Do you really care?

Of course you still care enough to come onto the political board of a porn promotion site, but really, are you still invested in what happens politically in the world?

In watching what's happening in Gaza and Ferguson, and a little further back in Newtown, CT, I have realized that I'm becoming more and more detached from the larger world, and specifically anything that smacks of politics. I would never refer to myself as an activist in any phase of my life, but I have engaged in a little activism at various times. I also campaigned hard for John Kerry and some local congressional candidates back in 2004 and 2006 because I thought it was do or die for the country. But I largely sat out the 2008 and 2012 elections, attending one Obama rally in each year. The last political campaign donation I made was in 2008, other than some funding for a friend who ran for state legislature and another who ran and won in a City Attorney race.

I do care about stuff at the local community level. I'm sure I'd care a lot if I was a resident of Ferguson, Missouri. I do a little local volunteer stuff, but as soon as anything starts moving toward politics, I disengage. I guess the main reason I've disengaged from world and national politics is that it pretty much seems hopeless. People used to not vote against their own interests. Raising the minimum wage made sense to most people. Making the rich pay a little higher in taxes made sense to most people. Funding your local schools made sense. Although white people had to be drug kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, by the 70's, when I was growing into adulthood, it started making sense to most people.

Another contributing factor for me is the absolutely appalling treatment of working people within just about every industry. Big business is politics, and vice versa. It's just a huge monolith and they get sheer idiots to work for them in Congress, the Supreme Court, and yes, even the White House. The media is absolutely useless.

There are no solutions anymore. Only problems. When Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1992, I figured that would be a huge wake up call for planet earth and it's supposedly most intelligent species. It was anything, but. I simply can't spend psychological energy on working for a better world, because I'm not sure we deserve a better world anymore. Across the world, in 200 or so nations, people keep voting idiots and charlatans into power. Who was the last decent leader in the world? Mandela? He retired after one term in office. Is there anyone else?

In the end, if I can't take anymore of the b.s. in this country, I'm moving south to Latin America. Not that it's a paradise there or anything, but my retirement dollars will stretch further. I've done alright in saving and stashing money in a 401k (no pension for me!). But I've also not had a raise in 7 years. And I work in a very profitable industry for a profitable company.

Anyway, this rant is over. I'm curious what other participants here think. I give a fuck about individuals and their opinions. I don't give a fuck about big institutions or the people who run them.

That was quite a bleak and depressing post, Odelay. You’re bringin’ me down.

Do I really care?
I think of myself as a reactionary. There was a time I would’ve said I was apolitical. 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq pretty much ended that era of my politically isolated existence. In my classrooms I’ve met and still meet returning soldiers who are severely traumatized, soldiers without limbs and young husbands and wives who lost their significant others. What seems like a decade ago, I stood on street corners in the heat of summer and in the cold of wet winters protesting those fucking wars. Though I no longer weather the elements, the wars still go on.

Generally speaking, I’m still not much of a political animal. For a few weekends in Chicago I protested with Occupy. In my town I support the LGBT. I carried signs for a few politicians and against a few. I’m a member of the ACLU. I’m a registered Democrat and a bleeding heart liberal, but I don’t contribute to the party. I prefer to donate to specific candidates.

The origins of my own political interests fall into three categories.

One. Those which affect me or affected me directly. Specifically, gender issues, racial issues and guns.

Two. Issues into which I believe I may have a modicum professional insight.

Three. Issues having to do with social and economic injustice. I wouldn’t want to try to draw a line between being disgusted with the injustices perpetrated upon people and really caring about them. I don’t know if there is such a line. Most of us can do more than we do. My excuse for not doing more involves mumbo jumbo concerning cost (to myself) versus benefit (to others) and refrains like, “I have my own life to live and life is way too short.”

Of course I care. Passionately. But I do share Odeley's sense of helplessness. Like Tricia I take part in various smaller scale activities and I also hope that, through my work, I have some impact on people's attitudes (journalist turned documentary film maker). But one of the challenges - and it is true internationally - is to face-up to the power of the multinationals to impact on the lives of everyone. The power of capital today is greater than it has ever been and the ability of national governments to challenge it is weakening. Rank inequality is growing. The market seems to be triumphant. In the US it seems that you stand on the brink of the collapse of true democracy - with large corporations now burrowing into the GOP via their fake grassroots movement, the tea party and both parties buying the notion of the Market almighty. Neo-liberaism seems to be irresistable. This is true in the UK too - though we have our own particular challenges.On the wider scale we have the growth of a poisonous form of islam which now presents us with a global challenge. (As anyone who has read my contributions here before I believe that islam per se is just another religious faith and most Muslims are just folk. But the global growth of a violent perversion of the faith has to be confronted - not least by Muslims themselves0. Climate change. Yes it is real. Yes it is a threat. But again the multinationals via their proxys and political muscle are undermining all efforts to confront this. Across Europe we are seeing the rise of Fascism again. And LGBT rights? The suns may be shining in some places but in many others the storm clouds of prejudice and hate are dense and darkening. Across Africa, in Russia.....

And racial hatred/ I despair when I see the news from Ferguson - and red that the Klan are on their way there to pur petrol on the fames. The whole of Obama's presidency seems to have been underpinned by a deep hatred for him because of his face. Change you can believe in? Hmmmmm

Any hope for optimism overall? I'm always an optimist. But it is getting hard.

Republicans say they are carrying blacks and poor people who want "free stuff" from Obama. Unions say they are carrying fat cats who want "free money" off the backs of their workers. Social Security, Disability, Retirement, and now Obamacare ...all that stuff is not free, in fact it's quite expensive.
This is actually a fantastic time to live, pneumonia killed my Grandfather when he was young, I had it last Christmas and hardly blinked. I can get just about any song or book in existence downloaded in 5 minutes. I can get a SuperBigGulp at 3AM. If I asserted myself, I could be almost anything I wanted, a Civil War expert, a SuperStud for fifty year old bags, a Scholar, I could own three Corvettes or six motorcycles. Americans are spoiled. Of course we're bored. Of course we don't care.
My brother's friend swung by, he's been digging wells in Costa Rica, I asked him about retiring there, he said yeah, lots of people dig it down there, no murderous personal property taxes for bratty schoolkids. There's a park on top of the mountains where the air mass from the ocean meets the air mass from the land, resulting in a fine mist over the jungle, with hundreds of species of tropical birds and wild orchids. But while we were outside talking, a squirrel feel out of a tree right beside all of us, none of us in our collective hundreds of years of life had ever seen that. Since then, I've had a string of bad luck. Why bother caring when life is going to throw a falling squirrel your way fucking up your entire life forever. Life and it's mysteries, still alive in Costa Rica. In the US, not so much. Everything has a price tag.

I have been interested in politics most of my life, and even when I felt in the darkest days of Margaret Thatcher that it was all hopeless, I never lost my interest even if I did give up being an activist. I left the Labour Party for numerous reasons at the time, mostly because I had given all my free time to what turned out to be a permanent internal squabble with other party members, which I suspect is what most political parties at the local level is like. But I also have to accept that our policies were rejected time and time again by the people, and that Thatcher along with Reagan in the US and Helmut Kohl in Germany did change the paradigm of liberal democratic politics, and that many of the values which shaped Britain after 1945 and attempted to create a fairer society were replaced by a model in which collective good has been replaced by individual benefit, and yet I wonder how many individuals have benefited in the way in which Thatcher believed they would. Consider Prospero's observation:
The power of capital today is greater than it has ever been and the ability of national governments to challenge it is weakening. Rank inequality is growing. The market seems to be triumphant.
Margaret Thatcher wanted to turn the UK into a share-owing democracy, yet today in The Guardian it was pointed out that Before Thatcher came to power, almost 40% of the shares in British companies were held by individuals. By 1981, it was less than 30%. By the time she died in 2013, it had slumped to under 12%.
(http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...atisation-scam)
Mrs Thatcher's government sold off the utility firms, road and rail, coal and steel, and now most of our water gas and electricity is owned by foreign firms while some of our rail companies are not only foreign owned but by foreign state-owned corporations, surely the opposite of what Thatcher intended?
I can understand that many people look back on the mistakes that were made in the 1960s and 1970s and argue that Thatcher and Reagan swept away the worst aspects of state intervention, chaotic interest rates and inflation, and that the coincident decline of communism and the spread of globalisation has lifted millions out of poverty.
What I think has perplexed people is that the same apostles of capitalism were unable to prevent the financial crisis of 2008, and have not really produced a long-term solution to it either.

But I would invert Odelay's observation and suggest that we must continue to believe that we, the people, are more important than politicians, and also that it may look as if we are in a situation in which There are no solutions anymore. Only problems -but it always looks like that.
If we woke up tomorrow and it was the 1st of January 1989, the major fracture in politics would be between the 'Free West' and the 'Evil Empire', aka the Cold War. If I asked you to look at the career of Yitzhak Rabin, what he said about and did to the Palestinians and then at Yasir Arafat and what he said about and did to the Israelis and the Jews, and then said that within five years they would be shaking hands over a peace treaty on the White House lawn it would be dismissed as politically inconceivable and in practical terms impossible. The same would be the response if I said that within 10 years Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness would be sharing power in Northern Ireland with Peter Robinson and the 'Rev' Ian Paisley. And if I said the Berlin Wall will cease to exist by Christmas. And yet changes that were inconceivable then did happen.
I don't think any of us would like to wake up tomorrow and find it is the 24th of August 1914, certainly not if we are young and fit -but even if we were not slaughtered or wounded in the war, between 1918-20 between 50-100 million died in two pandemics of influenza. Even when I was born it was still common for children to die from measles, to fall victim to smallpox and polio. In the last 100 years the advances that have been made in medicine, science and engineering have transformed our lives; in the second decade of the 21st century fewer people lose their lives in war, or to disease than was true of the 20th century, and yes there are severe problems with water, soil erosion, deforestation, pollution on land, at sea and in the air and the other components of global warming, yet we cannot despair, because the evidence suggests that we can solve problems no matter how vile the enemy is and how impossible it all seems.
Here are some words from Helen Bamber, who died this week, and who devoted her life to helping the victims of torture and atrocity:
“I’ve discovered that people can overcome the most appalling tragedies,” she said. “They have their strengths, coping mechanisms and humour. But they need recognition and compassion from others if they are to survive and overcome their pasts. I’m not without my desolation and despair from time to time because it’s pretty rotten out there. But mostly I find listening so rewarding and humbling. In the end, I’m always inspired by the beauty of the human spirit.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ob...e-9686815.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I wouldn’t want to try to draw a line between being disgusted with the injustices perpetrated upon people and really caring about them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But I would invert Odelay's observation and suggest that we must continue to believe that we, the people, are more important than politicians, and also that it may look as if we are in a situation in which There are no solutions anymore. Only problems -but it always looks like that.

---

To be clear, I very much believe in and care about individuals, and the injustices they experience. And I also believe that families and small communities of people can be amazing. Where I'm at today is that I am pessimistic that collective action can effect change as it did in the past.

One consideration that I have is that it might be possible, one day, that big business/politics might reach a point where crapping on the individual even more, by shredding safety nets, lowering wages, etc., might actually be counterproductive and less profitable. At which point, they might change course. (Forget about reversing course... that's not gonna happen.) However, it would appear that we're not near that point, yet.

Stavros, you make some very good points and I really don't have any direct arguments. And one can even go further by remarking that war and violence is actually down today compared to yesteryear. And there are more nations that are nominally democratic than ever before. But that just means the world is more target rich for neoliberalism. Any peace dividend resulting from less war/violence has seemed to result in a financial dividend going right into the pockets of big multinational institutions.

Anyway, as Trish states, life is short. And I, likewise, am focused in on the few and myself, rather than the many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odelay

To be clear, I very much believe in and care about individuals, and the injustices they experience. And I also believe that families and small communities of people can be amazing. Where I'm at today is that I am pessimistic that collective action can effect change as it did in the past.

One consideration that I have is that it might be possible, one day, that big business/politics might reach a point where crapping on the individual even more, by shredding safety nets, lowering wages, etc., might actually be counterproductive and less profitable. At which point, they might change course. (Forget about reversing course... that's not gonna happen.) However, it would appear that we're not near that point, yet.

Stavros, you make some very good points and I really don't have any direct arguments. And one can even go further by remarking that war and violence is actually down today compared to yesteryear. And there are more nations that are nominally democratic than ever before. But that just means the world is more target rich for neoliberalism. Any peace dividend resulting from less war/violence has seemed to result in a financial dividend going right into the pockets of big multinational institutions.

Anyway, as Trish states, life is short. And I, likewise, am focused in on the few and myself, rather than the many.

---

I can understand why you are focused on what is best for you, I gave up political activism in the Labour Party because the policies we offered were rejected by the people, but mostly because I lost faith in the local party officials for whom I gave most of my free time seven days a week. I could go on for hours about the corruption in the local party, and though it was a well-known constituency party to Londoners in the 1980s it is of no real interest to anyone else.

What I think is important is that positive change does happen, so that I cannot accept the conservative view that change only takes place, if at all, 'at the margins', a view which reflects a tendency for politics to try and resist change. I think on balance politics tends to lag behind economic and social change, and that may be why politicians often seem to be out of touch with what people, particularly young people think and desire, not least because most politicians are the same age as their parents and grandparents.

I think the key issues now are in resource management, and the way we interact with the planet on which we live. A gloomy view suggests that we will continue to lose forests at an alarming rate in the Amazon Basin, in Indonesia and Russia, increasing the rate of global warming with devastating effect on 'the south'; that indigenous people in those areas will like tigers, the rhino and elephants in the wild, be extinct by 2050 (which may be good news for zoos). In addition, the pressure on soil and water management is crucial for the production of food, but it seems to me that major producing areas like California are no longer sustainable. I don't know if it is a positive but I think between now and the end of the century there will be a shift in the population with the south moving north -in the USA as California and Nevada run out of water, more people will move to Oregon, Washington and Montana, possibly raising the stakes with immigration into Canada; a drastic measure but conceivable could result in a significant increase in immigration to Greenland, in the longer term, if it thaws out, Antarctica. Europe is already under intense pressure from African migrants fleeing a life of destitution and despair. Yet over time the Gaia thesis may be right and that the growth of world population will plateau in 2050 and decline thereafter, that currently poor and large families will go nuclear, that the balancing out of population and resources will enable the planet to re-assert its equilibrium, and the world in which we live be looked back on without much nostalgia, except perhaps for its culture, its music and its words...this prophecy Merlin shall make, for I come before his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odelay

Of course you still care enough to come onto the political board of a porn promotion site, but really, are you still invested in what happens politically in the world?

In watching what's happening in Gaza and Ferguson, and a little further back in Newtown, CT, I have realized that I'm becoming more and more detached from the larger world, and specifically anything that smacks of politics. I would never refer to myself as an activist in any phase of my life, but I have engaged in a little activism at various times. I also campaigned hard for John Kerry and some local congressional candidates back in 2004 and 2006 because I thought it was do or die for the country. But I largely sat out the 2008 and 2012 elections, attending one Obama rally in each year. The last political campaign donation I made was in 2008, other than some funding for a friend who ran for state legislature and another who ran and won in a City Attorney race.

I do care about stuff at the local community level. I'm sure I'd care a lot if I was a resident of Ferguson, Missouri. I do a little local volunteer stuff, but as soon as anything starts moving toward politics, I disengage. I guess the main reason I've disengaged from world and national politics is that it pretty much seems hopeless. People used to not vote against their own interests. Raising the minimum wage made sense to most people. Making the rich pay a little higher in taxes made sense to most people. Funding your local schools made sense. Although white people had to be drug kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, by the 70's, when I was growing into adulthood, it started making sense to most people.

Another contributing factor for me is the absolutely appalling treatment of working people within just about every industry. Big business is politics, and vice versa. It's just a huge monolith and they get sheer idiots to work for them in Congress, the Supreme Court, and yes, even the White House. The media is absolutely useless.

There are no solutions anymore. Only problems. When Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1992, I figured that would be a huge wake up call for planet earth and it's supposedly most intelligent species. It was anything, but. I simply can't spend psychological energy on working for a better world, because I'm not sure we deserve a better world anymore. Across the world, in 200 or so nations, people keep voting idiots and charlatans into power. Who was the last decent leader in the world? Mandela? He retired after one term in office. Is there anyone else?

In the end, if I can't take anymore of the b.s. in this country, I'm moving south to Latin America. Not that it's a paradise there or anything, but my retirement dollars will stretch further. I've done alright in saving and stashing money in a 401k (no pension for me!). But I've also not had a raise in 7 years. And I work in a very profitable industry for a profitable company.

Anyway, this rant is over. I'm curious what other participants here think. I give a fuck about individuals and their opinions. I don't give a fuck about big institutions or the people who run them.

---

Everyone is political. Everyone has their own ideas about how the world should work, how the world should be run, should be governed.
So, the political sphere, as it were, extends to all of us... and not limited to the likes of Obama, McCain, Kerry, Boehner etc., etc.
But, of course, politics, political power is very concentrated. And that's the problem.
Power resides with the military, the business class, the political class. That's why people become disillusioned and tune out.
In a meaningful democratic system, well, you'd have the same power as Obama. Will true democracy ever flourish? I'm pessimistic about that.
But, again, we're all political!

Some people are not political, in the sense that they just want to be left alone. They're happy enough to pay their taxes and obey the laws (if they're reasonably fair and no great hassle). They may or may not take the time to vote, but by large they don't want to think about politics, power, legalities etc. I might venture to say most people are like that. Others just have a natural curiosity about politics, perhaps owing to a religious or philosophical sense or morality; or simply a sort of scientific/anthropological/historical inclination to understand the world they live in. Others cultivate an exploitative interest in politics to satiate their greed and influence (E.g. the Koch brothers come to mind). Still others have an interest that is born of being exploited and disadvantaged.

In no democracy of three hundred million people will every person have the same influence as everyone else. However, in a democracy, that influence should end at speech and never amount to coercion or bribery. If people can't resist political marketing, then they deserve what they get. In a democracy one does hope and expect that everyone (of age) should be able to vote (for their representatives, and perhaps a modicum of propositions), that every vote counts the same as any other and that the count is accurate and decisive.

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles

I see where you're coming from....I do think liberal democracy today is flawed, for the reasons you say and that people are dim...we expect politicians to tell the truth but they always lie in elections. Obama is the latest of MANY examples......

I take an interest in it, only because I guess it's what I enjoy and my personality/mindset, I like "bigger picture" issues....Other than that, I think it's good we elect our leaders, but then democracy as we know it is flawed...

But it's better to say politics is detached or voting changes nothing than saying politics doesn't affect people.....bar laws, taxes, mandatory primary/secondary education, etc. no politics and anything politicians do don't affect anybody...

They lie for OUR VOTES. In a liberal democracy voting is everything. We owe it to each other pay attention. To listen and read from different sources across the spectrum. Discuss issues seriously but amicably with other people. I never understood the maxim "Never talk about politics or religion."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

They lie for OUR VOTES. In a liberal democracy voting is everything. We owe it to each other pay attention. To listen and read from different sources across the spectrum. Discuss issues seriously but amicably with other people. I never understood the maxim "Never talk about politics or religion."

---

what else is there to talk about

Democratic minded individuals might stress what is right, logical, effective, smart, practical, fair, forward thinking, correct, .....so what? Republicans vote for the guy who is going to rid their neighborhood of blacks, Mexicans, and fruits. Mayberry. Fifty percent of Americans don't vote in Presidential elections, less in other elections. Ninety percent of Americans consider Congress a bad joke. Pinning your hopes and dreams on who is going to win the next election is a bit like throwing craps, one guy wins, one guy loses. Caring about politics divides the Nation. If two guys in your carpool are Democrats, and two guys are Republican, skip that hour line at the polling place. Go out for a nice breakfast instead, Who cares?

On a less comical note. I am quickly approaching a time of my retirement where I must choose between a small house in a rich DEMOCRATIC area where I have good schools, museums, shopping malls, smart neighbors, or some poorer rural REPUBLICAN area. In the urban setting I won't have much cash in my pocket. In the country, I'll be flush. People who don't care about anything do help the Republican Party agenda. If you live out in Nowheresville, Iowa, there's not that much to care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

what else is there to talk about

---

Baking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

They lie for OUR VOTES. In a liberal democracy voting is everything. We owe it to each other pay attention. To listen and read from different sources across the spectrum. Discuss issues seriously but amicably with other people. I never understood the maxim "Never talk about politics or religion."

---

thing is, it's not something we can prevent.....they say x before election and then do y afterwards....

Oh! So you're telling me you can't tell a campaign promise from a honest conviction? These people have a history. They have records. You can look at who supports them and who doesn't.

And yes sometimes, reality gets in the way of opinion. Sometimes facts intervene and forces a change of mind. Not all unkept promises are lies.

But none of that changes the fact that politicians are desperate for our VOTES. They're fucking desperate. We hold the power. What's really frustrating is that we aren't all of one mind (and half the population listens to the wrong pundits ;) )But that's what a democratic republic is all about.

What excited people about the referendum in Scotland, albeit in the last 6 months of a two year campaign, was the intensity of the open debates that were held, the fact that a broad section of the population -in Scotland- participated in both the debates and even more importantly, the vote itself with a turn-out of over 84%. For many of us this is what democracy in action should be like, even though there seemed to be a ban on the discussion of issues such as the Royal Family and immigration, but it is also the case that it appears to have been a positive experience for many because they got the result they wanted.
The danger is that the referendum has the potential to replace the political process as it winds its weary way through our Parliaments and Congresses. If we elect a government we don't then expect it to abdicate its decision-making powers and hand it back to 'the people'. What would happen if there were a referendum on issues like capital punishment, in the UK; or abortion in the USA? The Scots turned out en masse, but suppose a referendum on a contentious subject attracted only 60% of the electorate of whom 57% vote one way and 43% the other?
We may, in the UK, be asked to vote in a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. I don't know how many are likely to turn out to vote, and I suspect that for all the noise the anti-Europeans can make, as in Scotland, a 'silent majority' will vote to stay in. But should there even be a referendum, and is this the best way to deal with political problems that our institutions seem unable to resolve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What excited people about the referendum in Scotland, albeit in the last 6 months of a two year campaign, was the intensity of the open debates that were held, the fact that a broad section of the population -in Scotland- participated in both the debates and even more importantly, the vote itself with a turn-out of over 84%. For many of us this is what democracy in action should be like, even though there seemed to be a ban on the discussion of issues such as the Royal Family and immigration, but it is also the case that it appears to have been a positive experience for many because they got the result they wanted.
The danger is that the referendum has the potential to replace the political process as it winds its weary way through our Parliaments and Congresses. If we elect a government we don't then expect it to abdicate its decision-making powers and hand it back to 'the people'. What would happen if there were a referendum on issues like capital punishment, in the UK; or abortion in the USA? The Scots turned out en masse, but suppose a referendum on a contentious subject attracted only 60% of the electorate of whom 57% vote one way and 43% the other?
We may, in the UK, be asked to vote in a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. I don't know how many are likely to turn out to vote, and I suspect that for all the noise the anti-Europeans can make, as in Scotland, a 'silent majority' will vote to stay in. But should there even be a referendum, and is this the best way to deal with political problems that our institutions seem unable to resolve?

---

....but a referendum can , in fact, be part of the political process. If political parties have been dead locked on issues in what seems like forever - than a call to the people seems the correct thing to do. It shouldn't be on every issue obviously, but one deemed important enough to a country to find it necessary. If the interested subsection of a populace that would normally back a particular vote that you - for example - are part of doesn't turn out in significant numbers to vote...then shame on them..(I think sometimes people also have to come to grips with the fact that their personal choice isn't always necessarily the right one either).
There's nothing wrong with occasionally making the populace part of the political process...they're already part of the process every time they vote.

...I'm referring to referendum votes on a local gov't level though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Oh! So you're telling me you can't tell a campaign promise from a honest conviction? These people have a history. They have records. You can look at who supports them and who doesn't.

And yes sometimes, reality gets in the way of opinion. Sometimes facts intervene and forces a change of mind. Not all unkept promises are lies.

But none of that changes the fact that politicians are desperate for our VOTES. They're fucking desperate. We hold the power. What's really frustrating is that we aren't all of one mind (and half the population listens to the wrong pundits ;) )But that's what a democratic republic is all about.

---

sorry, all politicians lie....doesn't matter about the party.

Sorry, but that doesn't address the remark you quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

sorry, all politicians lie....doesn't matter about the party.

---

Perhaps if all politicians lied all of the time and all evidence of what policies they actually support were completely inaccessible, then how one should vote would be be completely indeterminate. But that is not the case.

No politician or party is ever going to be in perfect alignment with my own beliefs and opinions on matters of domestic and foreign policy. If even there were, no politician or party is going to be able to put enact even a small fraction those policies. Even then, on any single issue there will have to be compromise, trades and deals to get anything done.

If the only thing you do is vote, your involvement in the experiment of self-governance is minimal. Not voting because you can’t know what policies an office seeker might or might not support should they obtain office, is just a silly excuse to abdicate one’s civil responsibility entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

....but a referendum can , in fact, be part of the political process. If political parties have been dead locked on issues in what seems like forever - than a call to the people seems the correct thing to do. It shouldn't be on every issue obviously, but one deemed important enough to a country to find it necessary. If the interested subsection of a populace that would normally back a particular vote that you - for example - are part of doesn't turn out in significant numbers to vote...then shame on them..(I think sometimes people also have to come to grips with the fact that their personal choice isn't always necessarily the right one either).
There's nothing wrong with occasionally making the populace part of the political process...they're already part of the process every time they vote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

...I'm referring to referendum votes on a local gov't level though.

---

I tend to agree. Where it goes too far, is perhaps in California. Their system of allowing citizen petitions to force public votes on popular issues sometimes seems out of hand, resulting chain reactions of votes called to nullify the prior ones. On the local level, these popular elections are too often influenced by outside interests and money.

On the national level, Amendments to the Constitution have to be ratified by the State Legislatures (not the populace). I wonder if NRA might not have passed by now if 1) it was voted on by the public and 2) it wasn’t the first proposed Amendment to have a ratification deadline placed upon it. The only other one with a deadline was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment (the Child Labor Amendment of 1924 is still pending).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

....but a referendum can , in fact, be part of the political process. If political parties have been dead locked on issues in what seems like forever - than a call to the people seems the correct thing to do. It shouldn't be on every issue obviously, but one deemed important enough to a country to find it necessary. If the interested subsection of a populace that would normally back a particular vote that you - for example - are part of doesn't turn out in significant numbers to vote...then shame on them..(I think sometimes people also have to come to grips with the fact that their personal choice isn't always necessarily the right one either).
There's nothing wrong with occasionally making the populace part of the political process...they're already part of the process every time they vote.

---

I would be cautious in resorting to using a referendum for local issues, and I also think that it becomes even more problematic if you have areas with low voter registration and low turn out, as this must be factored in to any decision of importance, which is what one must think a referendum is for. Is it not also the case that in the USA your constitution already endows citizens with a wide range of rights, and that it is often a failure to enforce such rights locally that undermines the quality of local politics?

I can only discuss the US in a detached manner as I don't live there and state laws vary, but you have the various arguments about law-making in California and whether or not Proposition 13 in the 1970s and others like it that were either a benefit to home owners, or reduced the tax-raising powers of the state, forcing them to raise taxes elsewhere. This year Chesterfield City has considered seceding from St Louis, again for tax reasons, but is it fair for one part of the city to opt out if this lands the remainder with a heavier tax burden, while, 'incidentally' increasing the predominantly black segments of the city? According to the New York Times, the local police in St Louis target black motorists unfairly in order to impose the fines that have become part of the city's revenue-raising strategy, so that crime is not in fact a crime statistic but a tax-statistic!

A referendum might be justified if it concerns the character of the state as a whole -for example, in the UK whether or not we should be a monarchy, a member of the European Union, or independence for the constituent parts such as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed, England. Would the USA have to hold a referendum if, to take an hypothetical example, Puerto Rico applied to become the 51st state? I am not sure what the intractable issues are that can only be decided by a referendum, or if the process itself is valid if voter registration and voter turn-out is not considered comprehensive enough for the decision to be valid....and Trish's point about the potential for mischief-making by vested interests is also pertinent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I would be cautious in resorting to using a referendum for local issues, and I also think that it becomes even more problematic if you have areas with low voter registration and low turn out, as this must be factored in to any decision of importance, which is what one must think a referendum is for. Is it not also the case that in the USA your constitution already endows citizens with a wide range of rights, and that it is often a failure to enforce such rights locally that undermines the quality of local politics?

---

When I mean locally...I usually mean statewide. During most elections in N.Y.State...there are Ballot Questions (same thing). An 'informed' voter realizes why a particular referendum vote is on a ballot at the time and why...the issue usually only takes minute reading...and of course, there is always a reason for their timing and there is always a vested interest.
...but there is always a vested interest in any election...just as there also is a vested interest as to why a representative of a given people enacts or does anything....both can be (and sometimes are) overturned by the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

A referendum might be justified if it concerns the character of the state as a whole -for example, in the UK whether or not we should be a monarchy, a member of the European Union, or independence for the constituent parts such as Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed, England. Would the USA have to hold a referendum if, to take an hypothetical example, Puerto Rico applied to become the 51st state? I am not sure what the intractable issues are that can only be decided by a referendum, or if the process itself is valid if voter registration and voter turn-out is not considered comprehensive enough for the decision to be valid....and Trish's point about the potential for mischief-making by vested interests is also pertinent.

---

Yeah...pretty much agree with this.
All opinions on other type of referendum votes aside - those are issues out of the norm of what I believe political representatives were voted into office to handle. The issues at stake affect everyone in such a way that every individual should have an "affecting" vote (and once again - shame on people that are too lazy to make it to the polls for this.)

As for Puerto Rico - the last , non-binding of course, referendum vote amongst Puerto Ricans came in favor of statehood - though there is an argument as to the legitimacy of the numbers due to how the ballot questions were phrased. However I believe statehood can only be granted by Congress...and two things not favoring that: Puerto Rico's terrible economy and their voting demographics.

For the record though - I would love for Puerto Rico to become the 51st State...but that can be a thread of it's own, in the future.

Not really FEELING next week's elections, the only exciting thing for me is the possible Legalization of Marijuana in Washington DC, which is right over the bridge for me. The Republican Senatorial Candidate in Virginia is a former Enron Lobbyist.

Maybe I'll start tuning into MSNBC and Fox while the trick-or-treaters have me booked into the La-Z-Boy, .....see what's going on. I predict a landslide of bullshit on Tuesday night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odelay

Of course you still care enough to come onto the political board of a porn promotion site, but really, are you still invested in what happens politically in the world?

In watching what's happening in Gaza and Ferguson, and a little further back in Newtown, CT, I have realized that I'm becoming more and more detached from the larger world, and specifically anything that smacks of politics. I would never refer to myself as an activist in any phase of my life, but I have engaged in a little activism at various times. I also campaigned hard for John Kerry and some local congressional candidates back in 2004 and 2006 because I thought it was do or die for the country. But I largely sat out the 2008 and 2012 elections, attending one Obama rally in each year. The last political campaign donation I made was in 2008, other than some funding for a friend who ran for state legislature and another who ran and won in a City Attorney race.

I do care about stuff at the local community level. I'm sure I'd care a lot if I was a resident of Ferguson, Missouri. I do a little local volunteer stuff, but as soon as anything starts moving toward politics, I disengage. I guess the main reason I've disengaged from world and national politics is that it pretty much seems hopeless. People used to not vote against their own interests. Raising the minimum wage made sense to most people. Making the rich pay a little higher in taxes made sense to most people. Funding your local schools made sense. Although white people had to be drug kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, by the 70's, when I was growing into adulthood, it started making sense to most people.

Another contributing factor for me is the absolutely appalling treatment of working people within just about every industry. Big business is politics, and vice versa. It's just a huge monolith and they get sheer idiots to work for them in Congress, the Supreme Court, and yes, even the White House. The media is absolutely useless.

There are no solutions anymore. Only problems. When Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1992, I figured that would be a huge wake up call for planet earth and it's supposedly most intelligent species. It was anything, but. I simply can't spend psychological energy on working for a better world, because I'm not sure we deserve a better world anymore. Across the world, in 200 or so nations, people keep voting idiots and charlatans into power. Who was the last decent leader in the world? Mandela? He retired after one term in office. Is there anyone else?

In the end, if I can't take anymore of the b.s. in this country, I'm moving south to Latin America. Not that it's a paradise there or anything, but my retirement dollars will stretch further. I've done alright in saving and stashing money in a 401k (no pension for me!). But I've also not had a raise in 7 years. And I work in a very profitable industry for a profitable company.

Anyway, this rant is over. I'm curious what other participants here think. I give a fuck about individuals and their opinions. I don't give a fuck about big institutions or the people who run them.

---

Bye.

Election Day is tomorrow. Remember to vote...or not.


Please Don't Vote - A Message From The Republican Party - YouTube