It's probably more a symptom of how absolutely useless and ineffective
I truly don't believe this.
Any popular uprising that gets large enough, or loud enough, has the capacity to demand change. Sure, the corporate, moneyed interests will push their agenda as hard as possible to try to sway opinion (which isn't always misaligned with the public good, by the way). But at the end of the day politicians will do what they can to save their jobs. Most of them are just ordinary people, after all.
The fact of the matter is, the story of surveillance was sold to us as, "We're protecting you from another 9/11!", and there are many people who really believe that. It might even be true, who knows. Outside of the technorati in SV and urban centers (who, ironically, created the surveillance system), most people really don't give a damn about their digital privacy. Yet. If or when a sensational story happens that involves the "common man" being boned by surveillance, the tide will shift. I'd put money on it.
I don't really think that's possible, because there is no difference between "the people" and..."the not-people"?
Every time there's any discussion about politics or power, there's the inevitable topic of "us" vs "them". It's always insightful to ask people where they draw the line between the categories of people. Is it all politicians? I mean, is there some secret indoctrination, like Scientology, whereby the minute you reach a certain level in your political career, the "real world" is explained to you? How is it that these secrets are kept?
For many Americans it's the "1%ers" who receive the disdain. That is, until they realize that a significant number of themselves are global 1%ers. I have a personal friend who often rails about the "global elite", meanwhile he is a SMB owner with a multi-million dollar net worth who isn't -- how shall I say it -- especially "diligent" when it comes to offering his low-skill employees the best opportunities.
All this is to say that, yes, often times the incentives of the capitalists and the workers are averse to each other. But "the system" maintains the balance, in that one party can't subjugate the other extremely without personal harm. In other words, "the rich" can't take all the money, because that leaves no demand for product, and eventually "the poor" say @#$% it, and start beheading the royals. At least that's what history tells me.
It's entirely plausible that some things are "kept safe" from the whims of the people.
In fact, that's the reason that the US is a republic, not a democracy - to keep things (somewhat) safe from the whims of the people, and yet to create a system where, if the people want it enough, they'll get it.
And yes, if the people want it enough, they will in fact get it in the US. It's just that the media amplifies screaming. Those who scream are much more often in the minority than the media makes them appear.
(Don't take this as the beginning of a political debate, that's not what I intend. Just at face value...)
I knew what I was getting when I voted for Obama
I've been wondering about people who felt this way. From my perspective, it appears that people in this situation should be very disappointed, because (it appears to me that) many of the promises weren't delivered. In particular, Obama was quite specific in his criticism of GWB for wars without Congressional approval, yet he himself has done this multiple times now. And one of the themes of his candidacy was to be open and transparent, yet promises like "all legislation will be posted for X days online before I'll sign any bill" didn't even survive a week into his presidency. (these are just two obvious examples, not a complete list)
I can understand why you'd be hopeful going into that. But today, seeing how that's all played out, what are your feelings?
The things that mattered to me were, in Obama's favor: taking a stab at reforming our nation's ultra-shitty health care and winding down the two big disastrous middle east wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). Check and check.
What mattered to me, in opposition of the other guy: Mccain joked about bombing Iran and inflicted Palin on us. (There was probably more at the time, but that was 7 years ago!) Romney actually never seemed like a terrible candidate or politician to me, and in another time I don't think we'd have been so bad off under a Romney presidency, but I still think we were better off for voting in Obama
for a second term.
I'm sure there were a lot of campaign promises I wasn't really paying attention to, and that stuff obviously wouldn't matter to me now.
I also think a lot more can be done at the local level, and to a lesser extent, the state level, in terms of dealing with policies that actually matter in our lives.
For all the talk about federal government intrusion in our day-to-day, I think it's probably 99% bullshit.
It means that the candidate who won was wearing a label that said "change". The label may be unrelated to the contents (or the policies) of the candidate - it may well be more marketing artifact than reality.
The whole electoral process is so flawed and corrupt that a politician wanting to save their job has little to do with voting, and thus little to do with popular demand.
The whole electoral process is so flawed and corrupt
Again, I don't believe it.
It is flawed? Sure. Can it be improved? Most certainly. But you can't point to a few glaring problems (which I agree, there are) and compare to some hypothetical ideal without acknowledging the many things the political system gets right, as evidenced by America being the richest, most powerful nation in world history.
In any democratic system there will be winners and losers. Just by the sheer number of decisions that are made, you're going to end up on the losing end of many. If you're really unlucky, you might be on the losing side of a ton. From that perspective, I'm sure the process looks terrible. But that doesn't mean it's broken or worthless. In the long-run, things do seem to get done. I think history bears that out. Yes, I'm a long-run optimist on the economy and humanity in general.
"...as evidenced by America being the richest, most powerful nation in world history"
That does not follow. First, if you actually allow that America is the 'richest' and 'most powerful nation', it doesn't prove it's somehow the best democracy, or even a good democracy, or even a democracy at all. It doesn't even prove that it's good at capitalism or corporatism, it just doesn't follow. It's like saying god exists, the prove is in his creation.
The 'glaring problems' are utter failures of democracy; the representatives simply don't represent the will or the interest of the people. Of course the will of the people is bent via media, lack of education, religion, anti-intellectualism and American-History-folklore against their own interests.
But note, some of the systemic issues of the electoral process are, just as examples, the FPTP voting system, the ludicrous campaign financing system, pervasive and completely legal corruption that allows gerry mandering.
The 'hypothetical ideals', i.e. actual democracies, exist in other countries.
America is a great place, with many smart people, and many, many interesting and important contributions to science, technology and culture. But it's governance is a plutocracy at best, and proto-fascism at worst (the original meaning of that word, not the one referring to Nazis). But as long as most rara about the best nation on earth, they'll be happily exploited and nothing changes.
Comments
I truly don't believe this.
Any popular uprising that gets large enough, or loud enough, has the capacity to demand change. Sure, the corporate, moneyed interests will push their agenda as hard as possible to try to sway opinion (which isn't always misaligned with the public good, by the way). But at the end of the day politicians will do what they can to save their jobs. Most of them are just ordinary people, after all.
The fact of the matter is, the story of surveillance was sold to us as, "We're protecting you from another 9/11!", and there are many people who really believe that. It might even be true, who knows. Outside of the technorati in SV and urban centers (who, ironically, created the surveillance system), most people really don't give a damn about their digital privacy. Yet. If or when a sensational story happens that involves the "common man" being boned by surveillance, the tide will shift. I'd put money on it.
But possibly not within what people call "the system." It's entirely plausible that some things are "kept safe" from the whims of the people.
I don't really think that's possible, because there is no difference between "the people" and..."the not-people"?
Every time there's any discussion about politics or power, there's the inevitable topic of "us" vs "them". It's always insightful to ask people where they draw the line between the categories of people. Is it all politicians? I mean, is there some secret indoctrination, like Scientology, whereby the minute you reach a certain level in your political career, the "real world" is explained to you? How is it that these secrets are kept?
For many Americans it's the "1%ers" who receive the disdain. That is, until they realize that a significant number of themselves are global 1%ers. I have a personal friend who often rails about the "global elite", meanwhile he is a SMB owner with a multi-million dollar net worth who isn't -- how shall I say it -- especially "diligent" when it comes to offering his low-skill employees the best opportunities.
All this is to say that, yes, often times the incentives of the capitalists and the workers are averse to each other. But "the system" maintains the balance, in that one party can't subjugate the other extremely without personal harm. In other words, "the rich" can't take all the money, because that leaves no demand for product, and eventually "the poor" say @#$% it, and start beheading the royals. At least that's what history tells me.
In fact, that's the reason that the US is a republic, not a democracy - to keep things (somewhat) safe from the whims of the people, and yet to create a system where, if the people want it enough, they'll get it.
And yes, if the people want it enough, they will in fact get it in the US. It's just that the media amplifies screaming. Those who scream are much more often in the minority than the media makes them appear.
True. The German people voted for change and got Hitler. America voted for change and got Nixon and Carter and Reagan and Bush Jr and Obama.
Wait. Was change supposed to be GOOD?
Well, realistically, the whole "You suckers voted for CHANGE hur hur" thing is a strawman anyway.
A little over half of the country voted for the guy who wasn't promising to bomb Iran and put Sarah Palin in line for the presidency.
And four years later, a little over half of the country voted for the guy who wasn't calling 47% of us leeches and takers.
I knew what I was getting when I voted for Obama, twice, because the alternatives were all just awful beyond words.
(Don't take this as the beginning of a political debate, that's not what I intend. Just at face value...)
I knew what I was getting when I voted for Obama
I've been wondering about people who felt this way. From my perspective, it appears that people in this situation should be very disappointed, because (it appears to me that) many of the promises weren't delivered. In particular, Obama was quite specific in his criticism of GWB for wars without Congressional approval, yet he himself has done this multiple times now. And one of the themes of his candidacy was to be open and transparent, yet promises like "all legislation will be posted for X days online before I'll sign any bill" didn't even survive a week into his presidency. (these are just two obvious examples, not a complete list)
I can understand why you'd be hopeful going into that. But today, seeing how that's all played out, what are your feelings?
The things that mattered to me were, in Obama's favor: taking a stab at reforming our nation's ultra-shitty health care and winding down the two big disastrous middle east wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). Check and check.
What mattered to me, in opposition of the other guy: Mccain joked about bombing Iran and inflicted Palin on us. (There was probably more at the time, but that was 7 years ago!) Romney actually never seemed like a terrible candidate or politician to me, and in another time I don't think we'd have been so bad off under a Romney presidency, but I still think we were better off for voting in Obama for a second term.
I'm sure there were a lot of campaign promises I wasn't really paying attention to, and that stuff obviously wouldn't matter to me now.
I also think a lot more can be done at the local level, and to a lesser extent, the state level, in terms of dealing with policies that actually matter in our lives.
For all the talk about federal government intrusion in our day-to-day, I think it's probably 99% bullshit.
What does that even mean?
It means that the candidate who won was wearing a label that said "change". The label may be unrelated to the contents (or the policies) of the candidate - it may well be more marketing artifact than reality.
The whole electoral process is so flawed and corrupt that a politician wanting to save their job has little to do with voting, and thus little to do with popular demand.
Again, I don't believe it.
It is flawed? Sure. Can it be improved? Most certainly. But you can't point to a few glaring problems (which I agree, there are) and compare to some hypothetical ideal without acknowledging the many things the political system gets right, as evidenced by America being the richest, most powerful nation in world history.
In any democratic system there will be winners and losers. Just by the sheer number of decisions that are made, you're going to end up on the losing end of many. If you're really unlucky, you might be on the losing side of a ton. From that perspective, I'm sure the process looks terrible. But that doesn't mean it's broken or worthless. In the long-run, things do seem to get done. I think history bears that out. Yes, I'm a long-run optimist on the economy and humanity in general.
"...as evidenced by America being the richest, most powerful nation in world history"
That does not follow. First, if you actually allow that America is the 'richest' and 'most powerful nation', it doesn't prove it's somehow the best democracy, or even a good democracy, or even a democracy at all. It doesn't even prove that it's good at capitalism or corporatism, it just doesn't follow. It's like saying god exists, the prove is in his creation.
The 'glaring problems' are utter failures of democracy; the representatives simply don't represent the will or the interest of the people. Of course the will of the people is bent via media, lack of education, religion, anti-intellectualism and American-History-folklore against their own interests.
But note, some of the systemic issues of the electoral process are, just as examples, the FPTP voting system, the ludicrous campaign financing system, pervasive and completely legal corruption that allows gerry mandering.
The 'hypothetical ideals', i.e. actual democracies, exist in other countries.
America is a great place, with many smart people, and many, many interesting and important contributions to science, technology and culture. But it's governance is a plutocracy at best, and proto-fascism at worst (the original meaning of that word, not the one referring to Nazis). But as long as most rara about the best nation on earth, they'll be happily exploited and nothing changes.