The political homeless

[freerangequark]

That's how I feel I must describe myself.

After seeing the results of several new administrations over the course of my adult life which have promised lower taxes, smaller government, bipartisan collaboration, spending cuts, less corruption, higher ethics, and less government waste, I have become a complete pessimist in regard to how I view the government, regardless of their party identity.

I lead an optimistic life peppered with a good dose of reality, and harboring such negativity doesn't particularly sit well with me. It would be nice to feel good about things or have some of the hope that is going around these days, but I can't rationalize or convince myself to accept it. I have no reason to believe it.

Does anyone else share these sentiments and grow increasingly disgusted on a daily basis of the nature of our government?

[Monte314]

Yes, I've bounced around the political spectrum, mostly right-of-center, all my life. I have moderated as I've aged, and for the last few years have not been really happy with anyone on the political scene. The last couple of years, in particular, has been "Keystone Cops in Congress, Courthouse, and Cabinet".

[firebee]

I lead an optimistic life peppered with a good dose of reality, and harboring such negativity doesn't particularly sit well with me. It would be nice to feel good about things or have some of the hope that is going around these days, but I can't rationalize or convince myself to accept it. I have no reason to believe it.


I suspect that a year from now, my elation at the current incarnation of the Republican party having to eat its just desserts will be somewhat muted by some of the more vexing aspects of Democrats having a mandate. And I have a nasty suspicion that the Republicans are not going to learn the right lesson from their recent spanking.


Does anyone else share these sentiments and grow increasingly disgusted on a daily basis of the nature of our government?

I used to have a cynical attitude that all politicians were more or less the same -- you'd get screwed by one party, then you'd get screwed by the other. Now my attitude is more along the lines of "there are no better politicians, but there are worse politicians. Which is not exactly the most reassuring of thoughts to have...

[maxpot46]

Does anyone else share these sentiments and grow increasingly disgusted on a daily basis of the nature of our government?Yes, Austrian economists and their political descendants (libertarians, anarchists/minarchists, objectivists).

[blueback]

After seeing the results of several new administrations over the course of my adult life which have promised lower taxes, smaller government, bipartisan collaboration, spending cuts, less corruption, higher ethics, and less government waste, I have become a complete pessimist...harboring such negativity doesn't particularly sit well with me. It would be nice to feel good about things or have some of the hope that is going around these days, but I can't rationalize or convince myself to accept it. I have no reason to believe it.

So, you think that things are only going well if "lower taxes, smaller government, bipartisan collaboration, spending cuts, less corruption, higher ethics, and less government waste" are being delivered?

I think you're focusing on the smoke rather than the flames.

Ultimately the question isn't how little corruption the system has, but whether or not the system works. But that's not all of it. Ultimately, no system exists forever. Period. So it's really a question of whether or not the system works well enough for now.

It seems to me that is a more applicable standard, and it's also a much easier standard to meet. I'm a systems engineering management major, so I've studied systems for a long time. One of the keys to understanding systems is to realize that optimizing any subsystems will reduce the performance of the overall system. To maximize the system as a whole you have to tune it, which is basically a fancy way of saying you have to compromize all the subsystems with all the other subsystems. No subsystem is performing as well as it could, because that allows the entire system to perform as well as it can.

Does an engine eventually wear out? Absolutely. It is unavoidable. But it might work really well for a while, which is all you can really expect from it. It will have a breaking in period, and a wearing out period, but there will be a period in the middle where it will be pretty useful. There's no point in expecting it to work forever, or for "work" to mean it is perfect.

Does anyone else share these sentiments and grow increasingly disgusted on a daily basis of the nature of our government?

There is always someone "growing increasingly disgusted on a daily basis of the nature of our government." There are even Canadians who hate the Canadian government. Go figure.

Ideally, as I see it, EVERYONE would be a member of the "political homeless." That would mean everyone, down to each individual, had a clear understanding of their vision of the future. No two people who clearly understand what they want will ever agree on everything! That would mean a political system in which there were no parties, just issues. People would compromise with each other in a fluid, seamless, perpetual activity. That would be great. It would at least be a lot better than what we have now.

[FLINTJm]

Does anyone else share these sentiments and grow increasingly disgusted on a daily basis of the nature of our government?


My parents explained these things to me when I was younger. :)

Then I verified them through personal experience, and the study of history and political philosophy.

I do find it surprising how people believe the same lies over and over again.

[Broken Mind]

As blueback said the priority is if it works. If I am lied to but the politicians still do great deeds that help me and other people then I do not get upset. The question isn't how many are corrupt, it is if there are enough non corrupt politicians to keep the system afloat.

[Homini Lupus]

You may also be interested in the fact that, in theoretical political models, the two political parties in a two party system (a system with two parties able to define and/ir influence policymaking) have a natural tendency to become very similar: as they move towards centrist solutions they gain some of the other party's electorate without loosing theirs (as the extremists still find you the nearest choice). And the American electoral system has a strong tendency to punish secessionists in presidential elections (and their former party).

[Sequoia]

Most independent thinking people are unhappy with the current state of government and feel politically homeless. I've been sensing that while things worked well enough for awhile, that time is now well past and something new is needed. I am not alone in this, to vastly understate it.

Ideally, as I see it, EVERYONE would be a member of the "political homeless." That would mean everyone, down to each individual, had a clear understanding of their vision of the future. No two people who clearly understand what they want will ever agree on everything! That would mean a political system in which there were no parties, just issues. People would compromise with each other in a fluid, seamless, perpetual activity. That would be great. It would at least be a lot better than what we have now

I do agree with this Blueback. The question becomes, how such a system could be managed with a large and growing population that our country deals with? Perhaps doing away with parties, but having smaller groups such as cities and communities reach consensus on issues; having a representative of those groups meet at a larger regional or state level (depending on the size of the state) to do the same, and so on up the the national level. These consenses would take the form of guidelines and directives for our government to follow.

The only flaw I see in this is that the vast majority of the population doesn't know how to think independently and critically and would do whatever someone told them to that fits their taught viewpoint. The system absolutely requires a well educated free thinking populace.

I would feel politically homeless myself, except for one thing. A few months ago, I read in my local newspaper about a grass roots movement starting to show up around the country that is starting to be called "the militant moderates". They feel as disgusted with government as usual; the corruption and special interests ruling and causing great harm no matter which party is in control. They are trying to change things. So I've called that my new political home for now.

[thod]

Surely the problem is down to parties. The electoral system doesn't recognize such things. You elect your representative, the man and not the party. In theory he is supposed to represent your interests. He should go against the party as often as with it in pursuit of that role.

The initial problem arises from the party being able to select its candidate. This allows the party to choose a 'yes man' whose loyalty is to the party and not the electorate. Then they are allowed to name the party on the ballot papers. This is a form of vote rigging since everyone dismisses all but the 2 big parties. If that same man's name had appeared under a different party he wouldn't get a fraction of the votes. People are voting for the party and not the man. Once in office he still kept on the leash. The higher ups hand out the jobs and only the compliant gain any power. A feisty candidate will sit in limbo and lose the party nomination next time around. Let them get elected and choose their party after election. That way you choose the man.

A much fairer system would be proportional representation. If some party gets 10% of the votes it gets 10% of the seats. Of course this means a switch from representation by region to representation by political view. You dont have a county representative. If you vote for the 'monster raving loony' party, then they select who gets their seats. Not really that different from them selecting candidates now.

But this is opposed by the big parties. Why give other parties any power when they can just alternate rule themselves. They couldn't care less about the people who have no representation so long as they have power. The biggest party in the US should be the 'I dont care' party' and they get no representation either. They dont care because they can see no difference between them and that their vote doesn't count. Under PR every vote counts, even if you are voting for a party that will only get 1% of the vote.

How many parties have formed a government over the last 200 years? 2. You dont have a democracy you have an oligarchy, the history proves it.

[SeaCzar]

Ideally, as I see it, EVERYONE would be a member of the "political homeless." That would mean everyone, down to each individual, had a clear understanding of their vision of the future. No two people who clearly understand what they want will ever agree on everything! That would mean a political system in which there were no parties, just issues. People would compromise with each other in a fluid, seamless, perpetual activity. That would be great. It would at least be a lot better than what we have now.

A much fairer system would be proportional representation. If some party gets 10% of the votes it gets 10% of the seats. Of course this means a switch from representation by region to representation by political view. You dont have a county representative. If you vote for the 'monster raving loony' party, then they select who gets their seats. Not really that different from them selecting candidates now.



I would be VERY careful here. While there are downsides to the American two party system, and a certain amount of corruption, I very much oppose the proportional representation system. This is the democracy they have in Israel. In order to form a majority government, there is so much horse trading that the corruption is outright and rampant. The winning party (recently Kidma over Likud by one parlimentary seat) literally has to buy off other, often fringe, parties to form a majority in the Knesset (sp?). The corruption involved here makes American politics look squeeky clean.

[FLINTJm]

In theory he is supposed to represent your interests.

In theory, he is supposed to represent the interests of the electorate.

Representing the interests of individuals is mostly the problem. In an (my) ideal world, and what I believe functions, elected officials are supposed to be dealing with things that are in the public best interest, not squabbling over individual best interests. Once you've opened the door to allowing individual best interests as appropriate, problems arise. From that point on, people are mostly trying to vote themselves as recipients of the treasury.

[thod]

That depends what you consider corruption. I do not consider it corruption, it is trading. If the socialists want the libertarians to vote for their universal health care they give them something of equal value in return. If Kidma wants to form the government why shouldn't the other parties get some of their policies implemented in return for their support. Thats democracy in action where even the smallest party has something to trade. Much better than the iron fist of autocracy.

[SeaCzar]

That depends what you consider corruption. I do not consider it corruption, it is trading. If the socialists want the libertarians to vote for their universal health care they give them something of equal value in return. If Kidma wants to form the government why shouldn't the other parties get some of their policies implemented in return for their support. Thats democracy in action where even the smallest party has something to trade. Much better than the iron fist of autocracy.

I have to disagree here. While Israel's system is democracy in its purist form, its also its most paralysing and factious. You can have the smallest, most fringe party getting a much greater share of its deserved resources at the gross expense of the majority. Your ability to manoeuver is seriously limited as well, causing more frequent elections with even more factious results. This does not give the nation a very stable government (look at Italy prior to the late 1990s, and to some extent, today). I also fail to see the difference in trading and corruption.