Alright, so let’s just say these issues aren’t high on their mental priority lists. “Don’t give a damn” is an expression that leaves some gray I think about how much people care so there’s some clarification. But really, Iraq isn’t something that the majority of Americans lose sleep over. I don’t really see it as a privilege to have the time to go to CNN.com and click the link to international news or whatever. It takes really all of like 2 minutes to sit down and get away from front page news. And like I said, just Google anything you want to know about and you can get all sorts of opinions with all sorts of bias so you can get an idea for yourself. It really isn’t hard.

And just because you don’t trust your government doesn’t mean other don’t as well. They might believe the news. You can’t make statements about others opinions without some data to back it up.

“That’s completely undemocratic.”

You keep saying this about a lot of things, and I feel inclined to break out the old cliche “It’s not a democracy, it’s a republic.” Hell we don’t even elect the President officially, its the Electoral College. The whole system is archaic and full of weird rules and traditions. Just look at the primaries, look at super delegates and how the whole system can vary dramatically state to state. So yeah, I will agree with you to some extent that the government does not represent the people completely. That said, the people do have some influence on the government and if it doesn’t represent the people completely, it isn’t incredibly far off.

“It doesn’t have to be that way. That’s where we come in.”

I really like IBM’s latest ad campaign where they basically say “Stop talking about innovation, and start doing”. So what do you suggest be done? I think that without revolution, you aren’t going to see many drastic changes in this government. The bureaucracy has just become too large and unwieldy to be changed in any small time scale. The “system” you are going on about is pretty darn strong and has a lot of momentum. There are really only a couple ways to change the whole deal: Through votes, through lobbying, through revolution, and through becoming part of the system. Votes are probably the least effective way to bring about any sort of change, and I think that seems to be one of your main gripes. Lobbying is pretty effective, but it can cross into unethical when you are basically buying a candidate or just have a small group annoy the crap out of them until they do something that maybe the majority of their constituency doesn’t agree with. Plus, with lobbying it becomes difficult I think to lobby for something that isn’t a real specific cause. Revolution, well, that takes a ton of unrest and people coming together and it doesn’t always end up with a change for the better. So if you want to be ethical and you want to make a real change, all I can see that you can really do is run for office. That means that you have to work your way up in one of the two parties, and go through all the necessary crap that that entails, and start making changes to the way the system works. Either that or you get swallowed up and just become another cog in the machine. Run for office Bubba, I’d vote for you.

Haha, well I consider CNN and the BBC (to a lesser extent) to be precisely the problem with the news — same for the NY Times, Washington Post, Tribune, LA Times, ABC/Fox/NBC/NBC and right on down the corporate news line. Celebrity news is a distraction, but the real problem is with news organizations that pretend to be substantive and objective and, you know, not huge corporations trying to make profits by selling ads.

“But you ignore the fact that people just don’t give a damn.”

It’s more complicated than that. People are beaten down by their jobs where they work more and make less, and they’re exhausted by their busy schedules in general. Not everyone has the privilege to sit around and spend the necessary time to find out what’s being hidden from them. On top of that, they don’t believe the news, they find its coverage of serious issues too trivial (data for this is easily available) and they don’t have any trust in the political system — rightly so. So it’s not that people “don’t give a damn.”

“I don’t think I ever said anything about it being a truly democratic process.”

It’s not a democratic process in the slightest.

“People honestly care more about that trash than a real debate on healthcare. You know just as everyone else does that voter turnout is pathetic in this country.”

It is pathetic, but again I think that’s because people know voting between two pre-approved candidates is pretty insignificant. There’s an old saying, “If voting made any difference, they’d make it illegal.” While I don’t agree it makes no difference, that pretty much captures the essence of it.

“And I recall Iraq being a big deal in the last election too, but I don’t see any changes from that election really, and its not like the war was popular then.”

I don’t follow your point on this.

“You can’t realistically expect some average Joe to end up being the most powerful man/woman in the world. I don’t understand what you want. I’m not saying the rich should lead, but in the current system its just how its going to be. You can’t run a campaign without money and connections in this country. I don’t defend it, but thats just how the whole system has evolved to work.”

Obviously I don’t want illiterate Joe from the meat market running the country - but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to run. All I want is for there to be some semblance of equal access to the presidency. There are plenty of bright people out there who would make better representatives than any of these clowns in Washington right now but there are simply too many barriers: money, media, ballot access, party restrictions, electoral college, uncontested district lines and so on. That’s completely undemocratic.

“but in the current system its just how its going to be. You can’t run a campaign without money and connections in this country. I don’t defend it, but thats just how the whole system has evolved to work.”

It doesn’t have to be that way. That’s where we come in.

If by “a bit of work” you mean go to BBC.com, CNN.com, etc and just filter past the trivial celebrity news. Its not that hard to find real news away from television and if you honestly gave a damn putting in the effort to learn about candidates really isn’t that hard. Just type their name in Google and there ya go. But you ignore the fact that people just don’t give a damn.

“That’s ridiculous. Are you implying that it’s somehow democratic if I buy a Chevy and then Chevy gives money to John McCain’s campaign?”

I don’t think I ever said anything about it being a truly democratic process. But it is the responsibility of a consumer to understand that the money they give a company can be used for political purposes. If there is something in government you are particularly against, you should probably make sure you don’t indirectly support it by buying products from a company that does.

“I’m not sure what you’re reading. The polls right now suggest that the economy, Iraq, healthcare are the top voter concerns.”

Voter concerns are a very different thing than actual opinions and things that people genuinely give a shit about. Look at how much attention Britney Spears, Heath Ledger, Roger Clemens, etc etc are getting. Look at the Paris Hilton nonsense that was so big, and Anna Nicole Smith, Jon Benet, Natalee Holloway. I could keep going but you get my point. People honestly care more about that trash than a real debate on healthcare. You know just as everyone else does that voter turnout is pathetic in this country. People are generally apathetic and you only see the opinions of a highly opinionated group in the news (those who actually do vote). And I recall Iraq being a big deal in the last election too, but I don’t see any changes from that election really, and its not like the war was popular then.

“This system was created by rich white slave owners, and we’ve been working to make it more democratic ever since. The unfortunate reality is that the people do not run the country right now; it’s run by and for elites. This is not anything controversial; it’s taken for granted in political science that there are decision-makers with interests often distinct from the general population.”

I had a political conversation recently where someone made the statement, “I don’t want to be asked to make the decisions. I would rather leave the decision making to someone smarter.” You can say what you want about that statement, but I think the general idea is one that many share: Someone smart, someone successful should be our leader, not some dumb failure. You can’t realistically expect some average Joe to end up being the most powerful man/woman in the world. I don’t understand what you want. I’m not saying the rich should lead, but in the current system its just how its going to be. You can’t run a campaign without money and connections in this country. I don’t defend it, but thats just how the whole system has evolved to work.

Right. So do you feel the same way about Ticketmaster and ClearChannel? The media are becoming more and more consolidated with fewer restrictions on how they can monopolize the airwaves. Yes, people tune in, but again they only have certain mainstream choices, particularly on TV. People can search for alternative media and they do, but it requires a bit of work.

“If a giant corporation donates money to a campaign, the question then becomes where did said corporation get the money to donate? It all traces back to the people. Its a system that events of history and the American people have created. You act like there is someone pulling the strings behind the scences, and I don’t think the whole process is so nefarious.”

That’s ridiculous. Are you implying that it’s somehow democratic if I buy a Chevy and then Chevy gives money to John McCain’s campaign? Corporations are authoritarian structures which are often unresponsive to the people and to laws; they are NOT democratically run.

This system was created by rich white slave owners, and we’ve been working to make it more democratic ever since. The unfortunate reality is that the people do not run the country right now; it’s run by and for elites. This is not anything controversial; it’s taken for granted in political science that there are decision-makers with interests often distinct from the general population.

“We ourselves are petty and can’t see past divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage so we choose to debate them until we are blue in the face rather than actually make some sort of social progress.”

I’m not sure what you’re reading. The polls right now suggest that the economy, Iraq, healthcare are the top voter concerns.

“We are greedy. We are racist. You can keep going, but I feel that a lot of the ills in the government today are just manifestations of the ills in our society.”

Sure we are, and to some extent I agree. But I see a big difference between the governors and the governed, and I think it’s pretty well reinforced.

Take a more cynical way of looking at it. Our legislators love to debate stupid divisive issues and never actually make any real progress. Raising taxes and taking care of the poor are generally looked down upon. Our diverse nation is mostly represented by a bunch of old crusty white guys. So translate it back to the American people: We ourselves are petty and can’t see past divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage so we choose to debate them until we are blue in the face rather than actually make some sort of social progress. We are greedy. We are racist. You can keep going, but I feel that a lot of the ills in the government today are just manifestations of the ills in our society.

It’s kind of like when Colbert has guests on his show and he asks, with a straight face, “Iraq. Great war or greatest war?”

Yes, our dear leaders are chosen by us, but there are enormous obstacles to becoming a “viable” contender — such as the media, ballot access, financing, etc. They are very much pre-selected in this sense.

“While you may like to smoke up, the average American may not.”

It doesn’t have much significance to me personally. Rather, it’s a point about personal freedom. And it’s a symbol of how he represents the same-old thinking. In this case, politics trumps science with regard to legalization policies of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.

“Obama talks about change, and he makes great speeches, but like you say, he won’t bring that change because the current world doesn’t require it.”

I didn’t quite say that. He won’t bring significant change, but I believe the world desperately needs it.

“your problem is with the American public and not with the candidates themselves.”

It’s with the political system itself — and yes, on the people for not acting to change it. It’s also on Obama for posing as something he’s not. But I don’t think it’s a matter of stupidity. People are given pre-approved options and propagandized into playing a passive role in their democracy.

Cameron,

I wasn’t clear, sorry. When I said the military I more meant the defense industry, which is firmly in her camp.
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/

Chris,

“This doesn’t seem like a fair criticism. How is he supposed to generate enthusiasm by saying that he’s slightly better than Clinton? And the JFK comparison is not about his policies, but about his ability to inspire.”

Easy; he can generate enthusiasm by actually having an inspiring platform and not just spouting a lot of hot air.

“In a multimillion dollar campaign, it is going to be tough to avoid getting contributions from people with lots of money. That’s going to be true of any campaign that garners large support.”

I agree, and that’s my point. The system prevents change by, among other things, requiring the backing of the moneyed interests. Coming to the conclusion that Obama will not bring real change is primarily an exercise in deductive reasoning.

“I don’t think that drastic change is likely to come from outside the current system without some sort of revolution, and things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before we see one of those.”

A revolution is not required to change the system — change happens all the time simply through people taking an active role in their democracy. I have no gripes with voting for Obama over Clinton; my problem is with the passivity involved in accepting the choices we’ve been given and not making demands of the candidates so that they become more responsive to the people.

If he – and his supporters – would merely acknowledge that he is only slightly better than Clinton, there wouldn’t be any problem. Instead, we hear how he’s reminiscent of John F. Kennedy (an overrated, militaristic president from the 60s) and how he’s what we’ve all been waiting for.

This doesn’t seem like a fair criticism. How is he supposed to generate enthusiasm by saying that he’s slightly better than Clinton? And the JFK comparison is not about his policies, but about his ability to inspire.

He is heavily funded (read: controlled) by Wall Street. 90% of his funding comes from 10% of his supporters.

In a multimillion dollar campaign, it is going to be tough to avoid getting contributions from people with lots of money. That’s going to be true of any campaign that garners large support.

I do, however, think your second bulleted list is fair. It’d be nice to have at least some different opinions on those issues from the top candidates (aside from health care). But that’s a larger problem.

At least, in terms of foreign policy, his advisors were generally against the Iraq war, and Hillary’s were for it.

The sad reality is that the system filters out and marginalizes candidates who represent the interests of the American people. And, until that’s fixed, we’ll be voting for the least-worst and trying to delude ourselves into thinking that this time real change will come.

I don’t think that drastic change is likely to come from outside the current system without some sort of revolution, and things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before we see one of those. I do think it’s possible, at least, to bring the country back from the insanity that Bush & co. have plunged us into. It’s a real question who between Clinton and Obama is more likely to achieve that result. In my opinion, at least Obama talks the talk.