US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Ledgem]

Is there a good solution to this problem? Citizens United exacerbated it, but using money to buy influence isn't anything new. Politicians who stand to benefit from the money won't want to oppose its flow. Those who stand against it are at a disadvantage, because advertising helps to sway minds (and votes). It's like using steroids in sports: it can make even a mediocre politician electable, unless his opponent is exceptional and/or accepting those infusions as well.

The public should be upset about it, but the polarization of politics has made this difficult. Instead of thinking about politicians in a skeptical manner, people have taken a team-like attitude to things. It's a terrible atrocity if things happen that benefit the opposing side, but if it benefits "our" side, then what's the harm in it? Sure, it may not be ideal, but if it helps us to win, is it really so bad?

I wonder how this current political climate will play out. It's not sustainable, but I think we have farther to go before things get bad enough that some real change occurs.

[Vexx]

If an individual wants to pour millions of dollars into his causes.. fine as long as the politician reports who "owns him". If an advocacy group wants to collect money from those individuals and pool resources.. fine as long as the politician again reports who "owns him". My line is on corporations and businesses dedicating expenditures to political activities. I'm right in step with Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower on that angle - it results in an inherently corruptive and corrosive environment from the outset.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

One day, this corrupt, convoluted, messed up "democracy" is going to come crashing down on us because fools cared more about power than actually working for the greater good of America. And then what? People are ruining America because instead of working out their differences the best they can, like intelligent, decent people, everybody thinks "Our way or no way. Period".

There is a sense of irony that the very things that the people in power will do to maintain power are the very things that insure the system will collapse at some point. I still maintain the challenges we face are not problems, in the sense they have solutions. We are in a predicament were the final outcomes need to be managed (they cannot be avoided). Pain will be felt, it is only an question of how this pain is distributed.

At this moment of time this pain is not distributed equally as the people with financial and political clout make sure they are not on the receiving end of the woes faced by society. However this dynamic is not sustainable and social cohesion will continue to weaken unless this issue is addressed in a more fair manner. If that does not happen then breakup is the only outcome. This social upheaval has a reasonable chance of happening and the current actions of the political/financial elite are increasing the chances of this happening. That's not to say these upheavals will happen tomorrow. These things take time. The current trajectory we are going in points to this direction however.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I wonder how this current political climate will play out. It's not sustainable, but I think we have farther to go before things get bad enough that some real change occurs.

I am not a fan of Milton Friedman but this quote from him summed it up perfectly:

Only a crisis - real or perceived - produces any real change.

I fear it will take a crisis before people take any real action. However if we wait until then the actions we can take will become more limited. Look across the pond at Europe. If they had taken real action and taken their losses on the whole Greece thing the loses would be small compared to now. However by kicking the can down the road their options have become more limited and come with higher costs. This is the price society pays by not acknowledging its real problems and attempting to postpone the day of reckoning until it can no longer be denied.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

If an individual wants to pour millions of dollars into his causes.. fine as long as the politician reports who "owns him". If an advocacy group wants to collect money from those individuals and pool resources.. fine as long as the politician again reports who "owns him". My line is on corporations and businesses dedicating expenditures to political activities. I'm right in step with Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower on that angle - it results in an inherently corruptive and corrosive environment from the outset.

I'm not fine with that. People either don't care or just don't think far enough to even pay attention to things like that.

For example, do you remember back when the whole healthcare initiative fight was going on? The original fight, that is, not the whole questioning of whether it was Constitutional or not. I recall seeing advertisements against it on television, and the endings always made me laugh, because they state that the ad was paid for by some major insurance company. The bias seemed painfully obvious, and yet then I would hear people parroting those ads, speaking out against the initiative.

What I want is for political candidates to have an equal opportunity to get their message heard. I am not reassured by the thought that one candidate would drown out another's message, and then tag on a donation line at the end of it. People aren't paying attention to that bit at the end (or perhaps they don't know what to make of it), and if it's persuasive enough, they'll just buy the advertisement's message straight out.

If people were willing to scrutinize who was donating money, even when it's stated, then these ads wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. If you're willing to go that far to check records and motives, the chances are that you're going to investigate advertisements for yourself and make up your own mind about them. Most people see the advertisement, straight-out believe it, and go from there.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I'm not fine with that. People either don't care or just don't think far enough to even pay attention to things like that.

For example, do you remember back when the whole healthcare initiative fight was going on? The original fight, that is, not the whole questioning of whether it was Constitutional or not. I recall seeing advertisements against it on television, and the endings always made me laugh, because they state that the ad was paid for by some major insurance company. The bias seemed painfully obvious, and yet then I would hear people parroting those ads, speaking out against the initiative.

What I want is for political candidates to have an equal opportunity to get their message heard. I am not reassured by the thought that one candidate would drown out another's message, and then tag on a donation line at the end of it. People aren't paying attention to that bit at the end (or perhaps they don't know what to make of it), and if it's persuasive enough, they'll just buy the advertisement's message straight out.

If people were willing to scrutinize who was donating money, even when it's stated, then these ads wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. If you're willing to go that far to check records and motives, the chances are that you're going to investigate advertisements for yourself and make up your own mind about them. Most people see the advertisement, straight-out believe it, and go from there.

I'll point to the usual Jefferson quote about democracy only having a gnat's ass chance if the populace is educated (i.e. can think critically).

With tongue only slightly in cheek, I think requiring politicians to wear NASCAR-style sponsor labels isn't a bad idea.

I think its interesting that despite Europe's tangled mess - they still seem to *get* more clearly that the purpose of government is to manage the environment for the individuals of the community as a balance against the unbridled desires of the 0.01%. Maybe its because the aristocracy/plutocracy/robberbarony still is fresher in their minds? Americans as a whole just seem collectively brain-damaged when it comes to the forces of history.

[mangamuscle]

^ Part of the problem is the "america #1" mentality which translates in "we are perfect" which translates in "we can no no wrong", therefore people aren't really paying attention to politicians, your history books are filled with national heroes (only) and foreign villians, why should people be wary of national politicians?

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

^ Part of the problem is the "america #1" mentality which translates in "we are perfect" which translates in "we can no no wrong", therefore people aren't really paying attention to politicians, your history books are filled with national heroes (only) and foreign villians, why should people be wary of national politicians?

That and also American exceptionalism. Yes those countries did X, Y and Z and suffered but the same won't happen to us when we do it. The US's history has been one of ascendancy and success which reinforces this opinion. Unfortunately it is this past success that can prove to be fatal because the underlying assumption becomes nothing bad can happen to us.

I think through hardship they will find this is not true. I think one of the big problems are people are too complacent and do not actively think their actions/decisions through. You can make safeguards and regulations to prevent abuse but if the general population is not prepared to make informed decisions and acts foolishly or is too short-sighted then there will be abuse. Democracy can only survive if the general population remains vigilant, intelligent and campaigns regularly to stop the powers that be from attaining too much power. Unfortunately I have doubts whether this is actually happening enough.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I think its interesting that despite Europe's tangled mess - they still seem to *get* more clearly that the purpose of government is to manage the environment for the individuals of the community as a balance against the unbridled desires of the 0.01%. Maybe its because the aristocracy/plutocracy/robberbarony still is fresher in their minds? Americans as a whole just seem collectively brain-damaged when it comes to the forces of history.

Well the Americans didn't get the first-hand experience of being screwed by the KGB. Not much anyway.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

^ Part of the problem is the "america #1" mentality which translates in "we are perfect" which translates in "we can no no wrong", therefore people aren't really paying attention to politicians, your history books are filled with national heroes (only) and foreign villians, why should people be wary of national politicians?

I think you're partly right here. If a politician points out how another country is better than America in some regard, they're at risk of being labeled as unpatriotic. This prevents some major problems from being addressed directly and up-front.

However, I disagree that people aren't wary of national politicians. Plenty of people are, but they're wary of certain politicians. Specifically, it has become a red vs. blue sports game. The whole Democrats vs. Republicans thing has reached ridiculous levels, with people being willing to give people of their own party affiliation free passes while heavily scrutinizing (and vilifying) members of the opposite party.

I find it very easy to get sucked into that type of thinking, too. Both groups have done a very good job of creating a set of virtues and values for themselves that align well with certain types of people, and both of those groups of people don't seem to trust the other. Of course, if you take a step back you'll realize that neither party stays particularly true to their stated goals or values, but most people don't do that. They're too caught up in this idea that the other group is going to massively alter their way of life, and bring ruin to the country.

Originally Posted by monsta666

That and also American exceptionalism. Yes those countries did X, Y and Z and suffered but the same won't happen to us when we do it. The US's history has been one of ascendancy and success which reinforces this opinion. Unfortunately it is this past success that can prove to be fatal because the underlying assumption becomes nothing bad can happen to us.

There's probably a lot of truth in this.

[Zakoo]

As long as people have food, it won't change I think.

And if they don't have food ... well greeks will tell us soon how they do.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Specifically, it has become a red vs. blue sports game. The whole Democrats vs. Republicans thing has reached ridiculous levels,

Yeah, I know, some people are asking for Erik's Holder neck for the his part in "fast and furious", but everybody knows by now the program was started under previous attorney general Alberto Gonzales and he has not been called ONCE to testify. As you say, they are wary of politicians, but for the wrong resons, it is not that they fear so called "socialism" under obama would bebad, it is that they are fearful they will be succesful doing it.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Well the Americans didn't get the first-hand experience of being screwed by the KGB. Not much anyway.

Of course the CIA would never screw american citizens. Now take the blue pill.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll point to the usual Jefferson quote about democracy only having a gnat's ass chance if the populace is educated (i.e. can think critically).

With tongue only slightly in cheek, I think requiring politicians to wear NASCAR-style sponsor labels isn't a bad idea.

I think its interesting that despite Europe's tangled mess - they still seem to *get* more clearly that the purpose of government is to manage the environment for the individuals of the community as a balance against the unbridled desires of the 0.01%. Maybe its because the aristocracy/plutocracy/robberbarony still is fresher in their minds? Americans as a whole just seem collectively brain-damaged when it comes to the forces of history.

Even if the population were able to think critically, the way modern politics works, only a select few money-backed voices would be heard and judged by this hypothetical land of thinkers... No matter how intelligent the population, it's hard to make a good choice when there are only bad options. I think the problem Ledgem alluded to runs deeper in modern politics than Jefferson could have envisioned, unfortunately.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Even if the population were able to think critically, the way modern politics works, only a select few money-backed voices would be heard and judged by this hypothetical land of thinkers... No matter how intelligent the population, it's hard to make a good choice when there are only bad options. I think the problem Ledgem alluded to runs deeper in modern politics than Jefferson could have envisioned, unfortunately.

At least if the public is more educated, they can make a fool out of politicians when they say retarded things. All the advertising dollars are spent on the stupid; those who are educated are fully able to look things up themselves and not to be told how to vote. The smarter the population, the less adverts change things.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

...Specifically, it has become a red vs. blue sports game. The whole Democrats vs. Republicans thing has reached ridiculous levels, with people being willing to give people of their own party affiliation free passes while heavily scrutinizing (and vilifying) members of the opposite party.

This is absolutely true IMHO.
Politics in the US is increasingly becoming little more than a reality-TV show or in some cases, the new WWF.

[Ithekro]

Not enough folding metal chairs in people's faces for the old WWF.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Not enough folding metal chairs in people's faces for the old WWF.

Now that would be an entertaining debate.

I can hear the moderator/ring-announcer now:

"Macho Man Romney Savage verses Barrack 'The Body' Obama in a five round, knock-down, drag-out, fight for the World Title here at Corporatemania 2012!"

[Ithekro]

Get Jim Cornette to do it for kicks.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

"Macho Man Romney Savage verses Barrack 'The Body' Obama in a five round, knock-down, drag-out, fight for the World Title here at Corporatemania 2012!"

That would make the result look more fabricated

[Urzu 7]

We can only hope that Obama will give Romney 'The People's Elbow'.

[Ascaloth]

"Say 'it's a tax not a penalty' again, and I'm gonna shiiiiiiine your 'tax' up real nice, tuuuuurn that sunovabitch sideways, and stick it straight up your candy ass!"