DooMAD
Doom IS a religion.
Posts: 1318
Registered: 07-02 |
myk said:
What I'm saying is that regardless of what they say or promise, you can measure what politicians and parties who have run in the "big leagues" have done and do in a concrete manner. What happens when small parties have to govern? They will adapt or fall unless they rise to power with changes in society that accompany and drive their new proposals, since up to then they have played minor administration roles or have been opposition critics.
Not necessarily. Say a new party took power and managed to push through some new laws. Say those new laws were of benefit to society. Where is the prerequisite for there to be any changes in society to support that change in law? The only changes that would actually be required for that to happen is less influence from big business and private donors, fair and equal media coverage and some electoral reforms to prevent it from skewing the vote and intentionally keeping smaller parties out. The only change society needs to make is to wake up and draw attention to this issue.
myk said:
Conservatives and reactionaries try to convince others that since democracy has many issues and flaws, there is no democracy. Be it out of fear, conviction or confusion, that idea erodes democratic activity by spreading nihilistic distrust. Democracy requires involvement with demands that also form a base from which governments can draw power. If they don't have that dual pressure and support, they'll turn to select elites to sustain their power. In a sense, leaders that at least have some links to popular needs and interests must be wooed. Paranoia against the State and government is incompatible with that.
So people should trust their governments implicitly, regardless of how corrupt they might be? Hell no. Democracy doesn't fail just because people are disillusioned with it and think it needs a kick up the backside. If I were an American, I'd have still turned up and voted for one of the third parties who haven't got a snowball's chance in hell because the system is broken.
Even though I am convinced that neither of the "main" candidates will prevent an armed conflict with Iran. Even though I'm convinced neither will tighten up regulations in the financial sector to prevent worldwide acts of fraud. Even though neither will ever truly separate church from state. Even though I think "select elites" as you describe them already sustain their power because corruption is the only way to have a successful political party. Even though the system is a self-perpetuating circle-jerk. Even with all that distrust, I'd have still voted. Much as I'd hope anyone who sees the situation as I do would still vote. (*)
I can raise the issues about what I perceive as corruption and have a debate about it. But it doesn't mean I'd want to withdraw altogether from that system. After all, if you take the ball and go home in protest, no one's going to care what you think.
//EDIT:
(*) Unless I was unfortunate enough to live in Oklahoma, where apparently there wasn't a third party candidate available to choose. WTF is that about?
Last edited by DooMAD on 11-07-12 at 20:42
|
11-07-12 05:15 
