The Problem with America is our Out of Touch Leaders

[TimmySmith]

What's more is that the parties are still the one's who are deciding who the candidates will be and they will still come from the same shallow pool where they come from now.

True, but at least the pool will be refilled a bit more regularly. Plus the political parties will be forced to spend more money. I mean, how much did the parties spend on Ted Kennedy's or Strom Thurmond's 10th reelection bid. Answer: Zero. The political parties love things the way they are. They love the same people in the same spots. They discourage advancement and punish individuality. 3-4 brand new candidates every couple of years certainly is a fresh start.

[rictus58]

We're the collectively malleable and gullible ones who make that system possible, though. We respond measurably to TV ads and radio spots and feel-good rallies and well-compensated strategists' empty phrases and goofy campaign photo ops in the local paper, and all of that crap.

During the MD gov. election this past fall, a radio station interviewed Bob Ehrlich. One of the candidates. He said "voters will say they don't like the nasty political ads, but the statistics show they do in fact work".

Like Corcaig said above, we get the politicians we deserve. I think people realizing there are more than 2 parties would go a long way towards thining the herds in DC.

[AsburySkinsFan]

During the MD gov. election this past fall, a radio station interviewed Bob Ehrlich. One of the candidates. He said "voters will say they don't like the nasty political ads, but the statistics show they do in fact work".

Like Corcaig said above, we get the politicians we deserve. I think people realizing there are more than 2 parties would go a long way towards thining the herds in DC.

This I can agree with, but I don't think people like the nasty ads, I just think that the nasty ads are effective. As for additional parties, I think that would go a LONG way in ending this bifurcated discussion as if there are only two answers to every situation.

[Bang]

We're the collectively malleable and gullible ones who make that system possible, though. We respond measurably to TV ads and radio spots and feel-good rallies and well-compensated strategists' empty phrases and goofy campaign photo ops in the local paper, and all of that crap. It costs a lot of money to make that stuff happen and it's all fluff. Campaign seasons are fully saturated with it because we actually internalize it for several months before finally saying, "enough" -- if we ever say it at all. Were we a sufficiently self-aware nation to see through that insanely expensive and shallow production, and were we to rely on more substantial methods for vetting candidates, then paying a lot to campaign would no longer pay. And we might see amazing improvements in the quantity and quality of voices in the discussion.

This is of course true in the end.. but to use the recently over-used and inappropriate analogy.. that feels like blaming the rape victim for being raped.

I know it's up to us, and I'm open to ideas on how to change it so we utilize this power. I don't see how, but then again I am not the brightest crayon in the box.

~Bang

---------- Post added March-24th-2011 at 03:32 PM ----------

This I can agree with, but I don't think people like the nasty ads, I just think that the nasty ads are effective. As for additional parties, I think that would go a LONG way in ending this bifurcated discussion as if there are only two answers to every situation.

I don't think the ads matter.

To me there's three kinds of voters.

There's the clueless and apathetic who really have no idea what they're voting for except they like this or that one, if they bother to vote at all.

There's the hardcores who will not vote out of line with their party no matter what.

And then there's the ones who try to make up their mind objectively.

To me those ads pander to the first group. They're nothing but ammo for the second group, and the third group pays little attention to the smears, recoginizing the nature of politics.

And even though it may look lke it, I refuse to believe that the first group makes up enough of the country to overshadow the third.

I hope.

I say with no confidence.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

As most politicians are really not different on policy, I vote against the candidate who is least honest with the truth, or the one with the worst attack ads. Integrity in a candidate has to count for something.

In recent elections my votes have been split evenly between R & D.

[The 12th Commandment]

I used to believe this.

But I don't think we have much choice in our candidates anymore.

It costs so much to run a campaign that it is well beyond anyone other than the very wealthy, for one, and they have demonstrated since time began that by and large they are a group that cares about themselves and no one else.

We get t5he candidates that the two parties think we can be manipulated into voting for. The best person for the job is rarely the nominee, and I would suggest we never do know who that best person is.

What we get is whoever the focus groups and Q ratings tell them to put in front of us.

As South Park put it.. we get to choose between giant douches and **** sandwiches.

We think we've got say in the primary, but not really. Even then we're choosing between douches and ****heads. It's just more of them at that point.

Our senators by and large are rich white male lawyers. Very few of them have any connection to the common man in this country, except maybe to be related to one on their in-law's side.

~Bang

Very much like drafting a first pick QB isn't it?

I agree with your main point though, campaign finance reform will have to be enacted somehow before it ever gets fixed. The house was supposed to be that place where common men could take part. It's not anymore when it takes 10 million or so to even consider running.

Bingaman won't be back so there's one that could very well go right depending on who they run.

[Predicto]

I am convinced that Term Limits are not the answer. Here in California, we tried term limits. The result we got was clueless noob legislators, with everything run by staffers and lobbyists (and yes, I mean both sides, Dem or GOP). And none of the noobs have the guts or brains to do anything other than what they are told.

I also think it is a myth that things were different in the past. The great Founding Fathers and best legislators of old served for years and years. The great compromiser Henry Clay served for almost 50 years. Fighting Progressive Bob LaFolette served until he dropped dead. So did "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft. Arthur Vandenburg, a Republican who was one of the most important foreign policy people in Senate history - served until he dropped dead. Daniel Webster, Robert Wagner, John C. Calhoun, Lyndon Johnson, Charles Sumner... all of them served a long, long time.

To me, term limits are a cheap and bad fix.

[The 12th Commandment]

,,,and like that first pick QB if you DO get one that's a keeper, well you ought to keep them.

[headexplode]

I tend to agree with Corcaigh and mjah that the problem with this country is largely its inhabitants. The government we have is the government we tolerate--complain about, yes, but tolerate nonetheless. Our collective myopia limits our ability to see anything beyond what we already have, thereby stifling any creative and organic surge for something better. Campaign funding and term limits aren't the sources of government disfunction, they are symptoms. Unfortunately, I don't see any means of correcting these issues by design. As others have pointed, many of us live in relative comfort, and there isn't that real aching, raw groundswell of anger and discontent that could lead to actual change (and, of course, no guarantee that any change would be positive).

[Commander PK]

and they have demonstrated since time began that by and large they are a group that cares about themselves and no one else.

Agreed with your whole post especially this line. Especially big money. The upper 1% in this country. The rich care about the rich. They think they played the game the way it's supposed to be played, and now they get to screw everyone else over for all eternity. Which is why congressman and presidents can come and go, but nothing ever really changes. How can anything change when the special interests and big money put these people there to begin with. You can't even run without having a **** load of money.

[TheLongshot]

I tend to agree with Corcaigh and mjah that the problem with this country is largely its inhabitants. The government we have is the government we tolerate--complain about, yes, but tolerate nonetheless. Our collective myopia limits our ability to see anything beyond what we already have, thereby stifling any creative and organic surge for something better. Campaign funding and term limits aren't the sources of government disfunction, they are symptoms. Unfortunately, I don't see any means of correcting these issues by design. As others have pointed, many of us live in relative comfort, and there isn't that real aching, raw groundswell of anger and discontent that could lead to actual change (and, of course, no guarantee that any change would be positive).

While we can say that corporate intrests are a big problem in our politics, voters are also an issue. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. They don't like pork, unless they are the ones getting the pork. For the most part, the average citizen isn't much interested in the good of the country, but what is best for themselves. Politicians know that, which is why they only tend to stick out their necks when they know it isn't going to hurt them in an election cycle. Many times, those who do the principalled thing are the ones who are probably going to be looking for work after the next election cycle when their opponent uses that aganst him, never mind if it was the right thing to do.

I've said it before, voters are stupid and often won't think further than a candidate's attack ad to find out the reason why some of those things were done.

[Bang]

,,,and like that first pick QB if you DO get one that's a keeper, well you ought to keep them.

Well, the problem with the 1st round QB analogy is that in football talent will rise. They won't pass it by from the college ranks, so the best of the best truly are what you get to choose from. (Obviously not all of them work out, same as any other position.)

All along the line from high school on up the QB who is a potential draft choice gets promoted into our consciousness because he has the ability to win and make a difference, not just the ability to be popular and 'electable'.

We know who Tim Tebow is because of what he accomplished at Florida, and he got to do that because of what he accomplished in high school. I don't think anyone can question his character, he appears to be one of the genuinely GOOD people. He's a great role model, a fine young example of America.

But he still had prove he had the skill and ability to do the job. They didn't just look at his magnificent character and good looks and say "This guy has the makin's of a great quarterback!". He proved it to be noticed.

In the case of our political system, we don't get the cream of the crop, we get who can afford to let us know they exist. and who has the best connections. (That usually translates to "the one most willing to sell out")

~Bang

[thebluefood]

The problem is out of touch leaders.

The problem is an ignorant populace.

The problem is that we want easy answers to complex issues.

The problem is that we think it's better to scream at someone we disagree with rather than talk.

The problem is that there is no one problem.........

Agreed all around.

[Nerm]

I tend to think that, while many leaders are out of touch, the main responsibility for that lies in the hands of the voters. Money in politics wouldn’t matter that much if voters took it upon themselves to understand the issues and where candidates stand on these issues. I see these absurd political ads that change peoples minds about who to vote for, and it is very frustrating. If voters consistently go with the “product” that has the best messaging, and ignores the actual attributes of that product, then they are going to make bad choices.

I read a recent poll about the Wisconsin Governor’s approach to the budget. It asked the question in two ways (not sure about the exact wording but the two questions were basically) -

-Do you support the Governor’s plan to restrict collective bargaining of public employees?

And

-Do you support the Governor’s plan to restrict public employee’s collective bargaining rights?

There was like a 6-7 percent difference between the two questions. When you include the word “rights”, support dropped (though he got less than a majority of support whichever way the question was asked). This level of difference tells me that there is a substantial portion of “likely voters” that really don’t have an understanding of issues, and they are going to make their decisions based on messaging. I do not respect politicians that demonize and distort the opposition’s positions, however, you pretty much have to do it to win. If you try to run an honest campaign of competing ideas, you are going to get destroyed by the swing voters who base their decision on messaging. I tend to laugh about the stupid campaign ads that always use the same formula. They start with discussing the opponent. There is a stark and foreboding voice that frames the opponent’s position in terms that are completely ridiculous “Candidate X wants to do this bad thing to these good people”. There is a black and white, grainy photo of the “bad” candidate with a nasty look on their face, then a photo of the good people he is hurting. The good people look vulnerable. Then there is a shift to the “good” candidate. The colors are bright and beautiful. They are shown respectfully interacting with the people who the “bad" candidate wants to hurt. The voiceover shifts from an ominous voice to one that is uplifting. Why do we see this formula in most campaigns… because it works to get people elected. If your opponent does it and you don’t, they are going to be the ones that get elected.

Too many people don’t have a coherent understanding of issues or the benefits and drawbacks of proposed solutions. I think that is why we have some of the problems with our elected leaders, and I’m not really sure what the solutions to these problems are.

[The 12th Commandment]

You know the more I think about this the more I thin it's actually a pretty good government considering the other options out there. My government has produced a country where I live really, really well and I'm not rich. I'm as willing as the next guy to kvetch about things but we shouldn't forget how good we really do have it. And the incompetents who we, as an electing body, might be have seen fit to throw out the ones who are really bad and the term limits we DO have do a good job of making sure no evil agendas (like anti-colonial communism) have the time to really be put in place.

Sorry to spoil all the fun.

[deejaydana]

I think the one thing that may finally bring about change is if/when we lose the dollar as THE reserve currency of the world. There is no guarantee that this will remain in place, especially in light of how far off track we've gotten financially as a country. It will be one hell of a mess when it happens but as the years unfold as we continue to do nothing to reform spending, we move closer to losing this reserve status.

[Darth Tater]

The problem in the US is NOT that our leaders are out of touch with the people, the problem is that our leaders are either out of touch with reality or don't like just as we are.

[China]

Worldwide Approval of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The United States continues to achieve higher global approval ratings than China, Russia, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Gallup's worldwide surveys document a noticeable change in the U.S. global leadership position from 2007 and 2008, when the U.S. trailed other major powers. The increases the U.S. saw in 2009 did not necessarily carry over into 2010, and approval suffered double-digit declines in 14 countries, including Egypt, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Click on the link for more

[Bang]

Well, there's some good news.

~Bang

[skinfan133]

The same people have run the executive branch for nearly 3 decades. Sure, the President and VP change, but look at the names of secretaries, assistant secretaries, dept. officials, other advisers. All the same people. And the public wonders why the presidential administrations have been blurring in terms of actual policy.

[JMS]

I am convinced that Term Limits are not the answer. Here in California, we tried term limits. The result we got was clueless noob legislators, with everything run by staffers and lobbyists (and yes, I mean both sides, Dem or GOP). And none of the noobs have the guts or brains to do anything other than what they are told.

The very clear problem with America isn't Out of touch leaders. It's that our population is poorly educated, has a poor knowlege of history, and a poor grasp on reality of fundimental issues driving their important decisions.

The political formula for sucess today is to scare the hell out of folks, and them when you have them panicked to drive them into your camp. Well meaning otherwise intelligent folks have such a poor knowlege of what's occured and what's going on they are fertile fields for this type of tactic.

Take the tea party for example, smart concerned citizens who have drank the coolaid that the nation is broke and we need to cut spending. The reality is the US has the strongest largest most diverse economy in the world. Our fundimental problem isn't a spending problem as they have been told, it's a revenue problem. Revenue rates are at historic lows and not suprisingly have been since our revenue surplus was tranformed into a huge deficit.

Glenn Beck has become a multi milionaire by twisting history to sell his message and many Americans hear what he says and think it's reasonable because they have no basis informing them otherwise.

I think that's the fundimental problem with America. Can a representative democracy survive when it's people are clueless?

[DRSmith]

President Bachmann?

[TheLongshot]

Take the tea party for example, smart concerned citizens who have drank the coolaid that the nation is broke and we need to cut spending. The reality is the US has the strongest largest most diverse economy in the world. Our fundimental problem isn't a spending problem as they have been told, it's a revenue problem. Revenue rates are at historic lows and not suprisingly have been since our revenue surplus was tranformed into a huge deficit.

They also don't understand what cutting spending actually means and the services it buys for them. When you have someone saying that they want to cut spending, but heaven forbid you touch SS or Medicare/Medicade. It also means jobs.

While congresscritters have issues, I don't envy their job one bit in trying to balance doing what is needed to keep our country strong while trying to keep your job by doing unpopular things. Fact is, raising taxes and cutting services are two things that will get a politician out of office fairly quickly.