He's got a point, though. Most politicians will abandon any platform that they know will cause them to not get reelected.

I blame the two party system for this, and maybe the media. I have a difficult time trying to equate what you just said with an outright grab for power and "control of the masses," I mean what do they really have to gain? They most likely already have money and influence. Politicians can only do as much as their constituents allow them to. Why blame the government when people keep re-electing the same bozos?

I blame the media and the electorate who can't see anything for its long term significance. Everything is so reactionary. As if current problems don't have roots that go much further back than some new policy that happened to announced the same time some new problem reered its' head. And then is the problem that noone is patient enough to allow real solutions to go through the process of becoming successful. Because, like most things in life, there is usually not a "quick fix" for governmental problems. But nobody wants to hear that. Everybody wants their ears tickled.

The politicians themselves are obviously also to blame. For very rarely having the spine to vote for something or stand up for something the believe in even when they read the report that 75 or 80% of their constituency does not support that action.


...But such are the problems with democracy.

The cause is irrelevant. It's definitely the fault of the two party system (and the media), but whose fault is the two-party system? Over the decades both parties have tuned the system to make it most difficult for people to vote for alternative parties.

They may already have money and influence, but they need to keep it by staying in office, and they stay in office not by doing what is best for their contituents, but by doing what the majority of their constituents wants the most. It works exactly like a corporation, except instead of stockholders you have voters, there is no accountability at any level, and they have the privilege of having as big a budget as they want.

In the two party system it is in the best interest of both parties to resemble each other for the most part. While at the same time making entry for a new party most difficult to achieve. There's no point really figuring out who to blame for this current system. Blame Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln if you really want I suppose. The problem is how to do anything about it. Because, as you said they control the money and power and name recognition rights needed to get elected. Barring mass radical discontent, the two party system is here to stay.

Every institution seeks expansion and dominance, no matter what the cost. From the state, to a business, to anything else really, growth for the sake of growth is the ultimate goal.

well said

But is this healthy when the goal of the institution is supposed to be the well being of 300 million people?

And when there are no external checks on the power of that institution? And when that institution gets to make up the rules and everybody is stuck with it no matter what?

That's my point. When the focus of the institution becomes the intstitution itself, things go downhill. That's why I can't subscribe to a completely free market either. Eventually (very quickly, actually) most businesses will diverge from providing services people actually need and want to providing services that they need people to purchase. Quality declines, advertising is abused, etc. It's only when people stand up and reassert what they want from an institution that it's finally put in check. People who put their faith in any institution will ultimately be betrayed by it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

Apparently, some representatives feel that the U.S. military's job is to employ people first, and defend the country second.
I understand that it is the job of representatives to look out for their state's interest, but its terribly slimy when government contracts are looked at as cash cows rather than undertaking necessary government services. Republicans espeically have no standing to argue against this, presuming it was a fair contract bidding process and greater worth was found in the airbus plan.

Here we have like more than 15 parties, most of them small parasity parties that ally themselves with the big ones, specially the one in power just to grab some money on corruption plots.

All people do is "grab money," right?

What the government does is give money to corporations in the name of "progress"

See: The energy bill that passed the House on July 28, 2005 and the Senate on July 29, 2005 includes at least $4 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry, which is reaping enormous windfalls at a time of rising oil and gasoline prices.


http://www.calpirg.org/home/reports/rep ... nergy-bill

the real question here is:

how many millions of angry american voices is it going to take for some of the absurdity of our system to be seriously challenged/changed? i remember in early 2003, a couple million filling the streets was barely a blip on their radar on the way to the illegal war.

I think that 4 or 5 parties would be close to the ideal.

I think it would take more people actually doing something useful rather than just standing around in a given area and shouting slogans for a day.

Oh yeah? Oil companies are still profiting only a dime on each gallon of gas it sells. They invest in infrastructure. They employee people. They extract it. They ship it. They refine it. They ship it again. And they get a dime on the gallon.

How much does the state get for doing absolutely fucking nothing?