be forgotten by the generations that follow (again and again), until the next time excessive, short-term, short-sighted selfishness finally beomces too painful.
That’s our human nature.
Reams and reams of history prove all of it to be true.
Humans are nearly as smart as they think they are, as evidenced by countless wars, genocide, usury, exploitation, and countless abuses and crimes against each other.
We’ll never get better if we fail to recognize and learn deal with these facts of human nature, through long-term, educated, and enlightened self-interest.
So, the answer to your question is not pretty.
We like to think we’re better than that.
We’re not, and we can do much better.
Politicians are not the only problem.
Voters are culpable too, and the voters will suffer and/or enjoy the consequences of their own voting habits.
Decades of deteriorating economic conditions and abuses are ample proof of it.
Perhaps some day, enough humans will learn that short-term, short-sighted selfishness, instead of long-term, educated, enlightened self-interest, is the path to more pain and misery.
At any rate, as always, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
P.S. The $11.5 Trillion National Debt (70% higher per-capita today than in 1945 after WWII) is growing by several billion per day!
There will almost certainly be painful cnsequences in the next 4+ years for such ridiculous fiscal irresponsibility and incompetence.
Christine said: “Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the dealth care debate is in the details.”
Comments like this are not debate; just partisan hyperbole.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 09:22 AMChristine said: “For example, if we have a national health care system, we can/should dispense with most health related lawsuites, since governement rules and regulations would trump the lawyers and compensate victims.”
That logic does not hold up. First, NO ONE is proposing a national health care delivery system. ONLY national health care insurance to those who want it and don’t now have it.
Second, the government providing health insurance DOES NOT negate doctor/nurse/hospital/clinic malpractice. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Ergo, IF your are claiming that a national health insurance plan SHOULD result in less malpractice law suits, your claim is without any logical basis whatsoever. Whether malpractice and harm from it occurred is to be determined by the courts.
The government will be providing health care insurance to patients. The health care deliverers will still need to carry private liability insurance to cover malpractice lawsuits. The government’s role as patient insurer has nothing to do with medical malpractice lawsuits one way or another, and is an entirely separate issue and are of law.
If Obama is proposing malpractice insurance reforms, that is an entirely separate aspect of his plan to lower health care costs, having NOTHING to do with the government acting as health care insurance provider for patients.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 09:35 AMChristine, wasn’t Socrates a fabricated character of Plato’s? And I never ran across, anywhere in Plato’s writings, the Albert Einstein quotation. Care to quote Plato to prove your point, or was this just another unsubstantiated tangent?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 09:37 AMj2t2 said: “I believe it is a lack of trust David, that prevents some of us from wanting to vote in the new. Trust that the new will be better and trust that my fellow Americans in the other states will do the same.”
Sounds entirely plausible and in keeping with research on clinging to dysfunctional habits, traditions, and ways of doing things since, they were an advantage, not a disadvantage, at one time.
j2t2 said: “I don’t disagree that voting out the incumbent is one part of getting a more responsive government and perhaps a few more political parties in the future.”
I want more than anything else, to prove d.a.n wrong about Americans allowing failure to be their instructor of last resort, instead of taking the lessons and new paradigms to heart voluntarily.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 09:44 AMd.a.n, I hope you are wrong for all our, and our childrens’, sake.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 09:46 AMDavid,
Did I miss something in the debate somewhere?
You said, “Christine, wasn’t Socrates a fabricated character of Plato’s? And I never ran across, anywhere in Plato’s writings, the Albert Einstein quotation. Care to quote Plato to prove your point, or was this just another unsubstantiated tangent?”
Posted by: Rob at June 16, 2009 10:18 AMRob, you missed Christine’s Halo Effect comment. She attempted to negate Einstein’s famous quote regarding insanity with the argument that his brilliance lied solely in the field of physics. Einstein was also an inordinately compassionate person with enormous regard for humanity. Smart people, tend to be smart about most things they speak publicly about. Einstein’s famous quote has applicability in virtually every field of human endeavor. Christine apparently fails to appreciate that in her tangent into Plato’s Halo effect which has no applicability to Einstein’s famous quote, whatsoever.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 03:13 PMDavid
Socrates was a historical person executed by the Athenians around 399 BC. He is mentioned in historical records, including in the work of Xenophon. He was known as a philosopher and a pain in the ass with all his questions, but he did not write down his thoughts. One of Socrates students was Plato, who wrote and often featured Socrates as a character.
The work that supposedly contains the most of the real Socrates is “The Apology,” where he defends himself against charges of blasphemy and corrupting the youth. It is in this work where Socrates talks about the nature of his wisdom and how many of the most skilled and intelligent lack wisdom because they think that their particular skills or knowledge in one area applies to others. In modern times, we call that the halo effect.
Plato/Socrates did not address the Einstein quotation. In fact, they probably would have approved of it, since they were not much into actual experience and thought that reason was much superior to the illogic of the real world. In theory Einstein is right. In human affairs, not.
Although he didn’t call it that, what Socrates addresses is the halo effect, i.e. the reason people think it worth quoting Einstein on a subject on which he has no particular expertise. Sort of like Robert Young (Marcus Welby) selling aspirin.
If you have not read the Apology, it is very short and worth the effort - http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html.
The Einstein quote is unsophisticated. In closely controlled lab conditions, it makes sense. In human affairs this is not possible because we don’t always know exactly what we did or the conditions around it. When you try your computer combination and it doesn’t work, do you give up or do you “try the same thing” and expect a different result?
In the messy real world, this is how things work. You probably wouldn’t want Einstein as your manager, since he didn’t deal much with this “real world” subset of science. Only the halo effect makes people miss this.
Re the dealth – it really was a typo. I edit on line and didn’t mean it as a snide comment. Beside, I don’t think it would be very clever of me.
Beyond that, I am not talking against a national health care system. I think we will need to go to a European style system with all its pluses and minuses. One of the benefits of the European style health care system, especially in Scandinavia, is a near absence of the types of lawsuits we suffer in the U.S. re health. They have a set formula for payouts. That is what you get. This is very good and President Obama has approached the idea favorably.
W/o controlling lawsuits, we will have serious problems controlling health care costs. It MUST be part of a reform, or the reform won’t work. This is how national health care is done. If we try to just pay for insurance and keep the flawed system we have, we will be quickly bankrupted.
Posted by: Christine at June 16, 2009 03:52 PMWhat Americans don’t understand is, while Iranians don’t particularly like being ruled by clerics, they REALLY don’t want McDonalds, Britney Spears, and American Idol in their country.
I or one totally agree with them as Western “pop” culture, mass consumerism is far worse for their culture than women wearing hijabs. The reason they keep mostly silent on the fact that they’re basically voting for Pawn A and Pawn B is that without it, the government has convinced the people that America will colonize them.
I think the same mindset just rules in people voting in incumbents, if you’re generally convinced that the system can’t change, and the country isn’t being blown up, why vote for somebody different, keep the evil you know, etc.
on the other hand when a real reformer comes around and says “Let’s scrap this whole idea, start anew”, people too comfortable or ingrained in the system start attacking. I don’t believe Obama is a reformer in any sense of the word, but there are people on the local and state levels who are.
Same goes in Iran as well, we forget the fact that as much as the U.S. called it a police state, Iran is one of the most vibrant political countries in the Middle East. Their protests now are a reflection of what can be done by word of mouth and networking can do, peacefully. If we can emulate this type of protest, peacefully of course, to vote out or call to attention the correlation between bad decisions and incumbents, then the country would be heading in the right direction.
Posted by: Jon at June 16, 2009 04:49 PMChristine, I would have to look at Xenophon’s reference, which I haven’t, to validate your assertion. Till then, I still think Socrate’s was a Mark Twain for Plato.
Yes, I have read nearly all Plato’s works, including The Apology. My favorite is The Gorgias. Gets to the root of things virtuous, including politics and government.
Halo effect is irrelevant. Einstein’s quote is famous NOT because Einstein was famous, but, because of its near universal applicability. It fits so very much of human behavior we call ‘stubborn’ in the face of relevant new information or circumstance.
In a ‘messy world’ as you refer to it, it is all too easy to justify anything one wills or wishes to do, since, in a messy world, there are no clear definitions, rules, or definitions for right or wrong and virtue becomes meaningless.
Yes, Obama is attempting to address the law suit issue, but, as a separate issue entirely from government health insurance, which it is, as I pointed out in detail.
David
It is really easy to check re Socrates. Just do it if you don’t believe me. Plato & Socrates were different guys, but Plato fed off Socrates and used his persona. In fact, have you ever seen anybody who thought Socrates was a “Mark Twain” for Plato?
Re the Einstein quote - it is not applicable in the real world. It is one of those things that seem so smart until you try to apply it.
And do you really think anybody would be quoting this if it had been from some ordinary guy? It really isn’t that clever nor is it a workable definition for insanity. Otherwise all of us would be in the nut house for dealing with our spouses, trying to stick to diets, giving up bad habits and, of course, working with our computers.
Of course, I stipulate that whether or not you like this quote is a lot like taste in music. If it means something to you, great.
Re health care reform - no country that has anything like universal healthcare has anything like out agressive legal system. It is not really a separate subject. My prediction (you can write it down now) is that President Obama’s health care reform will come to the most grief when trying to get lawyers on board if government takes over some of the liability, as it must if it is the payer.
BTW - I am probably the most radical person on this blog re health care. I would just nationalize the whole show (a Scandinavian model) and ration care when necessary. Going half way is like being a little pregnant or trying to jump a chasm in two hops.
Posted by: Christine at June 16, 2009 06:09 PMFrench Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier:
France condemns the brutal repression of peaceful protests and the repeated attacks on the liberty of the press and freedom of speech.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs:
Obviously we continue to have concern about what we’ve seen. Obviously the Iranians are looking into this, as well. We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.
David R. Remer-
Let me state this as plainly and calmly as I can, so you understand I say this with disagreement, not anger: Our situation is nowhere near as bad as theirs.
These people, if they’re on the wrong side of an argument get billy-clubbed and even shot, even if they’re just protesting peacefully. These people, their leaders get arrested if the Government doesn’t like their point of view. Their people, can see their government impose a result on the election with virtual impunity, which doesn’t matter anyways because the country is really lead by an unelected religious tyrant.
I don’t think our complaints about politicians being corrupt and hard to get out of office compare to the unaccountability that the regime in Iran has. The government in America knows that if they get violent with the people, the people might just get violent with them right back.
There are better and more appropriate comparisons to make. We have the problem of how to deal with money in a free elections system- what binds us is not formal, not constitutional, but all a matter of attitude. We could decide tomorrow to ditch the lot of them, and there isn’t a damn thing they could do about it. The Iranian people apparently just tried the same, and their government slammed the door in their face.
We don’t need to stampeded people towards policy with hyperbole like this. It belittles the plight of those who don’t have free elections to worry about just yet.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2009 08:40 PMChristine said: “Plato & Socrates were different guys, but Plato fed off Socrates and used his persona.”
That’s your opinion. You have yet to provide a hyperlink to an historical evidenciary research paper or web site to support your opinion.
“In fact, have you ever seen anybody who thought Socrates was a “Mark Twain” for Plato?”
One of my philosophy Ph.D’s in the 1980’s hypothesized that Socrates was a writing tool of Plato’s. When you think of the manner in which the Greeks wrote then, using allegory and myth to communicate, it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary.
You keep saying the same thing, even though in myriad ways, it is demonstrably wrong. Einstein’s quote is highly transportable and relevant, as your comments demonstrate :-)
It is a reality that voters are both hopeful when voting and disapprove of Congress 89% to 11% (Oct. 08), while at the same time going to the polls to reelect the same congress persons responsible for the voter’s low approval rating. Einstein’s quote is absolutely applicable to this situation.
Your refusal to accept that fact or the myriad other relevant applications like in cognitive dissonance theory, is in itself, a demonstration of the applicability of Einstein’s quotation. And I thank for you the first hand evidence to prove the point. :-)
Stephen D., thanks for the comments. Too bad it appears you either didn’t read the entire article closely and jumped to conclusions, or, failed to comprehend the differences I alluded to in the article similar to those you point out. You are arguing points never made in the Article, yet you address your comment to me. A bit baffling.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2009 09:09 PMDavid
Your philosophy PhD perhaps had his own Marlowe/Shakespeare theory. He could argue that a lot of what Plato put into Socrates mouth, especially in the later years, was Plato. But there was indeed a historical Socrates. Perhaps the philosophy PhD did not understand historical sources. Plato, as I said, later used his persona, but he did not create the man.
It is so well known that Socrates was historical and besides your PhD guy, I have never heard of anyone denying it, that is why I didn’t think it necessary to put a link. Socrates is mentioned in Xenophon and Aristophanes, both of whom had a chance to know the man, as did Plato.
Aristophanes did not like Socrates and ridiculed him. Socrates was also known to be a lover of Alcibiades, who also appears in Plato’s texts and is a definitely historical figure.
These are the first couple of links you find if you Google Socrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2d.htm
http://wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/SOCRATES.HTM
Besides your PhD guy (probably not a full professor, I am only guessing w/o contrary evidence, sort of like his Plato idea) have you ever heard of anybody who thought Plato was not a historical person? Are there any links?
Re Einstein’s quote – we both indeed are doing the same things and expecting different results. I don’t believe we are both insane. But according to Einstein’s definition we are.
Wouldn’t the syllogism apply?
All people who repeat the same thing and expect different results are insane
David & Christine repeat the same thing and expect different results.
Therefore David and Christine are insane.
Of course, as I read this blog and observe politics, this would apply to almost everybody.
DR
It may have slipped by you but congress WAS recently reformed. The Democratic Party is now firmly in control. This is a big change. Were it not then why is there such vocal Republican opposition to new policy directions. The new congress may not comply with all your personal objectives but the change is breathtaking and profound.A little credit where due.
David,
You caught me off guard with the comment about him being a convention of Plato’s, so I did some quick research to make sure that I hadn’t been mislead all these years (or better said, misleading myself, since I’m sure that the faults would have been my comprehension not the teachers). I hit the same sites Christine did based ona quick Google Search.
Her analysis is pretty much in line with everything that I have learned about him as well (and reconfirmed this evening). The one thing I didn’t get far enough to find was the he was the brains behind the halo effect. I kept getting phsych sources for this. Christine, can you point me to the source for this if you have the time?
In terms or her assessment of Einstein, I think if I remember correctly, that even he felt that he suffered from it. He learned some valuable lessons during his original forrays into the political pool for Zionist movement and became much less specific in policy focus and more of a fund-raising figure head (not much different that the good work that Bono is doing now for Africa).
While I think at this point, the quote under discussion has been thoroughly dissected, I have to admit that I use it with my team at work quite frequently, and it does have it’s rhetorical usefullness. I will concede to Christine’s point that it may not be very accurate.
As to the major point of the article David, during the tail end of the very engaging debate on the U.S. education system, this discussion of cognative dissonance arose. It caused me to rethink the whole relationship between the Congressionsal approval ratings at the local level vs. Congress as a whole. I think that reason that we get the varied statistics is not that we have a national cognative dissonance problem, but rather we are measuring them on two very different scales.
For our individual Congresspeople, most people are scoring them based on a combination of three factors: name recognition, likability, service provision, lack of scandals/ negatives, and voting record; likely in that order. Generally, people find it more difficult to disapprove of people they know and like especially if they or some they know have received services from their office as long as they haven’t robbed the church till or voted against something is one of your core values or principals. This is a fairly low scale by Congressional grading sheets which would explain why most are getting “B“‘s from their constituents.
For the Congress as a whole though, the grading scale is dependent upon on more big picutre items: the national and world economy, whether we believe our children will be better off than we were, the price of gasoline, the numbers of scandals in Congress in recent memory (and other negatives), and the scores of the President, the Supreme Court, and lobbyists since most people view Congress as just a piece of the overall Washington puzzle.
Additionally, the highest grade that Congress could probably ever likely receive would be a C+. Since the first Continental Congress, people in the U.S. have been distrustful of what is going on in Philadelphia or Washington.
David R. Remer-
I did read it, and regardless of what you said, I understood it. You state, outright, that the Iranians have an American voting problem. I think, at this point, they wish they had free enough elections for campaign finance to be a problem.
Maybe you consider the comparison justified, I don’t. I think it’s excessive, and that Americans don’t face the hardships in getting to the polls that Iranians do, or getting their votes counted. Americans should not try to dramatize their own difficulties by hitching a ride on the suffering of the Iranian people.
I’m not saying there aren’t problems with our system. I’m just saying they are nothing in comparison to those that people in Teheran and elsewhere in this country are dealing with.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2009 08:21 AMbills, you call this game of musical chairs to direct undisciplined governance, reform? We speak differing languages.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2009 01:49 PMStephen D. said: “I did read it, and regardless of what you said, I understood it.”
Well, that pretty much says it all. Without regard for what I said, you are going to understand what I was thinking anyway you choose to. That’s fine, but, don’t expect me to debate with someone without rule or reason.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2009 01:51 PMRob, yes, yes, and slavery was legal in America before it wasn’t anymore. Past does not have to be prologue. You attempt to explain the disparity between congressional approval ratings and incumbency election rate on the basis of the criteria used by voters in the past. Do we necessarily have to keep slavery alive because it was before?
VOID is about changing the criteria by which voters cast their vote. Even by your own account, the criteria used by hosts of voters is not critical, analytical, or objective in terms of public expectation of Congress.
You don’t seem to be defending the criteria used in the past, and that is to your credit. But, the issue raised in the article and Einstein’s quote is if people vote by their criteria of the past, they will never get the reforms in Congress they seek. I seriously cannot find fault with the reason or logic proposed in the article, that an anti-incumbent swell amongst the electorate would cause a significant change in Congressional priorities and values which would better represent the expectations of the electorate. Though some here have tried and failed to find fault with that logic and reason, or attempted to sidetrack that issue with pedantic tangents to avoid the correctness of the conclusion at hand.
As for Socrates, no doubt more historical evidence has been presented since my days in college in ‘70’s and early 80’s. I am pleased that the Gay Socrates was likely a real person, though I have yet to confirm this myself on the basis of real physical evidence, and not other’s conjecture present and past. Did you yourself come across references to concrete physical evidence of Socrate’s existence and writings?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2009 02:06 PMDavid
Primary sources – besides Plato - are Xenophon, who defends him (http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/xen-socr.html) and Aristophanes, who ridicules him in “The Clouds”. Aristotle talks about Socrates. Although was born too late to have known him personally, he would have had opportunities to meet and talk to Socrates contemporaries and it would difficult for Plato to foist an elaborate hoax on Aristotle, even if that had been his intention.
W/o Plato, Socrates probably would not have been very well known, but this is not an uncommon fate for historical figures. Ancient historians don’t have the depth of records available to modern ones. Mention by four important contemporary or near contemporary sources is pretty good. I have been interested in this subject for many years and I have never come across any scholars who doubt the historical nature of Socrates and my recent search still hasn’t turned up any. It just doesn’t seem to be a subject of serious dispute. I really cannot prove the negative. All that I can say is that in all the sources I have seen, I have never seen it seriously considered and my belief is that in the 2400 years that passed since that time, and the thousands of scholars who have poured over the texts, somebody would have noticed serious incongruities.
Re “gay” Socrates – the term doesn’t really apply in the ancient world. There was a different culture surrounding it in those days. There was the practice of pederasty, involving a younger man and an older one, but it didn’t necessarily mean that either of the parties was gay in the sense we use the term. It was done in a particular time and situation. Alcibiades, for example, the lover of Socrates, was also very well known as a seducer of women. And older men who acted as the passive partner or were generally too availalbe scorned, as you can see in the plays of Aristophanes.
It was very important to the ancient Greeks to be “manly” They would probably strongly reject the current gay culture of gay rights although they would embrace the more macho versions.
If you want to explore a place where scholars are divided, this is the place, BTW. There is little detailed evidence in historical sources and modern historians have read in what they wanted, depending on their own proclivities and prejudices.
In English usage, the term “Platonic relationship” was meant as a spiritual friendship w/o a physical component. This is based on one interpretation of situation described by Plato. There are others. Partisans on both sides of the debate tend to dismiss the other side as ignorant and/or prejudiced. IMO, it is undeniable that Socrates engaged in practices we would today call bisexual, but it is silly to apply our modern labels to activities of this ancient civilization.
Posted by: Christine at June 17, 2009 08:15 PMChristine, no offense meant; your comments are pedantic. Socrates is written of by Plato as oogling a (presumably) beautiful young man across the court, in the same way a homosexual male might be scripted to oogle another male in a modern movie. I use the term gay to refer to homosexual attraction.
As for Xenophon, his apology may be a direct reply the writings of Plato on Socrates. Aristophenes may have been writing of Socrates the way we may debate and write of Paul Bunyan or Tom Sawyer today, as if they were real people, for within the fiction designed to tell a relevant tale, they are considered real by the reader through a voluntary suspension of disbelief, in accordance with the intention of the author.
The Greeks had a long history of inventing characters and writing about them as if real, in order to impart what was considered by the authors to be important and relevant discoveries of their own thinking and experience.
I shall remain skeptical until their is an official tax record, death certificate, or other concrete evidence of the actual existence of Socrates. I myself have written of the actions of V as if his motives and acts were historical record to be analyzed as history. That would V, as in V for Vendetta. I see no reason to believe the Greek writers, with a cultural history dating back centuries of inventing characters human-like as gods in order to impart wisdom and understanding of how and why their world is as it was, did do the same with Plato’s invention of Socratesm, in the absence of physical evidence of Socrates existence.
I appreciate your references, but, nothing in them either offers evidence of Socrate’s actual existence or refutes his existence outside Plato’s earlier works. Show me a work by a contemporary of Socrates other Plato that predates Plato’s references, and I would consider that as strong evidence of Socrate’s independent existence.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, with or without evidence. I remain open minded about things for which I have no irrefutable evidence, and thus far you have provided no historical evidence or proof of Socrate’s existence outside the machinations of Plato’s mind and writings.
One of the hallmarks of the Socratic dialectic is the nearly perfect absence of first person argument or testimony as evidence. The Greeks were well aware of the pitfall of engaging in ‘he says, she says’ type exchanges of opinion. Everyone has an opinion, making opinions virtually worthless as persuasive argument.
Socrates can be viewed in Plato’s and other’s works afterward as an invented tool used to elevate the debate above pedestrian opinion (which wealthy patrons would not value or pay for), and provide an aura of respect for what Plato, and other writers following, argued, as if from a position of authority, (which Socrates was as the inventor of the Socratic dialectic and seeker truth which does not emanate from the gods and mythology which provided no predictability over the real world at all).
The gods could not provide predictability over the storms of the Aegean, which sank Greek merchant ships costing enormous sums to respected members and patrons of Greek society. The Socratic dialectic held out the promise of perceiving, with proper analysis, the nature of the storms suddenly arising on the Aegean, and therefore had enormous potential value to those with the means to pay for such predictability of the Aegean. In other words, Socrates may just as reasonably and easily been a constructed meal ticket for thinkers and writers seeking to paid for the promise of useful knowledge and control over the real world of profit and business.
Plato and his contemporary writers, thinkers, and teachers after all, had as much incentive to be paid for their truth seeking as scientists do today. And peddling control over the physical world was just as profitable then, as now.
So, I will remain skeptical until concrete evidence is come across supporting the actual life and words of Socrates independent of the machinations of Plato’s brilliance.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2009 11:01 PM
David R. Remer-
I respect your call for greater involvement of people in elections, voting out incumbents when they don’t perform up to specification.
I wish campaign finance to have as remote and arbitrary a relationship with who gets what they want out of government as can be.
I just simply find your comparison to Iran excessive. Right now, there’s a Republican Congressman, Pete Hoekstra I think, who’s comparing the struggles of his party to the struggle of Iranian voters. It’s a bit of a joke right now, with one person quipping that somebody barged in on them in the bathroom, so they know how Pearl Harbor felt like.
We need campaign finance reform, but in my opinion, we also need to convince ourselves that we have as much sway in electing officials as we have in actual potential.
The problem of incumbency in this country is not enforced at gunpoint, by the threat of arrest and torture, or by a falsification of the vote. The main problems with campaign finance are how it affects media access, and the ability to campaign. The main problem with incumbency is that incumbents normally start with the high ground of being both well known, and not so well known- their persona on every camera, their actions hidden deep in archives and registers.
We can push for abstract causes all by themselves, or we can elaborate on the theme by introducing people to more complete information on the choices that they are making.
We have that chance. At the moment, the Iranians don’t. That’s something we should keep in perspective.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2009 02:58 PMStephen D, then we have no disagreement on this issue. Iran is like America in that neither nation has the ability to remove incumbents from office despite mass disapproval of those incumbent’s governance. That fact remains, and that is the only parallel I drew between the two nations.
We agree on the campaign financing, but, YOUR PARTY does not.
We agree on convincing ourselves TO take control of elections away from the wealthy special interest corporate lobbyists. That is what VOID is all about. VOID is one of those organizations with a built in term limit of its own. When the Congress is responding appropriately to short and long term needs of the nation and the people, then the reason and rationale for VOID no longer exists, and it will go away.
The Iranians have the same chance Colonialists had in the American colonies. Death as a consequence of fighting for change, is still a choice. Revolution is no stranger to Iranians. They need but to seize the moment and make the same choice for themselves that Colonialists made here.
So, I have to disagree with you regarding Iranians not have the same choice Americans have always had since the tyranny of King George, and still have today, as exercised in response to Pres. George, et. al. Revolution can be peaceful or bloody, that is up to the government being revolted against, here and there.
When I refer to Pres. George, I am not referring to Democrats turn at musical chairs in the Congress and W.H. I am referring to the tsunami of defections from both the Democratic and GOP parties into the ranks of independent voters. That is a political revolution taking place before our very eyes and will have enormous consequences for decades to come.
And the duopoly parties are entirely responsible for forcing those changes to occur for good or ill by their abdication of one person one vote democracy and the nation’s and people’s futures in this country sold out for next year’s reelection.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2009 06:29 PMDavid R. Remer-
Don’t mistake what I said, David. There’s nothing that will prevent voters from voting out incumbents. They just don’t do it.
What can you do? Force people to vote them out? No, since this is Democracy, and we are not like the mullahs in Iran, people have to be encouraged to do that by free choice.
You will not encourage that with talk of duopolies and stuff like that. That only registers with the people who don’t have leanings, who don’t belong to a party. Like or not, you’re better off presenting a much more sober and restrained case, with a lot less of this third-party partisan language.
And duopoly or not, these people know when they’re under the gun. I wrote on Daily Kos today that we seem to be a silent majority, us Democrats. We seem willing to show up on election day, but when it comes time to voice our opinion, we seem to be drowned out by a motivated chorus of voices motivated by a fear of the loss of the status quo.
I look at politics as if our national electorate is an ecosystem, with all kinds of little environments within. The nature of that ecosystem creates the survival pressures. I’m concerned that no amount of incumbent defending or destroying will help anybody’s interests, if we don’t make those interests constantly clear to our representatives, our senators, and our president. Whether they are part of our political niche or not, we are their voters, and whatever their affiliation, if they feel that their self-interest is threatened by voting a certain way… Well, how do you think they’ll vote?
It’s not enough to influence them by elections. Our voice must be constantly in our ear, and we can’t let campaign finance become equated to an absolute barrier to our communication with them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2009 08:00 PMStephen D. said: “You will not encourage that with talk of duopolies and stuff like that.”
Care to provide evidence of that? VOID has evidence to the contrary, in the thousands of dollars in individual memberships and VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS car window sticker sales.
You can wish away or ignore realities like VOID, but, more and more people flock to the cause every month of the year, for 2.5 years now. I understand the threat VOID poses to your Party’s incumbency as a majority party, and suspect that is where such unfounded comments as yours above, come from.
But, you know, with or without VOID, your party’s days as majority party are numbered. As they have always been numbered and limited in the past. Incumbency guarantees that limit on majority status with all the ills that attend incumbent reelection after reelection, and governance for reelection instead of the nation’s and people’s general welfare and future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2009 08:52 PMP.S., You said, Stephen: “I’m concerned that no amount of incumbent defending or destroying will help anybody’s interests, if we don’t make those interests constantly clear to our representatives, our senators, and our president.”
I think K-Street has quite insured incumbents are well aware of what the issues are from nearly all the people. The problem is they take their marching orders from those funding their campaigns, not those who voted for them.
For those who voted for them, they provide multi-million dollar advertising and propaganda campaigns during the election to confuse, obfuscate, and spin their dismal record on watching out for the voters. And it is far more effective than it ever should be in America, thanks in large part to our dismal K-12 educational system designed to serve political ends, as much as the students. This recession and financial collapse is epitomal evidence of that. Democrats hands weren’t clean in this economic meltdown, not by a long shot.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2009 08:59 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not enough to influence them by elections. Our voice must be constantly in our ear, and we can’t let campaign finance become equated to an absolute barrier to our communication with them.True, but voting-out bad politicians is the most effective method.
Who can name 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable?
Perhaps the voters should start holding Congress responsible as a whole, of trying to figure out who (if anyone) is responsible and accountable?
Unless someone can name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, what does it indicate about Congress as a whole, much less the voters that repeatedly reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election? Not very smart is it?
But, of course, YOUR party is now the new IN-PARTY, and you don’t like that idea (or anything non-Democrat), eh?
It is only a matter of time before there’s a repeat of years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when most unhappy voters ousted 108, 123, and 206 Congress persons (respectively).
That’s what will get their attention.
Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, blindly partisan, etc., when enough of the voters are deep in debt , bankrupt , jobless , homeless , and hungry? (i.e. after getting their Education)?
Power almost always corrupts, and decades of deterioration are plenty of proof of it.
Fiscal and economic conditions have never been worse in a very long time.
The debt IS still growing MUCH larger.
The $11.5 Trillion federal National Debt per-capita ($37K) is the largest per-capita debt ever, and is 70% larger than the federal National Debt per-capita ($22K in 2008 dollars) in 1945 after World War II.
The $57 Trillion nation-wide debt has more than quadrupled from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 411% of GDP in year 2008.
You may think that things are all better now that YOUR party is the current IN-PARTY, but they aren’t to any significant degree.
And the IN-PARTY always becomes the OUT-PARTY, because the IN-PARTY always abuses their power.
BTW, the Democrats have had the vast majority of Congress for all but 14 of the last 78 years.
Democrats had the vast majority of Congress for the 40 consecutive years between 1955 and 1995.
So, it’s sort of ridiculous (to say the least) to constantly fuel and wallow in the blind partisan warfare and constantly try to shift all blame to the OTHER party.
Any way, when things get bad enough, enough voters will most likely repeat what voters did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
David R. Remer-
Despair for Democracy is the greatest tool that irresponsible incumbents have. And I think you reinforce that by exagerrating the problems we face in this Democracy, by elevating problems that are largely the result of what people choose not to do to equality with the problems of those people who have no real choice at all.
Was it accidental that Republicans badmouthed what government could do all those years? No, despair in government was strategically encouraged, and efforts to put government to the good use of the public were sabotaged and scuttled, so that people would not be tempted away from them by good ideas, or God forbid, good results.
Go, look at what Rush is doing. Why is he doing his best to make sure that Obama’s reforms don’t work? Simple: if they do, his philosophy attracts fewer.
By telling ourselves Special interests are in control, we learn helplessness, an elephant that was tied with a thick rope that it couldn’t break when young, which it now doesn’t try to break, owing to its past experience.
There is no real power that truly stands in the way of people electing any damn candidate they want to. They have the choice, no matter what the commercials bombard them with.
I also do not buy this notion that Americans are too stupid to govern themselves. I believe that if we, instead of berating people for stupidity, engage their minds, expand their horizons, and and introduce them to new facts and concepts, we can get results.
Which is not to say easy. Or automatic. Or that the forces of good will always win. The world’s too complicated for such simplistic storybook outcomes. I don’t present this forward as some kind of naive belief in happy endings. I present this as a difficult, but ultimately necessary fight that we must fight, and not give up, if we (meaning the voters) are to be the masters of our own destiny.
My thinking is, relating to your second quotation of me, is that once any of those people we send as an alternative to the last person gets up there, one of two things will happen- one, their true nature will be revealed as more corrupt than they let on, or their virtue and connection with us will be tested, as Washington’s insular interests surround them.
My thinking is, we won’t get any definite control until we stop making the assumption that Washington has to be, must be, this kind of isolated, out of touch system, that while this is the natural tendency, it is not the inevitable end. We have to be willing to intrude on this isolation at every turn, making sure that the people in charge know who really holds damocles sword over them.
You know, really, be my guest about kicking out incumbents. I became a Democrat because of what I believed, not who I believed in. I keep on inviting people to go over to Liberal Sites, because somehow people have this illusion that we’re all lockstep Obamabots. Trust me. The dissent runs strong. The folks at DailyKos don’t think twice about challenging incumbent Democrats who don’t support the kind of change this country needs. I recently published a link to Talking Points Memo where they did an in depth report on John Murtha’s dealings.
Drop by Eschaton, on an average day, and you won’t find him positive about the President’s economic team, or fawning over the president’s economic plans.
There are plenty of Democrats you could appeal to, if you wanted to. But you have to be respectful to them. The alternative is, they feel they have to protect their interests. That means shutting you out.
Now I’ve been on this site long enough to know your intentions, and to know they’re good. But there are tons of Democrats out there who don’t have that cushion for your harsh words. The question is, would you rather have them as allies, or as obstacles?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2009 10:37 PMdan-
Out-party, in-party, who cares? It doesn’t make one wrong, or one right! It doesn’t make the third parties right, either. They all could be wrong, and they call be right in part.
Since Watergate, a kind of cynicism has settled over the country, concerning their leaders. Some of the mistrust is justified and healthy, but the cynicism has also translated to a sense of futility about our system, about its perfectability and correctability.
That, I think, has helped the corrupt and the cynical in Washington. Instead of making it a clear moral question, we muddy the waters by giving the special interests far too much credit for their influence in Washington. Their influence is strong, but if enough people make their voices heard, there will be a consideration of self-interest and public opinion that might not be there otherwise.
When you guys talk about VOID in generaly, I honestly can’t say that I’m frightened or dismayed by the idea! But I don’t think leaving these folks in Washington alone between elections will be helpful, whether or not we succeed in getting a fresh crop of politicians in.
We need to know what these people are doing, who they are doing it with, and what we can do to remind them of just who can rehire, fire, or promote them when all is said and done.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 19, 2009 09:30 AMStephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Out-party, in-party, who cares?You care don’t you?
After all, your numerous comments seem to reveal a disdain for anything non-Democrat …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: … as I don’t like to hear people get down on my party, …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the Green party for George W. Bush (43) getting elected?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans have the choice, which I gladly let them have, of doing scuzzy things so they can make the Democrats look bad …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I do think voters should ally with Democrats.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th] congress a do-nothing congress … {Why? What did the 110th do-nothing Congress accomplish since 7-NOV-2006 ? And the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. {We’ll see, since 85%-to-90% of incumbent politicians were re-elected.)
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t disdain third parties.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: My generation of Democrats prides itself on not being caught blindsided by either the Republicans, or their own side’s problems. The ears [of Democrats] are to the ground, and we’re always, ALWAYS watching. {Always? Then why does the IN-PARTY “always” become the OUT-PARTY?}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. {Really? No kiddin’?}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote {NEW!, which is ironic indeed}: … why do you uncritically accept partisan rhetoric …?
Also, the majority of voters will most likely care eventually; perhaps when enough of the voters are deep into debt, bankrupt, jobless, homeless (8,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day), and hungry (while the fat cats get bailed-out and richer), then perhaps enough voters will finally question their own bad voting habits?
The sooner the better. Later = more pain and misery and longer lasting too.
The voters can change it when they want to (provided they don’t lose the ability to vote or get an accurate vote count), despite the numerous unfair incumbent advantages, and the most likely will when failing to do so finally becomes too painful, and these 10 major abuses become too painful.
But, blind partisan loyalists cringe at that, because all the matters to blind partisan loyalists is winning seats for THEIR party.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It doesn’t make one wrong, or one right! It doesn’t make the third parties right, either. They all could be wrong, and they call [sic] be right in part.That’s what people mean by circular, twisted, obfuscated gobbledygook.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Since Watergate, a kind of cynicism has settled over the country, concerning their leaders. Some of the mistrust is justified and healthy, but the cynicism has also translated to a sense of futility about our system, about its perfectability and correctability.There’s no need for any sense of futility.
The voters will figure it out eventually, as they did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when they voted out 108, 123, and 206 members of Congress (respectively).
But, if there is anything to make people want to resign to futility, it is the circular, twisted, obfuscated gobbledygook and blind partisan warfare that some people engage in, which tries to perpetuate the status quo; fuels and wallows in the petty, circular partisan warfare; and blatantly and shamelessly discourages anything non-Democrat; and tries to make excuses for pork-barrel, bail-outs, the nanny-state extreme, and severe government bloat and waste.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: That, I think, has helped the corrupt and the cynical in Washington.
Anyone who has a genuine sense futility is completely wrong.
Resigning to futility will solve nothing, and VOID does not promote a sense of futility, but instead encouraged smarter and wiser voting, which quite obviously is not repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
What possibly bothers your most (and other blind partisan loyalists) is that what VOIDnow.org recommends is exactly will happen eventually anyway.
The IN-PARTY and become the OUT-PARTY and vice-versa (as always happens).
Eventually, enough voters will figure it out, as most voters did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when they voted out 108, 123, and 206 members of Congress (respectively).
Evnetually, enough voters will figure out that YOUR beloved IN-PARTY is no better than the OUT-PARTY.
The IN-PARTY always becomes the OUT-PARTY, and that’s what pains blind party loyalists who want so badly to maintain the status quo for THEIR party.
Unfortunately, the only constant in the universe is change.
So it’s best to get used to it.
Voters are growing more and more unhappy as more and more voters are feeling the painful consequences of decades of abuses and corrupt, irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and incompetent government.
For you to try to defend such blatant government waste, arrogance, bloat, and corruption, as if YOUR IN-PARTY is any better than the previous IN-PARTY, is what is truly futile, which will become all too clear eventually when enough voters get their education (the sooner, the better).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Instead of making it a clear moral question, we muddy the waters by giving the special interests far too much credit for their influence in Washington.What’s this “we” crap?
Special interests use money to influence elected incumbent politicians, and your comment is pretty ridiculous to minimize that influence.
There is not doubt whatsoever that the federal government is FOR-SALE, which is abundantly clear based on 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters who are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 more more: One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Their influence is strong, but if enough people make their voices heard, there will be a consideration of self-interest and public opinion that might not be there otherwise.You seem to be under the misconception that voters can make themselves heard by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. In case you haven’t noticed, Congress often ignores the majority of voters. But why should Congress ignore the majority of voters, when that same majority of voters blindly pull the party-lever and repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismal 11%-to-18% approval ratings? Blind partisan loyalties are often at the root of such misconceptions, while conveniently disregarding the effect that the massive ousting of irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians would have (not only short-term, but long-term). Blind partisan loyalists don’t want to hear that. But it is almost inevitable, because the continued corruption in BOTH parties and the decades of past corruption in BOTH parties will continue to cause pain and misery that will finally motivate enough voters to do what most unhappy voters did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933.
And if VOIDnow.org, One-Simple-Idea.com, FOAVC.ORG, RepublicSentry.com, Anti-Incumbents.com, Article-V-Convention.com, GiveBackOurCongress.com, HearMyThunder.org, NoToIncumbents.org, PoliWatch.org, TenureCorrupts.com, etc., etc., etc., can provide information to help voters decide to vote out more FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and corrupt politicians (sooner than later), than that is a very good thing. Voters will figure it out, because enough pain and misery will eventually provide the much needed motivation (as it did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933 when voters ousted hundreds of incumbent politicians). Unfortunately, as in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, voters may wait too long, and deteriorating economic conditions could last another decade (again).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: When you guys talk about VOID in generaly, I honestly can’t say that I’m frightened or dismayed by the idea!Your comments above reveal otherwise.
Your many comments over the years reveal otherwise.
Your many comments over the years reveal a disdain for anything non-DEMOCRAT.
Such comments are obviously anything but non-partisan.
In fact, your articles and comments often fuel and wallow in the partisan-warfare (as if either party is significantly different from the other, beyond their extremes which, are both bad).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But I don’t think leaving these folks in Washington alone between elections will be helpful, whether or not we succeed in getting a fresh crop of politicians in.That’s not enough.
What you want is clearly revealed by your comments …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I do think voters should ally with Democrats.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. {Really? No kiddin’?}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: My generation of Democrats prides itself on not being caught blindsided by either the Republicans, or their own side’s problems. The ears [of Democrats] are to the ground, and we’re always, ALWAYS watching. {Always? Then why does the IN-PARTY “always” become the OUT-PARTY?}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: … as I don’t like to hear people get down on my party, …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t disdain third parties.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the Green party for George W. Bush (43) getting elected?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th] congress a do-nothing congress … {Why? What did the 110th do-nothing Congress accomplish since 7-NOV-2006 ? And the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. {We’ll see, since 85%-to-90% of incumbent politicians were re-elected.)
- Stephen Daugherty wrote {NEW!, which is ironic indeed}: … why do you uncritically accept partisan rhetoric …?
HHHHMMMMMmmmmmmmm … so, what are voters supposed to do? Vote for more DEMOCRATs?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We need to know what these people are doing, who they are doing it with, and what we can do to remind them of just who can rehire, fire, or promote them when all is said and done.Then why are you so against people recommending that FOR-SALE, corrupt, incompetent, and irresponsible incumbent politicians be voted out of office?
Why do you try to mischaracterize VOIDnow.org and others wanting voters to stop blindly pulling the party-lever?
Your comments are inconsistent (to say the least), if not total circular, obfuscated gobbledygook.
BTW: 4 “I“s in paragraph 3 and 4 (of 5) in comment 28257: www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006586.html#283257.
Some reports state over 200 Iranians killed.
Freedom isn’t free.
I lived in Tehran, Iran in 1972-1973.
Tehran is at the base of the Alborz mountain range, with an official population of about 7,1 million expanding to approximately 13.4 million in Greater Tehran.
Things were better then (but far from great) in many ways.
In 1953, Iran, or Persia as it was then called, had a semi-functioning democratic system. A successful coup by the CIA and British Intelligence overthrew the democratically elected government and replaced them with the hereditary Shah of Persia. The Shah’s abuse of power led directly to the Islamic Revolution and numerous worse problems ever since. In the early 1980s, Iraq thus was encouraged by the U.S. to invade Iran. Iraq was also supplied with arms from the U.S. to fight the war against Iran. Then Iran was supplied with intelligence to help balance the power, essentially pitting of Iran and Iraq against each other. This assistance helped solidify Saddam Hussein’s military ambitions. But Saddam Hussien learned of the U.S. helping Iran that was essentially the pitting Iran and Iraq against each other. Indirectly, it encouraged the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 by Iraq, all of which led to the mess in Iraq today.
Any way, if the Iranian people tolerate the oppression and voting fraud by their government, it will most likely get worse much worse … at least, until that becomes too painful … because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All dictators are eventually over-thrown. But, it can take decades and sometimes centuries before enough people finally decide they’ve had enough oppression.
The Iranian people have already tolerated too much oppression, and they now are unable to get an accurate vote-count.
Even then, “The Supreme Leader” (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) nominates the persons who run for election for President (who is still under the control of “The Supreme Leader”). That person must also (by their law) be a Shite Muslim (as are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi and the other nominees). Whoever the President is, they are still under the thumb of “The Supreme Leader”, who is really the root of the oppression. But, perhaps enough Iranian people have had enough? It will be a terrible shame if the crack-down on protesting voters succeeds, because it will most likely be followed by brutal persecution of many protestors for a long time after, and those that died will have been somewhat a waste, and essentially result in more oppression for a long time.
At any rate, the voters of Iran have the government that the voters elect tolerate (and re-elect tolerate, and re-elect tolerate, and re-elect tolerate , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Dan-
I was merely making a logically sound statement to counter your logically fallacious one. Being in-party doesn’t make you wrong, being out-party doesn’t make you right. The quality of your facts and your inference are what make you wrong or right.
The fact that I’m a Democrat who favors Democrats should not stop anybody from recognizing that this is a perfectly logical statement to make, especially considering the fact that my party is the in-party, and such a statement implicitly acknowledges the fallibility of that party. Democrats have been wrong before, and some of them are doing a number of things wrong right now in my opinion.
I believe the Republicans are doing even worse, though, not even trying to create productive policy. Instead of presenting alternatives that would be acceptable to a majority of Democrats and Republicans (no law says a vote must be along strict party lines), they present alternatives no Democrat can support, that a majority of Americans would not support.
But hey, they could get their act together. They could figure things out. And heck, despite my tendency not to think so, the Democrats could have things just plain wrong. That’s why we have a Democracy, so that if one segment of the population has it wrong, the other folks are available to lead the country in the right direction, instead of being forced, like in Iran, to keep their mouths shut and their heads down.
You aren’t the first person to believe strongly in something and advocate it, and I’m not the last. But fortunately, in our country, you can express such views, and be part of the process of correction and accountability.
That’s what people mean by circular, twisted, obfuscated gobbledygook.That’s what you, and perhaps a few others who take your cue mean. And besides, what I said is textbook logic: who somebody is associated with, or who they are doesn’t effect the truth value of what they say, or what they propose.
The Republicans aren’t wrong because they’re Republicans. They’re wrong because healthcare got worse, not better after we let private healthcare companies win the day. They’re wrong because they waged the Iraq war how they wanted to wage it and they screwed it up. They’re wrong because their approach to diplomacy cost us power and prestige in the world, rather than gaining. They’re wrong because torture doesn’t work. They’re wrong because the tax cuts were not followed by an improved economy, but by a ballooning deficit.
They’re wrong on the merits, and people like me take the time to explain the merits of our arguments. That’s not blind partisan warfare. Blind partisan warfare is when you make snide accusations and caustic comments without supporting evidence or premises.
Your comments above reveal otherwise.
What I have said is that these are not magic cures for the ills of government. Neither is the rise of a third party. All the same problems that come with two parties remain with more than one.
You can criticize my use of pronouns all you want to, but when it comes down to it, corruption and unaccountability are chronic problems in a society like ours, problems that must be dealt with at all times, and which can only be treated into remission, never totally cured.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2009 12:43 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- I was merely making a logically sound statement to counter your logically fallacious one.Then, perhaps you got it backwards?
Logic is not countered with twisted, circular, obfuscated, illogical gobbledygook.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being in-party doesn’t make you wrong, being out-party doesn’t make you right.No, but there is something wrong with rabid, blind partisan loyalties and constant fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, divisive, circular partisan warfare.
There’s a difference.
While it ain’t illegal, don’t expect everyone to join in the wallowin’ in the incessant partisan warfare.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The quality of your facts and your inference are what make you wrong or right. The fact that I’m a Democrat who favors Democrats should not stop anybody from recognizing that this is a perfectly logical statement to make, especially considering the fact that my party is the in-party, and such a statement implicitly acknowledges the fallibility of that party.False.
There is nothing wrong with partisan loyalties (to a degree).
There is something wrong with rabid, blind partisan loyalties and constant fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, divisive, circular partisan warfare.
There’s a difference.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have been wrong before, and some of them are doing a number of things wrong right now in my opinion.Good. That’s an amazing admission, but without reading further, that will almost certainly be followed by more fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the partisan warfare … let’s see …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I believe the Republicans are doing even worse, though, not even trying to create productive policy.See. Like clockwork.
Sure, the IN-PARTY is always a little worse, which is why they always become the OUT-PARTY.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Instead of presenting alternatives that would be acceptable to a majority of Democrats and Republicans (no law says a vote must be along strict party lines), they present alternatives no Democrat can support, that a majority of Americans would not support.For how long? Remember, the IN-PARTY is always a little worse, which is why they always become the OUT-PARTY.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But hey, they could get their act together. They could figure things out.Funny. And you think YOUR party has figured it out?
There seems to be some sort of disease that doesn’t seem to appear in any medical books.
- (01) There seems to be a disease (let’s call it “blind partisan loyalty”), and it seems to cause some people to want to blindly fuel and wallow in the incessant, blind partisan warfare?
- (02) It appears to be a real malady that afflicts many people, and the signs are not hard to recongnize.
- (03) While there’s no rabid foaming at the mouth, there is a steady, rabid stream of incessant blaming the OTHER party for everthing.
- (04) It often borders on the delusional, and often is completely delusional.
- (05) Then they seem to be afflicted with an almost robotic-like party-lever pulling habit.
- (06) Then they seem to fall all over themselves worshiping THEIR leader as if they are some god (as evidenced by Evan Thomas, who said “In a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above the world, he’s sort of God.” To which you hear Matthews in agreement, saying, “Yeah.”).
- (07) Then they seem to rail against anything not-THEIR-PARTY.
- (08) Then they seem incredulous that anyone would have a problem with any of that! ? !
- (09) But, when things finally get painful enough, a strange thing happens. They switch sides.
- (10) Then, after a few more years, they switch sides again.
- (11) The IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY continue to take turns, and things continue to deteriorate.
- (12) Then voters wonder why their leaders would treat them so badly when the voters have so kindly repeatedly reward them with perpetual re-election.
- (13) Then, one day (similar to year 1933), they finally seem to overcome their disease, and they suddenly realize that the real solution is to stop repeatedly rewarding crooked incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.
- (14) Then things get a little better for a while (2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward).
- (15)
- Tnen it starts all over again (return to step (01))
Stephen Daugherty wrote: And heck, despite my tendency not to think so, the Democrats could have things just plain wrong. That’s why we have a Democracy, so that if one segment of the population has it wrong, the other folks are available to lead the country in the right direction, instead of being forced, like in Iran, to keep their mouths shut and their heads down.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You aren’t the first person to believe strongly in something and advocate it, and I’m not the last.There is a big difference between:
- simply advocating that voters not repeatedly reward corrupt politician with re-election (especially since the majority also gives Congress dismal 11%-to-28% approval ratings),
- and the rabid, blind partisan loyalties; the incessant fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, divisive, circular partisan warfare; and the incessant, circular blame game, all obviously to maintain the status quo.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But fortunately, in our country, you can express such views, and be part of the process of correction and accountability.Yes, fortunately.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s what you, and perhaps a few others who take your cue mean.Right. Everyone else is wrong, and …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: And besides, what I said is textbook logic: who somebody is associated with, or who they are doesn’t effect the truth value of what they say, or what they propose.Yet. Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans aren’t wrong because they’re Republicans. They’re wrong because healthcare got worse, not better after we let private healthcare companies win the day.And you believe YOUR party is better?
History proves otherwise.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: They’re wrong because they waged the Iraq war how they wanted to wage it and they screwed it up.Yes, with the Democrats help.
And which party has had control of Congress since 7-NOV-2006?
And which party has had control of Congress since 4-NOV-2008?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: They’re wrong because their approach to diplomacy cost us power and prestige in the world, rather than gaining. They’re wrong because torture doesn’t work. They’re wrong because the tax cuts were not followed by an improved economy, but by a ballooning deficit.Yes, with the Democrats help.
And which party has had control of Congress since 7-NOV-2006?
And which party has had control of Congress since 4-NOV-2008?
And which party waged the Vietnam War (killing 10 times more Americans)?
And which President put the Japanese Americans in concentration camps?
And who recently gave themselves another automatic raise (10th in 12 years), plus $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses, while U.S. Troops risk life and limb, go without adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and Afghganistan?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: They’re wrong on the merits, and people like me take the time to explain the merits of our arguments. That’s not blind partisan warfare. Blind partisan warfare is when you make snide accusations and caustic comments without supporting evidence or premises.Your comments above reveal otherwise.
Your comments constantly and incessantly fuel and wallow in the blame game, as if there was really much difference.
The IN-PARTY is always a little more corrupt, but it’s convenient to forget that, eh?
It’s more fun to fuel and wallow in the blind partisan warfare and pretend YOUR party is really better to any significant degree, when the fact is, BOTH suck, and the deterioration of the past “thirty years”, which you already acknowledge has been happening for at least 30 years, is ample proof of it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: What I have said is that these are not magic cures for the ills of government. Neither is the rise of a third party. All the same problems that come with two parties remain with more than one.Perhaps.
A third party is really not necessary.
A repeat of 1929, 1931, and 1933, when voters finally decided not to reward incumbent 103, 123, and 206 members of Congress (respectively) with re-election, is what is needed.
And it will most likely happen, when the voters’ failure to do their part finally becomes too painful.
Why does that bother the partisan loyalists so much?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can criticize my use of pronouns all you want to, but when it comes down to it, …HHMMMMmmmmm … 7 “I“s that time.
You said it didn’t mean anything, so there should be no problem, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: … , but when it comes down to it, corruption and unaccountability are chronic problems in a society like ours, problems that must be dealt with at all times, and which can only be treated into remission, never totally cured.Who ever said 100% of corruption would ever be eliminated?
Is that the best you can do?
Is that an excuse?
Is that an argument for mediocrity?
Iran used to have a functioning democratically elected government.
But not anymore.
Freedom isn’t free, because there are always those that want to oppress others.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at June 21, 2009 04:08 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: Here are few I have subscribed to:Those are all good, except for number (2).
- (1) Balanced budget amendment with exclusions for war and economic contraction defined as Recession or Depression, or imminent danger thereof.
- (2) 3 tiered tax system with a flat rate at each tier, corresponding to very wealthy, upper middle class, and below, with respective rates of 50%, 35%, and 18%. Exemption of course for those with incomes under 2.5 times the poverty definition. Corporate income taxes eliminated and government access and service fees levied for businesses which entirely recoup government service costs associated with businesses.
- (3) Businesses held responsible for all negative environmental impacts of their business including cleanup. If that results in bankruptcy, so be it, however, liquidation requires bidders to inherit the clean up debt with a reasonable period for repayment to the government for clean-up costs.
- (4) Non-profit health care delivery enterprises receive preferential contracts and treatment by government agencies, with certain safe harbor provisions not extended to for profit health care deliverers, effectively lowering their insurance costs.
- (5) Government paid vocational retraining provided (if warranted) with repayment, without interest, upon the recipient becoming employed again, on a 10 year repayment plan.
- (6) National Educational benchmarks testing in math and language proficiency to be met by any state, school district, or school receiving federal education dollars. Funding is dropped upon two consecutive semesters of failing benchmarks, or 3 non-consecutive failing semesters in a 3 year period.
- (7) Elimination of federal laws enacted toward victimless crime, elimination of federal laws regarding personal choice ingestion of any materials for any purposes, and reinstatement of enforcement of speedy trial laws in federal criminal courts.
- (8) Elimination of federal death penalties.
- (9) Federally required mandate to States to provide indigent psychiatric hospital care, where the nature of the illness precludes the patient’s ability to self-monitor prescribed maintenance medications
And if you’re going to have a non-flat income tax, then it should not operate on tiers, but a formula that produces a smooth curve without discontinuities.
Here’s what we have today, which is regressive:
30% |———————————————————————————————
27% |———————————————————————————————
24% |————x——————————————————————————-
21% |——-x——-x—————————————————————————
18% |——x————x————————————————————————
15% |—-x—————-x———————————————————————
12% |—x———————-x—————————————————————-
09% |—x——————————-x——————————————————-
06% |-x—————————————————————-x————————
03% |-x—————————————————————————————-x
00% |xx——————————————————————————————
__$0K $25K $50K __ 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … $GROSS INCOME
Here’s what you seem to be recommending:
51% |————————————-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
48% |————————————-x——————————————————
45% |————————————-x——————————————————
42% |————————————-x——————————————————
39% |————————————-x——————————————————
36% |————-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx——————————————————
33% |————-x——————————————————————————
30% |————-x——————————————————————————
27% |————-x——————————————————————————
24% |————-x——————————————————————————
21% |————-x——————————————————————————
18% |—xxxxxxxx——————————————————————————
15% |—x—————————————————————————————-
12% |—x—————————————————————————————-
09% |—x—————————————————————————————-
06% |—x—————————————————————————————-
03% |—x—————————————————————————————-
00% |xxx—————————————————————————————-
__$0K $25K $50K __ 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … $GROSS INCOME
Here’s what I would recommend, which is mildly progressive, but approaches a flat 17% or a flat 25%:
25% |————————————xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (for now, due to debt)
23% |————-x——————————————————————————
21% |——-x————————————————————————————
19% |—-x—————————————————————————————
17% |—x————xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (later, after reducing debt)
15% |—x—-x———————————————————————————-
13% |-x-x—————————————————————————————
11% |-x——————————————————————————————
09% |xx——————————————————————————————
07% |xx——————————————————————————————
05% |xx——————————————————————————————
03% |xx——————————————————————————————
01% |xx——————————————————————————————
__$0K $25K $50K __ 100K __ 200K __ 300K __ 400K __ 500K __ … $GROSS INCOME
50% is way too high.
Heck, 50% is typically considered a partnership.
And 35% is still too high.
With a 50% in total federal taxes, and then the additional 12%-to-15% of state and local taxes, that would leave those individuals with about 38%-to-35% of their gross.
Is that fair?
I would most definitely move somewhere else if I had to pay 62%-to-65% in taxes.
Today, most Americans pay about 27%-to-31% in total federal taxes, and after state and local taxes, that leaves about 61%-to-57% of their gross.
However, as Warren Buffet admits, he only paid 17.7% in total federal taxes on $46 Million in year 2006.
The 27%-to-31% that most Americans pay in total federal taxes could be reduced if there was a flat income tax on all types of personal income.
Also, the reduction or elimination of corporate taxes would help too, since those are merely hidden taxes that are passed along to most American tax payers.
A few years ago, the federal government could have operated on a flat 17% tax on all types of income.
However, the debt is so large now, it may require higher taxes, such as a flat 25% (for a while, anyway) ?
That would be a tax break of about 2%-to-6% for most Americans, and a tax increase of about 7.3% for most of the wealthy who have been paying as little as 17.7% for many years.
Eventually, the flat tax percentage could be reduced to a flat 17%, because 17% of a $13.86 Trillion GDP is about $2.36 Trillion.
The federal government should be able to operate on $2.36 Trillion per year, and if it can’t, it needs to down-size somewhere.
We can’t all work for the federal government, which is now the biggest employer in the nation, which is ridiculous.
But, this ain’t likely to ever happen in our lifetime.
Taxes will most likely continue to be regressive and unfair, because Congress is FOR-SALE, and 99.7% of the 200 Million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by the 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
CORRECTION: Here’s roughly what we have today, which is regressive …
Posted by: d.a.n at June 22, 2009 09:32 PM
Dan-
The strange thing is that after criticizing my argument, you went ahead and agreed with it.
Which is to say that you agreed that the truth value of what people say is independent of their party loyalty, or even the degree of that party loyalty.
Fuelin’ and Wallowin’. Hmm. I think Fueling and Wallowing are better. If am to be critiqued on my use of pronouns, I think the unnecessary use of colloquialisms are fair game. Why use them? It doesn’t improve the argument one bit. It’s a stylistic thing, and as with party loyalty, doesn’t make your argument any more true or false than it already was.
Our system cannot function without political factions keeping each other in check. Now they can do this by lying, or telling half the truth, or they can just tell the whole truth. Partisan warfare has its benefits when the right kind of ammunition is used. Truthful arguments and accusations, even employed in the course of partisan warfare, improve the discourse.
You talk of a disease. I think that’s hyperbole that hardly serves to do anything but provoke and demean. You’re wanting to prove how nasty and horrid and stupid those who don’t agree with you are, so you talk about their opposition, or your view of what their opposition means as if it were just simply pathological.
You talk as if you’ve freed yourself from the restraints of partisan warfare. I think you’ve just rationalized taking it to a higher level, ascribing a purity to the effort that allows you to overlook the rancor with which you make your point.
You talked as if people in general see my comments as you do. I found that to be kind of presumptuous, as your assumption rests on the responses of folks who could be legitimately described as you friends, your circle of fellow travellers. That doesn’t make your description the widespread opinion of all that read it, not by a long shot.
And what about this?
Yet. Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Now what place does that statement have in a rational argument? The only purpose of such words is to turn a critique of an argument (stupid does) into a critique of a person (stupid is)
There’s no call to make personal attacks, even through such evasive means.
As far as the Iraq war goes, I’m not making the claim that Republicans voted for it to the exclusion of everybody else. But as in all the cases I cited, they took the leadership. Are you going to dispute this? It’s documented fact.
This “with Democrats help” thing is a cop-out from the responsiblitity. Of course Democrats helped. We’ve dealt with the consequences of that. Hell, thats one among many reasons why Obama is President, and not Hillary.
We’re obviously having problems getting the longtime Republican allies in our party to understand how things have changed. And we may just sweep out a few incumbents in the primary to teach a lesson. You act as if tossing out incumbents is some kind of special discovery, but Representatives, Senators, and even Presidents have been primaried over time in our party.
You talk of control of Congress. But of course, you don’t feel the need to mention the Republican obstructionism, the record breaking filibusters that paralyzed the 110th (which, in full acceptance of the talking point, you called a do-nothing Congress), and which slow even the superior numbers of the Democrats now, as we are forced to navigate bills through the Senate seeking sixty votes, instead of the Constitutional majority that’s been required in most cases, for most of Senate history.
My party takes responsibility for Vietnam. I’ve talked about this many times. No party can claim to have gotten through America’s long history without its share of failures and fiascoes. That’s why people switch parties, and parties switch positions in the majority. People care about the substance of what is done.
But lets be clear about something else here, which you seem to sidestep by talking about the party’s history instead of its present: even accounting for those events, America has a long and proud history of resolving problems with other countries through diplomacy, of upholding international law, and setting examples.
There is hardly a person in America, Conservative or Liberal, who will argue with the assertion that Bush undid much of that goodwill and reputation in his tenure. Argue all you want to, this is something for which the Republicans must be held accountable. Otherwise, what are you planning on holding them accountable for.
Blame SHOULD fall somewhere, in proportion to the roles played. Democrats are in part to blame as to what has happened to this country over the last few decades. We tried to orient ourselves to accept the premises of an ascendant politics in America, to deal with the consequences of Reagan’s influential tenure. We supported much we shouldn’t have, overlooked much we shouldn’t have.
But those who lead this march towards the apotheosis that is the Bush Administration, the concentration of power and and legitimacy in a government under Republican rule, should not be let off so easily as to deny their leading role in many of these disgraces and shame, no more than Democrats should be let off for their role as followers of this.
I don’t think this pattern won’t repeat. That at some point Democrats won’t deal with its share of corruption. But even a chronic condition can be fought and managed, and I have much higher estimates of where good leadership can bring us than you do. I don’t assume as much irrevocable harm as you do, or that the Democrats will inevitably make the same mistakes to the same degree. There is no excuse for mediocrity, not the expectation of it or the reality. I personally won’t accept any excuses.
I want change in this country. That’s why I fight for, more than I fight for my party.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2009 12:12 AMStephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- The strange thing is that after criticizing my argument, you went ahead and agreed with it.Nonsense.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Which is to say that you agreed that the truth value of what people say is independent of their party loyalty, or even the degree of that party loyalty.Only until that becomes too painful. A little detail that you conveniently over-looked.
Besides, for years, I’ve stated that 85%-to-90% re-election rates and dismal 11%-to-28% approval ratings for Congress make no sense, until you consider the powerful effect of blind, circular partisan loyalties, and the ilk that fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare … at least until that finally becomes too painful, as it did for unhappy voters in years 1929, 1931, 1933, and 1993, when they voted out hundreds of incumbent politicians (many from BOTH parties).
- Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election ___ Party Seat-Retention
- Year ___ Year ___ # _____ Rate ________ Rate
- 1927 ___ 1929 ___ 070st ___ 83.6% ________ 96.4% (087 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )
- 1929 ___ 1931 ___ 071st ___ 79.7% ________ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted: 51(D), 44(R), 2(FL), 1(S) )
- 1931 ___ 1933 ___ 072nd ___ 76.8% ________ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted: 36(D), 87(R) )
- 1933 ___ 1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ________ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted: 59(D), 147(R) )
- … … … … … … … …
- 1989 ___ 1991 ___ 101st ___ 90.1% ________ 99.6%
- 1991 ___ 1993 ___ 102nd ___ 87.7% ________ 98.3%
- 1993 ___ 1995 ___ 103rd ___ 73.5% ________ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
- … … … … … … … …
- 1999 ___ 2001 ___ 106th ___ 89.2% ________ 99.3%
- 2001 ___ 2003 ___ 107th ___ 89.2% ________ 98.7%
- 2003 ___ 2005 ___ 108th ___ 87.9% ________ 98.1% (65 of 535 voted out)
- 2005 ___ 2007 ___ 109th ___ 88.6% ________ 98.7% (61 of 535 voted out)
- 2007 ___ 2009 ___ 110th ___ 84.9% ________ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)
- 2009 ___ 2011 ___ 111th ___ 86.9% ________ 94.0% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate)
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Fuelin’ and Wallowin’. Hmm. I think Fueling and Wallowing are better.Yep. It’s an obsession with some people.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: If am to be critiqued on my use of pronouns, I think the unnecessary use of colloquialisms are fair game.Have at it, but no amount of twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook changes the truth.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Why use them? It doesn’t improve the argument one bit.More petty nonsense. Is that the best you can do?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s a stylistic thing, and as with party loyalty, doesn’t make your argument any more true or false than it already was.The truth hurts, and no amount of twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook changes the truth.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Our system cannot function without political factions keeping each other in check. Now they can do this by lying, or telling half the truth, or they can just tell the whole truth. Partisan warfare has its benefits when the right kind of ammunition is used. Truthful arguments and accusations, even employed in the course of partisan warfare, improve the discourse.Great. Now we have excuses for partisan-warfare too?
Sounds like more twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook to prop-up an weak (if not totally absurd) arugment.
Funny how some people gravitate to the opposite argument, no matter how absurd, and then stop at nothing to try to salvage it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk of a disease. I think that’s hyperbole that hardly serves to do anything but provoke and demean.Then why bring up Asperger’s Syndrome?
Excuses are like assholes. They all stink.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re wanting to prove how nasty and horrid and stupid those who don’t agree with you are, so you talk about their opposition, or your view of what their opposition means as if it were just simply pathological.Nonsense. In any debate, it is logical to use the numerous contradictory and hypocritcal statements of others who will go to any length to prop-up weak (if not totally absurd) arguments.
Also, it’s funny how some people can dish it out, but can’t take it, eh?
Also, it’s funny how some people accuse others of the very things they do themselves, eh?
Bottom line … only a fool can make a fool of one’s self.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk as if you’ve freed yourself from the restraints of partisan warfare. I think you’ve just rationalized taking it to a higher level, ascribing a purity to the effort that allows you to overlook the rancor with which you make your point.More nonsensical gobbledygook (not to mention making it personal again).
I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, you, you, you, you, you, you.
Why not discuss the issues instead of resorting to personal comments?
Funny how some people can dish it out, but can’t take it, and refuse to practice what they continually preach?
At any rate, stupid is as stupid does.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talked as if people in general see my comments as you do.Many do. For example …
- David R. Remer wrote: Sorry, Stephen D[augherty], … And that means d.a.n’s reference to your comment’s obfuscation, twisting and construction, is valid.
- Roy Ellis wrote: In spite of all the intellectual dishonesty espoused by those opposing AVC we know we are being denied a Constitutional right. It’s there in black and white.
- Rodney Brown wrote: … He also was a believer in The Founding Fathers and the constitution and today you better believe he’d be fighting for Article V!
- Byron DeLear wrote: Point being: ideas live on; amendment proposals live on — the proof’s right below you if you care to see the historical track record refuting your assertion that legitimate action can only spring forth from currently assembled state legislatures, and from only living and seated legislators. Poppycock. … You [Stephen Daugherty] should help realize this people’s convention; it strengthens the democratic values and engaged electorate that I know we both support.
- John DeHerrera wrote: The question is whether the applications are valid or not. Show a law which shows how they are expired—not an opinion, but a law. Until you do that your position is bogus.
- Bill Walker wrote: The fact is Mr. Daugherty defeats himself in his argument and thus requires no further comment once this hypocrisy is pointed out.
- d.a.n wrote: d.a.n wrote: No amout of twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook will change the truth.
- Yukon Jake wrote: [Stephen] Your posts are usually the longest of anyone besides d.a.n. and that’s only because he cites so much data in his posts. For someone who is not fond of politics (or bloviating), you have somehow managed to write 1,000,000+ words on the topic since I first stumbled on watchblog.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I found that to be kind of presumptuous, as your assumption rests on the responses of folks who could be legitimately described as you friends, your circle of fellow travellers. That doesn’t make your description the widespread opinion of all that read it, not by a long shot.Right. Everyone else is wrong.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: And what about this? Yet. Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”. Now what place does that statement have in a rational argument?The truth hurts.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The only purpose of such words is to turn a critique of an argument (stupid does) into a critique of a person (stupid is)Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s no call to make personal attacks, even through such evasive means.Funny how some people accuse others of what they do themselves.
Funny how some people can dish it out, but can’t take it.
Funny how some people want to discuss anything else but the issue(s).
Hence, like Forrest Gump said: “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As far as the Iraq war goes, I’m not making the claim that Republicans voted for it to the exclusion of everybody else. But as in all the cases I cited, they took the leadership. Are you going to dispute this? It’s documented fact.The IN-PARTY is always more corrupt, which is why the IN-PARTY always becomes the OUT-PARTY.
Besides, many Democrat politicians went along almost every step of the way.
The current IN-PARTY (Democrats) had the vast majority of Congress for all but 14 of the last 78 years?
How did that happen for 30 years when Democrats had the vast majority of Congress for the 40 consecutive years between 1955 and 1995?
According to your numerous articles, comments, and fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the circular partisan warfare, it’s all the Republican’s fault.
Never mind which party has controlled Congress for all but 14 of the last 78 years, eh?
Never mind which party has had the majority in Congress since 7-NOV-2006.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: This “with Democrats help” thing is a cop-out from the responsiblitity.You wish.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Of course Democrats helped.That appears to be yet another contradiction (of the previous comment).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We’ve dealt with the consequences of that. Hell, thats one among many reasons why Obama is President, and not Hillary.We’re obviously having problems getting the longtime Republican allies in our party to understand how things have changed. And we may just sweep out a few incumbents in the primary to teach a lesson. You act as if tossing out incumbents is some kind of special discovery, but Representatives, Senators, and even Presidents have been primaried over time in our party. 86.9% of the 110th Congress is in the 111th Congress.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk of control of Congress. But of course, you don’t feel the need to mention the Republican obstructionism, the record breaking filibusters that paralyzed the 110th (which, in full acceptance of the talking point, you called a do-nothing Congress), and which slow even the superior numbers of the Democrats now, as we are forced to navigate bills through the Senate seeking sixty votes, instead of the Constitutional majority that’s been required in most cases, for most of Senate history.False.
BOTH main parties are far too corrupt, and have stated that many times:
- Main Party Similarities…
- 99 Blunders of Bush Administration…
- Corruption, bloat, waste, and incompetence by BOTH parties…
- Abuses by BOTH parties: One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm
- Constitutional Violations: One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm
- The painful consequences of excessive corruption in BOTH parties: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm
- Debt created by BOTH parties: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtUntenable1.htm
Besides, which body invented they filibuster?
Why does neither main party act to eliminate it?
Why act as though it’s only a Republican abuse?
Besides, the current IN-PARTY (Democrats) had the vast majority of Congress for all but 14 of the last 78 years?
How did so much economic deterioration happen for 30+ years when Democrats had the vast majority of Congress for the 40 consecutive years between 1955 and 1995?
According to your numerous articles, comments, and fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the circular partisan warfare, it’s all the Republican’s fault, eh?
How did Vietnam (far worse than any other unnecessary war before and since) happen with Democrat presidents and a vast majority of Democrats in Congress?
Never mind which party has controlled Congress for all but 14 of the last 78 years, eh?
Never mind which party has had the majority in Congress since 7-NOV-2006.
Where’s the favoritism?
Hence, your comment is yet another lie that is easily refuted.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: My party takes responsibility for Vietnam. I’ve talked about this many times. No party can claim to have gotten through America’s long history without its share of failures and fiascoes.More excuses and rationalizations.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: People care about the substance of what is done.Most “People care” when it becomes too painful.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But lets be clear about something else here, which you seem to sidestep by talking about the party’s history instead of its present: even accounting for those events, America has a long and proud history of resolving problems with other countries through diplomacy, of upholding international law, and setting examples.That’s not the point.
The point is what you stated here …
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m sorry. I think we ought to be a bit more proactive than that.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: No, let me drop the rhetorical BS: we should be a hell of a lot more proactive.
Yes, we can and should do much better.
That’s not going to happen by continually fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: There is hardly a person in America, Conservative or Liberal, who will argue with the assertion that Bush undid much of that goodwill and reputation in his tenure. Argue all you want to, this is something for which the Republicans must be held accountable. Otherwise, what are you planning on holding them accountable for.Most (if not all) incumbent politicians (and those which previously held office too) are culpable.
And so are the voters.
The constant fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates isn’t going to change it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Blame SHOULD fall somewhere, in proportion to the roles played. Democrats are in part to blame as to what has happened to this country over the last few decades. We tried to orient ourselves to accept the premises of an ascendant politics in America, to deal with the consequences of Reagan’s influential tenure. We supported much we shouldn’t have, overlooked much we shouldn’t have.The problem with your articles and commments is that they continually fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, and try to place blame only one party, when BOTH are almost equally to blame, except for the fact that the IN-PARTY is always a little more corrupt, which is why the IN-PARTY always becomes the OUT-PARTY.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But those who lead this march towards the apotheosis that is the Bush Administration, the concentration of power and and legitimacy in a government under Republican rule, should not be let off so easily as to deny their leading role in many of these disgraces and shame, no more than Democrats should be let off for their role as followers of this.Which is why voters would be wise to stop repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t think this pattern won’t repeat. That at some point Democrats won’t deal with its share of corruption. But even a chronic condition can be fought and managed, and I have much higher estimates of where good leadership can bring us than you do. I don’t assume as much irrevocable harm as you do, or that the Democrats will inevitably make the same mistakes to the same degree.They have before and they will most likely again (if they haven’t already) … at least, until that becomes too painful.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I There is no excuse for mediocrity, not the expectation of it or the reality. I personally won’t accept any excuses.Then why so many excuses, and fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, circular partisan-warfare?
Why so much disdain for anything NOT-DEMOCRAT? …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. {Really? No kiddin’?}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I do think voters should ally with Democrats.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t disdain third parties.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: … as I don’t like to hear people get down on my party, …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the Green party for George W. Bush (43) getting elected?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: My generation of Democrats prides itself on not being caught blindsided by either the Republicans, or their own side’s problems. The ears [of Democrats] are to the ground, and we’re always, ALWAYS watching. {Always? Then why does the IN-PARTY “always” become the OUT-PARTY?}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans have the choice, which I gladly let them have, of doing scuzzy things so they can make the Democrats look bad …
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I chose to be like this. However, I don’t like doing things in a way that I know is arbitrary. It offends me. My comments about third parties are valid.
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I‘ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th] congress a do-nothing congress … {Why? What did the 110th do-nothing Congress accomplish since 7-NOV-2006 ? And the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.}
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. {We’ll see, since 85%-to-90% of incumbent politicians were re-elected.)
- Stephen Daugherty wrote {NEW!, which is ironic indeed}: … why do you uncritically accept partisan rhetoric …?
- Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t disdain third parties.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want change in this country. That’s why I fight for, more than I fight for my party.By fuelin’ and wallowin’ in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates? Not likely.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Stephen, your gobbledygook is not worth addressing anymore. Perhaps you’re right about pointing out the A.S.?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
