Sinue_v2
Oct 12, 2009, 07:20 PM
TL:DR (VotP = My Voice. Reps don't work for you, and never have.)
I've heard the claim often that politicians in Washington have failed repeatedly to listen to the "Voice of the People". I understand the frustration, and recognize that there are major problems in the way our Government (in America) is handled. Contrasting the attitudes of representatives both sitting and after retirement reveals a striking discord. Bob Dole, for instance, fought vigorously against Healthcare Reform while he was in office... yet now he is working across party lines to encourage Republicans to work with the Democrats on coming to a viable compromise.
Our representatives are the slaves of two masters... the voter, and the lobbyist. Unfortunately, the poor discretion shown by voters who insist on voting strictly according to party loyalties or for whom bullshit plays a major role in their decision is partly to blame. According to a BBC broadcast on NPR I heard the other night, even Brittan's labor party in the upcoming parliamentary election is threatened by not only public desire for any sort of change - but by the all important bullshit factor. One pundit recalled hearing the opinion of a "man on the street" who's opinion was swayed by how well the candidate managed their home families. All well and good, but has bugger-all to do with qualifications. The panel lamented the "Americanizing" of the process.
Yet those politicians depend on lobbyist funds to buy their campaign slogans and run attack ads. Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries made record breaking headway with the grassroots donations and publicity, but which paled in comparison to corporate and special interest funding of his opponents. How can anyone expect their representatives to NOT be bought and sold, if we as a public are emboldening the process.
Yet, that is just one aspect of the problem. Were we to chase the lobbyists out of Capital Hill like the rats they are, I have a feeling that - to the vast majority of Americans, not much would appear to have changed. There seems to be an illusion that we have bought into over the years. A feel-good slogan which is accurate only in regards to how far outside of our prejudices we're willing to look. That is, that there is no voice of the people. The right to peacefully assemble and protest grievances was never intended to tell our politicians what they should be doing. The right to protest is there so as to help spark discussion and discourse among the American people. To inform EACH OTHER on our particular side of an issue. The voice the politicians should be hearing, is only counted on election day.
America is not a Democratic nation, and never has been. It is, and always has been, a Constitutional Republic. As John Adams put it, it is "A nation of laws, not men". Many of the founders endorsed a Republic over a Democracy, because Republics allow for the only guarantee that the minority will still have a voice to be heard. The minorities from whom dissidence and revolution ultimately always grow from. Democracies are little more than mob rule, and at best are soft dictatorships born from anarchy. They are internally corrosive, lacking the means to properly ensure the education of the public which is so vital to any hope of their success.
The Voice of the People, when heard beyond your particular group, is most resembling that of a loud discordant roar of 300 million different screams and demands for something different. There is simply no way to accommodate them all satisfactorily. Politicians don't even try. They simply do the best job they can, be it for the money, for their state, for the nation, or for concerns of re-election. They do whatever they want, whatever they can, and they'll lie about the rest come election day. That's how it was set up from the beginning. How it is meant to be. It is a system of checks and balances between the people/states, the constitution, the enforcement (police/military), and the government body.
Indeed, when you truly consider it, the "Will of the People" reflects the direct opposite of the spirit of individuality and freedom America has long supported. A single unified "Will of the People" is only possible with extreme censorship to opposition or by conformity to a greater whole. It is the enslaver of independent thought and speech for the sake of a greater good. It is intended to be this way, because for the greater majority of 300 million citizens (today) to come together to protest a grievance so profound that their voices find concordance - that would truly be the call to Revolution.
Today we hear the "Voice of the People" being thrown about nonchalantly in support of this, or that, or both but opposing stances. To those claiming to be behind the voice, that may well certainly seem to be the way of things. We can't help but assume such is the case often, because our self-confirming bias tends to shelter us to views and groups with opposing views to our own. Excepting perhaps as ridicule and ammunition fodder, but not to be taken seriously.
For instance, the latest calls to heed the "Voice of the People" often raised at the 9/12 rallies or Town Hall meetings. The recent march on Washington was seen by many in those groups to be a "wake up call" to the Government. A "Final Warning", before the slumbering giant awakens once more. The turnout was fairly impressive, depending on which network covered it. But is the weight of the American populace truly behind such a movement?
I will not venture my 5th grade math skills to try to break down the following numbers in comparative manners. If someone else would like to, that's fine. This is just a rough approximation of how strong the "Voice of the People" truly is by comparing it against a different voice. A slightly darker voice, and a slightly gayer voice.
While some claims of 1.7 million protesters have circulated, estimates done based on D.C. Metro Services and photographs have put the number closer to about 500,000 to 750,000 (being generous). 1/2 to 3/4 of a million Americans is no small number, considering how many could not attend the event. But consider these numbers as well...
African Americans make up about 13.4% of the American demographic. In 1995, the Million Man March on Washington was claimed to have over 1.5 million attendees... although actual numbers are estimated to be closer to about 800,000.
The recent National Equality March in Washington drew several thousands of marchers protesting for Gay and Lesbian rights. Though more low-key this year, previous events have drawn up to 500,000 attendees or more. On average, homosexuals make up about 10% of the American demographic. Some dubiously conservative sites peg the number at closer to (hah) 1%.
Whether or not the other marches were indeed larger, smaller, or similarly sized to the 9/12 marches, such an endeavor is not the goal of my posting here. The mere fact that even the roughest and most rounded comparisons put the 9/12 protests as only being roughly representative to about 10-15% of the American population. 10-15% is, thus, representative of the "Voice of the People"?
Lets try this another way. Let's say, there were 1 million people at the protests. Each protester represented 10 people who could not attend. That's... what... 2.5% of the American public? Even if one protester represented 100 who could attend, 1/3rd of Americans cannot claim to possess the "Voice of the People" without silencing the other 2/3rd of the American public. And of course, this isn't then breaking that demographic down into subdivisions on how to deal with issues individually. Many of the protesters in Washington were there with separate or loosely affiliated groups. There were Anarchists, Nationalists, Libertarians, Independents, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Republicans, Religious, Atheists, and all manner of differences in opinion. I won't suggest which demographic was most strongly represented, but even in the movement claiming to carry the "Voice of the People", I cannot see unity beyond the most vague commonalities. Some clashed, some subverted, some allied.
Why then, do so many promote this fantasy propaganda which cannot exist in the form of government and society we wish to live? Are their positions so weak that they must appeal to our nature of enjoying and feeling comfort in groups, that they then present the very antithesis of freedom of speech as something to be revered? Do they truly think such a stifling and tyrannical bellow which is the "voice of the people" is truly what our representatives are obliged to follow?
I suppose this wasn't much of a rant, but I didn't know where else to put it. Though, at least, I'm sure it will inspire other rants in response to it. Politics always has a lovely way of turning into a category 5 shit storm.
I've heard the claim often that politicians in Washington have failed repeatedly to listen to the "Voice of the People". I understand the frustration, and recognize that there are major problems in the way our Government (in America) is handled. Contrasting the attitudes of representatives both sitting and after retirement reveals a striking discord. Bob Dole, for instance, fought vigorously against Healthcare Reform while he was in office... yet now he is working across party lines to encourage Republicans to work with the Democrats on coming to a viable compromise.
Our representatives are the slaves of two masters... the voter, and the lobbyist. Unfortunately, the poor discretion shown by voters who insist on voting strictly according to party loyalties or for whom bullshit plays a major role in their decision is partly to blame. According to a BBC broadcast on NPR I heard the other night, even Brittan's labor party in the upcoming parliamentary election is threatened by not only public desire for any sort of change - but by the all important bullshit factor. One pundit recalled hearing the opinion of a "man on the street" who's opinion was swayed by how well the candidate managed their home families. All well and good, but has bugger-all to do with qualifications. The panel lamented the "Americanizing" of the process.
Yet those politicians depend on lobbyist funds to buy their campaign slogans and run attack ads. Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries made record breaking headway with the grassroots donations and publicity, but which paled in comparison to corporate and special interest funding of his opponents. How can anyone expect their representatives to NOT be bought and sold, if we as a public are emboldening the process.
Yet, that is just one aspect of the problem. Were we to chase the lobbyists out of Capital Hill like the rats they are, I have a feeling that - to the vast majority of Americans, not much would appear to have changed. There seems to be an illusion that we have bought into over the years. A feel-good slogan which is accurate only in regards to how far outside of our prejudices we're willing to look. That is, that there is no voice of the people. The right to peacefully assemble and protest grievances was never intended to tell our politicians what they should be doing. The right to protest is there so as to help spark discussion and discourse among the American people. To inform EACH OTHER on our particular side of an issue. The voice the politicians should be hearing, is only counted on election day.
America is not a Democratic nation, and never has been. It is, and always has been, a Constitutional Republic. As John Adams put it, it is "A nation of laws, not men". Many of the founders endorsed a Republic over a Democracy, because Republics allow for the only guarantee that the minority will still have a voice to be heard. The minorities from whom dissidence and revolution ultimately always grow from. Democracies are little more than mob rule, and at best are soft dictatorships born from anarchy. They are internally corrosive, lacking the means to properly ensure the education of the public which is so vital to any hope of their success.
The Voice of the People, when heard beyond your particular group, is most resembling that of a loud discordant roar of 300 million different screams and demands for something different. There is simply no way to accommodate them all satisfactorily. Politicians don't even try. They simply do the best job they can, be it for the money, for their state, for the nation, or for concerns of re-election. They do whatever they want, whatever they can, and they'll lie about the rest come election day. That's how it was set up from the beginning. How it is meant to be. It is a system of checks and balances between the people/states, the constitution, the enforcement (police/military), and the government body.
Indeed, when you truly consider it, the "Will of the People" reflects the direct opposite of the spirit of individuality and freedom America has long supported. A single unified "Will of the People" is only possible with extreme censorship to opposition or by conformity to a greater whole. It is the enslaver of independent thought and speech for the sake of a greater good. It is intended to be this way, because for the greater majority of 300 million citizens (today) to come together to protest a grievance so profound that their voices find concordance - that would truly be the call to Revolution.
Today we hear the "Voice of the People" being thrown about nonchalantly in support of this, or that, or both but opposing stances. To those claiming to be behind the voice, that may well certainly seem to be the way of things. We can't help but assume such is the case often, because our self-confirming bias tends to shelter us to views and groups with opposing views to our own. Excepting perhaps as ridicule and ammunition fodder, but not to be taken seriously.
For instance, the latest calls to heed the "Voice of the People" often raised at the 9/12 rallies or Town Hall meetings. The recent march on Washington was seen by many in those groups to be a "wake up call" to the Government. A "Final Warning", before the slumbering giant awakens once more. The turnout was fairly impressive, depending on which network covered it. But is the weight of the American populace truly behind such a movement?
I will not venture my 5th grade math skills to try to break down the following numbers in comparative manners. If someone else would like to, that's fine. This is just a rough approximation of how strong the "Voice of the People" truly is by comparing it against a different voice. A slightly darker voice, and a slightly gayer voice.
While some claims of 1.7 million protesters have circulated, estimates done based on D.C. Metro Services and photographs have put the number closer to about 500,000 to 750,000 (being generous). 1/2 to 3/4 of a million Americans is no small number, considering how many could not attend the event. But consider these numbers as well...
African Americans make up about 13.4% of the American demographic. In 1995, the Million Man March on Washington was claimed to have over 1.5 million attendees... although actual numbers are estimated to be closer to about 800,000.
The recent National Equality March in Washington drew several thousands of marchers protesting for Gay and Lesbian rights. Though more low-key this year, previous events have drawn up to 500,000 attendees or more. On average, homosexuals make up about 10% of the American demographic. Some dubiously conservative sites peg the number at closer to (hah) 1%.
Whether or not the other marches were indeed larger, smaller, or similarly sized to the 9/12 marches, such an endeavor is not the goal of my posting here. The mere fact that even the roughest and most rounded comparisons put the 9/12 protests as only being roughly representative to about 10-15% of the American population. 10-15% is, thus, representative of the "Voice of the People"?
Lets try this another way. Let's say, there were 1 million people at the protests. Each protester represented 10 people who could not attend. That's... what... 2.5% of the American public? Even if one protester represented 100 who could attend, 1/3rd of Americans cannot claim to possess the "Voice of the People" without silencing the other 2/3rd of the American public. And of course, this isn't then breaking that demographic down into subdivisions on how to deal with issues individually. Many of the protesters in Washington were there with separate or loosely affiliated groups. There were Anarchists, Nationalists, Libertarians, Independents, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Republicans, Religious, Atheists, and all manner of differences in opinion. I won't suggest which demographic was most strongly represented, but even in the movement claiming to carry the "Voice of the People", I cannot see unity beyond the most vague commonalities. Some clashed, some subverted, some allied.
Why then, do so many promote this fantasy propaganda which cannot exist in the form of government and society we wish to live? Are their positions so weak that they must appeal to our nature of enjoying and feeling comfort in groups, that they then present the very antithesis of freedom of speech as something to be revered? Do they truly think such a stifling and tyrannical bellow which is the "voice of the people" is truly what our representatives are obliged to follow?
I suppose this wasn't much of a rant, but I didn't know where else to put it. Though, at least, I'm sure it will inspire other rants in response to it. Politics always has a lovely way of turning into a category 5 shit storm.