A thought as to why we're in the shape we are

[BillyZane]

as a nation.

It's really rather simple I believe.

The two major parties have convinced Americans to solely think upon Party lines. There is little to no individual though given on any single subject anymore. It's simply "Oh, this is a Democratic idea, and I''m a Democrat, so this is what I will defend" or "Oh, this is a Republican idea, and I'm a Republican so this is what I will defend" or the opposite where a person will attack ANY idea from the other parts without thought. The MERITS of the argument no longer matter to most Americans. And the two major political parties are loving it

Read just this site for numerous examples. I refuse to believe that even half the people post half the crap that they post or thank on this site, yet they blindly defend it. Sickening and our country is doomed by this attitude.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think it is even deeper than that because if you actually look at what the two parties do when they are in power they really don’t have that many differences. Each side will speak about the other as if they were evil incarnate hell bent on the destruction of the nation but yet turn a blind eye when they blatantly pass the same legislation and push the same ideals.

No, we are going the direction we are going because we have merged the government with business into a terrible governing concept: corporate cronyism. The government has ceased to protect the rights of the people and started to protect the interests of their backers.

 

[editec]

Billy, I doubt it matters much what people think.

Both parties answer to the same masters.

 

[Synergy]

I agree with you to a large extent, but this sentiment is also slightly misleading.

Personally, I have participated in only two general elections. I voted third party both times. I consider it a worthwhile, and arguably historically successful strategy for influencing policy of the major parties (historical examples include slavery, women's rights, child labor laws, social security, etc.). I agree that the two parties differ very little in practice, but it is interesting to note that even those subtle differences have resulted in a dramatic contrast in social and economic results.

Have a look at historical unemployment rates by party. Use yearly averages to account for natural fluctuations (though, this occasionally does bias results slightly such as with George W. Bush who averaged 5.8% his final year but left Obama with a 7.8% unemployment rate with a deep recession only just beginning at the time of his inauguration). Ignore individuals and take party accomplishments as a whole to see if statistically significant differences in performance can be ascertained.

For example, consider the span of time from the last year of Jimmy Carter's presidency to the last year of George H.W. Bush's presidency one republican era. Bill Clinton would be classified as one democrat era, starting with the yearly unemployment rate the previous era ended on and finishing on the final year of his presidency prior to George W. Bush. The results will startle you. Likewise with duration of unemployment. This data is freely available via the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

Statistics on recessions from the National Bureau of Economic Research, if we go by party in the same manner, are equally lopsided in aggregate -- even when years in office are adjusted for. Likewise with total GDP growth percentage by party.

The same result is found when we look at national violent death rates (homicide and suicide both together and separate) by party tenure of the presidency, and this trend seems to continue even on the level of red states vs. blue states in aggregate with a high level of statistically significant difference between the two.

I'll let you find out for yourself which side is unambiguously favored.

But returning to my earlier agreement, I think we can do a lot better. The issue is that change occurs way too slowly when efforts are led internal to an established party. Outside pressure appears to accelerate the process significantly. When they feel the heat, they must compete!

 

[Steven_R]

Politicians are just the symptom. The disease is a nation of voters who don't give a damn. We don't hold politicians accountable when they cease to represent us and represent themselves, their bribers, or their own ideologies. We let bureaucrats do whatever they want with impunity via regulations and we just shrug our shoulders. We're more interested in voting ourselves a free ride or local pork projects than we are in keeping the ship of state upright. We pay more attention to the NFL than we do to what is happening on Capitol Hill or City Hall and all points in-between.

It's not Republican or Democrat; it's us as a whole.

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree with you to a large extent, but this sentiment is also slightly misleading.

Personally, I have participated in only two general elections. I voted third party both times. I consider it a worthwhile, and arguably historically successful strategy for influencing policy of the major parties (historical examples include slavery, women's rights, child labor laws, social security, etc.). I agree that the two parties differ very little in practice, but it is interesting to note that even those subtle differences have resulted in a dramatic contrast in social and economic results.

Have a look at historical unemployment rates by party. Use yearly averages to account for natural fluctuations (though, this occasionally does bias results slightly such as with George W. Bush who averaged 5.8% his final year but left Obama with a 7.8% unemployment rate with a deep recession only just beginning at the time of his inauguration). Ignore individuals and take party accomplishments as a whole to see if statistically significant differences in performance can be ascertained.

For example, consider the span of time from the last year of Jimmy Carter's presidency to the last year of George H.W. Bush's presidency one republican era. Bill Clinton would be classified as one democrat era, starting with the yearly unemployment rate the previous era ended on and finishing on the final year of his presidency prior to George W. Bush. The results will startle you. Likewise with duration of unemployment. This data is freely available via the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

Statistics on recessions from the National Bureau of Economic Research, if we go by party in the same manner, are equally lopsided in aggregate -- even when years in office are adjusted for. Likewise with total GDP growth percentage by party.

The same result is found when we look at national violent death rates (homicide and suicide both together and separate) by party tenure of the presidency, and this trend seems to continue even on the level of red states vs. blue states in aggregate with a high level of statistically significant difference between the two.

I'll let you find out for yourself which side is unambiguously favored.

But returning to my earlier agreement, I think we can do a lot better. The issue is that change occurs way too slowly when efforts are led internal to an established party. Outside pressure appears to accelerate the process significantly. When they feel the heat, they must compete!

Such a breakdown is flawed from the get go considering you are calling Clinton a democrat era and Bush a republican one.

Our government is not a singular entity. Clinton had a republican congress. Indeed, our government seems to make the worst mistakes when a single side take the government in totality.

 

[Mac1958]

as a nation.

It's really rather simple I believe.

The two major parties have convinced Americans to solely think upon Party lines. There is little to no individual though given on any single subject anymore. It's simply "Oh, this is a Democratic idea, and I''m a Democrat, so this is what I will defend" or "Oh, this is a Republican idea, and I'm a Republican so this is what I will defend" or the opposite where a person will attack ANY idea from the other parts without thought. The MERITS of the argument no longer matter to most Americans. And the two major political parties are loving it

Read just this site for numerous examples. I refuse to believe that even half the people post half the crap that they post or thank on this site, yet they blindly defend it. Sickening and our country is doomed by this attitude.

Agreed.

It seems that more and more people are getting sucked into this behavior, people who formerly were not that interested about politics. It's exacerbated by the division pimps (the media people on both ends who have a vested professional and financial interest in keeping both sides angry at each other), and it all feeds on itself. In other words, people are getting angrier and angrier in general. A snowball rolling downhill.

Regarding the behaviors on this board, that's a source of fascination for me. I used to believe that people were just folks were just playing games, kind of like a political version of professional wrestling. But more and more, I think some of them really talk themselves into this stuff. They really do believe that it's all the other guy's fault. People can talk themselves into almost anything, and I think that's what you see here.

More and more people have lost all curiosity, they question neither their own beliefs nor those on their "side", and inevitably that exacerbates the polarization. We've become more and more intellectually lazy, evidently thinking things through requires too much effort. Just pick a side, run with it, and spin, distort and lie whenever needed to protect your position. Kind of a contrived narcissism, again, like pro wrestling.

This isn't good.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

Politicians and political parties are an easy target. In short, we have the government that we deserve. Most of the third party rhetoric seems to be aimed at Republicans. They get criticized when they act too much like Democrats and they get criticized when they don't act enough like Democrats. It happens on the left too but that's OK because the left is supposed to be diverse, I guess. The problem is that we have a nation with too many fickle people. They want the goodies but they want someone else to pay for it.

But the bigger problem is that we have an anti-business climate. Most other nations have realized that economies are based on business. If you hurt business, it hurts the economy. That isn't an endorsement for cronyism, just the opposite. Too much government will squeeze and feed off the private sector. It has to to survive. Smaller government wields less power and leaves room for the private sector to grow.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

as a nation.

It's really rather simple I believe.

The two major parties have convinced Americans to solely think upon Party lines. There is little to no individual though given on any single subject anymore. It's simply "Oh, this is a Democratic idea, and I''m a Democrat, so this is what I will defend" or "Oh, this is a Republican idea, and I'm a Republican so this is what I will defend" or the opposite where a person will attack ANY idea from the other parts without thought. The MERITS of the argument no longer matter to most Americans. And the two major political parties are loving it

Read just this site for numerous examples. I refuse to believe that even half the people post half the crap that they post or thank on this site, yet they blindly defend it. Sickening and our country is doomed by this attitude.

A two-party political system is taking advantage of basic psychology: Us vs Them. When your choices are reduced to thats implicity, you'll tolerate things your own side does much more readily because the alternative is 'them.' And that's usually not an alternative worth thinking about.

 

[Desperado]

I think it is even deeper than that because if you actually look at what the two parties do when they are in power they really don’t have that many differences. Each side will speak about the other as if they were evil incarnate hell bent on the destruction of the nation but yet turn a blind eye when they blatantly pass the same legislation and push the same ideals.

No, we are going the direction we are going because we have merged the government with business into a terrible governing concept: corporate cronyism. The government has ceased to protect the rights of the people and started to protect the interests of their backers.

You are correct, there seems to be very little differences between the parties which explains why when one party controls the house, the senate and the presidency, which both parties have in the recent past, still nothing changes. I believe it has been a long time since it really was "Government for the People By the People". The new slogan for the US should be "Government for the Money, By the People with the Money".

 

[Delta4Embassy]

'Government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.'

"Many men of course became extremely rich, but this was perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of because no one was really poor - at least no one worth speaking of."
- "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

 

[BillyZane]

I agree with the sentiment that we have the government we deserve (as a whole I mean)

Our politicians are deceitful, dishonest, lazy, selfish, arrogant morons because we have elected them. Stop electing morons and that changes.

I mean take someone like Nancy Pelosi, folks I don't care how liberal you are, that woman is an idiot. Idiot and liberal do not have to be synonymous. I'm quite sure that a liberal could have been found who is smarter than that woman. I'm fairly certain I've eaten potatoes smarter than that woman. Why would anyone elect her for anything?

And of course there are plenty of examples of stupid conservatives as well. The fact that I chose to use a liberal as my example should not lead one to think I believe any differently.

I mean if we want to look at it from a national perspective look at our current and former President, NEITHER of whom should have ever received enough votes to win the Presidency, what had either GWB or Obama done to lead one to believe they could be a good President?

 

[Iceweasel]

I mean if we want to look at it from a national perspective look at our current and former President, NEITHER of whom should have ever received enough votes to win the Presidency, what had either GWB or Obama done to lead one to believe they could be a good President?

In fairness, Bush was a successful two term governor of Texas.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I agree with the sentiment that we have the government we deserve (as a whole I mean)

Our politicians are deceitful, dishonest, lazy, selfish, arrogant morons because we have elected them. Stop electing morons and that changes.

I mean take someone like Nancy Pelosi, folks I don't care how liberal you are, that woman is an idiot. Idiot and liberal do not have to be synonymous. I'm quite sure that a liberal could have been found who is smarter than that woman. I'm fairly certain I've eaten potatoes smarter than that woman. Why would anyone elect her for anything?

And of course there are plenty of examples of stupid conservatives as well. The fact that I chose to use a liberal as my example should not lead one to think I believe any differently.

I mean if we want to look at it from a national perspective look at our current and former President, NEITHER of whom should have ever received enough votes to win the Presidency, what had either GWB or Obama done to lead one to believe they could be a good President?

We need to stop electing professional politicians looking to be in some office their entire lives. People like that will cater to whom ever has the most money and consequently not be good representatives of their constituents since most aren't flush enough to be campaign donors. We need politicians who'd rather be single-term ones but who did something remarkable and positive.

 

[midcan5]

I think many of you have forgotten the history of how we got here and the whys. Money money money....

Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone? | The Nation

"The history of the twentieth century can be summarized--excessively briefly--in five propositions: First, that the history of the twentieth century was overwhelmingly economic history. Second, that the twentieth century saw the material wealth of humankind explode beyond all previous imagining. Third, that because of advances in technology, productivity, and organization--and the feelings of social dislocation and disquiet that these advances generated--the twentieth century’s tyrannies were the most brutal and barbaric in history. Fourth, that the twentieth century saw the relative economic gulf between different economies grow at a rapid pace. Fifth and last, that economic policy--the management of their economies by governments--in the twentieth century was at best inept. Little was known or learned about how to manage a market or a mixed economy." J. Bradford DeLong http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/2000/TCEH_1.html


"Perplexed by the apparently unsolvable nature of various economic problems, the citizen turns to the capitalist in search of some explanation. The capitalist inevitably chides him for failing to use his initiative and for not working hard enough. This lecture is followed by the invocation of a personal moral rigour which turns on risk, competitiveness, market forces and individualism. Finally he refers the citizen to his government, as the party responsible for inflation, unemployment, stock market crashes and restrictions on each man's freedom to act. The citizen turns to go as instructed, but as he does his eye is caught by something strange in the capitalist's appearance. This, he suddenly realizes, doesn't look like a man in command, an owner, a risk taker. He does indeed project assurance, but there is no fire in his eyes. He is too sure of himself to be really responsible. And his clothes are too uniform for an individualist. There is no edge of creativity about him, nor the wear and tear of having built an enterprise. His words are too much part of a universal patter on free enterprise and the profit motive. Suddenly, the citizen understands - this is not an owner of the means of production. This is an employee in drag.... He is chairman, president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer - he is anything he wants to call himself, but he doesn't own the place. He has been hired to do this job. He has a contract guaranteeing him employment under set conditions, cars, first-class travel, pension plans, holidays, club memberships. He is an MBA or an engineer who has a stock option for two thousand shares paid for by the company. Even those aren't his. They're just a legal way to save him years of tax on extra income. He'll sell the shares on retirement and walk away with the cash. And if, for some reason, he were fired, his contract would include a settlement provision to make him a reasonably rich man." p363 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

 

[Asclepias]

Its pretty apparent the 2 party system is designed to force to pick a side. What I see is a slow erosion of intelligence and rights from most of the population. What I see is a system that dictates to you who you should vote for via the TV. When someone can make you think your decision is the result of what you want and not want they want then they have power over you.

 

[FA_Q2]

I mean if we want to look at it from a national perspective look at our current and former President, NEITHER of whom should have ever received enough votes to win the Presidency, what had either GWB or Obama done to lead one to believe they could be a good President?

In fairness, Bush was a successful two term governor of Texas.

I have a serious problem with the fact that Jr. was able to get elected based solely off the fact that his father was in the seat as well. I find it rather inane that, out of 300 MILLION people, we managed to elect not just Bush but his son as well. Even worse, there was even talk of Jeb running as well. Seriously, I thought we got rid of the whole family taking over the nation when we stopped accepting the rule of kings. I think it shows just how far we have slid.

On that same note – another Kennedy should not be allowed anywhere near another office.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have a serious problem with the fact that Jr. was able to get elected based solely off the fact that his father was in the seat as well. I find it rather inane that, out of 300 MILLION people, we managed to elect not just Bush but his son as well. Even worse, there was even talk of Jeb running as well. Seriously, I thought we got rid of the whole family taking over the nation when we stopped accepting the rule of kings. I think it shows just how far we have slid.

On that same note – another Kennedy should not be allowed anywhere near another office.

I don't think Jeb wants the anal exam and there's no way he'd get the nomination for the above reasons. W was a two term governor of a major state and more conservative than his dad. Sure, he had an advantage. But most of them do. He was no fiscal conservative and I wasn't the biggest fan but I believe a LOT better than Gore or Kerry.

And I don't think a Kennedy should be allowed anywhere near a car.