Home > Gwinnett.talk > Archives > 2008 > May > 15 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USIs anyone happy with the political process?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Handout
Jim Grattan
The current election cycle raises the question of who can be happy with the nature of political campaigns and the performance of government?
We have been witnessing presidential campaigns that have gone on ad nauseam, are mind-numbingly repetitious and superficial, consist mostly of barbs directed at opponents and are covered mostly as a horse race.
In looking at the federal government, very real problems, such as environmental degradation, dependence on foreign suppliers of energy, arbitrary denial of health care despite being insured, a mortgage fiasco, erosion of our manufacturing base and consequent loss of well-paying jobs and illegal immigration - to name only a few, are allowed to worsen to the detriment of most of us.
Of course, there are those who have prospered in this climate of ineffectualness, which only points to a system failure when some can so blatantly benefit from other’s misery.
Ironically, the incessant noise of campaigns provides the illusion of a vigorous process. But the superficiality of it all should be a warning. It is no wonder that elected leaders fail to address our real problems. When were they required to expound any plans or coherent philosophies?
A major factor in the ineffectiveness of government is the philosophy that has gained ascendancy in the last few decades, having been severely discredited in the Great Depression, that market forces alone will solve our problems. Under that thinking, everything is “free”: trade, markets, and enterprise. Apparently, the President and our Congressmen have adopted the position that they are “free” from the responsibility of ensuring that our economy works for the long term for all of us.
We have learned repeatedly in our history that capitalism requires regulation to not self-destruct. In other words, there is no invisible hand that aggregates all self-interests toward a sustainable end.
Just look at our current problems. We’ve known since the 1970s that dependence on foreign oil was potentially a huge problem. Any actions taken then were mere tokenism. Did big oil companies solve our problems? Obviously, no. We knew when NAFTA was signed that the exit of U.S. jobs and manufacturing would begin in earnest. We have known for years that we were in the midst of an unsustainable housing bubble fueled by risky loans, while investment firms adopted the pretense that these mortgages were sound investments. We could have, through incentives, mandates and effective regulation, been way ahead of the curve for these problems.
But now it is average Americans who are bearing the costs and the repercussions for our failure to act appropriately.
Long and loud political campaigns where such shibboleths as “change” are repeated endlessly are more than tiresome. Where is the credible evidence that any political candidate truly believes or understands that a bogus economic philosophy has gotten us to this point and is willing to make wholesale, actual changes?
Do you feel that political campaigns are effective and actually indicate future actions? Are you content with the idea that market forces alone will solve our problems?
Jim Grattan is a software engineer and avid bicyclist. He lives in the Grayson area with his wife, Shirley, and four golden retrievers.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: My View
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Paul
May 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
I’ve been an activist since I first voted in 1969. Indeed, our federal and state governments have failed us dismally, so lately we’ve turned to local affairs. We wake up each day not in Washington or Atlanta but in Gwinnett, and THIS is what matters the most to us. The best news is that there is a bright light - the first candidate I’ve been able to vote FOR, as opposed to selecting the lesser of available evils, in over 20 years. I’ll not conduct campaign activities here except to say that we desperately need a new county commission chairman. The professional politican incumbent embodies Mr. Grattan’s comments above - grandiose claims and promises full of nothing. I won’t say who I’m voting FOR, but SHE is a wonderful breath of fresh air.
By Copyleft
May 19, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Political campaigns are based entirely on money, and every elected official spends more time fundraising than doing his/her job. When was the last time you cast a vote for a working-class person?
It is not possible for any sane person to be satisfied with such a system, which runs directly counter to the democratic ideals we’re supposed to be founded on.
Party “machines” and the two-party duopoly ensure that we have no real choice, and therefore no real ‘voice’ in the system. We need massive overhauls to our electoral process:
*Do away with the electoral college. *Broaden campaign-finance reform to make all elections publicly funded. *Institue instant-runoff voting to break the two-party stranglehold. *Insist on paper trails and code verification for e-voting machines.
And many, many more. Unfortunately, fixing the system requires the cooperation of those elected officials who are currently masters at manipulating our EXISTING system to their advantage. So don’t hold your breath.
By Bruce Wilcox
May 19, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Copyleft I agree with every point made and would like to add one, return Election Day to a Federal Holiday. Seems like a minor detail, but voting has been dropping ever since Reagan took National Holiday status away.
Strange how we can invade countries, kill thousands to give them the right to vote, we show them celebrating in the streets and boast that 80% took part. Here we considered anything over 50% pretty good.
Since there was a campaign ad above I’d just like to remind the voters EVERY commissioner was in on the stadium scan for over a year. Not one commissioner serving now believes in any kind of open government.
By ponyboy96
May 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
I second the national voting holiday.
On another note, the only way to fix the current system, as I see it, is to get rid of it 1776 style.
We have to demolish the two party system. We have to eliminate career politicians. We have to end to corruption and the lobbiest. I’m tired of being an apathetic voter.
By badthing
May 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
Me, I’d be a lot happier with a president who believes in non-violence (yay Dennis Kucinich!) and if we got rid of the Electoral College here in America.
By badthing
May 19, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
Me, I’d be a lot happier with a president who believes in non-violence (yay Dennis Kucinich!) and if we got rid of the Electoral College here in America.
Marilyn’s Non-Violent Planet http://www.non-violent.com
By Fred
May 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
While I agree with most of the comments, I disagree about doing away with the Electoral College. The Electoral College was put in place to ensure that all parts of the country had a say in who was elected president. The concerns of voters in New York are not always the same concerns for voters in Georgia which are not always the same for voters in Oregon. Should voters on the eastern seaboard tell the rest of the country who will be president?
By Andrew
May 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this
That’s exactly what the electoral college does. Allows one state to determine the outcome of a national race. Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004.
By Fred
May 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Link to this
So since the last 2 elections came down to the electoral votes of 1 state we should throw out the process? Close races usually come down to a small margin for victory. If every election came down to the electoral votes from 1 state then yes, it should be changed, but not because the last 2 were like that. In the last 200 years how many times has it come down to 1 state?
By One Man's View
May 21, 2008 4:29 AM | Link to this
Without the electoral college, NY, CA, and TX could overwhelem national elections. But I’m not happy with one vote counting more than another. My column is not about that however. Just look at this election cycle. Obaman and Clinton have dominated the political news for a yr. Will that energy continue when the elections are over? I think not.
By Chuck
May 21, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
Gloom and doom aside, every now and then someone “real” does appear on the scene, but they can easily get lost in the noise. Career politician Chuck Bannister, for example, is on track to raise a MILLION DOLLARS for a county seat race. Most of it came from developers. Any questions about corruption?
By mau
May 21, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Technically, George W. Bush was never elected president. First time he was “appointed” by the Supreme Court and the 2nd time he was “given” the presidency. You can substitue cheating for given.
By Bruce Wilcox
May 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Link to this
Fred the Electorial College was only put in place to assure that every state would have equal representation in the VERY begining of the Union, 13 states. Tell me, do you think it still works? Who in their right mind would spend millions making sure that R.I. would be a lock? It’s in the past, if you what to follow the Constitution to a tee, the Supremes would never been allowed to decide the 2000 election and Bush wouldn’t have been president.
I see ‘Atta’ Boy Chuck showed up with another campaign ad. Funny, you get get Paul, sure enough you’ll find Paul looking for his “Atta Boy”.
Since there are now two campaign ads above I’d just like to remind the voters EVERY commissioner was in on the stadium scam for over a year. Not one commissioner serving now believes in any kind of open government.