I was watching a Bill Mahler political satire last night.
He had two Repubilcans as his guests. One a high-ranking Congressman. The other a syndicated columnist.
At one point the relevancy of the Kennedy Administration was raised.
Both Republicans said he was irrelevant.
If Kennedy had been a Republican, it is certain their opinions would have been reversed.
So who or what is controlling Democracy?
Are we all still in lock-step with Party dogma?
Or is independent opinion ever to surface?
Thank god the latter is gradually being realized
One can see why Obama is doing so well
I think party dogma is alive and very, very well. Ever since I’ve gotten involved in politics (I’m 23, and it was since I found Ron Paul 6 months ago ), I’ve been in absolute shock as to how long two people are willing to argue, not about ideas, but about who’s party is better. It’s like everybody has forgotten that it is the idea that is important, not the party, and unfortunately, nobody cares enough to be educated when they make a decision.
Discourse is still that of a third grade classroom in politics…no wonder our country is suffering. Even if there existed a policy that would undoubtedly maximize American prosperity, happiness, wealth, and freedom, people wouldn’t be educated enough to understand why and vote for it. That’s unfortunate.
Anthem, if by “playing the game”, you mean “running for president”, of course he’s playing the game. American politics is a dog and pony show. You’ve got to put up with that side of it if you want to be involved. That doesn’t mean, though, that Obama is just as corrupt and corporate-owned as any other politician. After twenty years, even if he’s only doing it for the glory, can you really fault him for the good he does? And if he keeps trying to improve the country just so that he’ll be remembered, is that really his candidacy’s most salient feature?
The simple act of labeling himself is playing the game. I’m not saying he doesn’t play it less or is less corrupt, or even that labeling himself is bad, I’m just saying it’s incredibly naïve to think that Obama is the start of some kind of political reformation. He’s subject to the system that requires him to cater to one of the two political powerhouses.
Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to someone who wants a revolution, and even he labels himself in order to gain some kind of credibility. He’s too far out there to be taken seriously by either party, but the label at least gets him a spot (however small) in the political discourse.
If Ron Paul were actually making waves you might say that independent opion is starting to surface. If he chooses to run again and again he might start making a difference in the political system, but definitely not as a republican. He’ll probably be too old by the time his stuff catches on to make it to the White House, but maybe someone can follow in his footsteps.
I don’t know enough about Ron Paul to agree or disagree with his positions, but I like his frankness. I would vote for him if he had a shot because while he wants to do some crazy things, the system would stop him from doing all of them and screwing up the country, and then at least we’d have someone who would speak as truthfully as he knows how.
Obama is a product of popular moralistic beliefs with regard to negros.
His campaign is doubly hilarious due to his “change” buzzword that he keeps throwing around; has anyone ever heard a more meaningless slogan? People then read into it what they want to believe; that his pusuit of “change” coincides with their own selfish desires and that voting for this fraud will actually result in him delivering something, anything, as long as it “changes” the world; it is it’s very vagueness that gives it power over the minds of the rabble - they think he’s talking about them.
This little twerp is looking for only one “change”, and that is his political position.
Anthem, I think Obama’s stance on lobbying, and his candor about his experience with drugs, are two facts that belie your criticisms. The first shows his politics are different, downplaying the role of money in legislation. That’s a big and important change. The second shows that he is willing to be honest even when it reflects badly on him and can be held against him. That is a quality that is rare, and admirable in a politician.
Aposha, slogans are supposed to be brief. If he outlined his entire set of policy stances in his slogan, he would either be a one-issue candidate, or it wouldn’t be a slogan at all. The information he provides about his policies is anything but vague. He gets quite specific about his policies on his website. Of course, if you go no farther than the slogan, you won’t know any of his stances, and will assume that “it is [his] very vagueness that gives [him] power over the minds of the rabble.” More likely, the rabble think, and they think he’s got a solution.
To the the war in Iraq.
To health care
To education
To renewable energy.
All a quantum leap above the current admin.
But most importantly, a solution to party-gridlock. He keeps talking about that, It is the major hurdle in US politics. The only way he can get around that is via a huge mandate from the voters of all parties and independants- enough of the popular vote to scare the you-know-what out of Dems and Reps alike so they don’t try and block massive changes.
You are missing the excitement of the moment. Real U.S. history may well be in the making as we speak and you might end up kicking yourself forever after for not seeing the ball when the game was on.
I see Nader is throwing his hat into the ring. He might be a spoiler, taking away votes from Obama. He means well, but he belongs to another era. I for one hope he gets zero votes.
I agree with Carleas in that you have to be able to play the game if you are to be taken seriously.
I personally am a full-fledged supporter of Ron Paul, but can easily recognize his weakness in his ability to convey his ideas and speak to the general public. When it comes down to it, the American people want somebody they can love more than they want somebody who has great ideas and simply cannot convey them. This to me seems to be a problem with human nature moreso than politics.
However, politics is playing a terrible and dangerous role as well. The only people who can get serious funding to get their ideas out there are chosen Democrats and Republicans. What’s worse, Americans have actually bought into the two-party system, becoming so obsessive over defending a particular party that they’ve forgotten the most important part of politics: the ideas behind them.
I have what I consider a very intelligent friend at work who I think serves as the perfect example. I asked him why he supported Obama, and he had to go to his website to even begin telling me about his ideas, his positions on certain subjects, etc. I can’t stereotype and say all Obama supporters are this way, but it is easy to be enamored by his persona. He’s an eloquent speaker and seems honest and genuine.
Unfortunately, eloquent speaking, honesty, and being genuine don’t mean your political ideas are great, or that they will best benefit the American people, but after 12 years of Bush Jr. and Sr., and 8 years of the Clinton administration, I’d take anything over war-mongering McCain or Hillary.
Since Obama is a waste of time, perthaps the nay sayers can give us their take on what needs to happen for better goverment and how it can be achieved within the present framework?
I have no opinions on this. Any sort of governance will be self-defeating in the long run; you can’t please everyone.
I like the idea of Anarchy, though it isn’t a self-sustaining system. The herd will reform the State inevitably every time; it’s a natural inclination for them to cluster together in mutual self-interest. I think it is better and more courageous to live as an outlaw within the state; a criminal if you will, doing what one likes when one likes, and possessing enough rationality to consistently elude the State’s enforcers …
), I’ve been in absolute shock as to how long two people are willing to argue, not about ideas, but about who’s party is better. It’s like everybody has forgotten that it is the idea that is important, not the party, and unfortunately, nobody cares enough to be educated when they make a decision.
