A New Political Norm?

[jwoodie]

It seems to me that we have set the bar so low for our elected representatives that apathy is becoming a major factor in politics at nearly every level. In the past, apathetic people didn't vote: Our relatively low voter turnout had the silver lining of a more informed electorate. Today, voting has become so convenient that it can be done without having to read the ballot. As a result, greater numbers of uninformed voters can more easily sway elections based on the last TV or Internet commercial they happened across.

Adding to this the fact that politics has become so repugnant to most well-adjusted people, we may have entered a political vortex from which there is no escape and no hope for reform. I hope I am wrong, but the future of this country looks pretty dim.

 

[norwegen]

In the 18th century, the passions of the people were confined to one chamber of one branch of government for a reason. Democracy is unreasonable.

Now the people determine the senators for their states, the composition of the electoral college, and in more cases now, who judges are. That is, now that the United States, for all intents and purposes, is a democracy, it is ignorant.

Yes, the new normal is democracy, high unemployment, and perpetual polarization. Welcome to Amerika.

 

[FA_Q2]

It seems to me that we have set the bar so low for our elected representatives that apathy is becoming a major factor in politics at nearly every level. In the past, apathetic people didn't vote: Our relatively low voter turnout had the silver lining of a more informed electorate. Today, voting has become so convenient that it can be done without having to read the ballot. As a result, greater numbers of uninformed voters can more easily sway elections based on the last TV or Internet commercial they happened across.

Adding to this the fact that politics has become so repugnant to most well-adjusted people, we may have entered a political vortex from which there is no escape and no hope for reform. I hope I am wrong, but the future of this country looks pretty dim.

All very true. It is a sign of how good we actually have it. When you or your children are starving, you actually care about the government. When you are well fed and taken care of the political ‘problems’ seem so far off that the average person ceases to care. Unfortunately, that apathy is what actually leads to the starving. A cycle of human nature that we have been unable to break thus far.

 

[Iceweasel]

In the 18th century, the passions of the people were confined to one chamber of one branch of government for a reason. Democracy is unreasonable.

Now the people determine the senators for their states, the composition of the electoral college, and in more cases now, who judges are. That is, now that the United States, for all intents and purposes, is a democracy, it is ignorant.

Yes, the new normal is democracy, high unemployment, and perpetual polarization. Welcome to Amerika.

Well, this is a democratic republic and we did pretty good and still do but are moving away from the greatness as we lean further left. That's NOT the fault of democracy but a agenda driven media and lazy spoon fed Americans.

 

[FA_Q2]

In the 18th century, the passions of the people were confined to one chamber of one branch of government for a reason. Democracy is unreasonable.

Now the people determine the senators for their states, the composition of the electoral college, and in more cases now, who judges are. That is, now that the United States, for all intents and purposes, is a democracy, it is ignorant.

Yes, the new normal is democracy, high unemployment, and perpetual polarization. Welcome to Amerika.

Well, this is a democratic republic and we did pretty good and still do but are moving away from the greatness as we lean further left. That's NOT the fault of democracy but a agenda driven media and lazy spoon fed Americans.

Fault is a rather vapid term. It IS a failure of democracy and republics (basically all voting governments) because virtually all successful governments of that manner are going to end in the same manner. This particular flaw is better than all the alternatives though so it is the most acceptable at the moment until a better system can be contrived. All governments are going to have inherent failures because nothing involving man is perfect.

The apathy of man when they are well taken care of is a force of nature that is not going to change. That is the same reason that communism fails – the nature of man. If it was not for that reality, communism would be FAR superior to capitalism. That is not the world that we live in though and as such communism is a monumental failure. Voting governments have a similar problem, the nature of mankind is not completely suited for the vigilance that democracy in any form requires.

 

[norwegen]

In the 18th century, the passions of the people were confined to one chamber of one branch of government for a reason. Democracy is unreasonable.

Now the people determine the senators for their states, the composition of the electoral college, and in more cases now, who judges are. That is, now that the United States, for all intents and purposes, is a democracy, it is ignorant.

Yes, the new normal is democracy, high unemployment, and perpetual polarization. Welcome to Amerika.

Well, this is a democratic republic and we did pretty good and still do but are moving away from the greatness as we lean further left. That's NOT the fault of democracy but a agenda driven media and lazy spoon fed Americans.

Fault is a rather vapid term. It IS a failure of democracy and republics (basically all voting governments) because virtually all successful governments of that manner are going to end in the same manner. This particular flaw is better than all the alternatives though so it is the most acceptable at the moment until a better system can be contrived. All governments are going to have inherent failures because nothing involving man is perfect.

The apathy of man when they are well taken care of is a force of nature that is not going to change. That is the same reason that communism fails – the nature of man. If it was not for that reality, communism would be FAR superior to capitalism. That is not the world that we live in though and as such communism is a monumental failure. Voting governments have a similar problem, the nature of mankind is not completely suited for the vigilance that democracy in any form requires.

Historically, the failure of republics was that law would be ceded to the monarchies therein. That is essentially what is happening in America. Republicanism is ceding authority to democracy.

Democracy is the new normal. Hence the competing factions for governmental authority.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, this is a democratic republic and we did pretty good and still do but are moving away from the greatness as we lean further left. That's NOT the fault of democracy but a agenda driven media and lazy spoon fed Americans.

Fault is a rather vapid term. It IS a failure of democracy and republics (basically all voting governments) because virtually all successful governments of that manner are going to end in the same manner. This particular flaw is better than all the alternatives though so it is the most acceptable at the moment until a better system can be contrived. All governments are going to have inherent failures because nothing involving man is perfect.

The apathy of man when they are well taken care of is a force of nature that is not going to change. That is the same reason that communism fails – the nature of man. If it was not for that reality, communism would be FAR superior to capitalism. That is not the world that we live in though and as such communism is a monumental failure. Voting governments have a similar problem, the nature of mankind is not completely suited for the vigilance that democracy in any form requires.

Historically, the failure of republics was that law would be ceded to the monarchies therein. That is essentially what is happening in America. Republicanism is ceding authority to democracy.

Democracy is the new normal. Hence the competing factions for governmental authority.

But you have to take that one step further. To simply state that they end because they cede power to a single authority is true but misses what I was talking about and that is WHY.

The why here is because the voting populous at large becomes apathetic preferring to give up responsibilities that they have and simply live within comfort. That is exactly what is happening here. When something goes wrong (or even when something does not and there is some sort of perceived gain to be made) the general voters prefer voting for someone that says they are going to fix it. They don’t bother with the facts of how or what is actually the best way to get things done. No, what is important is that they are not bothered with the details or any hardships. That is how power ends up being consolidated: the people cease becoming vigilant. Power will ALWAYS coalesce, it takes a vigilant voting populous to continually fight that in order to remain free. This is something that we no longer have here in this nation.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

All very true. It is a sign of how good we actually have it. When you or your children are starving, you actually care about the government. When you are well fed and taken care of the political ‘problems’ seem so far off that the average person ceases to care. Unfortunately, that apathy is what actually leads to the starving. A cycle of human nature that we have been unable to break thus far.

I disagree. During times of TRUE poverty (ie: actually starving children) the poor don't care about the government, they care about getting food and shelter for their loved ones. Look at how much the 1 BILLION Chinese farmers care about their government, or the Somali people, or anywhere else where there is TRUE poverty (by TRUE poverty I mean starving populations, not "I can't afford those $200 Air Jordan's"). It is a well-known tactic used by dictators everywhere (from the ancient kings of europe to Pol Pot, Lenin, and Somali warlords) that if you keep people in TRUE poverty, and throw them some scraps of food, they will be dependent upon you and less likely to rise up against you.

During these periods it is NOT the mass of the poor who rise up, it is the rare middle to upper class people who start the revolution. Look at our revolution, or the French revolution, for examples of this. This is why Marxist dictatorships REQUIRE all middle and upper class people to maintain obvious allegiance to the "party". Same thing with the ancient kings of europe requiring their lords and landholders to maintain allegiance with the king.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Democracies and communism only work when practiced on a micro-scale like small organizations, townships, and communities. But when these ideals are practiced on a large scale they quickly become ugly, and slowly (and painfully!) break apart.

Our great republic took a big step toward democracy in 1913 with the implementation of the 17th amendment. Until then, Senators were elected to office by state legislators to represent the interests of the state, while Congressmen were elected to office by the people to represent the interests of the people. This difference highlighted the wisdom of our founding fathers who understood that the people, the state, and the State all have different, and oftentimes conflicting, interests. But with the implementation of the 17th amendment the state's no longer had ANYONE to represent their interests in Washington.

The next big step was 1942 with Wickard v. Filburn which effectively overturned the 10th amendment of the Constitution and allowed the federal government to regulate anything they want.

It's been all downhill since then.

 

[FA_Q2]

All very true. It is a sign of how good we actually have it. When you or your children are starving, you actually care about the government. When you are well fed and taken care of the political ‘problems’ seem so far off that the average person ceases to care. Unfortunately, that apathy is what actually leads to the starving. A cycle of human nature that we have been unable to break thus far.

I disagree. During times of TRUE poverty (ie: actually starving children) the poor don't care about the government, they care about getting food and shelter for their loved ones.

But we are stating virtually the same thing. They care about their work and earnings. They no longer want to pay the outrageous taxes associated with massive government. Unfortunately, people tend to blame the problems on OTHERS and never look at their own entitlement programs, demanding ever increasing payments from the ‘evil’ right that they themselves empowered in the first place.

Eventually it all comes to a head and explodes in a revolution or a complete cession of power to a dictator.

Look at how much the 1 BILLION Chinese farmers care about their government, or the Somali people, or anywhere else where there is TRUE poverty (by TRUE poverty I mean starving populations, not "I can't afford those $200 Air Jordan's"). It is a well-known tactic used by dictators everywhere (from the ancient kings of europe to Pol Pot, Lenin, and Somali warlords) that if you keep people in TRUE poverty, and throw them some scraps of food, they will be dependent upon you and less likely to rise up against you.

And we weren’t addressing that type of government but rather democracy. When a democracy devolves into a dictatorship, what we get is what you are explaining. Somalia is a different animal altogether though. It seems that they might be on the other side of that cycle.

During these periods it is NOT the mass of the poor who rise up, it is the rare middle to upper class people who start the revolution. Look at our revolution, or the French revolution, for examples of this. This is why Marxist dictatorships REQUIRE all middle and upper class people to maintain obvious allegiance to the "party". Same thing with the ancient kings of europe requiring their lords and landholders to maintain allegiance with the king.

Interesting take. I am going to have to think on that more.