It seems like our system of government creates paralysis and makes it near impossible to face and address crises. As in a recent example with health care reform, how do we do away with the minority party's ability to filibuster? Or should we? Or how do we expedite legislation? It seems like the founding fathers wanted to create a system of government that ensured thoroughness and broad consensus, yet it seems the end result is a system that is too slow and inadequate in confronting a stagnant society with many problems which are going unaddressed, mostly because of how hard it is to affect change when it is mostly needed. I fully understand the virtues of the American system, and the good still far outweighs the bad, but in a globalized world where people are expecting quick solutions to serious problems, how can we make it easier to address all of these new world challenges?
Yeah it works if your country is very rich, but it is not the system we setup for fledgling countries we "help create".
One of the awesome things about authoritarian governments/dictatorships is efficiency and how fast things get done. That being said, if a substantial number of Americans weren't such idiots and politically apathetic, they would vote good people into office. Legislators who weren't so bipartisan and in league with special interests. And if they were, people would make sure to vote them out of office ASAP. I doubt more than 5% of people on this board have ever tried to contact their congressmen or any other lawmakers with their opinion.
I dunno man, I am pretty apathetic didn't even vote, but have contacted my loser reps several times. If you are a reg voter they listen.
It can be a feature, but as of late it is also a 'bug' if that is the word you want to use. Do you understand how quickly things can change these days? I am specifically addressing our capacity to address and solve problems that affect us and the rest of the world. Speed and expediency is the central feature of the globalized economy, for example, and without the ability of world governments to QUICKLY and EFFICIENTLY make decisions, they fall quickly behind. Governments that ARE quick and efficient in addressing problems the best way they know how do and will continue to fare best. It is a different and very dynamic world we live in today, and yes time is of the UTMOST essence. Time wasted is opportunity wasted, and is also more often than not COST added. Efficiency is the key. This is also, I believe, the primary reason as to why China will fare much better than India down the road, because it has a more efficient government and a larger capacity to organize and dictate solutions.
That being said, if a substantial number of Americans weren't such idiots and politically apathetic, they would vote good people into office. [/QUOTE] That is the biggest problem imo. The system doesn't function properly if no one participates. I have contacted John Cornyn many times and now I am on his damn e-mailing list and I can't get off
You don't have to be libertarian to understand that a few hundred glorified Toastmasters can't placate 300 million people or spend $4 trillion efficiently or even honestly. Alot of the speed and efficiency that our Federal Government may appear to lack, as compared to other countries, is offset by pretty robust and autonomous, but still democratically-elected, state and local governments that can fill in the gaps at a local level. Having the biggest private sector in the world also helps.
Many of the founders wanted a system was slow and wouldn't expedite legislation. You have to understand that after having fought a war to get away from a centralized government many of the Founders were very suspcicious of the idea of an overly powerful centralized government. In fact many wanted a central government that was so weak as to be meaningless. At the sametime many of the Founders were distrustful of the idea of majority rules democracy and the events in France at the time of the creation of the Constitution only enforced those views. The Constitution was a compromise that inherently made it difficult to have legislation passed and or the will of the majority to succeed. What you are seeing now isn't a bug or aberration but the intention of the Founders at work, that the majority would have to compromise and negotiate with the minority. While I can understand your frustration I think overall this is a good thing and one that has greatly aided the stability of our country. Short of changing the rules of the Senate and amending the Constitution nothing and personally I think we should keep the system as is warts and all.
yes, maintaining a republic is a pain in the ass. it's just that it's better than the alternatives, which come with their own drawbacks.
The streamlined efficiency is also the same thing that enabled Mao to organize and dictate the solution of The Cultural Revolution. Streamlined decision making means that it is much more likely that major mistakes get implemented. This is like looking at an emerging market fund at the peek of a period of economic expansion, seeing that it has gone up 500% in the last 3 years, and deciding that American companies are a bad investment and the American economy is doomed. Look at the full life cycle, and you will see that the international fund is defined by a series of boom and busts, while the blue chips hum along at a steady rate, outperforming the upstart in the long run. In terms of per capita PPP, the PRC still scores among the lower 50% of the world's countries, and still comes in way behind Taiwan on a per capita basis. The fable of the tortoise and the hare comes to mind.
We have too many 'Professional' Politicians The bar of entry is kind of high . . . hard for the common man to get some offices unless they start politicking young and make it there career. Rocket River
forget looking at the the streamlined efficiency of autocratic regimes, look at the the streamlined efficiency of the bush years. this is how legislation is supposed to work, unfortunately you have two senators worried about re election in traditionally conservative states, and one guy who just doesn't give a damn and probably isn't running for re election.
That's... too much information on a Wednesday morning. But best wishes addressing your issue. Maybe you should focus on picturing someone other than John Cornyn (?)
The age of the founding father local government was a big deal and people cared. Now 5% show to vote for the mayor of houston. I think we should just get rid of congress and just have a direct democracy. With the internet and cable channels I think it is possible. Read about the issue and just vote for it.
Well shouldn't Senators elected from conservative states represent their constituents? As for the guy who doesn't give a damn keep in mind if we had a more efficient government as Otto noted you could have people who don't give a damn regarding the welfare of the country being able to use the tools of government to get more stuff enacted that may be harmful. The early GW Bush years yes showed that things could get done but keep in mind that GW Bush got tax cuts passed during his honeymoon phase while Obama also got controversial legislation passed, stimulus package, during his honeymoon phase. In both cases as soon as the Honeymoon passed resistance kicked in. IN fact Bush lost his majority in Senate as soon as the tax bill passed. It took the aberration of 9/11 and capitalizing off of that for the GW Bush admin to get things passed.
Direct democracy though might create more problems than it fixes. Consider the problems in California where the referendum system has hamstrung what the legislation can do in a crisis. At the sametime consider how widely public opinion can swing based upon current events. You could easily have all sorts of half-baked laws passed through direct democracy just based on what thing happens to be dominating the news cycle. For that matter without a Congress who introduces the laws to get voted on? Do we have a petition system? If you think political issue ads are bad now that will be nothing compared to if we have a direct democracy system. For as ugly as what we are seeing now this is what the Founders intended. The Senate was meant to be where legislation is slowed down to give more time for its value to be debated and considered. Its far from perfect but I think the alternatives of a more authoritarian process or direct democracy would make things worse.
