May we conclude that, whatever happens by day's end, our political system is defunct?
The buyout by super pacs and corporations of what was once your freedom to cast a meaningful vote for representation ... a buyout, by the way, spun as freedom of speech itself (!), has left us with a poor selection of viable highly processed candidates and an election season that becomes a bubbling tar pit of spin outright lies and fear mongering.
Increasingly the process results in huge division. The states aren't UNITED by our free elections ... The country is not healed or strengthened by the process ... the dynamic is like a body trying to saw itself in half. The current process is lethal to real progress or even simple well being. Citizens either become ardent disciples spouting the latest dogma produced by highly paid pundits and propagandists or are ignored as they find central questions are left unanswered, depth or detail is never reached, etc.
The elections in the USA is an exhorbidantly expensive puppet show and we line up to clap for or boo the hero and villain of the day, while the puppet masters, the Soroses and Koch Bros and Adelmans of the world, arrange our next decade according to unspoken and veiled agendas. Political thought in free societies can not be represented by two choices.
This is the least number of options one must have to even call your decision a choice and this is how we are supposed to select the leader of the "free world?" The speeches we hear are so overcooked, strained, purred, they resultant language is like a toddler's board book ... lots of four to six letter words, short emphatic sentences, huge undefined abstractions. The death knell for individual representation wa s the Supreme Court's decision for Citizens United, a decision that exploded the last seawalls holding tsunamis of corporate money in abeyance....and we see a six BILLION dollar election.
Is there anyone reading this blog who thinks their vote will result in even a modicum of representation when super pacs are dropping this kind of dime on our candidates? Can you imagine they are not "owned," by the money that keeps their spin on your laptop and tv screens? Money IS NOT free speech. It can't be because it isn't free to begin with. Free speech is something each citizen has thepotential for in equal amounts regardless of their bank accounts, their social standing, class, race, gender, religious or political belifs, or other characteristics. If money is held to be free speech, as it was in this epic catastrophic decision, then billionaires get to speak the loudest.
The bellow of their voices will drown any individual cry. The White House should put a "for sale" sign in the front yard at Pennsylvania Avenue every four years to be honest about the nature of the present system. The jobs of these "elected" officials, from the highest on down, could be poste on eBay. I cant buy them....i am a poor man...but there are people who can....and do. How does that sit with you this election day?
I agree that both parties are to blame. but my point is that the money given by the American public to support their candidate is not at issue. This election was won by the candidate that promised the most government handouts. It is the redistribution of wealth that is causing the corruption not the donations of money to superPACs or campaigns.
As for entitlement spending: this will continue as long as medium household income remains flat or continues falling. The private sector does not want to pay their employees anything. Corporate America is sitting on 1.8 trillion dollars in cash and it wants tax breaks and it cannot afford to give anyone a decent raise. So yeah, we are screwed.
As I stated, the ads we watch on TV have little effect when one a party is offering handouts. Romney could have had $1trillion in superPAC money and still lost if Obama spent $1million and effectively convey to the American people that he would give them more government handouts. The proof of this is the multitude of youtube street interviews where people are asked simple questions regarding Obama that they can't answer, but they do know that he is giving free cell phones, free healthcare, free mortgage relief, free college loan relief, etc. It is similar to black friday shoppers. Regardless of the temp or long lines, people will always stand in line hoping to grab one of two TVs on sale. You could tell those people till you are blue in the face what they are subjecting themselves to or the possibility of not getting anything, but they are only interested what they are told they COULD be given.
Our politicians are so weak-willed that they will always seek the easy way out. Did you see 60 Minutes on Sunday night about the US Senate? They are beyond pathetic. They were all re-elected last night though.
I will agree that the media has hidden from the American public the truth about not only candidates but about the state of America as a whole. I caught a portion of the sit down between Reid and Mcconnell, vomited a little in my mouth and turned it off. Either way, my main argument is that this blog, regarding the the money donated to campaigns, is not the where our concern should lie. This blog falls in line with much of the liberal propaganda that private entity money is the evil of society, while the government can only do good. I think we agree more then we disagree.
When the government 'warps' the economy it usually creates more uncertainty. This brings about more conservative spending by the private sector and the people. Government interference also distorts the market. Think of the housing markey.
It's sad that "word of mouth" is the only way some candidates get recognized.
We need to put an end to the 2 party dictatorship that has been locking up the house and senate from doing what they need to do because of their constant bickering back and forth. And to end their fueling this country with fear and hatred. Don't they ever listen to people, read about the economic and social problems that the people see but is ignored by our government, a government that is only worried about putting money into their pockets instead of putting that money to it's intended use, and see how their actions, or rather inactions, are causing this country to go down the drain. Anyone that voted for either of the 2 party dictatorship's candidates THREW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AWAY.
Could the blame not be put on the legislation that limits the amount of money donated to the candidate himself by private citizens? I think the idea of limiting money is a fruitless adventure. If I or any other individual wishes to support a candidate or promote a cause; the avenues by which I can show my support are limitless. By increasing legislation or regulation we are simply creating new and more disturbing routes for cash or favors to be funneled. The only way to limit corruption is to have honest politicians (laughing to tears at that one). Hence, the solution is simply to convince the American people to vote for the guy that is less corrupt. However, that would create a special interest group on its own and require money to promote. It is vicious circle.
I don't disagree with that complete, but if it were left to straight personal donation with zero dollar figure limit directly to candidates it would have been easier to track, superPACs would become obsolete and the backroom coordination would be eliminated.
Many people, including myself, are sick and tired of having the pot stirred every four years - only to have its contents settle into the same sticky mess (or worse) from one administration to the next. This is the very baseline of our current American government. How many years are we to wait, and how many administrations are we to trust, to address and correct the federal deficit? This is but one sad example of the "pass-the-buck and blame others" mentality of our government and bi-partisan political system. Unfortunately, the very citizens that our elected officials serve are almost powerless to truly change it. The SYSTEM, i.e., Electoral College, Commission on Presidential Debates, campaign finance, lobbying and redistricting, ensures the continuation of a stagnant two-party system filled with career politicians who often put self-interest and re-election goals over the interests of a broken middle class. These same politicians will certainly resist any proposed meaningfull change that may jeoparize their own self-interest.