What to do with ourselves now: A sardonic account

That's why I think we should have a system more like the Swiss: An elected council of alternating power, but the people also have an extremely direct input into the system by producing legislation and voting in direct elections.

A lot of the problems on the American political scene are coming from the polarization of the two main parties. It's been over sixty years since a new, significant party has emerged (even then, I'm alluding to the short-lived Dixiecrats). Rather than existing parties evaluating certain issues and other parties emerging from the gaps left therein, the parties have had upwards of a century to commit to particular issues and absorb stereotypes surrounding spectrum ideologies. You're conservative therefore you must be a Republican (and liberal, Democrat) has become the norm for individuals, politicians, and most importantly, campaign strategies. There's no middle ground for someone who supports issues a la carte, and if you think about it, most of us do just that.

I am conservative in some ways, and I have some liberal views. To me, it is pretty obvious that "Conservatives" these days - when they vote Republican -- want to go back to the "good old days" of Coolidge and Hoover, want to conserve the class arrangements of 1924; they are heart and soul for the 1 per cent, and do not care about the fate of the poorer 99 per cent. They are totally-devoted to the international corporations, and openly admit it. Without good government and well-enforced regulations that are fair to the 99-per-cent the strong take advantage of the weak (of the children, the seniors, the destitute, the vulnerable who may be thrown out of a good job because someone overseas will work for less wages and under poorer environmental and poorer safety conditions.) If you care about people, your best choice is to vote for the Democratic Party ...granted that the one-per-cent have bought and paid for the allegiance of many of the politicians (and/or their aides and staff) even of that party.

We need Ethics laws to be passed forbidding politicians from becoming lobbyists for five years after they leave Congress; we need Ethics laws that have the government fund "clean elections" such as they have on the state level in Maine. But first we need to have people know their Ethics: understand the benefits of living ethically

Tee everyone: ....LIVING ETHICALLY ...There's something in it for you. Once you appreciate this fact you will want it, and you will learn what it means, and what are the implications. You will want to be "a good person" who leads "a good life"; you will aspire to it. If you are an activist you will even demand it for the entire world. You will work and 'fight' for it.

This is true education. If one wants to maximize the value in his/her life, then one will strive for an ethical planet, beginning right close to home. Be fussy who you elect. Check them out thoroughly first. Do they (deeply) care about people, the common people? If so, they may qualify for office. Else, no. If you vote for a con-artist, a phony, a one-perpcenter who favors the billionaire class over the rest, or someone who is likely to be corrupt, you are voting against your best interests. Beware of those who speak of "free enterprise" or "the free market"; there is no "free market," since SO many businesses are subsidized in some way by the State, by the government. The libertarian arguments are a giant hoax.

That's why I think we should have a system more like the Swiss: An elected council of alternating power, but the people also have an extremely direct input into the system by producing legislation and voting in direct elections.

As long as you keep the total mass small, such things work well.

That's why I think we should have a system more like the Swiss: An elected council of alternating power, but the people also have an extremely direct input into the system by producing legislation and voting in direct elections.

As long as you keep the total mass small, such things work well.

Exactly, communism worked among many native American tribes, it's just that there are too many people today to "divide the wealth".

-- Updated 24 Mar 2012, 02:34 to add the following --

I am conservative in some ways, and I have some liberal views. To me, it is pretty obvious that "Conservatives" these days - when they vote Republican -- want to go back to the "good old days" of Coolidge and Hoover, want to conserve the class arrangements of 1924; they are heart and soul for the 1 per cent, and do not care about the fate of the poorer 99 per cent. They are totally-devoted to the international corporations, and openly admit it. Without good government and well-enforced regulations that are fair to the 99-per-cent the strong take advantage of the weak (of the children, the seniors, the destitute, the vulnerable who may be thrown out of a good job because someone overseas will work for less wages and under poorer environmental and poorer safety conditions.) If you care about people, your best choice is to vote for the Democratic Party ...granted that the one-per-cent have bought and paid for the allegiance of many of the politicians (and/or their aides and staff) even of that party.

I was raised to believe exactly this, but have recently questioned the ability of the Democratic Party to do what is best for the people. I believe that the party stands for the people in many ways, some more than the Republican Party, but that the representatives of both parties are equally flawed and they do not care about the people but themselves, and their own political success. I do not believe that either party is more to blame, but both equally.

Yes, maybe Plato's ship thing wasn't quite right there. But I think the problem with saying "we are in charge of choosing laws" is that "we" are millions of people all with different ideas about which laws to choose and, for the most part, very little knowledge of the issues involved and the full consequences of implementing any given piece of legislation...

People if given the responsibility would become interested. The primary reason people don't vote in USA is because they don't feel they can affect any change because our votes go through so much bureaucracy currently. How many voters there are is irrelevant, as is how many different opinions there are the law is either voted and passed or not voted for.

...Maybe the solution is for every voter to be educated to a standard where they have intimate knowledge of the legal system and all the issues. But I think that's just unrealistic. Inevitably, what you get is a small number of people who are interested enough to consider the issues and a vast majority who don't know or care. Pretty much like it is now!

Of course it is best to have an educated public regardless, for the people at least. It's not unrealistic, in Europe there are many interested participants in the democratic system, if it can be done in Europe it can be done in USA. As I said before if given the responsibility people will step forward because they have been empowered.

The objective of Social Ethics - according to the new paradigm for ethics that I offer - is to form a family of families, a Diversity within a Unity. Eventually nearly everyone on Earth may come to feel that they are a member of The Family of Mankind.

I believe the evidence shows that we are naturally altruistic and charitable. It is normal human nature; those that don't feel it have some sort of abnormality, they're handicapped. We must take into consideration what is known about 'mirror cells' in the brain: for example, if I witness that you are panicky because a spider is crawling up your arm, reflexively I wince. If - as another example - a baby hears others cry from hurt in the same room, the baby tends to cry also. Thus a certain amount of empathy is built into the normal human being. Our politics should reflect this: the political arrangements we construct should build on the empathy which is part of human nature.

A good working hypothesis is that it is more moral to help someone you know than to give to an anonymous charity that purportedly helps dozens (or more people.) Virtue Theory agrees when it holds that we have a greater responsibility to those with whom we have some personal tie.

You ask, What to do with ourselves now?

Well, (if you want to be ethical) help someone who is unemployed find a job - - -
feed someone who is homeless and hungry who you encounter in the street - - -
be helpful to your neighbors - - - - - -
set up block parties to which you contribute something; some entertainment; something for the buffet, etc.

And in our political discussions and activity, let's reinforce - and even enlarge - the area of common ground which we share. Let's find the common-ground on which we can agree, and then build on it. Eventually, the aim is a (nearly) world-wide consensus. This is an ideal to hold in our hearts.

If you have talent as a programmer, set up a site for voting on policies, and taking referendums, on the internet; and make the site as secure (at least) as PayPal, or any of the internet banks or brokers, when it comes to counting the votes and reporting the results. The more people vote - on a secure basis - on the internet, the better !!! {For details, see the book by Dr. William Kelleher, INTERNET VOTING NOW! HERE'S HOW.

I present here a quoted passage for your consideration from a deep thinker, a fellow named John. He offers some do-able reforms and constructive suggestions:

"Real social progress is achieved by making structural changes in a gradual manner, [taking] "three steps forward, two backwards" [as we make] efforts to improvement. Given the present circumstances, the changes required in many different areas are substantial and almost overwhelming because we have ignored too much for too long a time ("kicking the can"), and because they are significant in scope, we seem to fail to make even a small step in any area.

But we can begin. First, we should assure than no child (or family) goes hungry for a day at a time. Second, we can eliminate large political contributions by individuals, corporations, and PACs. Third, Congress can reform its own bylaws to prevent one or two people from blocking bills or nominations. Fourth, we can mandate in slow, incremental steps the amount of energy provided by renewable sources of power and improvements in the electrical grid (50 percent of the electricity generated is lost in transmission). Fifth, we can attempt to curb school violence and bullying. The list of small steps can, of course be extended to all sorts of areas; but the important thing is that these steps can be accomplished at many different levels by many different groups all working towards the same goals."

Prof:
I like what you have to say: to focus on ethical and possible goals small steps at a time. I think that action is most effectively and efficiently taken locally, based on actual community problems that the community can fix. The problem is, how do you get the people with power to share and help others, even in small communities, to do so?

To all and prof,

If you care about people, your best choice is to vote for the Democratic Party ...granted that the one-per-cent have bought and paid for the allegiance of many of the politicians (and/or their aides and staff) even of that party.

Your other comments are agreeable prof, however this is a poor suggestion by my account.

The democratic party does not care any more about the people than the republican party, yes they have social programs, but as you said they have been bought out. They look the other way as the tax system sucks dry the people those programs try to protect while they stuff their pockets and their bank accounts. The only appropriate vote is for a third part candidate. If we want change we can't just keep doing what we have been doing. Alternating between republicans and democrats has become completely ineffective voting. I would almost rather live in a country of raciest, homophobic, religious nut bag, cow-boy tea-partyers; so long as the freedom and well being of the citizens becomes a priority, than give another vote to the republorcats. As long as they actually do their job what their beliefs are doesn't matter so much. My point is that nothing is going to change if we keep voting republocrat.

A major problem is lobbyists in congress. I'm not wholly convinced of this idea my self but Perhaps we need to get rid of the house of representatives. Though this is dubious, the job that the people in house of representatives do, that the people of the senate do is redundant. If we look at the people there is no difference, just a redundant job. We can make laws now that bar lobbyists from ever getting into the senate. Then we eliminate the house of representatives. Not only does this greatly reduce corporate influence in government, it also greatly reduces the size of the government, which cuts costs. The house of representatives origins come from a time where there was great population disparity in some states, that is far from being a problem in these times. Our government should reflect this change.

It is imperative for this country not only to have separation of church and state but separation of corporation and state.

To all and prof,

If you care about people, your best choice is to vote for the Democratic Party ...granted that the one-per-cent have bought and paid for the allegiance of many of the politicians (and/or their aides and staff) even of that party.

Your other comments are agreeable prof, however this is a poor suggestion by my account. The democratic party does not care any more about the people than the republican party, yes they have social programs....

So far in the history of the USA, especially recently, third parties don't stand a chance. The media doesn't cover them: how many Americans can tell you of the platform of, or policies proposed by, The Green Party? ...Virtually no-one - relative to the size of the population.

If we elect a majority of progressive-minded Democrats to the U.S. Congress, to both the House and Senate, along with Barack Obama as President, since he used to be a community organizer, since he knows the Constitution (having taught it in law school), since he has a long list of positive accomplishments {see The Washington Monthly's article: "Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments" - washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_ap ... php?page=3 ], I believe, with a high degree of confidence, that you will see some major reforms and some vital changes for the better take place in his second term. What is holding things back now is that the Republicons are obstructing every effort to solve problems and make life a little better. It is a fact that they are abusing the filllibuster rule, and using it as a weapon to block legislation. The progressive members of congress tell me that "the Senate is the place which we send good legislation to die." They refer there to the way the con artists in the Senate just say: "I object to this (proposed) law" and that kills it. It is mainly the Republicons who do that, as the evidence shows.

Comments welcome.

Prof,

Third parties have more of a chance now then thy have ever had. With the advent of the internet and the government stand still on the issues of our time, opportunity is knocking. The attitude of third parties not having a chance is completely contingent on votes, if the people vote for them they have just as good a chance as the republocrats. Your suggestion to continue with the voting mechanism that brought us this mess is foolish.

The great thing about 3rd party's is that they are too idealistic to be easily bought, and they actually want the kind of change that doesn't go just in their pockets.

obama hasn't gotten us out of our wars, he hasn't gotten us universal health care(insurance is not healthcare), nor immigration reform, he practically bought a nobel prize. obamma bailed out corporations that bought out congress in the first place. Now they are free to continue fighting for the very problems he says he is trying to put to rest. If congress is bought up any way it just means that the policy put forward will be the ones recommended by their corporate buyers.

Another democratic candidate would be better to promote change, not because they are better equipped, but because the people are not so polarized about them. If the congress is over run with naysayers another year of Obama is only going to do but more of the same. What Obamma is best at is raising money from fools who think they have no option but him and some bigot republican, he is excellent at presenting a false dilemma fallacy convincingly. Both sides propagate the false dilemma of american government. Obviously we need a new member to break the cycle.

We need to boot out the people who have shown they are unwilling to compromise, and the ones hanging on to the status quote that the general population knows needs to be changed.

I agree with you fully, wanabe, on the desirability of a Resource-Based Economy, and on Living life to the fullest. Also I agree on logical consistency, and doing no harm.

You seem not to understand that social change happens gradually, with "three steps forward and two steps backward." People get "future shock." It is hard for most to adapt to sudden change. The arguments you give now for a third party were given by Ralph Nader when he ran against Al Gore. As a result of his taking votes away, we got George W. Bush -- for 8 years !! In 2012, if only two parties are on the ballot, the vote will be very close because of the current consciousness (or lack of it) on the part of the American public. The so-called Conservatives have done a very good job of brainwashing the mass of people. Of course it helped that they own virtually all the mass-media. Of all the thousands of radio broadcasting stations in the USA only three or four are progressive radio stations. For most major cities, only one station exists ...if that many.

After considering seriously everything you said in your recent post, I still hold that it is in everyone's best interest to vote for Democratic populists or progressives, or to run themselves as one, if eligible by age, residence, understanding of policy, and commitment to carry out ethical legislation. The wisest approach is to vote for Democrats and give Obama a chance to show what he can do. You will be pleasantly surprised in his second, and final, his legacy term. Did you read the 40 or 50 great accomplishments so far ..such as ending the combat in Iraq.

We can not afford for positive social change to happen gradually anymore(negative social change happens very fast, ie the call to war, profits before people). The environment in every sense of the word can not withstand the damages we are doing. It's not that people can't quickly change, we can change quickly, people are being paid for things do not change. We have been waiting patiently since the 1960's for social change, attempting to work with the system to affect positive change. We received in return good humanitarian causes being put down for the sake of profit and maintaining a strangle hold on world. The reason we have this problem is because people have been voting republocrat since the conception of USA. These methods helped us to build an empire, but now(has been for a while) the empire is too large to sustain so we are going to great lengths to maintain our current standard of living.

We have laws against corporate monopoly but most people don't seem to understand that having a biopoly of goverment presents the same problems as soon as the two sides have agreed to the same overall desired ends: forsake human wellbeing for personal gain.

Voting democrat or republican party will only help to yield more of the unsustainable practices that brought us every major socio-political/economic issue USA has. Obama will be voted in, because the majority of people still refuse to make the most necessary fundamental change to USA politics: adding at the least a third party, via their votes.

Wanabe: "A major problem is lobbyists in congress. I'm not wholly convinced of this idea my self but Perhaps we need to get rid of the house of representatives. Though this is dubious, the job that the people in house of representatives do, that the people of the senate do is redundant" I agree to a certain extent, but it seems as though the senate and the house are equally affected, not just by lobbyists, but infiltrated by senators (both parties) and representatives that are in political positions simply for their own purposes. They only satisfy those who will keep them in successful positions.

Indeed. The problem would be easier to manage with fewer people would it not?

Indeed, and enough resources to go around. With resources aside however: Specify populations- localize- divide- focus. Communities know what they want, not senators. Keep some general laws about human rights and equality, but allow people to decide what to do on a smaller scale. The more complicated things tend to be harder to fix- A computer, or a shovel.

But can a shovel do what a computer can? No. But is there any real need for the computer? What our massive, complicated system has to offer to the world just complicates things. Isolate, and focus- return to equilibrium: a doctor has more of a chance of getting sick when he lingers around all of his patients.