Daily GUIDE-ance:

Friday, June 13, 2008

Moron Politics

The major problem- one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

-The Guide


************************

"...Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"

-The King from Huckleberry Finn

Well... All that was going to be the lead in to an ingenious analysis of the current political world, but I find that I just actually don't care enough to write all my brilliant thinking down. I get bored just thinking about it. A quick summary: I think maybe a 6 party system would work, but I dont think a three party system would ever work. Also- I am ready for the revolution anytime. I hate both guys running for President. Morons!

25 comments:

Brad Carter said...

Did you type that from memory?

Anonymous said...

No, but I could have.

Anonymous said...

No, but I could have.

timpani76 said...

Ok, you can't just say "I think a 6 party system would work, while a 3 party system would not" without explaining it!

A 3 party system did work in America for over a century. 3 party systems ARE working in other countries. Why can't it work here?

Eyepoke said...

3 party system has the problem that parties A and B can always beat C if they team up.- and then you are back to essentially 2 parties again. Three parties means the majority typically loses- see Ralph Nader handing the 2000 election to GW Bush, and Ross Perot handing Clinton the 1992 election.

Dana Cheryl said...

If I think about and I try very hard not to I get panicky about the state of the world. I'm not the "freak out" and hole up in a missle silo in Wyoming kinda gal but maybe they're on to something. LOL!

Seriously though... Do ya'll think we can pull this country out of this tain spin? If so, how do we do it? I'm not afraid to "get in there" and help but I don't know where to start.

Anonymous said...

Timpani - what century are you talking about and what three parties, and what countries?

I don't really think we are living through any really crazy "End Times" stuff, Dana. If I'd lived during the Civil war or WW2, I'd probably have thought (like so many did) that this was the provebial IT- but it wasn't. I think USA has a few more tricks for history up her sleeves. I just wish everyone else was smart like me. Life would be easier then.

I do think that USA is working through an interesting phase of the great American experiment of: "Can a large scale repulic work?" Its never been done this long before, and not on such a big scale. (ok now some of my thinkings are coming out, despite my apathy)

I think we are learning what some of the characteristic challenges that a large republic must face are:

Specifcally:

1)the old saying that "crap rolls down hill" has a logical corrrallarryy (sp)-(As elucidated by DNA in The Guide quote above)- that is- "power tends to accumulate at the top." Which, irritaingly, is what we were trying to avoid in the first place with the whole Revolutionary war thing. Neither politcal party represents me or anybody I know very well right now- both seem to be more about perperuating thier own power rather than making intellegent policy. It feels like we are at a low ebb of the "government by the people for the people" ideal.

2)Well, maybe I move on to number 2 later. The mood has left me again. lol

J

timpani76 said...

Ok, the main "other" party in America that I was talking about was the Whig Party (that eventually got swallowed up by the Republican Party sometime before the Civil War, and thus the two party system became locked into place). We also had four parties for awhile, but the Torie party got knocked out pretty early on (before 1800).

Elise was saying in her political science class that she had to take that America is STRANGE among other countries because it only has two parties.

England--Has three major parties Labour Party, Conservative Party(also called tories), Liberal Democrats

France--multi-party system so no one party ever has too much power, they all have to work together (in theory)

Canada--multi-party system (same theory)

Germany--multi-party system with five major parties

Russia-Multi party system with four major parties

Mexico--Three major parties (with smaller parties working with the bog 3)

I could go on and on!

And saying that Ross Perot lost the election for Bush #1 and Ralph Nader lost the election for Gore is just the kind of crap that makes people put their tales between their legs and vote for the same jerks they always vote for because they are too afraid too even TRY and get someone with a brain or some morals into office.

People voted for Perot because they wanted to see some REAL change, and they voted for Nader because he has been fighting the bad guys since before either you or I was born. The man had not only brains but integrity. Too bad he was kind of a liberal schizo on some things.

lizS said...

i think timpani, and john correct me if i'm wrong, but he's not talking about democrats or republicans here but maybe the house, the senate and the president? the division of power are the three parties he's refurring to. but i might be wrong. cheers.

Dana Cheryl said...

Do you really think the problem is apathy? We're so comfortable in middle class America. We don't struggle compared to second world and third world nations so in essence the motivation to effect change has left us.

What would be so important to us that we would overthrow our government? That's what our Founding Fathers & Mothers did. They revolted against their country, their king, the only exsistence that they had known...

All we need to do is care enough to get involved. How many of us attend city council meetings? Yet that was the idea from the beginning... Government for the people & by the people on every level. If every able-bodies American were involved in the little things they'd care much more about the big things. We were all meant to take our turn. Congressmen were supposed to eventually go back home & resume their jobs. It didn't happen that way though. So in some respects our Democractic Republic has failed...

OK I'll hush up now and go watch tv or something. ;)

lizS said...

definitly this country wasn't based on the idea of career politicians. these people lose complete touch with reality, and focus only on the supposed "power" of being as high up the political ladder as possible. it's gotten so expensive to run for any office, that you practically have to make it your career, which is ridiculous.

Eyepoke said...

According to Wiki The Republican party was established in 1854. The Whigs ceased to be active just a few years after that. The Torries were a party in England, but in America it was just a term to refer to people still loyal to the Crown after/during the revolution. There was the Federalist party but they dissolved before the whigs came in to being.

I don't see any significant overlap of 3 parties in USA.

England has three parties now, but, correct me if I am wrong, this is a pretty new development, from when Tony Blair broke from his party and started his own. I doubt it will last very long. As for the other countries Timpani cited, you could claim USA is a four or five party system if you start counting the minor parties, but why?

Eyepoke said...

Timpani wrote:

And saying that Ross Perot lost the election for Bush #1 and Ralph Nader lost the election for Gore is just the kind of crap that makes people put their tales between their legs and vote for the same jerks they always vote for because they are too afraid too even TRY and get someone with a brain or some morals into office.


Like it or not, it is still true there would have been no Clinton presidency without Ross Perot. Life in a large republic means compromise.

timpani76 said...

No, Liz, pretty sure John's talking about the dems and pubs.

I think the founding fathers had some sort of career politicians in mind, they just did not realize to what level the corruption would take. They also had in mind ways to make it easier to get people out of office. Benjamin Franklin was a "career politician" for instance.

Clinton would have been out just for marital impropriety. That's considered a "high crime" in the sense that it has to do with a higher level of moral values that are to be expected from elected officials.

I think that the corruption of our society in general has caused our elected officials to be held to a lower and lower standard and the two party system is just keeping the scum in higher places. They pat each other on the back and cover each others mistakes (think Ted Kennedy) until no one person can break through and kill off the leeches.

We need a third party with some power to shake things up and scour off the barnacles that are sticking to the political ship.

Eyepoke said...

Liz wrote:

i think timpani, and john correct me if i'm wrong, but he's not talking about democrats or republicans here but maybe the house, the senate and the president? the division of power are the three parties he's refurring to. but i might be wrong. cheers.


No that's not what I meant at all babe sorry.

I meant a genuine 6 party set up could be interesting, in a thoeretical, refer-smoking, dreamy sort of way.

timpani76 said...

John,

I think you are assuming all people who voted for Ross Perot would have voted for Bush Sr.

timpani76 said...

John,

The other parties I was claiming have at least 9% of the elected offices in those other countries. No independent party in the USA has anywhere near that!

Eyepoke said...

Dana: Founding Mothers? HA HA HA!

Everyone knows there were no women in early America!

Eyepoke said...

Timpani- Can you source your claims?

timpani76 said...

I could have sworn the Tories became the federalists, and the whigs and republicans were separate. I remember talking about the three party system in America in a history class, but I can't find any sources right now to back me up. I'll have to find one of my old books.

I don't think a two party system is working right now, and I still think we need to change it. Even if we never get an official third party, I still think Americans should vote for a non-party president once in awhile.

Several people have tried (and actually won several states and the electoral votes, unlike Ross Perot)
including Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 (running under the Bull Moose Part, which I thin is a hilarious name).

lizS said...

okay okay, i would like to explain myself so i don't look quite so foolish. i was confused because we were talking about "three parties" which we don't have in america, unless you count minority parties, which nobody ever does because they have no power. so i have been assuming during talks with john and this blog and suchlike that we were talking about how the political power is supposed to be split up in the is country, which isn't working so great right now since the dems have the majority in both Houses.

Dana Cheryl said...

Oh yeah I forgot... Spontaneous reproduction must have ended with the Whigs or perhaps the Tories! :)

Anonymous said...

Spontaneous Reproduction - lol!

There might have been some brief overlap where we technically had 3 parties at one time for a year or two, but definately not for "over a century".

3 partys doesn't work beacuse few issues have 3 view points with no room for a compromise between them. If you can convince your opponent's party to split into two (x-ing fingers it happens this time ie: Hilary and Obama camps), you can get them to defeat themselves (lessons learn from playing Magic).

What stances on what issues would a third party in America in our time take?

J

Bruce said...

sorry ive been busy for days but ill ring in now. your majic lesson is good john, because im shure you can remeber me trying to point out to people that that was what you where trying to do, they fight each other(or me) any way, and you(or todd,trent,wes,me) end up wining. i love the idea of a third party. but i need some evidance that they have a chance of winning other wise john is rite. what ever the 3rd guy is(lib or conserver) he takes votes from that side and "gives" the election to the people he claims to be most against. i dont like mccaine. i think he is far to lib. but i cannot stummach the idea of a obama presidency, so unless a viable 3rd comes allong i will be stuck voteing for the lesser of two evils. i would run for office, not because i want the job, but because i think i would be good at it and, would try to make a real, positive difference. the problem is that some one like me could never never never in todays political world have a chance. sence i am not one of the "elletes", and dont have $300,000,000 i could not even get a toe in the door. there are many out there who could do a much better job than the schmucks we have running the joint now, but are not part of the club so have no chance. the dems holding both the house and cen is not the major prob, they got there by being voted in. the prob is people who are afraid to stand up for what is rite. and the medea has been in a feer cycle for a long time. right now its the ecconomy and gas prices. global warming has lost some heat(he he he), two years ago it was bird flu. what needs to happen is that like daina said, we need to be part of the dicition process. call our reps and tell them what we want from them. they cannot rep me if they dont know what i beleave. and let them know, "do what is right or we will find some one else to do you job." ok, i think im wore out now. sorry for all the bad spelling.

Bruce said...

crap i said a lot.