The Conservative Shift
Pages
| Author | Topic: The Conservative Shift |
|---|---|
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, February 26 2006 20:44
Profile
Homepage
I think the complexities of the modern political system make that difficult. There's a reason people usually work themselves up from minor offices to major ones, and it's not just making a name. Experience is a requirement of politics. —Alorael, who can really only see utopia coming from a benevolent dictatorship of entirely impartial intelligence. That either means AI or aliens, take your pick and ignore the science fiction implications. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 02:02
Profile
Homepage
Banning lobbying is not really a very good idea - lobbyists do a lot of good for Congress as well. Every interest, every opinion has a lobbying side, and it helps Congressmen get a full picture on every issue and helps them formulate an opinion on issues they would otherwise ignore. And banning pork, while it would be worthwhile, is hard to do explicitly. What classifies as pork? Getting the federal government to pay for road improvements? Getting more Homeland Security $$$ for your state? It's hard to draw a line in legislation, or actually impossible. It's more of a pornography "you know it when you see it," and the responsibility to stop it should be on Congressmen as a whole, led by senior leadership, to stop pork. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 02:40
Profile
Homepage
(Drakey) quote:Agreed. However, the problem with the "indecent material" definition was that it had to be applied to questions of censorship, so there was the argument that ideally nothing should be censored, and also people who wouldn't be happy with less than total censorship of stuff they found indecent. In this case, there is nobody arguing that ideally the government shouldn't ever fund any projects, and it's a given that the budget gets split up among many different needs. The problem here is that practically no one in congress has shown any interest, let alone taken any action, to stop pork. Maybe they should be the ones to stop it, but they aren't stopping it. Under the current system, there is no way they will be the ones to stop it. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 03:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, there are extreme libertarians who argue just that, but it's probably for the best that they tend to be ignored. It seems to me that the basic problem that leads to pork barrelling is that a government that wants to be re-elected has an incentive to spend money at a time and place where it will win the most votes (in an election year in an area with lots of swing voters), instead of where it will do the most good. I can think of a moderate number of relatively impractical ways of fixing this problem. [ Monday, February 27, 2006 03:56: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 08:50
Profile
Homepage
Wouldn't that kind of extreme libertarianism count as anarchism? No budget means no power, and no power means the government is just an advisory body. —Alorael, who doubts the libertarians advocate a government that has a budget but refuses to use it to fund anything. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 15:06
Profile
Homepage
If I may come back to R/L from Thuryl's "moderate number of relatively impractical ways of fixing this problem". From what I see in my German habitat the electorate does not show a shift to the conservative side but rather a resignation of a large part who do not see anybody running who would represent them. The left/right distinction has become relatively irrelevant for these people. The "shift" in the legislative results only because the "party of nonvoters" is not represented. I wonder how many states this "party" would carry in the US. In addition, just remember the long lines of voters waiting for hours to have their votes counted. Who was paying for their rent while they were waiting and could not work? How many more would have voted if the price in time had not been so high? There is no need for any utopian pipe dream government, imho, but a credible "blood, sweat, and tears" leader who can communicate like Bill Clinton or the Gipper and does neither go sailing during a war nor lets Ashcroft et al. take over - no matter which party. The Bush phenomenon/ K-street project is a completely different thing, namely an instance of the globalization of the US-political process with increasing dominance by international capital. That capital is detached from the US or any other electorate for that matter - in some ironic symmetry to global terrorism. Think of Dubai. What we are arguing about here is the waggering tail of the dog. The rest of the dog remains in hiding. [ Monday, February 27, 2006 19:26: Message edited by: No 2 Methylphenidate ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 21:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:Are you sure about this? Australia has mandatory voting and yet there's still a perceived rightward shift over here. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4349
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 22:07
Profile
Thank you for the comment Slartucker. "Banning lobbying is not really a very good idea - lobbyists do a lot of good for Congress as well. Every interest, every opinion has a lobbying side, and it helps Congressmen get a full picture on every issue and helps them formulate an opinion on issues they would otherwise ignore." It's not about banning lobbying. Lobbying isn't going anywhere. But it is about preventing *undue* influence of lobbyists, by elected representatives being overly dependant on their donations, and not having adequate sources of independent input. The way things now are the politicians need huge amounts of cash only available from interests. "And banning pork, while it would be worthwhile, is hard to do explicitly. What classifies as pork? Getting the federal government to pay for road improvements? Getting more Homeland Security $$$ for your state? It's hard to draw a line in legislation, or actually impossible. It's more of a pornography "you know it when you see it," and the responsibility to stop it should be on Congressmen as a whole, led by senior leadership, to stop pork." You don't have to define pork. You have to set the system up so that the representatives are not incented to deliver pork, by owing the recipients so much. Take that away, incent them to represent the public instead by the proper role of money being enforced, and the pork will disappear. They don't do pork because they like to, they do it because they are forced to. An election ago in California, the new legislators were asked what their #1 concern was, and they said the amount of money they were forced to raise; they said they wanted to represent the public, but were forced to spend huge amounts of time fund raising to have enough. It's up to the public to push the fix. Posts: 8 | Registered: Thursday, May 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 22:11
Profile
Homepage
But what fix do you suggest? How much lobbying influence is too much? How do you take away the incentive for pork? I think it's probably possible to reduce some of the problems and clean up things somewhat, but making a real dent in corruption is tough. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, February 27 2006 22:16
Profile
Homepage
You know, blaming things on "the public" is a sure way to guarantee that they won't get fixed, since nobody considers themselves to be a member of the public when the public is doing something wrong. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Thursday, March 2 2006 08:37
Profile
Let's not forget the Political Compass and its two-dimensional political spectrum (the two dimensions being social and economic "freedom"). Conservative and libertarian trends are both present, so capitalism is the common theme. Reasons I thought of: -The fall of the Soviet empire was a huge loss of credibility for state-planned economy. -People are getting older, and old people tend to be less revolutionary. "Don't trust anyone over 30" was a popular saying around 1968. -The more ruthless capitalist society can be self-perpetuating in the sense that people who feel insecure turn away from leftist compassion and solidarity. Note how popular American "gangsta" culture has become among common people around the world. "Dream of becoming a capitalist or a gangster, or at least blame it all on the foreigners" is the opium that is fed to the lower classes. Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, March 2 2006 11:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:I really hope people are not quite that fatuous. Does increased government spending prior to an election really win votes? I don't think any such spending spree will effect the voters in any way. Most people pay little or no attention to what government does, and those that do already know which party they will vote for. From my observations of Provincial and Federal elections, governments seem to rise and fall on scandals, not what they did or did not due during their elected term. Essentially nothing a government does truly effects the vast majority of people. They simply go on living their lives as if nothing had happened. Promises for increased spending in certain areas are nothing but promises, and thus meaningless. [ Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:26: Message edited by: VCH ] -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, March 2 2006 13:31
Profile
That pork barrel spending exists refutes your supposition, Ash. Why would they do it if there's no benefit? Pork barrel spending makes a substantive difference come election time. For a real life example, there is Anne Northup, Republican representative of the district incorporating my home town, Louisville, KY. Northup, despite the fact that Louisville is a bright spot of blue in a sea of red, nevertheless has consistently been reelected, largely on her record of securing federal funds for local projects, like highways, bridges, and other infrastructure. Given that most opponents can't say that they've accomplished this in their ads, it gives Northup a real leg up, even if she's against her own rights as a woman and a Bush administration sycophant. As another example, Senator Byrd, democrat of West Virginia, an incredibly conservative, Republican state, has consistently been re-elected since forever, largely because of the enormous amounts of federal funding he's appropriated for his state. Go there, and you'll see that there are even highways named for him. It makes a difference. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, March 2 2006 13:43
Profile
Homepage
That was addressed to VCH, right? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, March 2 2006 14:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm not sure what made you think you were replying to me. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, March 3 2006 00:14
Profile
Homepage
Three-letter names ending in H are easily confused with each other. And if you try to pronounce "VCH", it sounds a lot like "Ash". Well, sort of. A little. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |