Jump to content

The Moral Repugnance of Politics in America

Hornius Emeritus

By Hornius Emeritus
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12420

Posted
Posted

I happened to catch some actual live TV for the first time in a long time the other day and all it was filled with was political commercials. None of them talk about anything substantive. Nothing but attack attack attack. Rancor. Division.  I hold my nose, but the tears still form in my eyes. We have drifted so far from the Founding Fathers' vision. Our system is rotten because our representatives have been corrupted by money. To be a citizen and to be alive and aware is to be morally repelled. 

Before we do anything else ( in fact, before we CAN do anything else) we have to:

1) Publicly fund elections and set limits on how much each candidate can receive from the government.  Overturn Citizens United vs. the FEC.  No PAC donations. There must be a strict limit on individual contributions. Representatives ought not to be able to use their office to get rich.  No public good can come from such a system. Publicly flay any violators.  Flay, I say!   

2) Term limits. 8 years for Representatives, 12 years for Senators. There are enough really smart people in this country to fill an endless supply of good leaders/decision makers. 


That is all we need to do. Long term, visionary thinking would ensue. 


 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

It is going to take a Constitutional Amendment given the Roberts 5 will become the Roberts 6 with ACB on the Court. 

 

No, it'd just take packing the Court. Would that be hard? Sure, but it'd still be a hell of a lot easier than passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCHorn

LCHorn 2585

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I happened to catch some actual live TV for the first time in a long time the other day and all it was filled with was political commercials. None of them talk about anything substantive. Nothing but attack attack attack. Rancor. Division.  I hold my nose, but the tears still form in my eyes. We have drifted so far from the Founding Fathers' vision. Our system is rotten because our representatives have been corrupted by money. To be a citizen and to be alive and aware is to be morally repelled. 

Before we do anything else ( in fact, before we CAN do anything else) we have to:

1) Publicly fund elections and set limits on how much each candidate can receive from the government.  Overturn Citizens United vs. the FEC.  No PAC donations. There must be a strict limit on individual contributions. Representatives ought not to be able to use their office to get rich.  No public good can come from such a system. Publicly flay any violators.  Flay, I say!   

2) Term limits. 8 years for Representatives, 12 years for Senators. There are enough really smart people in this country to fill an endless supply of good leaders/decision makers. 


That is all we need to do. Long term, visionary thinking would ensue. 


 

 

 

 

 

Periodically someone will echo your sentiments (or start a new thread) on this board and it's predecessors and and it's author needs to be reminded of the consequences:

1.  Money is ALWAYS going to be in politics.  If public pressure worked to identify corruption previously that system has been totally broken as a result of social media and our failure to culturally adapt (we've essentially surrendered our judgement in an aggregate perspective to advertisers).

2.  Term limits are a great way to make legislators unaccountable and inexperienced. 

There are lots of solutions that might achieve some of what your grand goals are (make government work) but your two simply don't get us there. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13094

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree on the endless and tiresome scandal mongering.

They have cried wolf too many times. I just ignore all the "scandals" now. Wake me when you convict somebody of something.

I liked Andrew Yang's Democracy Dollars solution to the money in politics issue. We will see if much else can be done.

I have been in favor of term limits of 12 years for Congress (both Senate and the House) but I don't know if that has a practical chance of ever happening or even if it will actually help the problem if it does. But man it bugs me my party is currently being led by an 80 year old and an 81 year old in the House.

Edited by Valmy77
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42519

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Periodically someone will echo your sentiments (or start a new thread) on this board and it's predecessors and and it's author needs to be reminded of the consequences:

1.  Money is ALWAYS going to be in politics.  If public pressure worked to identify corruption previously that system has been totally broken as a result of social media and our failure to culturally adapt (we've essentially surrendered our judgement in an aggregate perspective to advertisers).

2.  Term limits are a great way to make legislators unaccountable and inexperienced. 

There are lots of solutions that might achieve some of what your grand goals are (make government work) but your two simply don't get us there. 

This is just a pretty bad take all around. One of the reasons that our political system is fundamentally broken is the brazen grift that is happening for stuff that has nothing to do with anything other than winning office. Imagine if the donations that went into political campaigns and PAC's went into actual causes that they are pushing for instead of a bunch of bullshit career politicians? There isn't a need to run political ads like crazy and have all kinds of shit just be blasted at us from every direction. We hear enough about it without any paid advertisements. Wanna doomscroll twitter? No one paying anyone here to fucking push any ideas about Trump or Biden. Funny how that works without any cash changing hands? Money is always going to be in Politics as long as we make Politics about Money instead of governing. 

Politics is about the interaction between a government and it's people that it governs. It's turned into a game where people are voting for their financial interests instead of their interests as a whole. If Money is the only thing that matters we are doing a pretty fucking horrible job at making sure everyone has a bunch of it, and that's because the "ruling class" is leveraging the money they already have to snowball into more money, which they extract from the masses who are creating productivity of the likes the world has never seen.

Name me a legislator who is held accountable and is experienced? I'll let you name me 1 that got things done simply because they were "more experienced" at being a legislator. 

Good policy isn't written by the legislator, it's written by their staff and by having  groups get together that know what the law is, and how the law needs to change so that it can be conducive to an outcome. That doesn't require any "legislative" experience. The fucking rules for making new legislation are so well known they are damned near carved into stone tablets. Matt Fucking Gaetz is a legislator. To tell me that you need "experience" to help govern the people of this country just shows how disconnected you are. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18981

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I really wish we could stop mythologizing the founders.  This campaign doesn't remotely compete with 1800 in terms of how vile the attacks were.

Next time someone in the Senate beats another senator half to death with their walking stick won’t be the first time that happened in America...

Edited by Wulaw Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 47884

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

I still haven't heard a good argument about how term limits will reduce the amount of corruption or the influence of special interests.

Mandatory retirement ages would be a country mile better than term limits.

I've seen compelling discussion on both views of this debate. In particular the suggestion that term limits just means that the congressmen would accelerate their theft and in larger quantities over a shorter window of time. But personally, I think that would make the bribery more complicated and more at risk of being caught. And scarier for folks to try. 

I realize the old adage of the original statesmen of the United States had other careers, were doctors and lawyers and ran businesses is a tough concept to replicate today, I don't see an orthodontist seeing a full patient load and being a full time congress-person. That being said, that's where this idea stems from, IMO: No more career politicians, people who simply want to do public service because they believe in it, not to make it a career. I believe that's the idea. You're looking for a way to deter the idea of a career politician because if it's a main livelihood, then it is impossible to separate self interest from the position, and you want the primary concern to be your constituents. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45495

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, texastough said:

Can we figure out how to cancel Fox News too?

There's an interesting correlation (not necessarily causation, but come on) when you look at the Five Eyes (?) of USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ.  The three that have Rupert Murdoch influence (USA, UK, and Australia) are currently being inundated with far right authoritarian ideals.  Canada and NZ?  Just hanging out, being groovy, and not being insane.  Just sayin.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104624

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, UpperWestside said:

They were not very good human beings, morally or otherwise. 

Yep.  The problem is us.  A large percentage of "we the people" are really shitty, really stupid, or often, BOTH.  The ship of state is never going to sail well with that giant-ass anchor dragging the bottom.  We can't fix shit because enough of us don't want to fix shit, or are so easily distracted from anything practical, that it will never get fixed.

Thus, no real reason for long-term optimism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12420

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I really wish we could stop mythologizing the founders.  This campaign doesn't remotely compete with 1800 in terms of how vile the attacks were.

 

Nobody mythologized the founders.  Rather, I made the true assertion that we have drifted far from their vision for our country.  

Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you to decide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13094

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Nobody mythologized the founders.  Rather, I made the true assertion that we have drifted far from their vision for our country.  

Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you to decide. 

Their vision? Yes.

But the political system they actually created and participated in? Eh....that's more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

No, it'd just take packing the Court. Would that be hard? Sure, but it'd still be a hell of a lot easier than passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment.

I think the word you intended to use is expanding, not packing. Packing the court is what Republicans have done for the last four years. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, whatever. I don’t really care about the semantics here. 

That's cool I'm just of the opinion that we all should care a little about it because when we use that term, it implies an inherent unfairness and abuse of power. I don't think an expansion of the judiciary to reflect majority democratic rule and stem the crazy overreaching minoritarian rule under Moscow Mitch and the GOP would be an abuse of power. 

Edited by Gourmand
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89447

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

2.  Term limits are a great way to make legislators unaccountable and inexperienced. 

If you are a Senator who has been there for 12 years, either you will have accomplished what you set out to do, or you need to GTFO.

If you are a Rep, given that your term is 2 years, a massive chunk of your time will be working on your next re-election, whether that's schmoozing with donors and lobbyists , or hitting the trail and shaking hands.  Putting a definitive limit on your time there, will reduce the need to campaign.   Again, if you can't get your shit done in 8 years, GTFO.

When you see crypt keepers like Mitch there since the 80s, and Lindsey Graham there since the 90s, tooting the same fucking horn all these decades (well Graham has probably tooted a lot of different horns, but you know what I mean).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45495

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gourmand said:

That's cool I'm just of the opinion that we all should care a little about it because when we use that term, it implies an inherent unfairness and abuse of power. I don't think an expansion of the judiciary to reflect majority democratic rule and stem the crazy overreaching minoritarian rule under Moscow Mitch and the GOP would be an abuse of power. 

Very much this.  Rs are going to run with "packing" instead of expanding and it's another disingenuous bullshit spin on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89447

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I think the word you intended to use is expanding, not packing. Packing the court is what Republicans have done for the last four years. 

We should expand the House.  Senators represent the whole state, or at least those members of the same party in said state, but Reps are supposed to be working at a much smaller level, and it's fucking ridiculous how populous the districts are these days, compared to when we locked in our current number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm sick and fucking tired of Republicans

I just wanted to get that off my chest.

Fixed it for me.

If I could, I would like for the rule of law to apply to those who have ignored subpoenas and committed crimes while in office and/or assisting officials. If regular citizens are bound by this and go to jail, then so should those who are entrusted with the greatest honor of serving the electorate and the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted

There's actually a shitload of real political science on this that proves term limits don't do what their proponents think they do. If you want to decrease congressional expertise and capacity, increase political polarization, make lobbyist and corporate influence even worse, and make the executive and judicial branches even more powerful, then you should support term limits. If you don't want those things, you should oppose term limits.

The idea that policymaking shouldn't be a career in 2020 is ridiculous. It's not 1789 and we're not an agrarian society with no nationwide concerns beyond the potential for a British invasion. Good policymaking is hard work and requires experience and subject matter expertise. That's not to say sometimes you don't get lucky and hit on a Katie Porter, but the odds are against it. Good reps and senators who actually serve their constituents well are rare enough as it is. They shouldn't be term limited out of office and replaced with some replacement level ALEC hack.

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21063

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

There's actually a shitload of real political science on this that proves term limits don't do what their proponents think they do. If you want to decrease congressional expertise and capacity, increase political polarization, make lobbyist and corporate influence even worse, and make the executive and judicial branches even more powerful, then you should support term limits. If you don't want those things, you should oppose term limits.

The idea that policymaking shouldn't be a career in 2020 is ridiculous. It's not 1789 and we're not an agrarian society with no nationwide concerns beyond the potential for a British invasion. Good policymaking is hard work and requires experience and subject matter expertise. That's not to say sometimes you don't get lucky and hit on a Katie Porter, but the odds are against it. Good reps and senators who actually serve their constituents well are rare enough as it is. They shouldn't be term limited out of office and replaced with some replacement level ALEC hack.

 

So what's your answer for the McConnells of the senate.  You know, the ones who've barely ever held a real job, spend decades there and become multi-millionaires.  Just, oh well, nevertheless? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29256

Posted
Posted
Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

So what's your answer for the McConnells of the senate.  You know, the ones who've barely ever held a real job, spend decades there and become multi-millionaires.  Just, oh well, nevertheless? 

Vote em out. Organize better and run better candidates against them. Hell, it shouldn't even be that hard in Kentucky. It's absolutely absurd that the Democratic party has collapsed so badly in coal country.

I wouldn't be opposed to a mandatory retirement age either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21063

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

Vote em out. Organize better and run better candidates against them. Hell, it shouldn't even be that hard in Kentucky. It's absolutely absurd that the Democratic party has collapsed so badly in coal country.

I wouldn't be opposed to a mandatory retirement age either.

So, in reality, nothing.  Not being snarky, just, what it is.  Once someone is there for more than two terms, it's almost impossible to unseat them w/out some outrageous scandal.  

Business as usual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So, in reality, nothing.  Not being snarky, just, what it is.  Once someone is there for more than two terms, it's almost impossible to unseat them w/out some outrageous scandal.  

Business as usual. 

There are some recent examples of career democrats in the house getting ousted in a primary without a major scandal.  AOC is one of them. It can be done.  Difficult but not impossible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12420

Posted
  • Author
Posted
28 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So, in reality, nothing.  Not being snarky, just, what it is.  Once someone is there for more than two terms, it's almost impossible to unseat them w/out some outrageous scandal.  

Business as usual. 


Yup.  And I think that business as usual is sclerotic for the body politic as a whole.  I value a well-functioning, representative government more than I value limitless "free speech"  for PACs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeeDubya

TeeDubya 3358

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, texastough said:

Can we figure out how to cancel Fox News too?

This. 
People sitting in their own "echo chambers" watching only "news" outlets affirming their idiotic opinions.
Facebook makes money by keeping people on it, so its algorithm just continues to spoon-feed people things that affirm their dumbass opinions, and they spend hours on FB, watching targeted ads and clicking "like" and replying, "He's the best president we've ever had."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC Fresh Breath

MC Fresh Breath 4074

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:



1) Publicly fund elections and set limits on how much each candidate can receive from the government. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I enjoyed your post.  On this point, how many parties would you allow to receive election funding?  Sincere question, not baiting.  I will admit I think we have a one party oligarchy paying lip service to various factions.

Speaking of founding Fathers:

Quote

George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/

While there are ruckus raisers, there aren't really viable third parties in play, imo.  The money behind the duoploy (and its influence in all aspects of media) is a big reason behind that.  I unfortunately think its fantasy that the money ever gets back out of the game.  I, like you, want it out of course.

While I'm doing the political fantasizing-->Lately I seem to entertain more and more the idea of no parties.  Non realistic, but  I think things should be like 'movements' and you get behind policies and vote for (or against)policies, not people.  We vote for or against bonds, for example.  And we don't have electoral colleges for those bonds.  The cult of personality will fail us every time as even the best of us are fallible.  But take all those "i side with" quizzes and tell me if you're being honest if you find a party or candidate that you side with 100%.     Then again, I guess there have been times where even without a 'party' bonds/proposals get co-opted by money (like say, light rail in Austin a couple of decades back) and it all goes to hell.   Oops.

 I still think maybe something like multiple causes, and you pick the ones you want to push, and somehow get the 'my team' thing.  It will never happen, but since we're dreaming....

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CooterBrown

CooterBrown 17911

Posted
Posted
Didn’t New Zealand ban Fox News or its equivalent? How did they do that?

Snopes says that’s false.

Can’t remember which country but there’s one that requires news channels to have less than 20% of their programming be opinion shows among other criteria. Fox doesn’t make the cut.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCHorn

LCHorn 2585

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There's actually a shitload of real political science on this that proves term limits don't do what their proponents think they do. If you want to decrease congressional expertise and capacity, increase political polarization, make lobbyist and corporate influence even worse, and make the executive and judicial branches even more powerful, then you should support term limits. If you don't want those things, you should oppose term limits.

The idea that policymaking shouldn't be a career in 2020 is ridiculous. It's not 1789 and we're not an agrarian society with no nationwide concerns beyond the potential for a British invasion. Good policymaking is hard work and requires experience and subject matter expertise. That's not to say sometimes you don't get lucky and hit on a Katie Porter, but the odds are against it. Good reps and senators who actually serve their constituents well are rare enough as it is. They shouldn't be term limited out of office and replaced with some replacement level ALEC hack.

 

Thank you, you elaborated to a level for which I didn't have time to write. 

I think some of you folks just need to realize that politics is inherently messy and disabuse yourself of this notion that citizen statesman are anything more than a fantasy (in most cases).  Moreover the skills that seem needed for the accumulation and use of power in our particular system of democracy aren't well developed in other industries. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15492

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I really wish we could stop mythologizing the founders.  This campaign doesn't remotely compete with 1800 in terms of how vile the attacks were.

Or even before.  Y'all need to read Chernow's book on Hamilton (or really any other decent history of that era).  Politics was every bit as nasty and superficial as it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

They were not very good human beings, morally or otherwise. 

yet they meted out the foundation of the greatest country in the history of the world.   LOLz

Very repugnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Of course it confuses you Dahobbs...LMAO

 

We suck.  we're the worst. Pile on that fucking guilt.   Wear it bitches.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Royalfan5

Royalfan5 2348

Posted
Posted

A lot of times the pining for amateur politicians strikes me as the same as the glorification of college athletics, and the old desire for militias instead of standing armies. Government is important but we often either try to staff it with hobbyists or become willing to tolerate useless non-entities to outright bad actors because we lie to ourselves about its value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...