I think you missed my point. I think its a bad thing that bush so many things passed without real debate in Congress
I think the problem lies less within the structure of the government and more within the polarized ideologies that live within it. These days, the impression I get (and I'm still new to this whole paying-attention-to-politics thing) is that a lot of Congressmen/Senators make decisions based on protecting their ideology instead of protecting their country. It floats both ways, and it prevents meaningful, good legislation from getting past the wall of political filth.
Well instead of getting all philosophical we need to just change the rules of the Senate so that 40 folks, mostly from small states representing something like 10% of the population can stymy the will of the majority on national issues. \ This is a major deficit in our democracy and should not be rationalized today. The framers did ok for a small group of rich white guys 200 years ago, but the world has changed.
We already have term limits. They're called "elections". The american people have no one to blame but themselves for "career politicians".
In many places, election is just a formality, term limit like the president's office is what is needed.
dude, I understand you're a cynic, but in 06 the people did make sweeping changes and they made a sweeping change just this past november. there hasn't been an attempt at this legislation since 93, we have an election coming up this year, we'll see where the people's heart is. This is more of a problem that glynch has identified, and unfortunately it is how our constitution s set up. two few people in small states can dictate what happens in the country as a whole through the two senator a state system. also, a lot of people are wary about this unfortunately, the dems have to do a better job of selling the message. that's where the republicans still maintain superiority over democrats, getting their message out. this is where obama is failing. he has got to drive home a streamlined consistent message on this legislation. if they scrap it, he's got to start ASAP. Define key initiatives and how they benefit the average american. STOP TALKING ABOUT THE UNINSURED the general electorate doesn't care about them.
Yeah, Mao's repressive, totalitarian political structure 3+ decades ago in PRC is clearly what's in OP's mind, genius. Now here's a pop quiz for you. How many political movements has PRC had since the end of The Cultural Revolution? In recent years PRC's stock market more or less mirrors that of the US so I don't get the distinction you are trying to depict here. In reality, per capita PPP rarely matters when one talks about a country that is the size and most importantly, the population of PRC. Otherwise, sinologists of the world may have to look for another job. Luxembourg always ranks way ahead of US in GDP per capita but I bet nobody gives a damn. Hmm, not exactly.
Its a Senate rule. Technically the Senate could do away with filibusters and the previous Republican senate had threatened to do so in regard to Judicial votes. It was called the nuclear option for good reason as do to the damage it would do to Senate traditions and decorum.
The founders were interested in protecting small states from getting overrun by the interests of larger states. Obviously this leads to problems but at the sametime it protects the small states from being neglected or exploited by larger states due to the accident of geography.
I'm sorry I didn't factor in the absurd nationalism knee-jerk angle before making my comments. I normally consider it, but I hadn't seen your posts in the D&D for awhile so I admit, I spoke my mind without thinking that you might, in the throws of an emotional kerfuffle, respond with an appeal to emotion. If the OP hadn't specifically mentioned China, I could have replaced it with Brazil or Argentina, and the point would have been equally valid, with the exception that you wouldn't have come back with the automated response. Had I thought you were around, I probably would have even though, as mentioned, the OP specifically mentioned China. So just imagine that I had used one of those examples, perhaps Argentina maybe mixing in Pinochet and hyperinflation and tell me if you would have been buzzing like a bee whose hive has been damaged? If the answer is that you wouldn't, perhaps you should reflect on that for awhile and consider whether it is really I or you who have the problem here. Because fundamentally, the point of my post is that over the long term, like, say 75 or 100 years, a truncated and streamlined leadership process will result in some periods of extreme growth, but also some periods where negative impact policies are introduced, and it is over these time frames that the benefits of the Democratic inertia become evident. In that context, Mao is relevant. If you were not blinded by this aggressive, combative, reflexive nationalism, I wouldn't need to spell this all out for you.
Be careful, you don't want to set off the army of hair-triggered Peronists that patrols the BBS' nether regions.
Yes and no. Yes, because we should be able to get off our butt and vote for those that support us. No, because even in this democracy, the two party system has demonstrated its ability to bully those that don't get in line with supporting a system that creates career politicians. We need a legitimate wrecking of the party system, or a way to infuse legitimate alternates with some amount of power to compete. Yes, voting would do this, but it's a bit catch 22. People won't because they're afraid their true anti-favorite will win if they vote their conscience instead of believably potential opposition. Candidates with any shot at winning anything are nearly doomed immediately if they don't "pick a side." If we had a more concrete example of someone (and I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm saying it would have to be decisive and high profile) winning without befriending the Democratic or Republican party, I think candidates, and people, would learn to become more confident in their own values and beliefs, and less likely to sell themselves out. Ross Perot was about the closest thing I can think of, recently, or maybe Lieberman on a lesser level (and not sure I love that example either). Further, potential candidates have questionable interest in bucking this trend, since votes on values and current climate of ideas are less dependable than party lines in a specific gerrymander are concerned.
I did acknowledge that the benefits of having a system like ours far outweigh the drawbacks, so I am not advocating doing away with the system altogether. Naturally, no system is perfect, and each system of government prioritizes certain aspects of governance over others. My question is: how can we make our system of government work more efficiently within the current framework? I am not advocating becoming like China, or even India. I am just comparing the two nations since they are both Asian powers with economies growing at a rapid pace, yet one is totalitarian and the other is democratic, but China seems to be doing a lot better on the economic front, and I dont mean only limited to growth rate. This is all in spite of the fact that India has the world's largest English-language educated force, which in terms of international trade you would think would give them a big edge over China. But that is just my personal observation. Of course, maybe efficiency is not desirable at all, but keep in mind a slow, drawn-out legislative process may be better for arriving at "good" legislation, but it is also problematic in terms of problem-solving and crisis management.
I clicked Enter too fast. So added to the above, my question is how can we bridge that gap (balancing the need for thoroughness with the need for expediency and efficiency in dealing with crisis situations)? Is this why non-democratic institutions such as the Federal Reserve exist, for crisis management? Is this the only way we can bridge that gap?
LOL uber dork, the previous response from me doesn't require any sense of nationalism, only a little knowledge and some common sense. Authoritarian system has worked well not just for PRC's economy since early 1990s, but also for South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan during their respective rapid economy rises. Picking on PRC's Mao era in this discussion is even worse than focusing on World's Greatest Democracy's shady past (which, mind you, lasted well over 100 years), where more than half of the populace had been kept disenfranchised, to say the least. Mao's PRC bears little resemblance to today's China, and has no relevance to the discussion. Hyperinflation occurred in Argentina during the democracy, dork. And Pinochet never invaded nor ruled Argentina. Don't make stuff up. You can only fool yourself and your ilk, and maybe only on this forum.
