For all the partisan bickering that goes on around here, maybe it should be pointed out once more: Democrats and Republicans at the Federal level have far, far, more in common with each other than they have in common with any of us. The problem is not Republicans, the problem is not Democrats (though there are plentiful examples of where one group has behaved much worse than the other). The problem is that our government is broken, and is probably, at this point, hopelessly corrupt. The fact that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was renewed by an overwhelming margin with a few measly concessions should be proof enough that the U.S. Federal Government, as a whole, is no longer the system it was intended to be. No one is watching out for our best interests any longer - they're only interested in saying and doing those things that will get them votes. That's it. And it's becoming questionable whether our votes will make a difference much longer. By picking sides, you are accepting the system as it stands. You can claim that your choice of allegiance is a temporary choice based on an immediate emergency ("I only vote for Democrats because George W. Bush is dangerous"), and that might be better than doing nothing, but it is the system itself that is the source of our problems. Is anyone making a serious effort to reduce the incredibly disproportionate influence that the wealthy of this country have in the political process? Is anyone trying to limit the scope of Federal power over the states (would they ever voluntarily reduce their own power)? Is anyone trying to make the political process at the Federal level open to those who weren't born into enough wealth to make a political run feasible? Is anyone elected to office without accepting the bundled bribes which the news prefers to call "donations"? Is anyone making a concentrated effort to assure that future Americans won't be left with a system of the verge of collapse? Is anyone above appealing to human stupidity to get elected? We get desultory speeches, we get tons of promises and lies, but those issues that have the most direct impact on America today and America tomorrow are consistently swept aside for political theater and peripheral issues. The political culture has become the dominant culture in Washington - not the culture of Republicanism, State's Rights, or Constitution-as-Compact. The political culture of Washington D.C. is destroying the very ideals it's supposed to uphold - they're eating away at the foundation of their own power, and replacing it with something else entirely.....but what will that be? The halls of Congress need to be scrubbed clean and disinfected. The White House needs to be stripped bare and redecorated. Politicians and their financial backers need to be treated like the criminals they are, and Washington D.C. must be liquidated.
The answer to all those questions but one is yes. Russ Feingold. The one exception is that he takes campaign contributions. I don't agree, in his case at least, with the characterization of them as bribes, but he does take contributions. On all of your other questions the answer is clearly yes, but according to your thesis he's no different than the forces he fights against. I really disagree with that.
Term limits are unconstitutional. You wouldn't want the government to blow off the Constitution would you? Oh, right. Never mind.
Russ Feingold may be a good man, and a good statesman. But we need more, and he's not going to be able to change the entrenched culture. The culture itself needs to be changed - wiped clean, is my assertion. We can let Feingold keep his seat once his colleagues have been swept out of D.C. But, I don't believe, the existence of a handful of exceptional cases is any refutation of my assertion that the political culture of D.C. is the greatest threat to American stability and prosperity, and that by buying into it we have lapsed in our responsibility of maintaining our sovereignty in the political process. Note to self; Stop typing in political forums on an empty stomach.
I don't disagree with you thadeus. I worked for Jerry Brown for this exact reason. When he ran he'd just come back from a hiatus from politics where he'd worked with Mother Theresa. He had quit politics because he said his experience as head of the CA Dem party had taught him that it was impossible to get elected without becoming beholden to special interests and becoming essentially corrupt. He wouldn't take more than $100 from anybody, so that you or I could have the same influence with him as, say, General Electric. My problem with your thesis is that it lets politicians off the hook. When you say they're all liars and cheats and it's worthless to complain about that or try to change it in any way short of what amounts to a revolution or a coup, you empower the cheats and disempower those that are fighting against them. Just look at the BBS the last couple days. We get proof positive that Bush lied to the American people and those lies resulted in an unnecessary, incredibly costly, incredibly tragic morass of a war and the people who support him are able to blow it off specifically because of this idea that all politicians lie. And even someone like you, whom I know to care deeply about this bull****, winds up characterizing the story as nothing but partisan bickering. Well, that's what the guys in charge want you to think. They love it when people say all politicians are the same because it provides them cover for even the lousiest stuff they do.
I thought republicans didn't like activism from the bench? But to the question of the thread – I love it how now that the bush administration is imploding the goal posts are now being moved to the “everybody does it” defense! When Clinton was being railroaded out of office it was “He Lied! Impeach him!” But now that it’s Bush it’s “everybody does it!”
The more the public becomes cynical about our politicians, the more they're likely to partake in a special interest free for all that strips any progressive movement for public betterment. "Why nationalize healthcare, aka handouts, when my interests are on the line?" This type of behavior happens when people think institutions are on their deathbeds and they try to get the most out of it before it happens.
An excellent post, Batman. The GOP/Rove/Bush group would love to have Americans see both parties as two sides of the same coin. That gives them a leg-up during an election, when they campaign using a strategy based on instilling fear in Americans, not one based on their record and domestic/foreign policies, which are hugely unpopular. The fact remains that there is a big difference between the two parties. I could go at great length about the differences, but will spare everyone at the moment. Any thinking person who cares about the environment, the philosophy of the Supreme Court, and the other lifetime Federal judicial appointments, a failed foreign policy that has completely tossed away the worldwide goodwill that came in the aftermath of 9/11, and continued through the Afghanistan War, the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq... yes, I could say a lot, but I will forbear, reluctantly. Keep D&D Civil.
Are you kidding? LOL!! Bush has cut the balls off the legislative branch. Or haven't you been paying attention? And now he has his court.
Okay, then I agree not to burn down your house. I can see how my initial post would lead you to believe that this is what I was saying, but it wasn't. I don't believe in letting politicians off the hook, so to speak - quite the opposite. I believe the majority of them, in the truest sense of Constitutional law, are actually criminals and should be prosecuted as such. I should probably provide another brief summary of my viewpoint (because it doesn't fall close enough to any existing camp for me to slap a label on it and "brief" because I don't want to write a novella and I don't have it completely figured out yet myself so forgive me if it's still a bit scattershot). I consider the majority of those who hold office now to be occupiers of seats they do not have any right to hold. They are not statesmen. But the real responsibility for this is not something we can expect them to accept - it's our responsibility. They have effectively removed us from the equations of power by summarily reducing the few avenues of expression of our sovereignty to obsolescence. The vote, as it stands now, means very little. We need a radical new approach to how we're going to reign in the power of our public servants - and, as citizens, it is our responsibility to make sure the government continues to function in a manner best suiting our own interests. But the political environment has become such a morass, the first meaningful step of reasserting our sovereignty must be wiping Washington D.C. clean. The problem is that we've allowed them to frame the dialogue in such a way that we're not always aware of what our own best interests are. We're given two choices, and told to choose the one that best represents us, when in reality we would need to have many more choices in order to make such a decision an effective one. But by adopting modern political rhetoric and limiting the ways in which we can discuss the possibilities of manifesting our own sovereignty (and we've all taken up sides in some respect) we are effectively colluding in our own subjugation. It's hegemony - we have internalized the political rhetoric of our self-appointed leaders as if they personified our own values and declared them natural. We've been sold and wholeheartedly accepted a vision of division along a vertical access - left vs. right - instead of a horizontal - top vs. bottom - viewpoint. And that distinction, between those who now hold power and those who were originally intended to hold it, is the truly influential and practical distinction in how power is distributed and utilized now. The problem is that we've internalized the values of modern political culture - which includes all the media organs through which they express themselves, their financial backers, and all those who have their power expressed through government disproportionately to the single vote they're intended to have (I'm thinking of corporate entities and foreign governments, but there are more). Political culture expresses power through far more avenues than the ones we vote for, which is one of the main reasons our vote means far less now than it has previously (with some ups and downs interceding). We've internalized the wrong values. I don't believe the two sides are equivalent. But the way the debate has been framed by those with the loudest bullhorns, right/left, lib/con, whatever you want to call them - allows people to make that parallel in a much more cynical and apathetic way than the way I'm proposing. Yes, Bush is horrible. But I'm going to use a very old metaphor of the body politic here. Bush is a flu virus, and the Democrats are an ingrown toenail. In a healthy body, both of these things can heal of their own accord. A flu virus must be fought off, but an ingrown toenail can be lived with without it presenting anything serious other than discomfort. In an ill body, let's say a body that has AIDS (for a bit of a ham-handed example), a flu virus spells death. An ingrown toenail will eventually lead to an amputated foot. In a healthy body, treatment of the flu or of an ingrown toenail will make each must less taxing on the body, in the case of the flu it will shorten the duration and severity of the illness. Fixing an ingrown toenail will decrease the chances of an infection and will ease discomfort. In a sick body, treating either of these does not cure the sickness. The symptoms are treated, and that's necessary, but not a cure. By choosing sides we are simply choosing one symptom over another, but we are not influencing the illness at all. And now, in my view, the illness has become so advanced that treating the symptoms of it is yielding a steadily decreasing benefit. ....damn. I'll tell you what - as soon as I figure out a way to succintly state my viewpoint, I'll get back here and type it up somewhere. For now - it's going to be all over the place.
