What would you change about the U.S. government?

Post Reply New Topic

The word existed before he was there and so did the need for a change in how business was done. So, please, calm down.

I'm not arguing that he invented the word, I'm saying that you people, due to the "need for a change in how business was done" have made yourselves mindless zombies listening to anyone who promises whatever necessities you perceive. "Change!", yes there needs to be changes in this or that, but people who promise things in their marketing hardly ever deliver. "Progress!", towards what bloody goal?.

Well, I think it comes down to some fundamental choices about the kind of society that you want to live in.

I will leave aside the notion of disestablishment. There are things that government must do because there is no other means to do so. The shopping list could be very short (coinage and the courts), but I don't think that anyone can credibly assert that the United States would be better off with no government.

I will also skip over the theory of sovereignty. No one has suggested that sovereignty lies anywhere except with the citizenry. So the question is not where the power ultimately lies, but how that power is conferred and how that power is withdrawn.

The very small turnover in membership of both Houses of Congress is a significant problem--it places the legislative direction of the government in the hands of a very few voters in a very few districts (or states, in the case of the Senate).

I am more sanguine on the issue of campaign finance--to the degree that deep pockets can buy elections, deep pockets are likely to follow the larger interests of the market. However, there are circumstances in which those interests are at odds with the interests of the electorate and of the country in general. (I am thinking particularly of financial industry regulation, but there are other examples). Further, if the same private money interest has funded candidates in both parties, then what real alternative does the electorate have?

This is all the more problematic, because I am very suspicious of citizen initiatives and so-called "direct democracy." I am quite prepared to see the majority form a political consensus behind leadership. I am not prepared to see a majority impose its will on a minority (I am thinking in particular of Proposition 8 ).

Another significant area is the line between the development of public policy and its implementation. I think the United States (at the federal level) has a strong balance between public accountability and professional implementation of public policy. Politicians cannot be experts in all fields, whereas public servants cannot be expected to balance the interests of their own files with those from other departments and agencies. Where I think the US federal government structure has gone off the rails is the degree to which the legislative branch has the ability to micromanage the executive branch (the public service). The peculiarly American habit of legislative pork-barrelling is an odious bit of legitimated corruption.

Still, at the end of the day, the sky hasn't fallen. I see it as a very healthy sign that Americans have the time, the money and the inclination to talk about their government. People in other parts of the world have much more basic concerns to worry about.

Last edited by visagrunt on 17 Jun 2010, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry, but "you people" doesn't include me. Again, calm down.

"you people" rarely describes the people referred to as "you people."

Quite.

It doesn't have to refer to you specifically in order to be a proper rant.