How much can the USA return from Democratic Oligarchy?

democrates

Few would argue with the view the the USA with it's two-party system has followed the "Iron Rule of Oligarchy" resulting in government of the people, by the elite, for the elite.

Some argue that it is becoming a police state as each week new measures make it fit that description more closely. That's worth a seperate thread on its own, but whether it turns out that way or not the question remains: how can it steer back towards a less corrupt, more representative society?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

more threads like this?

mike65

Thats a question that should be aimed at Ireland, except its worse here, being a one party state.

Mike.

eoin5

Its the one thousand billion dollar question!

An enlightened, tired of war public and another viable party with a charismatic leader could help change things.

maniac101

democrates wrote:

how can it steer back towards a less corrupt, more representative society?

Surely before it can begin to address your question, the USA must firstly recognise that it is a corrupt and unrepresentative society! Secondly, the American people must decide that they want to change it.

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

An enlightened, tired of war public and another viable party with a charismatic leader could help change things.

How aware is the US public that it's country is at war? There is no conscription, no rationing. No sense of a country at war very much other than those directly involved and their families. This applies to Britain too of course. All of the above is just the impression I get. Given that, how tired of war can the general public actually be?

Mick86

democrates wrote:

Few would argue with the view the the USA with it's two-party system has followed the "Iron Rule of Oligarchy" resulting in government of the people, by the elite, for the elite?

Do you know any place where the elect do not see themselves as above the common herd. One only has to look at a our own collection or arrogant gombeens who inherited Daddy's seat to see that.

democrates wrote:

how can it steer back towards a less corrupt, more representative society?

What right have we Irish to lecture the US on how to run their own
country. Lectures from the US to us on how to arrange our affairs set my teeth on edge so I wouldn't consider reciprocating.

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

How aware is the US public that it's country is at war? There is no conscription, no rationing. No sense of a country at war very much other than those directly involved and their families. This applies to Britain too of course. All of the above is just the impression I get. Given that, how tired of war can the general public actually be?

Theres a lot to be done to get the country into the situation I mentioned, but its heading there. At least going by the polls nearly all of them have an opinion on the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

Mick86

eoin5 wrote:

Theres a lot to be done to get the country into the situation I mentioned, but its heading there. At least going by the polls nearly all of them have an opinion on the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

The fall in support for the War could be attributed to the discovery that Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, the mounting death toll amongst Iraqi civilians, impatience that the quick-fix hasn't worked, the fall-out from Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay and so on. War weariness, as in the general population being widely affected by the war, doesn't come into it as far as I can see.

The US has a long way to go before this war really starts to bite. Comparatively speaking US fatalities are very low and volunteer soldiers are bearing the brunt of the fighting. This may have implications for the US military in the future, but at present it's business as usual for the general population.

eoin5

Mick86 wrote:

The fall in support for the War could be attributed to the discovery that Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, the mounting death toll amongst Iraqi civilians, impatience that the quick-fix hasn't worked, the fall-out from Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay and so on. War weariness, as in the general population being widely affected by the war, doesn't come into it as far as I can see.

The US has a long way to go before this war really starts to bite. Comparatively speaking US fatalities are very low and volunteer soldiers are bearing the brunt of the fighting. This may have implications for the US military in the future, but at present it's business as usual for the general population.

Ah sorry, what I meant by the US being tired of the war is that theyre tired of being lied to and tired of stuff being done in their name that they didnt want to happen since 2003 and its still dragging on. I didnt mean the toll of casulties and economic problems so much.

You Suck!

What right have we Irish to lecture the US on how to run their own
country. Lectures from the US to us on how to arrange our affairs set my teeth on edge so I wouldn't consider reciprocating.

Not so much a matter of preaching to the US, but it's a valid question for anyone to ask. The duopoly of the two partys in such a rich nation and society is something never seen, and one of the hardest lessons of democracy in the last two hundred years is that it's quite corruptable and that partys and individuals can become ingrained with in a system. Supposedly its for the people to change it, but it can actually take a lot to rally a rich nation.

It's a problem to the US, for the rest of us, its important learning. Especially as was already pointed out, we are having some problems scraping off the barnicles in Irish politics.

democrates

Mick86 wrote:

What right have we Irish to lecture the US on how to run their own
country. Lectures from the US to us on how to arrange our affairs set my teeth on edge so I wouldn't consider reciprocating.

For internal issues I'd agree, but the fact is the USA plays the biggest role of any nation or trading bloc in shaping the world order that affects all of our lives.

They have a sole veto in the IMF and World Bank both of which are based in Washington D.C., ensuring that nothing goes throught these bodies unless it complies with the "Washington Consensus" which under the current administration is narrowed down to the PNAC. Similarly deployed is their veto on the UN Security Council.

Only the WTO superceding the GATT has an element of democracy, the "green room" domination strategy of the past is currently being resisted by weaker nations but since the Doha round the answer to those seeking fair international trade rules is "no deal".

Furthermore the USA's foreign policy tactics affect various world markets, for example the correlation between their middle-east activities and the price of fuel at our local Irish pumps, or the risk to global liquidity of their twin deficits and rampant speculation.

There's little prospect of a better world order without the consent of the USA, and there's little prospect of that nations consent under the entrenched oligarchy. Hence ordinary decent Americans more than anyone else have the power to change the future. If we want to "save the world" in the coming decades Americans must first save the USA.

Ralph Nader is not enough. There is no liberal party to vote for, both the Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian as evidenced for example by the Democrat dominated congress passing Bush's latest wiretapping bill. Nancy Pelosi meanwhile point blank refuses to even talk about starting impeachment processes against Bush or Cheney, that's off the table despite it being on the face of it a slam dunk political win for the democrats.

But the democrats are guilty of the same sins. The same elite fund and benefit from each party, their policies are essentially the same, there's just "a difference in style and emphasis" to give the appearance of real choice.

As Pat Rabbitte noted in dismissing the prospect of Labour in a single party government, the history of the nation means the two encumbents include a large core of dyed in the wool supporters whose votes don't reflect a concern for the issues of the day.

In a way the question may be how big a kick in the backside do people need before they'll face the facts and determine to take the risk of giving an unproven alternative a chance. It took a depression for the New Dealers to get a shot at power, is history set to repeat itself.

Manic Moran

Short of a move to the single transferrable vote, which would allow people to vote Libertarian, Green, Constitution, or whatever without fear of 'wasting' their vote, I'm not sure how it can happen. There is much greater support for the minority parties than the election results show, but I'm fairly sure that a lot of people work on the same basis that I do: If it's a slam-dunk for the favourite (eg my senator is always going to be a Democrat barring act of God or serious scandal), I'll throw in my vote for a minority party, just to give them a little morale boost. If, however, it's an election which could go either way, like many people I vote in order to keep the person I really don't want out of office as a form of damage limitation.

Of course, the only way such a move to reduce the power of the two parties would be for members of those two parties to introduce/pass legislation enabling it. Which is never going to happen for obvious, self-interested reasons.

democrates

Seems to me like the two main parties are lost causes being overwhelmingly infested with the parasitic elite.

Though Bush/Cheney can get away with acting unilaterally, if a president were voted in who actually tried to bring about decent policies, would they get away with it? Anyone who didn't tow the line enough before has been impeached or assassinated, so I'm doubtful anything but a revolution from the grassroots up could return a government for the people and get to work on the dire mess.

In order for the people to change their minds, they have to know the truth. But the privately owned mass media present a framed version of reality.

Michael Moore has to be recognised for making some headway, and the measures he felt were necessary to ensure the film 'Sicko' got out are indicative of how similar to 1930's Germany the USA seems to have become. But indie documentaries don't stand for election.

The internet has played a bigger role in recent elections and is in full tilt at the moment with Ron Paul making great headway. He's being marginalised by the mainstream media though, in particular the rabid right who skip over the names of people they don't like.

So it could be a matter of time, if enough people go online and network and get better information it can do a lot to make more informed voters, and solve the funding issue making that particular corruption generator obsolete. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

spank_inferno

all political systems are corrupt to some extent.
America's system of checks and balances seems the least corruptable of all.
(but the sheer scale of america's democracy makes corruption inevitable)

The more parties in a democracy isnt an indication of its health.
Most western democracies consist of 2 large players anyway.

I dont want to think this thread is another swipe at george bush.
I agree with the OP though that politics in the US does seem the preserve of the blue-bloods and lobbyists. But changing that would be hard.

I think its down to scale.
Its hard for the little guy to feel involved in a presidential election with 100+ million votes. Considering the many tiers of politics in a federal system like america's the public can easliy feel detatched from those at top.

Compare that to ireland's PR parlimentary system
Here one only needs to beat a quota of 6-8000 to potentialy be taoiseach!

Mick86

democrates wrote:

For internal issues I'd agree, but the fact is the USA plays the biggest role of any nation or trading bloc in shaping the world order that affects all of our lives...

In short there's only one Superpower in the world and he is throwing his weight around.

It follows then that it is in the world's interest to have a democratic counterbalance to the US. That vacuum must be filled by the EU, given the undemocratic nature of the other contenders, Russia and China.

Dave!

GWB just called for Congress to outlaw flag burning (speech on sky news now)!!!

Taking the p*ss surely.............

Manic Moran

That's actually been quite a long-running and controversial argument.

On the one hand, there are those that say it's an expression of free speech. On the other, there are those that say that as the symbol of the nation, the flag should be above speech as the Constitution the flag represents is the thing which permits free speech in the first place. It's been as far as the US Supreme Court, which has ruled in favour of the flag-burners under the current legislation. A Constitutional Ammendment to ban flag-burning was passed by the House in 2005, but failed the Senate.

For example, April, 1976. Note the booing from the audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfOSe22WIo

NTM

Tzetze

DaveMcG wrote:

GWB just called for Congress to outlaw flag burning (speech on sky news now)!!!

Taking the p*ss surely.............

This would be the same GWB who maintained that the constitution is "just a goddam piece of paper!"

eoin5

At the end of the day burning a flag is symbolic and if anyone takes it as an act of intimidation or aggression then the flag burners have gotten the reaction they were batting for. Its a form of expression, nothing else. Think of the effigies of the pope that were burned because of a misunderstanding.

Spyral

well they only have as much power as we give them. If we just ignore them and refuse to sell them everything (by we I mean the rest of the world) then they will shrivel up a little)