 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unless otherwise stated, all issues are related to politics to be found in the United States of America. |
Regardless, I do have some interesting ideas and notes of politics. You don't have to take my word for it, but on occasion I can peek the interest of Liberals and Conservatives alike. But if you think that this is mealy a privet soap box for me to promote my privet propaganda, you would be wrong. I am simply here to share my ideas and observations about what ever I have observed. However, your average conservative will probably not care for what I have to say, but if you truly do have an open mind, you will find many of my positions vary interesting. Actually, the real purpose of this page is to further my experience in #politics as a forum for debate. All the issues that I mention here are issues that I enjoy exploring and debating. Or just getting to know the takes of others regarding some of these issues. So if you do consider yourself a conservative, and take issue or find flaws with my rezoning, by all means, bring these thing to my attention the next time you catch me in #politics. For thing, if you can bring a credible challenge to an observation I have made, there is a flaw that I can address. But you had better come with your thinking caps on, because it's safe to say that I will bring mine. Above all else, please to remember that this page is only the opinion of just one man. And a humble man at that who struggles no less than the next person to find and command wisdom. All maters discussed here, are purely as I have observed them to be, no more, and no less. |
But to think that one needs a PHD to understand political science, so to miss understand that knowledge is not something that any institution can hold a monopoly on. And indeed, this is how it should be.
Political science is merle the exploration the collective psyche, and as it is with all scientific discipline, the laymen can always participate at a rudimentary level. To give you an example: I can merle tell you that the world is round, and state that as a fact, or I can tell you how to perform an experiment that would prove what I say. The round earth experiment is an experiment that any one with a car can do. The same can go for political science. I need not just tell you how it is, but give you the means to find out for yourself.
In other words, coming to your own conclusion with your own observations,
it is that position, of laymen political science, that I admire.
Its rewarding when I find that some one I have only just met has independently
come to a similar conclusion about an issue. But when I meet some
one who has a different opinion, the understanding of why can be an even
more interesting exploration. He might challenge my position. I might
challenge his. In any regards, we both must take into account the
ideas and observations of the other, and the debate to facilitate this,
is where the real fun of politics is at. It is for that reason alone
that I regular in #politics.
 |
My thoughts, interpretations, and opinions are my own. To place them on some one else's scale to "measure" there political correctness, is to ignore what I have said, if not dismiss it outright.
However, I encounter no shortage of persons who insist on holding me to such measures. If I must, then I have been described as every thing from a communist, radical liberal, fascist, raciest, dictator, conservative, radical conservative, tree hugger, techno-pobe, dreamer, idealist, and a moderate.
Not much of a help, is it. That is why I refuse to declare any one position on a "political ruler." The world is far to complex to try and compare it to right or left, as is the thinking of the human mind. Those who insist on these definitions, do so for only one reason, because they must. A narrow minded position demands a narrow world to live in.
There is a saying that I have crafted:
|
|
|
|
Exploratory debate is where the debaters explore an issue that doesn’t necessarily have any real answers figured out. If the public has yet to reach a conclusion on an issue on the street, it can be difficult for politicians to act on an issue. There are a number of issues that are currently resting in such gray areas. The role of our elders in our society is one. Even abortion can be said to be here to some extent. But there are a whole host of others. Especially the new problems that aren't even really issue yet.
The whole idea of exploratory debate is to seek out ideas to address a question. The answers my not be in themselves adequate, but combined with the mouthing debate, a consensus is bound to emerge.
But these types of debates are increasingly becoming rare, and that bodes extreme ill for American Democracy.
More and more, what I am observing, is what I have come to call capitulation debate. In other words, you debate, to force your opponent to capitulate to your view. One debater comes to the debate with a closed mind, with no real intention of taking into context any ideas they might encounter (unless it supports their position). From the get go, the debate is a forgone conclusion, weather the opponent is open or closed minded.
Gun Control is usually the first issue that comes to mind. But you will encounter this approach to just about any issue you can name. Evolution, abortion, campaign finance reform, welfare, drugs, religion, just to name a few.
Regardless of how well informed you are, debate is futile.
And there lies the pending disaster to American politics. Such political views are usually sold, like commodities. Take gun control for example. The NRA sells or "pushes" a particular view on fire arms to its members. The NRA clearly can bring vast recourses to bare on the issue, and have hundreds of think tanks and spin doctors to address any given issue. The results of this thinking are then published on nearly 50 magazines, every thing from NRA Monthly, to Fishing and Camping. Weather this is the actions of an activist organization with valid concerns, or a brain washing scheme depends on your view of fire arms (I will talk about gun control another day). But regardless of your opinion on the mater, the amount of influence the NRA wields is a fact that can ether be ignored or recognized.
It is this influence that some one with a differing position to the NRA, must fight.
The problem with this is if the debate is a forgone conclusion at a small level such as in #politics, than the national debate can fair no better. It becomes a test of pure political might, and as any one might tell you, might doses not make right. It is just as likely, if not more so, that a flawed agenda will find influence, as the wise agenda. And far more likely that emotions paranoia will overrule reason and careful deliberation.
Some times the resulting agenda completely ignores public consensus
on an issue, and this is where democracy begins to brake down, as the will
of the people is swept aside for a specific agenda. Some one else
concludes that they are better suited to making your decisions for you.
|
|
Certainly, there is more than enough politics for any particular political junkie, no matter what their political persuasion its, to get their daily fix. Politics and even been called the first American pastime. So I have been watching the inner workings of politics for some time. Not just the bills that are debate, but how they are debate.
Approximately seven years ago, I made an effort to the watch President Clinton's State of the Nation Address. It was then the observed a genuine epiphany on the inner workings of U.S. national congressional politics. One I saw, was a complete in total segregation of both the House & Senate, a segregation based on political affiliation. Usually one side or the other would applaud the presidents comments, but rarely both sides. Inland Democrats stood up, only half the room stood up. Alignment separated the Democrats in the Republicans could actually be seen on TV.
Then in 1994, the Republicans were swept into both the House and Senate. But has been called the Republican revolution to place a minded dizzying pace. As I followed the progress of these dramatic changes of the next few months, I began to really learn how things work in Congress.
When the Republicans thought both houses. The first thing that was done was a new congressional leadership had to be elected. The previous administration was entirely manned by Democrats all officers of both houses consisted of Democratic representatives. After the election, all these officials were removed, and new officers had to be elected and once. The most significant officer up for election is the speaker of the House or Senate. It is the speaker's job to schedule debate, assign bills that various committees, to assign various congressmen responsibilities that are required for the upkeep and general maintenance of the House. The speaker is also responsible for deciding who sit on which committee, and is also responsible for selecting a senior care for each committee.
As the Democrats had done before and dance tradition captain and, each and every one of these officers were to consist of Republicans also, as tradition had dictated, only Republicans were permitted to vote for the officer of speaker of the House or Senate. The Democrats were not allowed to participate in these elections for these particular officials. In the case of 94, all aspects of Congress, including both the House of Representatives and Senate, were dictated by the Republicans.
After these initial votes, the Republican Party enjoyed a brief honeymoon as they put toward the contact format. Virtually all the issues that was voted for on the contract was voted for strictly along party lines. These initiatives only became law because of the Republican majority. But this honeymoon lasted only a few short months.
It did not take very long for Congress to begin to fall apart into various forms of political maneuvering and partisan politics. The most notable of which was a constant attacks that the Republicans seem to endlessly visit upon President Clinton. There were a number of battles that were fought mainly between Republican congressman, and President Clinton. I'm not going to list, or specifics of these assaults against presidency, but these attacks reached a high point, with the impeachment of President Clinton.
Whether you approve of the impeachment process or not, this is hardly the point. What is the point, is the severity of deviation between the members of Congress. Namely in terms of Republican and Democratic representation in the congressional. The House leadership, then consisting of Newt Gingrich for the most part, was not able, or willing to maintain a cohesive organization within the main body. Hence the endless partisan politics at practically paralyzed both houses of Congress for virtually the entire Republican administration within Congress.
Of course the Republicans are hardly responsible for this position, since they were only following tradition, and indeed even the rules of Congress itself. They did nothing that the Democrats did not do before. In fact, it was probably this particular division between Republican and Democrats during the Democratic administration that prompted the American people to vote for change of administration in the first place.
This particular situation was not created by any particular party, or politics within any particular party. The situation we now today call partisan politics, is the product of a "winner takes all" strategy of government. The speaker the House was elected only by majority party, which in 1994 consisted of Republicans. The remaining political parties did not have any representation in the administrators of the House, and therefore their political needs were not represented in the body as a whole. The House speaker needed only to tend to the Republicans needs in interests, not the needs in interests of Congress has a whole. In fact, it is divisive House Speaker that is more likely to retain to those votes that they need to stay in office. Even if the House Speaker should completely and totaling disgruntle the other remaining parties, those parties are without any resources to address the situation, other than speaking out publicly. It is from the initial partisanship on the House leadership that leads to the complete partisan gridlock of the function of Congress
In other words, we are looking at situation with the system is literally broken. Since even the initiative of either the Republican or Democratic parties cannot lead to a suitable resolution to the divisive nature of congressional politics.
There are other consequences to this "winner takes all" strategy. This effect can be felt at the ballot box itself. If only the majority party has any right to hold any office of any significant, whether it be a chair of a particular committee, or speaker the House itself. Then the public has a clear interests in electing a member of the majority party. If they elected member of the minority party, then even if this representatives should acquire senior status, he or she will be prohibited from holding any significant office and wielding any significant influence within Congress, or at least until their particular party becomes a majority party. For the Democratic Party at least this is a theoretical possibility. But this condition is quite impossible for any party other than the Republicans or the Democrats. This is a significant this incentive to any third party candidate. This helps to keep the current majority party in power by creating a clear this incentive to electing any member other than the majority party.
This would mean that the speaker of the House or Senate would have to appease all members of Congress if they are to be elected to their posts. And they must continue to seek to the overall business of the whole body if they wish to remain at their posts. This would help to insure that the interests of Congress would be represented in much more even and fair manner. After all is the function of Congress to carefully deliberate over issues and matters, not play favorites to one particular party or not.
Is this doable? I believe so. In fact I believe the Constitution of United States of America specifically their ranks this particular form of internal congressional government. The last paragraph of section 2, article 1 specifically states "The House of Representatives shall chouse their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power at impeachment." Also section 3 of article 1, the third paragraph from last referring to the Senate states "The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States." Is what seemed indicate that the current system is not only not very functional, but unconstitutional. The more importantly, it would seem to be unlikely that any potential opposition to this idea would have an adequate defense against the idea of "one senator, one vote."
|
|
|
|
 |
