1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

It's my fault.

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Steve, Oct 31, 2002.

  1. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Does there exist a more complicated love/hate relationship than that of the U.S. citizen and the U.S. political system? "I hate you; don't leave me!" That pretty much sums up the current state of affairs, doesn't it? In the same breath, the average American will bitterly condemn most politicians and the political process, all the while claiming to have the best system in the world.

    Why are we so conflicted?

    Its my fault. I'm sorry.

    OK, so it's taken a few hundred years to get to this point, and I've had the help of tens of millions of people. Still, I'll accept the blame for the current state of affairs. After all, someone has to, right?

    Because, once a scapegoat has been chosen, we can fix the probems. So I say to you, "Baaahhh!"

    Now that's out of the way, and blame has been properly placed, let me tell you what I think has happened and what I, personally, will do about it.

    For reasons far too numerous and complex to go into, here, our current political process does not produce <u>leaders</u>. It does not reward original thinking. It does not recognize those willing to make tough choices and stand by their decisions. It does not respect integrity, honesty, or moral character.

    Our current political process rewards the banality of those who are able to displease the fewest people. It rewards those who are able to make the most friends, do the most favors, raise the most money. It rewards those who have the moral vacuity that enables them to take luncheon with dictators and, afterward, meet with the local Brownie troop.

    There are no true leaders, now or on the political horizon. There will not be any, anytime soon; there may never be another.

    What's a voter to do? Here is my plan:

    I will not accord incumbency. One term is too many for most people. I will vote against any incumbent, unless they have somehow been able to rise above the morass and actually accomplish something good for their community or country.

    I refuse to let the products of our political system think they deserve more than one chance at success. I will register my opinions, both good and bad, on every issue, even the deadly boring ones. In this way, I'll let them know that someone is paying attention to what's going on in this country.

    Some would say we have a government "of the highest bidder."

    I say we have a government "of the lowest quality people."

    Let's try to get it back to government "of the people, by the people, for the people."



    <small>spedit</small>
     
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    You are on the roll, aren't you? :) Amazing post.
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I've been writing policies and procedures for two weeks, so I've got my "thinking cap" on :)
     
  4. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    What turns me off most about politicians and their campaigns is their self centered egomania. Does anybody honestly think they would enjoy a coffee cup conversation with either Tom Daschle or Trent Lott? Their policies and ideas notwithstanding, I don't think I could stand to be in the same room with either one of them.
     
  5. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Interesting topic.
    I've been around a long time. For decades I've pissed and moaned about voting for the 'lesser of the evils' (I suspect everyone's heard THAT before!)

    Folks say "write 'em a letter, let them know what you think/want".
    I'd be the first to admit that I'm a cynical old fool when I respond with "yea right, I'm sure my letter would change things".
    Perhaps, if most voters did that, things would be different. But, I don't think think that's going to happen.

    So, what would I suggest to change the process of electing the lesser of the evils?

    A new option:
    NONE OF THE ABOVE

    A notice to the 'partys' that their nomination is unacceptable. (notice that I restrained myself from saying 'horseshit')
    I submit that the party 'nomination' process is flawed. I have no idea how to fix that. So, I suggest that the answer lies with the ultimate - voter approval;
    Yes, I agree this is a good choice. Or - get serious, find someone else.

    (Preliminary, Final, it doesn't matter. Enough 'NONE OF THE ABOVE's", and we do it over.)

    Just a thought.
    Regards,
     
  6. immortal one

    immortal one 501st Geronimo

    I nominate Steven's post.
     
  7. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    We get what we deserve to an extent, at least in my country, Australia. We want to be told how good things will be once you vote for "me". If a politician as part of his campaign told voters that life sucks a lot of the time and there's not a lot I can do to help the majority of you, it might be the truth but who's going to vote for him. There is also the need for the electorate to want / vote for a charismatic leader rather than the honest sometimes quiet achiever.
    So who would you classify as the last good leader you had as a pres over there? In Oz I believe we have one who fits that category now. He was unpopular for a long time and failed at trying to attain the leadership of the conservative or Liberals as they are known, for a long time. I think he is highly respected as a leader now he's Prime Minister but certainly isn't charismatic.
     
  8. jamming

    jamming Banned

    The last good leader we had here was Reagan, he was not a life long politician. This was his second career, he corresponded personally with average Americans whose story touched him. Though not a liberal with the government's money he on several occassions quietly gave money to people that wrote him with problems they wanted the government to fix. This came out after his retirement, as he didn't trumpet it for political purposes. He liked people and was friendly to people around him.

    I actually had a 15 minute discussion with him about the people I met, he was interested in my impressions on several people I had been in direct contact with that he only knew by name. He had the "Nelson Touch" (called so for Admiral Nelson), he could inspire you to do better and was truely interested in the person that he was dealing with. Contrary to popular opinion, when he saw me by happenstance, several years later in the Executive Office Building he remember what we had talked about and remembered my name.

    It is truely a pitty that such a human being has had to face the situation he is in now, his wife is amazing in that she protects him fiercely from ridicule. She may be tough, but she knows what loyalty is.

    I also liked Jimmy Carter, the Bushes are not Reagan but they are very loyal to their friends, but Bill Clinton was oily (the name Slick Willy is apt). Bill is like that guy in school that gets caught looking at someone elses answers on a quiz, but the Teacher likes him so much he gets away with it. I never met Ford, Nixon, and LBJ. My Grandfather knew both Ford and Nixon, but he liked Nixon as a President but thought he was a wet noodle. Ford is rather calm and sedate according to Grandfather. All I have heard is stories of JFK about his trip to Cape Canaveral, that is beyond the legendary stuff. LBJ was as crooked or more so than Nixon.
     
  9. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Kennedy was very popular as I recall and was assassinated on my 15th birthday which I always remember. We had Gough Whitlam in the mid seventies who was a visionary but not a good economic manager. Bob Hawke was charismatic but a bit of a hood. Paul Keating was a good PM but hated by a lot of people. I know little of the earlier PM's but Menzies and Chifley were also good leaders.
    Australia will be a Republic one day and then our head of state will be an Australian and not the Queen of England. I respect the British royals but its about time we left mum's apron strings behind us. We have the Governer General here who is the locally based head of state and the Queen's represenative. Time for a change. There has already been a referendum on the issue that failed but it will be back and will pass eventually.
     
  10. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    Bush Sr. was OK, Reagan was better, but Carter was a good man who did a bad job. I voted for Nixon, who was a bit paranoid , but overall, a pretty good president in my estimation. Watergate was trivial in comparison to Nixon's achievements. His biggest was the nuclear arms treaty that Bush walked away from unilaterally, without the consent of Congress. Johnson was an arrogant man who lied to get us into an unnecessary war, like Dubya, but he was a lot more competent in foreign affairs. Ford was OK, but Clinton was a dirtball, like the current president, although not nearly as dumb or dangerous. Just my two cents, of course, but I remember them all, and the political environment in which they governed. Congress has been a bad neighborhood as long as I can remember, but it has taken a turn for the worse since campaign financing became the new "arms race". Effective campaign financing and ethics reforms are essential to sound governance. Nobody who sets policy for an industry or special interest group should receive campaign funds from it. Neither party represents the will of the people, just the 25% or so that vote for one or the other's candidates in national elections.
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I'd also go with Reagan as the last good leader we've had in the States. Although, if we talk about the last <u>great</u> leader, I 'd have to go with Roosevelt, although I'm willing to concede that he could have just been the right man in the right place, at the right time...luck, in other words.
     

Share This Page