Tweet
Thanks to jk, I came across this article by Bud Conrad http://goldmoney.com/en/commentary/2006-07-05.html
Conrad apparently works for a company that makes money from promoting gold.
I ask: What will it take to change the future of US politics?
I think this is perhaps the most important question anyone in the United States can ask today. The time one spends contemplating an answer should be inversely proportioned to one's age. That assumes one is planning on continuing to live in the US, and I believe the younger one is right now, the greater the importance of critically thinking and ideally mobilizing some action to bring about changes that will cease the insanity that currently exists politically in our country.
Recently I wrote Thomas G. Donlan, who writes editorials in Barron's, about how rotten politics is:
"I enjoyed your perspectives: the first which re-educated me a bit about the Constitution, and the second which to me suggests possibly a curse as I see the Interstate Hwy. System having become.
Reading Jefferson's words, "it is their Right, it is their Duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." suggested to me the tenor of your piece would be to throw out our elected officials and representatives. I was a bit disappointed that you did not offer constructive ideas on how to accomplish that, really more than a bit disappointed, quite disappointed is appropriate. Perhaps next week or week after you will choose this topic."
Mr. Donlan replied: "I have editorialized many times that citizens ought to seek the enactment of term limits, and that failing that they should always vote against incumbents. Beyond that, the right of revolution requires taking up arms, and since I do not think we have sunk so low, I forbear to mention it in print."
My deepest conviction at the moment is that nothing will change politics, as it is now, short of some sort of armed revolution--but hopefully I am too cynical. Mr. Donlan's suggestion always to vote against the incumbents, were it to happen, is only a short-term solution--lasting from the November elections until new representatives or senators are sworn in January. The moment those who are newly elected take their hands off a Bible they are transformed right back to where the previous elected official left off: interested in two just two things--primarily their own benefit and secondly getting re-elected in 2, 4 or 6 years.
The majority of the electorate, that might includes you, elects officials at all levels based on the candidates' promises to provide what the majority sees as best benefitting them--in effect saying "to hell with the minority." The problem with this is that this country is comprised of all the people who live here who I believe rightfully should benefit or suffer equally from government. Representatives and senators are not primarily interested in all the people of the nation, because they were not elected but by some small segment of the population. Their "duties" are to see to their own welfare, and get as much pork barrel for their section of the country as possible to aid re-election, and again I believe the representatives and senators have the tendancy to say "to hell with the rest of the country." Of course, there is a tradeoff because all sections have their senators and representatives working their own pork barrel deals ostensibly for their constituents, but primarily in hopes of getting re-elected.
Now if what we have presently in our "free democracy" is the best political system on the planet, how is it that we are further and further up the creek without any hopes of having a paddle? The "creek" is increasing debt at all levels of government, health care costs that have increased from 6% of GDP in 1965, to 16% in 2004 , and expected to be 19% by 2014 while those without health insurance have risen to 45-48 million people, higher educational costs that are skyrocketing, lower test scores in our public schools, unfunded private pension plans, Social Security and Medicare that I think are destined to fail for lack of funding--and I expect you can add some more.
Something in this system must change. If anyone sees this significantly differently, then start a thread and defend another position.
Short of armed revolution (and I think it may come to that), some way enough people need to complain that the first thing our elected officials need to do is bring their compensation packages--salaries, health insurance, disablity, pension benefits--into an alignment that equals the average compensation of all Americans. I do not know what the laws and rules are that the Congress has in place that applies only to those in Congress and not to the rest of the land, but there are such laws and they should be repealed. Doing this things would get all the citizens onto the same playing field, and in such case such words perhaps uttered by W. Clinton "I feel your pain." would just begin to have some realistic meaning.
Any arguments that making the circumstance of an elected official less rewarding financially would prevent the "brightest and best" from seeking political office is totally spurious when the reality is if what we have now is the result of the "brightest and best," then where is the upside to election of such "shining stars"?
Now how can public outcry bring about such changes? It won't, because it is the people we elect who make the laws, and even if they get elected only once, they will not pass laws that dim their moment in the sun of personal glory and financial reward. It ain't gonna happen.
Secondly if things are to change, then massive public outcry is going to have to evoke a change in the part the "free speech of money" plays in electing officials. Until that happens in this country, then the monied interests are going to prevail against the interests of all those who have less money--which is way and away the majority. To change the part the "free speech of money" plays in electing officials I believe would require a constitutional amendment instigated again by those now elected, and that ain't gonna happen.
Thirdly, if we are to continue to elect officials in a manner even vaguely similar to the present system, then all campaigns need to be publicly financed with equal amounts going to every qualified candidate. This must be done to eliminate the effect wealth plays in favoring one wealthy candidate being elected to positions intended to govern all the people.
Fourth, there needs to be 5 or 6 political parties, if the party system is to continue, it is clear to me that a two party system unjustly rewards the party in power and unduly punishes the party that isn't--with citizens who are attracted to neither party suffering all the time. This will not happen either because the two parties presently have too much power and will never relenquish it for the good of the country. From an old movie, I don't remember which, one politician said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts." There are few truer statements that characterize our political system.
Fifth, pork barrel politicial incentives need to be banished. I consider this is possible if a majority of the electorate--individuals like you and me--across the entire nation made it a mandate that for whoever is elected, that official would vote to end pork barrel politics. Now doing this would put the onus on the majority of regular citizens to see if they have the fortitude to promote a law that would end the possibility of their collectively benefittng from pork barrel rewards. If the regular citizen could not pull this off against their own potential benefits, then I'll gurantee you the elected officals will never do anything that would bring their present levels of pay, benefits and retirement plans into anything closely approaching that of the average citizen, that would lessen the effect money plays in presently electing officials, or change from the present two party system.
If any or all of these beginning, meager suggestions seem unrealistic, then weigh that against the currently reality in which we now exist.
When are the people most affected by the insanity of politics going to change how the system operates?
Who is John Galt?
Conrad apparently works for a company that makes money from promoting gold.
Originally posted by Bud Conrad
I think this is perhaps the most important question anyone in the United States can ask today. The time one spends contemplating an answer should be inversely proportioned to one's age. That assumes one is planning on continuing to live in the US, and I believe the younger one is right now, the greater the importance of critically thinking and ideally mobilizing some action to bring about changes that will cease the insanity that currently exists politically in our country.
Recently I wrote Thomas G. Donlan, who writes editorials in Barron's, about how rotten politics is:
"I enjoyed your perspectives: the first which re-educated me a bit about the Constitution, and the second which to me suggests possibly a curse as I see the Interstate Hwy. System having become.
Reading Jefferson's words, "it is their Right, it is their Duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." suggested to me the tenor of your piece would be to throw out our elected officials and representatives. I was a bit disappointed that you did not offer constructive ideas on how to accomplish that, really more than a bit disappointed, quite disappointed is appropriate. Perhaps next week or week after you will choose this topic."
Mr. Donlan replied: "I have editorialized many times that citizens ought to seek the enactment of term limits, and that failing that they should always vote against incumbents. Beyond that, the right of revolution requires taking up arms, and since I do not think we have sunk so low, I forbear to mention it in print."
My deepest conviction at the moment is that nothing will change politics, as it is now, short of some sort of armed revolution--but hopefully I am too cynical. Mr. Donlan's suggestion always to vote against the incumbents, were it to happen, is only a short-term solution--lasting from the November elections until new representatives or senators are sworn in January. The moment those who are newly elected take their hands off a Bible they are transformed right back to where the previous elected official left off: interested in two just two things--primarily their own benefit and secondly getting re-elected in 2, 4 or 6 years.
The majority of the electorate, that might includes you, elects officials at all levels based on the candidates' promises to provide what the majority sees as best benefitting them--in effect saying "to hell with the minority." The problem with this is that this country is comprised of all the people who live here who I believe rightfully should benefit or suffer equally from government. Representatives and senators are not primarily interested in all the people of the nation, because they were not elected but by some small segment of the population. Their "duties" are to see to their own welfare, and get as much pork barrel for their section of the country as possible to aid re-election, and again I believe the representatives and senators have the tendancy to say "to hell with the rest of the country." Of course, there is a tradeoff because all sections have their senators and representatives working their own pork barrel deals ostensibly for their constituents, but primarily in hopes of getting re-elected.
Now if what we have presently in our "free democracy" is the best political system on the planet, how is it that we are further and further up the creek without any hopes of having a paddle? The "creek" is increasing debt at all levels of government, health care costs that have increased from 6% of GDP in 1965, to 16% in 2004 , and expected to be 19% by 2014 while those without health insurance have risen to 45-48 million people, higher educational costs that are skyrocketing, lower test scores in our public schools, unfunded private pension plans, Social Security and Medicare that I think are destined to fail for lack of funding--and I expect you can add some more.
Something in this system must change. If anyone sees this significantly differently, then start a thread and defend another position.
Short of armed revolution (and I think it may come to that), some way enough people need to complain that the first thing our elected officials need to do is bring their compensation packages--salaries, health insurance, disablity, pension benefits--into an alignment that equals the average compensation of all Americans. I do not know what the laws and rules are that the Congress has in place that applies only to those in Congress and not to the rest of the land, but there are such laws and they should be repealed. Doing this things would get all the citizens onto the same playing field, and in such case such words perhaps uttered by W. Clinton "I feel your pain." would just begin to have some realistic meaning.
Any arguments that making the circumstance of an elected official less rewarding financially would prevent the "brightest and best" from seeking political office is totally spurious when the reality is if what we have now is the result of the "brightest and best," then where is the upside to election of such "shining stars"?
Now how can public outcry bring about such changes? It won't, because it is the people we elect who make the laws, and even if they get elected only once, they will not pass laws that dim their moment in the sun of personal glory and financial reward. It ain't gonna happen.
Secondly if things are to change, then massive public outcry is going to have to evoke a change in the part the "free speech of money" plays in electing officials. Until that happens in this country, then the monied interests are going to prevail against the interests of all those who have less money--which is way and away the majority. To change the part the "free speech of money" plays in electing officials I believe would require a constitutional amendment instigated again by those now elected, and that ain't gonna happen.
Thirdly, if we are to continue to elect officials in a manner even vaguely similar to the present system, then all campaigns need to be publicly financed with equal amounts going to every qualified candidate. This must be done to eliminate the effect wealth plays in favoring one wealthy candidate being elected to positions intended to govern all the people.
Fourth, there needs to be 5 or 6 political parties, if the party system is to continue, it is clear to me that a two party system unjustly rewards the party in power and unduly punishes the party that isn't--with citizens who are attracted to neither party suffering all the time. This will not happen either because the two parties presently have too much power and will never relenquish it for the good of the country. From an old movie, I don't remember which, one politician said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts." There are few truer statements that characterize our political system.
Fifth, pork barrel politicial incentives need to be banished. I consider this is possible if a majority of the electorate--individuals like you and me--across the entire nation made it a mandate that for whoever is elected, that official would vote to end pork barrel politics. Now doing this would put the onus on the majority of regular citizens to see if they have the fortitude to promote a law that would end the possibility of their collectively benefittng from pork barrel rewards. If the regular citizen could not pull this off against their own potential benefits, then I'll gurantee you the elected officals will never do anything that would bring their present levels of pay, benefits and retirement plans into anything closely approaching that of the average citizen, that would lessen the effect money plays in presently electing officials, or change from the present two party system.
If any or all of these beginning, meager suggestions seem unrealistic, then weigh that against the currently reality in which we now exist.
When are the people most affected by the insanity of politics going to change how the system operates?
Who is John Galt?
Comment