[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: The problem is, we’re a representative democracy in name only.
[/quote]
Wow dude.
Okay.
We are a real, live, representative democracy.
China is a representative democracy in name only.
All adults (other than aliens and felons) can vote and their elected choices vote for laws.
If you really believe that we are not a democracy then that is worth a whole conversation unto itself.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
When you look at the amount of money that the Obama campaign received from Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, it becomes difficult to argue that he isn’t beholden to them and their interests.
[/quote]
That is why we have pretty strong controls on political contribution.
As a result we are ranked #19 on the corruption index (between the UK and Barbados).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Similarly, the bill that’s before us today is so rife with political self-dealing, compromise(s) and back room fixes, as to be unrecognizable from the original goal of “reform”. There is no reform here, just more of the same.
[/quote]
If the primary focus of reform is to decrease the number (in absolute and percentage terms) of people vulnerable to financial ruin or deferred necessary care (both of which are very harmful to our economy) then it is likely to be a success.
Compromise and dealing are part of the legislative process.
Not everybody agrees (thats why its a democracy).
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
A very capable political theorist (and I don’t remember his name) opined that, once government becomes riven by partisanship, lobbyists and corrupted by money, it calcifies and is thus unable to fulfill its role as advocate and protector of the citizenry. I believe we’re there now.
[/quote]
I am assuming that this theorist lived in north east county and worked in explosives and coached football?
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As a sidebar, Dan, I do highly recommend that “Oldspeak” interview with Hentoff. I’ve been a huge fan of Nat’s for years, and I used to follow him closely in the Village Voice. He isn’t shrill or strident in his denunciations of Obama, but makes the case in measured tones. Definitely worth a read.[/quote]
I read it.
Not really all that thoughtful.
For example, he did not point out that the Sons of Liberty were protesting the denial of rights established in the British constitution (the Magna Carta and in common law and practice are defined as this as opposed to a written version (as is used in the US)).
The teabaggers are just complaining that they lost an election and that the current elected legislators are doing things they don’t like.