Are we sheep?

[SkurjMaster]

What I am about to ask anyone willing to respond to this new topic has behind it the disgust I have with the two-party system. I also did not search any at all for whether or not this has already been discussed, so please forgive me if I am treading a worn path. So, here it goes:

I have heard comments from several sources, both Conservative and not, that Obama is a Constitutional scholar, brilliant, a gifted orator.... Yada, yada, yada. Assuming his brilliance is genuine, is it at all possible that all that seems broken with the RESULTS of the policies enacted or maintained since Bush Jr. are PURPOSEFULLY leading to a CRASH and reformation of the system so that the federal government can be the savior and permanent benefactor of the people? I.e., a permanent leftist oligarchy?

[SerScot]

I'm not. No lanalin in my hair.

[Zarathustra]

I don't think Obama is intentionally trying to crash the system to make us all dependent upon the government, but I do think that he has a "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality where he sees crises as opportunities to increase Democrat power via increased dependency upon the government, and then this shapes his response to crises in ways that don't focus on solutions as much as ways to exploit the problem.

However, I think he genuinely wanted ACA to work, so that people would get used to it, and then be complacent about the slippery slope toward universal health care. In fact, he admitted to just such a piecemeal strategy years before becoming President (see my Trojan Horse thread).

However, I think he has been taken by surprise at how badly his political calculations have gone, how that the Dems wouldn't benefit from crises nearly as much as they had in the past. I think he's out of his league, and we're seeing the results of electing someone who has never had any executive experience, and only knows how to manipulate his fate via political calculations. But eventually your rhetoric must be related to reality, or people will wise up and turn on you, which is what we're seeing.

[Ur Dead]

Obama really never expected to become president in 2008. It just happened that people were tired of Clinton's domination of the Democratic party. I saw that he was trying at first to get his name to become a household word so he could run for president in 2016. It just happened to snowball and people wanted a change from the same old, same old crap going on.
Well put a duck in a tux and guess what.
As far as Obama being a Constitutional scholar, brilliant, a gifted orator, well
his community organizer credentials to be president makes me just as qualified because I was a public servant of 30 years.

Quack, quack y'all.

[Avatar]

I don't think it's deliberate, and I don't think he's the only one who does, did or would use any crisis. Your two party system is a mess. But multi-party systems have problems too. (Less problems I think, but hey...)

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Neither side wants to crash the system on purpose but neither side wants to fix the problems which we have, either. The status quo keeps them in office and keeps their supplemental pay via lobbying in place so people who are in power are quite happy to let things stay just as they are.

The problem with many of our fellow citizens is that they actually think that there are differences between "D" and "R"; in reality, the only difference is they they are different letters and their party affiliations rely on different colors for ease of identification.

[Rawedge Rim]

Neither side wants to crash the system on purpose but neither side wants to fix the problems which we have, either. The status quo keeps them in office and keeps their supplemental pay via lobbying in place so people who are in power are quite happy to let things stay just as they are.

The problem with many of our fellow citizens is that they actually think that there are differences between "D" and "R"; in reality, the only difference is they they are different letters and their party affiliations rely on different colors for ease of identification.

It's not even so much as that. It's simply that no one wants to put themselves into a "soundbite" situation that will cost them or their party an election. "The nail that sticks out gets hammered".

[Zarathustra]

The problem with multiparty systems is that the majority rarely gets represented. Usually, the 3rd largest party has a disproportionate share of influence, as the tie-breaking entity between the 2 larger parties.

Of course, if that party is the Libertarians, that would be cool with me. But they haven't reached critical mass yet.

I think Dems need to brace themselves for a Republican Congress, House and Senate. That's likely going to happen this fall. But the bigger question they need to answer is which Rep do they want to control the government? It may well be the case that 2016 is the beginning of a new era of Republican rule, meaning that Hillary or any other Dem might not have a chance at winning the Presidency, after Obama has squandered so much hope on such little change. Even if a Dem could win, the best they can hope for would be gridlock for 4 years. Is that worth it? Or would the Dem agenda be better served with a "radical" Republican like Rand Paul, who would have a dramatically different administration than someone like Mitt Romney? The only chance that a Republican rule will be steered to the middle--or even in an entirely new direction like ending the Patriot Act, NSA spying, IRS abuse, wars abroad, etc.--will be a Rand Paul presidency.

With McConnell running the Senate, and no longer any reason not to let the Tea Party control the House (from the Speaker's perspective), whichever Republican gets the White House will be able to do whatever he wants. If that's Rand, it could include many things that we now think are impossible, due to our resignation over the status quo being unstoppable. Sure that might scare the Dems. But it's better than Romney being able to do what he wants. I think if everyone listened to Paul with an open mind, the two sides might find more to agree with him than any other candidate, R or D.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The problem with multiparty systems is that the majority rarely gets represented. Usually, the 3rd largest party has a disproportionate share of influence, as the tie-breaking entity between the 2 larger parties.

Of course, if that party is the Libertarians, that would be cool with me. But they haven't reached critical mass yet.

I could live with that scenario quite happily. You are correct, though, that the two major parties haven't pushed us all to the point yet where the Libertarian Party can get into the position where it winds up being the tie-breaker.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

The problem with multiparty systems is that the majority rarely gets represented. Usually, the 3rd largest party has a disproportionate share of influence, as the tie-breaking entity between the 2 larger parties

I thought that point was very estute when Deutsch made it.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, I'm finding so much agreement with Deutsch, I no longer feel it necessary to point out where my opinions end and his ideas begin.

I don't think he'd mind that I'm "stealing" his ideas. I am after all replicating his memes.

[Ananda]

What if you had 5 or 9 parties and not three?

[Avatar]

33 parties contested our recent elections.

The ruling party received 62.15% of the vote, the runner-up got 22.23% and 3rd place got 6.35%.

The remaining 9.27% was shared between the other 30.

Draw what conclusions you will...

--A

[SerScot]

Zara,

[SkurjMaster]

So, the 'consensus' seems to be that he is just inept? I am not sure which is worse, a bungler or an Antichrist. I don't think that we have anything in between here.

To me, everything that the man and his adherents have done since taking office is not in keeping with the Constitution. So then we are left thinking that if he and others are not trying to crash the ship of the Republic, that he and they at least want to change the direction so drastically that it is no longer a ship of the Republic. Once we subvert the Constitution to 'fundamentally transform America' then we are finished as a free society.

You may be right. If their aim is not a crash, then they would still exploit it if their policies push us there.

[Zarathustra]

I know among the Right it's a popular belief that Obama is purposely trying to "crash the Republic," but there are other possible explanations for the apparently blatant way Obama contradicts his own promises to rein in executive power, unite America, return our rights, etc. First of all, I think that he's a pragmatist who doesn't actually believe in the principles he espouses, he just says them because he knows it will get him elected. Also, I think that he has a fragile ego and hates to admit when he's wrong ... even when he's contradicting his own alleged values for the sake of power. I imagine that he justifies such contradictions in his own mind by believing that his party's victory is the only way to set things right, so everything else is second to that (back to the pragmatism).

But it is curious that when he had both houses of Congress for two years, he didn't take steps to end the Patriotic Act, NSA spying, violations of Due Process, etc. So there seems to be a little more than merely violating principles to secure his party's power, if he'll ignore his stated principles even when that power is secure.

The Dems are kidding themselves if they believe Hillary or any other mainstream Dem will restore us to a pre-911 era that undoes all the harm Bush did, or even reverses it. They only used opposition to Bush to get elected.

And the Reps are kidding themselves if they think the mainstream of the Repubican party represents true conservative values. The mainstream of each party--those in power--are only maintaining the status quo, with the illusion of fundamental opposition to each other.

Again, the only viable way to break this cycle--the best chance we've had in our lifetimes, perhaps--would be to elect Rand Paul. Not since the Founding Fathers have we had a chance for a Libertarian to control things. Dems need to realize he is the closest to their anti-Bush beliefs on the Rep side, and this is the very reason Reps need to support him. They need to stop thinking in terms of "Who can we nominate to beat the Dem nominee," and instead ask themselves, "Who can we nominate who has the best chance of winning over some Dems." Moderates and true liberals (not merely those who, like Obama, abandon their core principles for the sake of partisan victories) might actually prefer Rand to someone like Hillary, who is more of the same hypocrisy we've seen for Obama's terms.

[Orlion]

Really? All we need to do is elect one specific individual and that will solve all our issues? Gee, where have I heard that before

The nature of the beast seems to be that, if we are looking at things objectively and really digging into things, things have never been "Constitutional". Particularly in the modern sense of the word. And the fact that concepts have evolved over time, it is almost certain that what we mean by 'justice and liberty and the American Way' is completely different from what Jefferson thought they were. And the fact that we are a technologically advanced, first world, established country means our values are different from a fledgling colonial nation. Imagine that.

People evoke the Constitution like the evoke the Bible: as this magically unassailable document that they have probably never read let alone have any understanding of. It's really a nice psychological tool to keep the masses in check. And it is effective too, with all the rights violations over this country's history, you would think people would realize that the statement, "The government can't do that, it's unconstitutional!" is ridiculous and naive.

[Zarathustra]

Orlion, can you name another time when a Libertarian has had a legitimate shot at becoming President? When you combine that with the Senate being run by his fellow KY native, and the fact that he'd have the same letter by his name as the majority of two Houses of Congress, then it's an unprecedented opportunity to see what a Libertarian President might do. We've seen what mainstream Dems and Reps do: pretty much the same exact thing. Why not try something different for once in our lives? Why be so timid all the time? As Skurj asks, "Are we sheep?"

It might be true that he's a liar like all the rest. Maybe. But he's definitely not a mainstream, status-quo candidate like all the rest. If he's lying, and not really as radical as he seems, then the worst case scenario is more of the same. When the alternative is knowingly voting for more-of-the-same (e.g. Hillary or Romney), it's a clear difference. We already know they're phonies who won't represent anything except the current power structure. We don't even have to wonder. There's no room for hope because there will be no change.

It won't make any difference which Dem gets elected if they're going to be a lame duck from day 1, with a Rep Congress. Sure, Dems might think gridlock would be preferable to a Rep agenda (but if they did, they'd be hypocrites for calling Reps the "Party of No"). But surely it would be better to get some of the things done they claim to be for, like the freedom expansion opportunities I've listed above.

[Orlion]

Orlion, can you name another time when a Libertarian has had a legitimate shot at becoming President?

Who cares? There is absolutely no reason to believe Libertarianism or its application will be a silver bullet to the nation's problems aside from the pastoral dreams of its adherents. It actually is not fundamentally different from other political viewpoints... it starts out like the rest of them: "Waaaa! It's unfair that [fill in the blank]! This is truly the biggest problem facing everyone today!"

And why would there be no hope without change when people (as I seem to recall you posting elsewhere) have a higher quality of life then ever in the history of humanity? Sounds like there's plenty of hope and to say otherwise would be bitching about first world problems.

[Zarathustra]

This is getting way off track. Just because I have confidence in our free markets and private sector doesn't mean I can't be concerned about government increasing its power and limiting freedom. The two attitudes are perfectly compatible.

The "hope/change" phrasing was clearly meant as ironic criticism of Obama's campaign slogan, not an expression of my emotions.

I haven't said that Paul can fix all of our problems. I'm saying we have an unprecedented opportunity to try an approach to those problems that we haven't tried yet. I'm also saying that many things that both sides bitch about can be resolved by choosing a middle approach, one the likes of which no other candidate offers.

And I'm saying that we'll probably have a Republican Congress, then I'm extrapolating the possibilities from that point. Do the Reps want gridlock? Or do they want a Republican to control that Rep majority? Well, the best chance they have of getting a Republican elected--given how fearful the Left will be of such a one-sided government--would be to nominate a candidate which they can talk the Dems into not fearing (as much). If the Dems fear a Romney Executive + Rep Congress, then their chances of getting him elected go down, and we'll just be stuck with a lame duck Hillary. In other words, pretty much what we have now: nothing getting done.

So if Reps were *smart* about it, they would do well to heed my suggestion. Sure, it serves me because Paul is my guy. But that doesn't make any of my points untrue.