Then there’s the fact that the U.S. government now goes to war, and is peripherally involved in even more wars, without anyone in America seeming to care. This is an era when threatening Eritrea is the least of it. The U.S. supports an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia – barely a blip in the news. The U.S. backs an ally, Israel, that invades its other ally, Lebanon, and maybe the talking heads care for about a day. The U.S. is essentially at war with its own nuclear-armed ally, Pakistan – and many Americans have no clue. The U.S. backs suicide bombers in Iran with possible ties to al Qaeda who are bent on changing Tehran’s government – not that most Americans even know the difference between Iran and al Qaeda, Persians and Arabs or Sunni and Shi’ia. And then, when an airplane passenger fails in his attempt to kill Americans on Christmas Day with explosives hidden in his underwear, the media scream that perhaps it's time to wage war on Yemen. No one of prominence even mentions that Obama was already bombing Yemen, days before the underwear bomber almost struck.
This is a reminder of why it’s so important to oppose a war before it begins. The Afghanistan war was always a terrible idea. Nine years ago, a few Americans stood up and pointed out that the 9/11 attacks were retaliation for U.S. foreign policy, which must be changed if we are ever to address the problem of terrorism. But these voices were in the minority. More than 90% of Americans cheered the invasion of Afghanistan. Now many on the left think it was folly, but the U.S. can’t pull out. Or they are quiet because their beloved president is doing the killing.
The Democrats practically all backed this war, and in both 2004 and 2008 attacked Bush for "neglecting" Afghanistan. Obama always promised us he’d be even worse on this war than his predecessor. It almost inspires nostalgia for Bush, who was essentially no more aggressive than Obama but who seemed to get away with less.
Obama has meanwhile "ended" the war in Iraq by keeping 50,000 troops there – troops involved in shooting and killing. Then there are the 100,000 contractors and permanent bases. Americans are snoozing. Who cares about Iraq? That’s so 2003. And on the civil liberties front – detention, rendition, surveillance, even the unilateral presidential right to assassinate US citizens he deems terrorists – Obama has pushed the envelope further than Bush. But what’s the big deal? Even conservatives who think Obama a totalitarian tyrant don’t seem to care about these, his most totalitarian and tyrannical policies.
While I do not believe that a revolution is necessary to change the way the US government works, simply electing a Republican to teach the Democrats a lesson (or vice versa) isn't going to do squat to fix the problem.
The problem isn't which party is in power, but the way that both parties have been doing business. Both sides have been selling their votes to the highest bidder for many moons now.
What it's going to take to fix our current situation is to force a paradigm shift in Washington. We little people have to punish the selling of a Congressional vote, rather than rewarding it with re-election.
At first, I put high hopes in Obama. But now we have to realize the problem runs deeper and obviously cannot be changed by elections. It's a systemtic problem. Once a particular government excessively expands government power, it's very hard to ever change it again. Electing someone like Obama was not enough.
The system is broken and I'm inclined to resignate. What else could be done to put an end to that? Is there even anything short of a revolution that would achieve that?
It's frightening, really.
I totally agree with you.
The only way I can figure the American people can force that paradigm shift is to have the polls begin showing that incumbants are losing elections. "Throw the Bums Out" has become my mantra. Of course, I know I'm wasting a vote, in most cases; but if enough people did that, I believe Congress would begin to get the message loud and clear.
"We're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." No more 'business as usual.' Short of revolution, what else we got? Voters just keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We all know what that behavior describes.
While I do not believe that a revolution is necessary to change the way the US government works, simply electing a Republican to teach the Democrats a lesson (or vice versa) isn't going to do squat to fix the problem.
The problem isn't which party is in power, but the way that both parties have been doing business. Both sides have been selling their votes to the highest bidder for many moons now.
What it's going to take to fix our current situation is to force a paradigm shift in Washington. We little people have to punish the selling of a Congressional vote, rather than rewarding it with re-election.
What we need is a guy (or gal, whichever) willing to run for a seat while wearing a clown costume.
When asked why they're dressed that way, all they have to say is, "I'm dressing on the outside the way Congress is on the inside. With any luck your vote will change that."
Ta-da! Instant election!
No, what we need is a guy who can get elected without taking any donations for his re-election campaign so he won't be int he pocket of contributors. But that won't happen any time soon.
Isn't that what I said?
I've already read it.
Your unified theory is "gremlins did it," and a Happy Days reference.
I'd be happy to discuss it, but it would be a lot like trying to light a cloud on fire.
In the 30s FDR used the panic of the great depression to create a system that molded a permanent underclass dependent on the government. This class voted for welfare -socialism and as the money was redistributed to this class it grew and grew to the point that it is a self sustaining malignancy fueled by the progressive income tax which allows dem leaders to buy the votes of this class by promising them more and more government benefits that they never have to pay for
as long as dems can buy a large number of voters with other tax payers money, the problems we face will never be eliminated
Does it really work that way? I've often heard that many of those who would actually benefit financially from redistribution (poorer people in rural areas) more often vote for the Republicans because of other reasons (moral convictions, etc), while many of those who actually lose most (wealthier and intellectual people in urban regions) more often vote for the Democrats because of other reasons (moral convictions, etc).
So maybe, in political preferences, there are many more factors at work that mere material profit.
(Just an idea that came to my mind.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?