Politics and what we want to hear

[Lanakila]

Obama just spoke at the University of Montana here in Missoula and although I was working so I couldn't go listen I did watch the video online when I got home. He's a very articulate man and says a lot of the things we Americans want to hear. He's going to bring the troops home and end the war. He's going to fix health car. He's going to fix education and the environment.

My question is: How the fuck is he going to do all these things, and with what money? Does he even have a clue or are these empty promises that he really can't deliver on? Presidential candidates have made promises for as long as they've been running. But most do not or can not deliver on those promises.

Wouldn't he be better advised to be/sound a little more realistic in his proposals for change? Or will it not matter once he gets elected because we voters seldom hold the politicians to their promises?

[laughing dog]

Obama just spoke at the University of Montana here in Missoula and although I was working so I couldn't go listen I did watch the video online when I got home. He's a very articulate man and says a lot of the things we Americans want to hear. He's going to bring the troops home and end the war. He's going to fix health car. He's going to fix education and the environment.

My question is: How the fuck is he going to do all these things, and with what money? Does he even have a clue or are these empty promises that he really can't deliver on? Presidential candidates have made promises for as long as they've been running. But most do not or can not deliver on those promises.

Wouldn't he be better advised to be/sound a little more realistic in his proposals for change? Or will it not matter once he gets elected because we voters seldom hold the politicians to their promises? The President does have the power to bring the troops home - that would free up money for other uses. As to the other items, I believe (but I could be wrong) that he has a plan to pay for them. If my memory is correct, the financing is rather "optimistic".

I think voters realize that all of the promises will not be met, but vote based on the quality of those promises and the likelihood that the ones important to them will be addressed.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Most of his proposals aren't that unrealistic. He has been very careful in promising people the moon.

[tjakey]

Ending the war wouldn't cost money, we've already spent some 500 billion dollars on that disaster and didn't they just ask for 100 million more? Other countries in the world seem to get a handle on their health care costs, and they don't have the money that the US does. Same with education. I'm not sure why we can't these things done or why we suffer chronically piss poor leadership. We keep voting these fucktards into office...

[Goldie]

My first thought at the OP was :
Well, they manage to find money to wage and continue war If he brought the troops home the money would be best spent here.

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.
This is the first time in my life that I actiually feel GOOD about voting for someone. That is HUGE! I know I am not the only one feeling that way.

[kennethamy]

My first thought at the OP was :
Well, they manage to find money to wage and continue war If he brought the troops home the money would be best spent here.

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.
This is the first time in my life that I actiually feel GOOD about voting for someone. That is HUGE! I know I am not the only one feeling that way.

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.

Now, isn't that sad?

This is the first time in my life that I actiually feel GOOD about voting for someone.

You sound a little like Michelle, only she said this was the first time she felt good about America.

The question is: besides offering change and hope (or is it hope and change?) what are his credentials for being president? John McCain has had more experience in government than Barak and Hilary put together, and, in addition, he has actually done something for his country: Like being tortured for five years.

You sound as if you have joined a cult, more than you sound as if you are supporting a candidate.

[rigorist]

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.

Now, isn't that sad?

This is the first time in my life that I actiually feel GOOD about voting for someone.

You sound a little like Michelle, only she said this was the first time she felt good about America.

The question is: besides offering change and hope (or is it hope and change?) what are his credentials for being president? John McCain has had more experience in government than Barak and Hilary put together, and, in addition, he has actually done something for his country: Like being tortured for five years.

You sound as if you have joined a cult, more than you sound as if you are supporting a candidate.

I didn't realize it was a credentialed position.

[laughing dog]

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.

Now, isn't that sad? What is sad, that the poster thinks Obama is the best so it is not possible to find one better or, that the poster thinks that even though there are better candidates that the poster does not think we'll find one or that someone has a different and perfectly reasonable opinion that is different than yours?


The question is: besides offering change and hope (or is it hope and change?) what are his credentials for being president? John McCain has had more experience in government than Barak and Hilary put together, and, in addition, he has actually done something for his country: Like being tortured for five years. Surely you do not mean that being a torture victim for five years provides relevant experience for the Presidency? Surely you do not mean that being a torture victim qualifies one for the Presidency?

[B Cereus]

The requirements for being president of the US are as follows:
-Be a natural born citizen of the US
-Be at least 35 years old
-Have lived in the US for at least 14 years.

Obama has met these requirements. If, as US citizens, we feel that there should be more requirements for a US president (for example, military experience), then we should change the US Constitution. As it stands, there is no requirement for experience.

[Preno]

If, as US citizens, we feel that there should be more requirements for a US president (for example, military experience), then we should change the US Constitution.You, as U.S. citizens, are powerless to enforce even basic policy changes and legal changes. Whatever makes you think that there is some magical way for the U.S. citizens to have a say in changing the constitution?

[Goldie]

My first thought at the OP was :
Well, they manage to find money to wage and continue war If he brought the troops home the money would be best spent here.

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.
This is the first time in my life that I actiually feel GOOD about voting for someone. That is HUGE! I know I am not the only one feeling that way.

ETA: This is in response to Kennethamy's post... I don't know how I ended up quoting myself.

I have read a few of your posts. You seem to think that everyone who thinks Obama would be the best choice has joined a cult.
Hardly.
I am not out screaming his name. I simply stating my opinion.

Let me make myself clear:
I am certainly not happy with the current administration.


In my voting lifetime I have never liked my choices.

I have HUGE issues with the way the Republican party aka Fundy party has affected my personal life.
Yet, I have never really liked anyone else on the ticket, either.

If I had to chose between Clinton or Obama, I'd choose Obama, but I DO like Clinton, as well.
I am sure neither is perfect... but, as I stated before, I am very happy to see two candidates that I actually like.
I hardly think that paints me as a "cult member.":rolleyes:

[Esocyn]

If, as US citizens, we feel that there should be more requirements for a US president (for example, military experience), then we should change the US Constitution.You, as U.S. citizens, are powerless to enforce even basic policy changes and legal changes. Whatever makes you think that there is some magical way for the U.S. citizens to have a say in changing the constitution?

QFT.

[Stout Drinker]

If, as US citizens, we feel that there should be more requirements for a US president (for example, military experience), then we should change the US Constitution.You, as U.S. citizens, are powerless to enforce even basic policy changes and legal changes. Whatever makes you think that there is some magical way for the U.S. citizens to have a say in changing the constitution?

By convincing fellow citizens to elect representatives who will vote for the constitutional amendments we want. Its quite difficult and requires an overwhelming majority of people across the country to get 75% of the state legislators to pass something but it isn't impossible.

[Preno]

By convincing fellow citizens to elect representatives who will vote for the constitutional amendments we want. Its quite difficult and requires an overwhelming majority of people across the country to get 75% of the state legislators to pass something but it isn't impossible.And how on Earth would you force those "representatives" to vote for such a constitutional amendment? For Christ's sake, the parliamentarian system has been utterly incapable of even enforcing such basic changes as withdrawal from Iraq, universal healthcare or support for Kyoto. What makes you think it will be different with this amendment?

Honestly, this never stops surprising me. Most Americans voted for the Democrats to end the war as quickly as possible. Yet, this did not happen. Most Americans want universal healthcare. Yet, it has so far not been instituted. Most Americans want the U.S. to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Yet, it hasn't happened so far. I could go on and on. How can you possibly claim that the opinion of the American population has any relevance in such issues? How can you possibly claim that such a system (parliamentarianism, in particular capitalist parliamentarianism) bears any resemblance to democracy?

[rigorist]

Con con, too.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Most Americans voted for the Democrats to end the war as quickly as possible.

But most Americans cannot agree on what quickly as possible means, so that is a problem. Also, Congress has no power to bring the troops home or move them anywhere.

Most Americans want universal healthcare. Yet, it has so far not been instituted.

Most Americans want universal healthcare, but not socialized medicine, so that is a problem.

I could go on and on.

I could go on in the other direction. Most Americans don't want gays to get married. And look, gays can't get married. It worked that time. Why can't it work other times? Although, I agree that changing the constitution is going to be much more difficult.

[Don Alhambra]

John McCain has had more experience in government than Barak and Hilary put together, and, in addition, he has actually done something for his country: Like being tortured for five years.

Interestingly, there is not much evidence that being experienced makes a good President...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

[Preno]

But most Americans cannot agree on what quickly as possible means, so that is a problem.I'm pretty sure raising the number of troops is universally considered to go directly against that goal.
Also, Congress has no power to bring the troops home or move them anywhere.They have power over the funding.
Most Americans want universal healthcare. Yet, it has so far not been instituted.Most Americans want universal healthcare, but not socialized medicine, so that is a problem.But certainly not an unsolvable one.
I could go on in the other direction. Most Americans don't want gays to get married. And look, gays can't get married. It worked that time. Why can't it work other times? Although, I agree that changing the constitution is going to be much more difficult.This is explicable by being economically irrelevant. In pretty much every issue that has some economic (or military) effect, the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant. The fact that sometimes, the interests of the ruling class and the government's buddies and the wishes of the electorate coincide does not mean that the electorate actually enforced such laws/policies.

[Pavlov's Dog]

But most Americans cannot agree on what quickly as possible means, so that is a problem.I'm pretty sure raising the number of troops is universally considered to go directly against that goal.

Congress can't raise the number of troops, and both democratic candidates state they will severely reduce the number of troops, removing all combat battalions.


They have power over the funding.

So, they have the power to remove armor, equipment, rations, and other items from our troops. That is not the power to bring the troops home.

But certainly not an unsolvable one.

The democratic proposals are working out a compromise. I think it is going to suck, but I favor socialized medicine and am in the minority.

This is explicable by being economically irrelevant. In pretty much every issue that has some economic (or military) effect, the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant. The fact that sometimes, the interests of the ruling class and the government's buddies and the wishes of the electorate coincide does not mean that the electorate actually enforced such laws/policies.

Are you saying that only economically irrelevant things that the majority want force the hand of Congress? How about the Civil Rights Bill? How about repealing prohibition? The list can go on and on. Our system is severely flawed in getting our reps to do what the majority of people want, but it happens enough to show that it can work.

[Preno]

Congress can't raise the number of troops,No, but they can deny funding to an increased number of troops, right?
and both democratic candidates state they will severely reduce the number of troops, removing all combat battalions.Maybe they will, maybe they won't. The fact is that if the Democratic party was interested in such a move, they would probably not have agreed to fund a surge.
So, they have the power to remove armor, equipment, rations, and other items from our troops. That is not the power to bring the troops home.No, but it's a power to significantly contribute to it.

It's very simple, if they were seriously interested in at the very least not increasing the number of troops, they would at the very least not have granted the funding for a surge.
The democratic proposals are working out a compromise. I think it is going to suck, but I favor socialized medicine and am in the minority.Which could have been done ages ago, and it is doubtful if or when this will lead to anything. Possible promises that something may be done in the future are irrelevant as objection to the fact that so far, nothing has been done.
This is explicable by being economically irrelevant. In pretty much every issue that has some economic (or military) effect, the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant. The fact that sometimes, the interests of the ruling class and the government's buddies and the wishes of the electorate coincide does not mean that the electorate actually enforced such laws/policies.Are you saying that only economically irrelevant things that the majority want force the hand of Congress? How about the Civil Rights Bill? How about repealing prohibition? The list can go on and on. Our system is severely flawed in getting our reps to do what the majority of people want, but it happens enough to show that it can work.Occasionally, sure. But the fact is that it fails to work at least somewhat consistently, and, in fact, quite consistently fails to work. The counter-examples you gave were several decades old, every example I gave is recent. It's no surprise that if you dig enough into history, you will find some counter-examples. But for the most part, the opinion of the public seems to be irrelevant in these matters.

[Pavlov's Dog]

No, but it's a power to significantly contribute to it.

Do you seriously think that if they would have denied the funding that he would have brought the troops home? Seriously?

The majority of Americans didn't have a problem with our healthcare system ages ago. There was no popular support. Now, there is, so they are going to have to do something.

Occasionally, sure.

This didn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

[Preno]

Do you seriously think that if they would have denied the funding that he would have brought the troops home? Seriously?Not necessarily, but it would definitely show a willingness
to significantly contribute to itWords are just words, unless they are actually supported by the way they vote.
The majority of Americans didn't have a problem with our healthcare system ages ago. There was no popular support. Now, there is, so they are going to have to do something.Not true (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/2/33?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=National+health+care+oppose&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT). The support has afaict been steadily above 50% for the last 2 decades.
Occasionally, sure.This didn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.Ok, let me rephrase it:
You, as U.S. citizens, are virtually powerless to enforce even basic policy changes and legal changes. Whatever makes you think that there is some magical way for the U.S. citizens to have a say in changing the constitution?I don't see any real difference between "powerless" and "virtually powerless", though, and use the former to mean the latter, like most people do in normal conversation.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Do you seriously think that if they would have denied the funding that he would have brought the troops home? Seriously?Not necessarily, but it would definitely show a willingness

Yes, a willingness at the expense of our troops. If Bush had to do the surge on shoe string budget, where do you think he would cut corners? Do you think he would stop sending less bombs over there or body armor? You guys can bring up this complaint if Obama takes office. Who knows, you might be right.


If you read your document you see that the it was up and down. It was at 59% then when the Clinton's had their plan in place it dropped to 40% in favor. And only then was the plan killed. You can expect the same thing if there is another drop in public opinion about it.

[Preno]

Yes, a willingness at the expense of our troops. If Bush had to do the surge on shoe string budget, where do you think he would cut corners? Do you think he would stop sending less bombs over there or body armor? You guys can bring up this complaint if Obama takes office. Who knows, you might be right.Less body armor and less weapons ultimately means less people fighting. Your argument is like saying that if the U.S. didn't provide all the dictatorial regimes with weapons, they would have bought them from someone else anyway.
If you read your document you see that the it was up and down. It was at 59% then when the Clinton's had their plan in place it dropped to 40% in favor. And only then was the plan killed. You can expect the same thing if there is another drop in public opinion about it.Afaict, that's support for Clinton's particular plan. Certainly, one can expect a similar drop with every specific plan, but the fact is that most people still apparently preferred national health insurance.

It seems more than plausible to me that there was also an influence of private healthcare providers via private media that contributed to the drop.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Afaict, that's support for Clinton's particular plan.
As far as I can tell it is not support for the specific plan or they worded the article poorly. It said it was at 59% before the plan, and then dropped to 40%. If it was about a specific plan, then how could it have been at 59% before a specific plan existed?

It seems more than plausible to me that there was also an influence of private healthcare providers via private media that contributed to the drop.

Maybe, put the public's opinion influenced by the private media, is still the public's opinion.

[Preno]

As far as I can tell it is not support for the specific plan or they worded the article poorly. It said it was at 59% before the plan, and then dropped to 40%. If it was about a specific plan, then how could it have been at 59% before a specific plan existed?It says: (I assume you are referring to this part)
In spite of the general support for a national health plan portrayed in Exhibit 1, public support for the Clinton plan declined from 59 percent in September 1993 to 40 percent in July 1994They say that both numbers are the percentage of Americans that supported the Clinton plan at two points in time. Perhaps it wasn't fully formulated in Sep 1993, I don't know. But the first part of the sentence indicates it's not the number of Americans supporting a national health plan and the second part says the numbers refer only to public support for the Clinton plan.
Maybe, put the public's opinion influenced by the private media, is still the public's opinion.Sure.

[Pavlov's Dog]

They say that both numbers are the percentage of Americans that supported the Clinton plan at two points in time. Perhaps it wasn't fully formulated in Sep 1993, I don't know. But the first part of the sentence indicates it's not the number of Americans supporting a national health plan.

Okay, so they were both about the Clinton plan. So, there goes your theory about the number dropping because of a specific plan.

Sure.

And the public didn't support the plan, so it was killed.

[Preno]

Okay, so they were both about the Clinton plan. So, there goes your theory about the number dropping because of a specific plan.No, it was about the specific proposal:
After each plan was introduced and the policies were made
explicit, opposing groups entered the debate and argued that the
enactment of the proposal would result in a health care system
worse than the existing one.But anyway, most people still seemed to supported universal healthcare, so instead of just scrapping it altogether, efforts should have been made to flesh out a better proposal.

[Pavlov's Dog]

No, it was about the specific proposal.

Yeah, that is what I said. It was about a specific plan.

But anyway, most people still seemed to supported universal healthcare, so instead of just scrapping it altogether, efforts should have been made to flesh out a better proposal.

It is not like they haven't been trying to come up with something. The problem is that the American public will likely turn against most plans. Well, maybe not anymore, because now they are pretty fed up with the healthcare system.

[Jaggers]

You, as U.S. citizens, are powerless to enforce even basic policy changes and legal changes. Whatever makes you think that there is some magical way for the U.S. citizens to have a say in changing the constitution?Pronouncements like this annoy the shit out of me. I'm not generally some patriotic "proud to be Merkun" types, but why don't you come back and make a pronouncement about what sort of power we have over our government when your country has been non-totalitarian for more than half a minute, all right?

Yes, it's hard to ennact change in the US. The Constitution was designed that way for a reason. It prevents any one faction (say, one with ideology and ambition similar to the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) from gaining too much power and subverting the system.

[Esocyn]

Pronouncements like this annoy the shit out of me. I'm not generally some patriotic "proud to be Merkun" types, but why don't you come back and make a pronouncement about what sort of power we have over our government when your country has been non-totalitarian for more than half a minute, all right?

What does that have to do with the fact that he is.. uh.. right?

Yes, it's hard to ennact change in the US. The Constitution was designed that way for a reason. It prevents any one faction (say, one with ideology and ambition similar to the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) from gaining too much power and subverting the system.

Mission failed - miserably.

[Preno]

You, as U.S. citizens, are powerless to enforce even basic policy changes and legal changes. Whatever makes you think that there is some magical way for the U.S. citizens to have a say in changing the constitution?Pronouncements like this annoy the shit out of me. I'm not generally some patriotic "proud to be Merkun" types, but why don't you come back and make a pronouncement about what sort of power we have over our government when your country has been non-totalitarian for more than half a minute, all right?lol @ your indignation

What makes you think my criticism is somehow specific to the U.S.? I thought I made it more than clear that my problem is with parliamentarianism, in particular capitalist parliamentarianism. The main difference between the Czech Rep. and the U.S. is that the U.S. hosts much more powerful firms and its foreign policy has a much stronger impact on global economy and that it has a two-party system. The failures of capitalism are exacerbated by the former and the failures of parliamentarianism by the latter, but the structure is fundamentally similar and the same criticisms can be applied to the Czech Rep.. For example, about 70% of Czechs are opposed to the missile defense radar and 80% would like to see a referendum, yet in all likelihood the radar will be approved by the parliament.
Yes, it's hard to ennact change in the US. The Constitution was designed that way for a reason. It prevents any one faction (say, one with ideology and ambition similar to the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) from gaining too much power and subverting the system.How does that justify lack of democracy with respect to such basic issues as the ones I mentioned? Or perhaps your argument is that the public needs to have virtually zero say in such basic matters, because otherwise, an undemocratic regime might come into power? That would be a very peculiar argument.

[kennethamy]

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.

Now, isn't that sad? What is sad, that the poster thinks Obama is the best so it is not possible to find one better or, that the poster thinks that even though there are better candidates that the poster does not think we'll find one or that someone has a different and perfectly reasonable opinion that is different than yours?


The question is: besides offering change and hope (or is it hope and change?) what are his credentials for being president? John McCain has had more experience in government than Barak and Hilary put together, and, in addition, he has actually done something for his country: Like being tortured for five years. Surely you do not mean that being a torture victim for five years provides relevant experience for the Presidency? Surely you do not mean that being a torture victim qualifies one for the Presidency?

You are right. McCain's experience lies in the 30 or so years he has been in government. His military service (including the torture he underwent) attests to his discipline, his endurance, and, of course, to his patriotism. Together, they overwhelm being a member of the town council (or whatever Obama was) and two years as Senator, and, Hilary's stint as First Lady. As even you well know.

And yes, it is sad. Considering that Obama is 14th best, and Clinton, maybe 13th best. Obama has the gift of gab, and Clinton, well, she may have a brain,, but it is devoted to being cunning, not intelligent.

[kennethamy]

I'll vote for Obama. I don't think we'll find better.

Now, isn't that sad?

This is the first time in my life that I actiually feel GOOD about voting for someone.

You sound a little like Michelle, only she said this was the first time she felt good about America.

The question is: besides offering change and hope (or is it hope and change?) what are his credentials for being president? John McCain has had more experience in government than Barak and Hilary put together, and, in addition, he has actually done something for his country: Like being tortured for five years.

You sound as if you have joined a cult, more than you sound as if you are supporting a candidate.

I didn't realize it was a credentialed position.

Yes it is. Intelligence, honesty, patriotism, and experience, are the tacit credentials required. The official criteria listed in the Constitution are not, of course, credentials, but necessary conditions, and not sufficient conditions for being president. And, oh, yes, victimhood is neither a criterion nor a credential, although the two Democrat candidates seem to think that the more the victim (woman or black) the greater the credential for being the Chief Magistrate of the United States.

[Jaggers]

lol @ your indignationannoyance /= indignation

What makes you think my criticism is somehow specific to the U.S.? I thought I made it more than clear that my problem is with parliamentarianism, in particular capitalist parliamentarianism.Then your argument fails before it it even got off the ground. The US is a presidential system with executive power removed from the legislative branch. It is not a parliamentary system Or perhaps your argument is that the public needs to have virtually zero say in such basic matters, because otherwise, an undemocratic regime might come into power? That would be a very peculiar argument.Go beat your strawman somewhere else. PD has given you examples of gov't response in the US to public sentiment, and there are plenty of other examples throughout US history. The point is: There has to be fairly widespread and uniform agreeement on an issue for something to happen in the US because the system is set up to prevent any one faction from gaining control of the machinery and running it into the ground. On an issue like universal healthcare, there has been a majority opinion that some universal healthcare should be implemented, but there has not been universal agreement as to what that means, and there hasn't really been widespread (i.e. more than a slim majority) sentiment on a consistent basis.

[rigorist]

Yes it is. Intelligence, honesty, patriotism, and experience, are the tacit credentials required. The official criteria listed in the Constitution are not, of course, credentials, but necessary conditions, and not sufficient conditions for being president. And, oh, yes, victimhood is neither a criterion nor a credential, although the two Democrat candidates seem to think that the more the victim (woman or black) the greater the credential for being the Chief Magistrate of the United States.

Of course, neither one of them advocated that reasoning as far as I know.

You, however, are arguing that victimhood is a credential when you argue that Sen. McCain's imprisonment in North Vietnam is a credential.

[laughing dog]

You are right. McCain's experience lies in the 30 or so years he has been in government. His military service (including the torture he underwent) attests to his discipline, his endurance, and, of course, to his patriotism. Together, they overwhelm being a member of the town council (or whatever Obama was) and two years as Senator, and, Hilary's stint as First Lady. As even you well know. Interestingly these same qualities of McCain did not overwhelm a clearly inferior candidate's 8 years ago. I refer to Darth Jar Jar's (our current president), as you well know.

Of course, Obama's growing up black, enduring discrimination and racism attests to his fortitude. His willingness to work within the system for positive change attests to his patriotism. As you may well know, patriotism is more than a willingness to go to war.

[Preno]

Then your argument fails before it it even got off the ground. The US is a presidential system with executive power removed from the legislative branch. It is not a parliamentary systemNo, that just means your argument fails even more spectacularly. If a parliament is incapable of representing the wishes of the population faithfully (at least to some shall we say non-laughable extent), then it trivially follows that a single person is not going to be capable of that, either.

I didn't mean "parliamentarianism" to include only those systems that are considered to be parliamentary (as opposed to presidential). It simply includes systems where top-level public decisions are made by moderately small groups of people, with special offices like that of the president or the prime minister. After all, the Congress has the legislative power. I don't see how the fact that the position of the president exists in the U.S. changes any of my criticism.
Go beat your strawman somewhere else. PD has given you examples of gov't response in the US to public sentiment, and there are plenty of other examples throughout US history.Yes, I am pretty sure you can find several examples from throughout U.S. history where what the people wanted coincided with what was actually decided on. I'm also sure that in some of those cases, the popularity of this option was one of the causes for the adoption of the policy or law in question. But the fact that if you look into history, you can find several counter-example doesn't change the fact that right now, the decisions being made do not reflect the majority opinion on such basic issues as the ones I have mentioned. If at any moment in time, public opinion on such basic issues is irrelevant, then the public simply does not have any real say in the decision-making. Given such blatant disregard for the public opinion on such basic matters, the only most parsimonous explanation is that public opinion is for all intents and purposes (which means, in the vast majority of cases, especially important cases) irrelevant, and the coincidence of policies and laws with the wishes of the electorate may in most cases be best explained by factors other than the popular opinion actually having an impact on public decision-making.

One of the counter-examples was almost half a freaking century old. The other was even older. Are you seriously proposing that those constitute some sort of counter-argument?
The point is: There has to be fairly widespread and uniform agreeement on an issue for something to happen in the US because the system is set up to prevent any one faction from gaining control of the machinery and running it into the ground.Honest question: what has the Bush administration done to bring us closer to universal healthcare in the last 8 years? I don't know, from what I see, it didn't seem like it did much, but I admit I clearly miss a lot of what's going on in American politics.
On an issue like universal healthcare, there has been a majority opinion that some universal healthcare should be implemented, but there has not been universal agreement as to what that means, and there hasn't really been widespread (i.e. more than a slim majority) sentiment on a consistent basis.What about all the other issues? The war in Iraq? The Kyoto protocol? The International Criminal Court? All those are present examples, how about present counter-examples?

How is bringing up half a century old examples relevant to the fact that the population has virtually no say over such basic decisions?

[kennethamy]

You are right. McCain's experience lies in the 30 or so years he has been in government. His military service (including the torture he underwent) attests to his discipline, his endurance, and, of course, to his patriotism. Together, they overwhelm being a member of the town council (or whatever Obama was) and two years as Senator, and, Hilary's stint as First Lady. As even you well know. Interestingly these same qualities of McCain did not overwhelm a clearly inferior candidate's 8 years ago. I refer to Darth Jar Jar's (our current president), as you well know.

Of course, Obama's growing up black, enduring discrimination and racism attests to his fortitude. His willingness to work within the system for positive change attests to his patriotism. As you may well know, patriotism is more than a willingness to go to war.

He endured discrimination and racism? Was that in Africa or Indonesia? In the United States he went to Princeton, Harvard, and taught law as one of the most prestigious law schools. He and his equally privileged wife have just reported an income of over three million dollars. You're kidding! His working within the system attests to his patriotism? Do you know what the word "patriotism" means? You mean that if he did not join a rebellion, that shows he was patriotic? Again, you must be kidding!

[Jaggers]

How is bringing up half a century old examples relevant to the fact that the population has virtually no say over such basic decisions?I'll respond with more later, just dont have the time right now. But I can't let this lay. My take would be, that, if within the scope of history, you think a half a century ago was too long to consider, then your perspective is way skewed. This is what I see as the root of the problem. Everybody has things they want changed, and they want them changed yesterday. Of course, everyone disagrees on how things should be changed. "oh my god, it's been two decades and we still don't have universal healthcare! The government is a failure!!!!!!1111" Nevermind that's only recently in the last century that universal helathcare has been feasible and even less time since it has been desireable and only within arguably the last ten years that some consensus is starting to emerge in the US as to exactly what kind of universal healthcare we want. I'm not saying universal healthcare and all the other issues you referenced are not important, and I'm not saying we have the best way of doing things here. But you treat "the public" as if it's some monolithic institution with a unanimous voice. It's not. Some people want x, others want y, and still otehrs want x+y/2. One of the huge benefits of our system is that it's really hard to change something once it's established. So once we do get universal healthcare, it will be around for quite a while probably.

One more thing: One of the biggest reasons that the Republicans have been so successful is their tax policy. To most people, much of the benefits of an interventionist government are ephmeral and far removed. They see hard concrete tax savings under Republican administrations, and that's why they keep voting them in (nevermind that they're funding those tax savings with budget deficits everyone's children's and grandchildren's money). So you have here a damn good argument that the government is responding to exactly what "the people" want, it's just that what the people want is bad for the country.

[Preno]

I'll respond with more later, just dont have the time right now. But I can't let this lay. My take would be, that, if within the scope of history, you think a half a century ago was too long to consider, then your perspective is way skewed. This is what I see as the root of the problem. Everybody has things they want changed, and they want them changed yesterday. Of course, everyone disagrees on how things should be changed. "oh my god, it's been two decades and we still don't have universal healthcare! The government is a failure!!!!!!1111" Nevermind that's only recently in the last century that universal helathcare has been feasible and even less time since it has been desireable and only within arguably the last ten years that some consensus is starting to emerge in the US as to exactly what kind of universal healthcare we want. I'm not saying universal healthcare and all the other issues you referenced are not important, and I'm not saying we have the best way of doing things here. But you treat "the public" as if it's some monolithic institution with a unanimous voice. It's not. Some people want x, others want y, and still otehrs want x+y/2. One of the huge benefits of our system is that it's really hard to change something once it's established. So once we do get universal healthcare, it will be around for quite a while probably.Why are you fixated on this one issue while disregarding the other examples I gave you? There is a clear majority that wants to do those things. If they had any say in public decision-making, those things would have happened. They did not, therefore, they do not.
One more thing: One of the biggest reasons that the Republicans have been so successful is their tax policy. To most people, much of the benefits of an interventionist government are ephmeral and far removed. They see hard concrete tax savings under Republican administrations, and that's why they keep voting them in (nevermind that they're funding those tax savings with budget deficits everyone's children's and grandchildren's money). So you have here a damn good argument that the government is responding to exactly what "the people" want, it's just that what the people want is bad for the country.No, we have a damn good argument that if what the elite wants coincides with what the public wants, then it will be instituted (or if it can be spinned in such a way as to make it seem to be what the public wants). That provides no evidence whatsoever for the public having a say in such matters. In fact, it provides an excellent argument for the opposing theory, which can explain why this policy has been applied, while many other policies that the public desires have not.

Honestly, unless you have a rival theory that can explain why some public wishes are disregarded and others are not, you do not have a counter-argument. You do not escape having to explain it by just waving your hands and saying "but look, sometimes they coincide". Of course they do. But that does not prove or even provide evidence for any causal relationship.

[Jaggers]

Why are you fixated on this one issue while disregarding the other examples I gave you? Hold on a minute. I certainly saw you assert some other topics about which the public opinion allegedly did not get administered. I didn't see any actual evidence. Why don't you first show me that the public opinion on those issues was widespread, consistent over a reasonably long time period, and coherent, since you brought them up in the first place? Then I'll take up the issue. No, we have a damn good argument that if what the elite wants coincides with what the public wants, then it will be instituted (or if it can be spinned in such a way as to make it seem to be what the public wants). Tax reductions for the middle class do not imply tax reduction for the "elite." If the public really was powerless to affect change, the elite would not give anything to the middle class so they could take all the breaks for themselves.

Moreover, bringing "spin" into it kills your argument. Spin is going to be present in any type of government you set up. So if spin prevents the public from having any influence, then the public can never have influence. Your argument proves too much.

Honestly, unless you have a rival theory that can explain why some public wishes are disregarded and others are not, you do not have a counter-argument. You do not escape having to explain it by just waving your hands and saying "but look, sometimes they coincide". Of course they do. But that does not prove or even provide evidence for any causal relationship.This is horseshit. You've thrown out a few examples where the majority has, at some point in time, had a particular stand on an issue that was not, or at least, has not yet been ennacted. You haven't shown that these positions are enduring or widespread. You're the one who made the claim that US citizens are "virtually" powerless to enforce policy changes. That's a very strong position to hold. If you think of democratic power on a scale between a pure democracy and a totalitarian state, you're basically equating the US gov't with Communist Russia. You're going to have to do a fuck lot better than point out a few examples where public sentiment has not been ennacted to prove your point. To successfully defend your claim, you pretty much need to show that policy changes are never (or "virtually" never) made as a result of public sentiment. So go ahead. Show how none of the policies executed over US history have been substanitally caused by public will.

*waits for backpedaling/goal post shifting*

[Preno]

Hold on a minute. I certainly saw you assert some other topics about which the public opinion allegedly did not get administered. I didn't see any actual evidence. Why don't you first show me that the public opinion on those issues was widespread,what

Are you asking me to show that a majority opinion was widespead?
consistent over a reasonably long time period,I already provided the data for universal healthcare. The opinion on Iraq has been consistent for at least the last 2 or 3 years. I'm pretty sure the opinion on Kyoto has been consistent, too, given the wide majority its acceptance has (70+%). In Sep 2004, it was 65%, so it seems reasonable to assume that it has been consistent for more than 5 years. I don't know about the consistency of opinion of the ICC in time, but I don't see any reason to believe it has been changing dramatically in time.

I don't, however, see what any of this has to do with the fact that the Democrats have been incapable to do the one thing they were voted in to do, namely get America out of Iraq. They made no actual effort to contribute to this, so please no bullshitting about how they cannot do this.
and coherent,I don't understand.
No, we have a damn good argument that if what the elite wants coincides with what the public wants, then it will be instituted (or if it can be spinned in such a way as to make it seem to be what the public wants). Tax reductions for the middle class do not imply tax reduction for the "elite." If the public really was powerless to affect change, the elite would not give anything to the middle class so they could take all the breaks for themselves.No, because that would be more trouble to spin.
Moreover, bringing "spin" into it kills your argument. Spin is going to be present in any type of government you set up.That's a profoundly retarded argument, equivalent to "bribe is going to be present in any type of society".
Honestly, unless you have a rival theory that can explain why some public wishes are disregarded and others are not, you do not have a counter-argument. You do not escape having to explain it by just waving your hands and saying "but look, sometimes they coincide". Of course they do. But that does not prove or even provide evidence for any causal relationship.This is horseshit. You've thrown out a few examples where the majority has, at some point in time, had a particular stand on an issue that was not, or at least, has not yet been ennacted.Yes. One of the two counter-examples has been almost half a century old, the other more than half a century old.
You're the one who made the claim that US citizens are "virtually" powerless to enforce policy changes. That's a very strong position to hold. If you think of democratic power on a scale between a pure democracy and a totalitarian state, you're basically equating the US gov't with Communist Russia.Totalitarianism is something different than a mere lack of democracy. Yes, the citizens of the U.S. (not that, as I said, the U.S. is somehow unique in this respect) imo have more say than the citizens of the USSR did, but not too much. The main difference is in that one society was totalitarian, while the other isn't.
You're going to have to do a fuck lot better than point out a few examples where public sentiment has not been ennacted to prove your point. To successfully defend your claim, you pretty much need to show that policy changes are never (or "virtually" never) made as a result of public sentiment.No, that's just stupid. Lack of causation can be proven by a lack of correlation, it is not necessary to go through each and every example where the two happened to coincide. There are many extremely important and very basic issues which the public is powerless to change. If the American public had any significant say in public decision-making, the U.S. would not have raised the number of troops in Iraq, the Democrats would have made actual efforts to contribute to pulling out of Iraq, the Kyoto protocol would have been adopted (hmm, this is a huge, inexplicable mystery, innit?), the U.S. would enter the ICC, most Americans oppose war with Iran (despite the government insisting on it being an option), and so on (http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/top-10-things-americans-want-but-cant-have/). But they do not, therefore, they do not have any significant say in public decision-making. It's simple modus tollens.
So go ahead. Show how none of the policies executed over US history have been substanitally caused by public will. That's just stupid and you know that. I've just explained to you why my argument works, so I'm not going to bother doing this. If you would like, however, to point out several comparably important and basic issues (pretty difficult to beat Iraq there, though) where you believe that the public opinion has presently (so that we are pulling our examples out of comparably large bags, so to speak) caused a change in government policy in the U.S. (so, for example, the at least partial coincidence of public opinion and government policy on torture doesn't count, since there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe that the government policy was actually due to the public opinion). That would be meaningful, but not this "demonstrate some ludicrous proposition about all of the policies executed over U.S. history" non-sense.

[laughing dog]

He endured discrimination and racism? Was that in Africa or Indonesia? In the United States he went to Princeton, Harvard, and taught law as one of the most prestigious law schools. He and his equally privileged wife have just reported an income of over three million dollars. What does any of this have to do with enduring racism or discrimination? Are you seriously claiming that racism has been eliminated in the USA? In fact, the "Wright flap" is driven partly by racism, partly by pure ignorance, and partly by partisanship.

You're kidding! His working within the system attests to his patriotism? Do you know what the word "patriotism" means? I do. It means more than goose stepping along with authority. It means more than "Amurricca, love it or leave it". It embraces a love of country which includes acknowledging the flaws and working to improve them. You mean that if he did not join a rebellion, that shows he was patriotic? Again, you must be kidding! This is just plain stupid.