RE: "For The People" (poem) >>> The Law, For It Whom?
Great work here. I really like what you have put together and you elicit some stirring thoughts. Throughout the whole campaign in 2016 I watched with horror at what was going on between the candidates. There were many times I thought "this, this is what is going to make people realize he shouldn't be President". I knew I could be wrong though because also in the back of my head was this nagging feeling that people are okay with this. There are a lot of people that don't care or are willing to look past it. Then he was elected and all of the uproar began. People talking about how long it would take before he was impeached etc. My thoughts then were "you can't." Although he didn't win the popular vote, he won enough that if he were to be forced out, there would be civil war in our country. I don't have a fix for all of this, I wish I did. I think setting term limits and outlawing corporate lobbying would be a great start though. I think those things could be easily done without changing the heart of the Constitution. That is just my opinion though.
@bozz,
As a political centrist, I watched the unfolding of the 2016 election in something akin to incredulity. "These ... are the two choices?" I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say, "I don't want to vote for either one." In fact, although I wasn't keeping tabs, I'd guess 75% of the comments were in that vein.
My take on the election is that Trump was not chosen per se, nor was Clinton defeated per se.
I think the electorate chose sides in an underlying culture war.
Almost all the same issues that are dividing the US, are dividing the UK, Canada and Australia. They're also effecting much of western and eastern Europe. Despite having lived in the US for 26 years, I'm a Canadian citizen (Green Card) so I couldn't vote. But I talk as much politics as anyone, and more than most.
What I was struck by was the frequency of comments concerning things about which the politicians weren't talking, or at least, not to any great extent. One women called it Millennial Madness:
But here's the thing: Many of the aghast I spoke with were Democrats who voted for Obama both times! Center and center-left moderates. All were university-educated and several held advanced degrees. And, most voted for Trump or abstained from voting.
In my opinion, the inability, or unwillingness, of the far-Left to engage is civil and reasoned discourse is what lost them centrist swing-voters, and hence the election. Clinton and Trump were merely symbolic figureheads of a much deeper divide in the body politic.
I don't disagree with you on some of your points. You will probably be dismayed to know that I really wanted Bernie though. The two options offered were horrible and as much as they try to tell you voting independent is not throwing away your vote I think we all know the reality. Your comment about political correctness is spot on though. A quick glance at the comments on any Yahoo news story will show the divide and the ability of people these days to degrade any subject down to race or bias. I read a great article a while ago called The Wussification of America. I wish I could find it again to reference it. It was pretty telling. Thanks for the reply to my comment!
Technically it wasn't throwing away your (our) votes, because no matter what state you are from, a vote for Hilary would not have won her the election. I voted 3rd party, but my next best option was not voting, so I find it ironic that anyone would blame anything on third party voters. (Any blame must assume what would have been done if that third party vote was not cast, in my case, I would have not paid the postage to mail it in).
I think a little differently about US politics now that I live off continent, but I believe that the implied two-party system is one of the deep (unconstitutional) tap roots of the problems in the US.
@ecoinstant,
You know who was against political parties of any kind: George Washington. And John Adams. And Thomas Jefferson (until he threw in the towel prior to his own Presidency).
The Constitution was carefully designed to balance interests and loyalties. There is no provision for the "extra layer of loyalties" afforded to political parties. Indeed, getting away from political parties was one of the driving forces for choosing a Republic-style of democracy over a Parliamentarian one.
Although it won't happen, what I'd like to see is the leadership of the Republicans and Democrats get together and agree to, at the stroke of midnight, simultaneously disavow their respective looney-toon fringe elements. Drive the nutcases out of both parties. This way, both parties would be equally disadvantaged by the votes they'd lose, and hence the balance of power maintained.
We've got to get back to normal political discourse between the Center-Right and Center-Left ... sane Republicans and sane Democrats respectively.
@bozz,
Personally, I think Bernie had a bit of a math problem ... how to pay for all his ideas. (You might be surprised to learn that I, a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, would support a National Healthcare system ... although I'd want some fixes first (Singapore has got an interesting model to study). Nevertheless, Bernie was the most honest and honorable person in the race, and honesty and honor go a long way with me.
The "political correctness police" are using PC as a tool of coercion and it's shutting down honest debate, the lifeblood of any democracy. The explosion of euphemism is an especially pernicious development. Once you control words, you control ideas.
Thanks for the great comment.