I used to believe that, that it didn't matter who was elected, and then Bush was. The last four years have been a real wake-up. It's fashionable to act like it doesn't matter, but it's not really true. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that Gore would have approached issues like the economy and national security in a way that he would be no difference from Bush.sufi said:The leaders of the US have had the state hijacked for a long time, and is it too cheesy to mention that it doesn't really matter who wins the elections?... you always gonna get a monkey in a suit in friont and the same anonymous unelected dodgy geezas in background...
In Britain a majority of the population didn't support the Iraq War. Here, they did (I didn't). It's falsifying history to suggest that, initially at least, a pretty sizeable majority of Americans didn't support the Iraq War. Of course, they supported it through paranoia and lies, but they supported it nonetheless.the govt don't have a majority of citizens behind them already, (just more than what the other party got), they already behave with total impunity - they didn't need the support of either the US people, nor the UN to start up GW2. I wouldn't call US a healthily functioning democracy (or UK for that matter) if senate/parliament, whatever, cannot prevent the leaders from undertaking an illegal war whih the majority of the electorate don't support.
Rubbish? I don't know, feelings are running pretty strong here. If Bush were to decide at some point that he were to become permanent leader there would be armed conflict (after all we have a lot of guns in private hands). I find the argument that the population is 'complacent' a bit strange considering the election we just went through. What should Americans have done to prove they were less complacent about politics? Armed raids on each other's political rallies?America is a big place Pearsall - i don't think there is any need for the blackshirts, or orange jumpsuits to disturb tranquil Brooklyn
What you say about secession or civil war is just rubbish, given levels of complacency in 21stC america (or Yurp for that matter) - & the junta doesn't need to be so audacious as to openly declare 'martial law' or whatever (if you consider that hasn't already happened with the 'patriot act') = stealthy democratical coup de etat - bush quoted by zizek (sufi quotes zizek ) "the future will be better... tomorrow"
Apologist? No, I'm just a realist who knows the history of my country. I think Bush is a disastrous president, but this idea that they are going to seize all levers of power is just ridiculous. For one thing, it is ahistorical, if it hasn't happened before in darker periods then I see it unlikely to happen now. Plus you seem to be making assumptions about their competence in carrying out policy that I surely won't. These people are basically useless at everything except running for office.you better hope they ain't paranoid and won't feel like a nuke or crash (or another terrrrist spectacular) is necessary for them to consolidate power, luckily though, they won't need to while apologists like persil constantly excuse their contempt for their electorate.
ok this is like,the crux,innit?In Britain a majority of the population didn't support the Iraq War. Here, they did (I didn't). It's falsifying history to suggest that, initially at least, a pretty sizeable majority of Americans didn't support the Iraq War. Of course, they supported it through paranoia and lies, but they supported it nonetheless.
Is America a 'healthily functioning democracy'? How do you define what one is? There has always been corruption and backroom dealing in American democracy, from the inner-city machine politics of the 19th century to Eisenhower's military-industrial complex to today's K Street lobbying firms. That is the nature of the beast.
Bush may have won on fear, but he won.
I stay calm.sufi said:cheers pearsill, good response to a bit of a rambunctious post
I think big changes happen, but they happen as an evolutionary process, not really through revolution. Really, I think the best way to view American political history is as a series of rise and falls of different interest groups. This is a society that has always been pluralistic, so much of American history revolves around the combat between organized groups, a process that is reinforced by the size and the complexity of the country as well as the machinations required by our own peculiar electoral system. Different groups wax while others wane, because American allegiances are pretty transferable. Example: over the last thirty years the power of labor unions has shrunk dramatically while the power of evangelical Protestantism has increased exponentially. Small groups, strategically placed, can receive much more attention that larger groups without the same advantages: see how politicians pander to the Cuban community, because they are heavily concentrated in the electorally crucial state of Florida while ignoring the much larger Puerto Rican community that is concentrated in northeastern states that are less competitive.mebbie as an outsider it's easier to see the USG as a longterm regime rather than personalising the issue with with parties or presidents, either as an era or as a celebrity (altho many uhmerkins i've met have felt disenfranchised from the machinations of USG)-
Something like twenty million more people turned out this year than in 2000. Personally I think it would be better if, like Australia, we had mandatory turnout, but even so when the stakes are high people will show up in much greater numbers.civil insurrection vs apathy in the US - aye, same as over here, only if they switched off TV.. it'd prolly do wonders for voting turnout if they cut TV for 1 day for elections.
I think the current situation is not optimal, but I am very leary of utopian/revolutionary ideas, because they tend to go monstrously wrong. Even at levels lower than outright Bolshevik/Khomeini revolutionary transformation sudden social change can lead to unanticipated side effects.ok this is like,the crux,innit?
yr looking at this situation in a positive way, i guess, like well it's not perfect but we're doing as best we can with what we got
but unfortunately that's making excuses for another debased ideology - justice & righteousness has been lost in the intricate web of realpolitikal loopholes, haggling & propaganda.
we have to face it - this is a shit situation, the world over, & is unacceptable
but surely forcing people to vote is total anathema to any system of individual choice...there are fines if you don't vote, which makes it a perfect rebellion...democratic societies cannot have it both ways..if the politicians are too filthy to vote for i can't see that penalizing the voter can help...on the other hand minority elected govns give all critics a wonderful reason to have a go...Pearsall said:Something like twenty million more people turned out this year than in 2000. Personally I think it would be better if, like Australia, we had mandatory turnout, but even so when the stakes are high people will show up in much greater numbers.
i posed that question coupla posts back...how to unhijack ethical conduct from the fundies???
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United Arab Emirates announced on Saturday a major overhaul of the country’s Islamic personal laws, allowing unmarried couples to cohabitate, loosening...apnews.com
I guess any progress with this sort of thing is only to be welcomed, but imagine living in a country where it making it illegal to murder women constitutes radical social progress.DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United Arab Emirates announced on Saturday a major overhaul of the country’s Islamic personal laws, allowing unmarried couples to cohabitate, loosening alcohol restrictions and criminalizing so-called “honor killings.”