Political Forums and the Changing Face of Democracy

Unless you’ve been living the last decade under a very large and weighty rock, there’s no way you’ve failed to notice that in a thousand different ways, the internet has changed pretty much everything about the way we live, work, and communicate with each other.

The rise of political forums on the net has, and is continuing to change the face of, and in fact, the very nature of democracy itself.

Some of these changes are for good, and others for ill, but that fact that it’s happening is undeniable. We’ll take a look at a few of the ways things are changing, try to shed at least a ray of light on the subject of political forums in general, then invite you to participate in our own political forums, right here on the site.

On the plus side, the biggest gain that the ordinary citizen sees, courtesy of political forums he or she may frequent is that politics has become more accessible and more personal than it has been since the Greek Polis’ first experimented with the concept.

In those days of course, the immediacy, accessibility, and “personal-ness” of democracy stemmed from the fact that the city states tended to be relatively small, and the policy matters discussed often concerned matters of immediate survival for these relatively isolated political units (what neighboring city-states to ally with, which rivals to attack, matters of trade, military service, etc…all of these were much more transparent to, and bore a much more personal and immediate effect for the ancient Greeks than they do for us today, where many of these things exist in our minds only as abstract concepts).

All that to say that while there are some parallels between the political forums attended by the ancient Greeks, and the virtual political forums that the masses are flocking to today, there are also some fundamental differences.

It is all very well that politics in general are a lot more accessible to the common man now, than they ever were before, but unfortunately, this is (or can be) something of a two-edged sword, because a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Through the ages, political forums of all types have, of course, been center stage for all manner of pundits and egoists, looking to sway the masses for their own ends, and this is certainly as true today as it was in our ancient past. One key difference here though, is that while the political forums of yesteryear saw their members all drawn from a relatively homogenous (and rather smallish) population, today’s popular political forums are massive things, and cater to a large, ever-changing, incredibly diverse population of participants. This being the case, of course it naturally follows that there’s a much broader spectrum of political belief to be found within the confines of one of our modern political forum than would have even been conceivable in the forums of old, and this, coupled with the anonymity that our modern political forums provide (ancient democracy was very much an “in-your-face” affair) opens the door for a great deal of verbal viciousness.

This is not to say that our forefathers did not have their fair share of vile, mud-slinging debates. They most certainly did, but these tended to be the exceptions, rather than the rule (and this is the reason they stand out so colorfully against the backdrop of the greater bulk of those ancient political debates). Contrast that with conversations in today’s political forums, where the battle lines are drawn going in (typically along Conservative vs. Liberal lines), and the debates get heated almost from the outset, and more often than not, quickly degenerate into mindless mud-slinging, with no one really remembering what the original debate topic actually was.

The second major negative to be found in today’s political forums is the fact that demagogues have access to a vast population of easily convinced, easily led people. This has literally launched a number of careers, and has led to some unfortunate consequences, with popular talk show hosts essentially supplanting the elected political leadership when it comes to creating policy planks and talking points. This is a danger to guard against not because the cult personalities are inherently bad people…the author makes no judgment either way. Simply that they’re not the elected representatives, and their undue influence over the masses is ANYTHING but democratic, but that is a whole different debate, and a topic for another time. Perhaps even a good topic for discussion on our own political forums, which you are cordially invited to join!

-=Vel=-
UVent Forums

Political Debate – Where Has All the Civility Gone?

There was a day when political debate carried with it the notion of civility. That it was possible to hold a political debate with a rival (even one from the opposite side of the political landscape) and hold an issues-driven conversation. Impassioned, certainly, but it used to be possible to hold a passionate conversation on any topic (political debate or otherwise) without seeing it devolve into mud slinging and name calling. Without seeing the parties from both sides stomp off in frustration and disgust, absolutely convinced that the person on the other side of the debate is a first rate moron (in the best case), or a traitorous enemy of his country (in the worst).

To say that this situation is not conducive to CONSTRUCTIVE political debate is understatement at its most sublime, and I would contend that it is, in fact, the key ingredient that is paralyzing the nation and making any kind of “meeting in the middle” absolutely impossible.

Our current president (Obama) said as much during his first meeting with congressional republicans, telling them that because they, and their talk-show-host idols who have been allowed to essentially dictate policy for the republican party, have so demonized the left…have painted them with such a starkly evil brush that it makes any sort of compromise position with them an impossibility, and because of that, we wind up with an exceedingly polarized position. Two camps with opposite views on what the way forward should look like, and both sides have so demonized the other than it would be political suicide to reach out to them and make a compromise.

Because of that, no compromise is ever reached (witness the doings of the self-described “Party of No”), political discourse resembles honest political debate less and less, becoming all the more divisive, and creating a vicious circle that cannot have a good ending for ‘We, the People.’

The only solution to this is to admit that both sides have mischaracterized their opponents. That neither side is bent on destroying the nation, and that both sides have something to offer to the political debate, should we ever reach the point that we can say that word and have it mean something besides ‘shouting match that happens to be about politics.’

There must be at least a measure of civility present for political debate to even take place.

We don’t have to agree with each other. Hell, we don’t even have to like each other, but we should be able to listen to each other’s ideas and gain something from them without branding the other side as a traitor to his nation, mentally deficient, or unworthy to live here.

If we can’t do at least that, then how can we honestly say we are participating in political debate at all? How can we honestly say we are deserving of the legacy that our founding fathers have left us?

Political Blogs: Myth of the Conspiracy of the Political Left

If you read many political blogs, watch much news (especially if you watch FOX for more than five minutes), one theme you’ll pick up on very quickly is that the ‘political left’ is organized and presently orchestrating a scheme to turn the USA into a commie paradise. Conservative darling Ann Coulter delights in expounding upon the nefarious activities of this mustache-twisting villainous group, much to the delight of her conservative readers.

Never mind the fact that this grand conspiracy of the political left has no members that anyone can actually name, nor is there any hard evidence that such a Cabal exists…those are nettlesome details that always manage to get brushed aside when discussing such things.

Nor is there ever any discussion about why the political left would want such a thing, given that communism has utterly and spectacularly failed every time it has been tried. It seems to fly in the face of logic, especially given that these leftists are almost universally described as being intellectual elites. Now, I know I’m not the brightest of bulbs, but it seems to me that intellectual elites would be…you know…educated. And part of that education would no doubt include stuff like…history. So the members of the hoity toity political left should know all this, right?

But, this is their supposed aim, as explained exhaustively by Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and others.

At the heart of this mighty Cabal are the liberal news media (which includes any and all news outlets, save for FOX News, which is a paragon of truth, honesty, and the “real American” way (read: the conservative way).

What’s interesting here, is this: Conservatives and Republicans are largely synonymous these days (Ann Coulter herself has said in various interviews that there is no such thing as a “Conservative Democrat” so she too seems to be subscribing to the notion that the Republicans have a monopoly on Conservatism…kinda like they have a monopoly on Jesus…God is a Republican, you know?).

So…Conservative = Republican.

And the Republican base is composed of two groups. Religious fundies and….Big Business and their supporters.

Right. So Republican Base = Big Business.

But, the news companies ARE big business, so…let me see if I follow the logic here….the Republican Base = the Conspiracy of the Political Left?

That’s fairly typical of Conservative logic in my experience, and certainly makes about as much sense as some of their other positions.

Yes, I know…the first reply will be that not all big businesses are republican supporters, and that’s true. Just look at Ben and Jerry’s. But on balance, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find large cap corporations that support greater corporate oversight and regulation, higher taxes and laws designed to make companies be good corporate citizens and hold them fully responsible for the messes they make.

That’s very anti-corporation, and anti-republican.

Further, if you look at the owners of these big companies, most (not all, granted, but most) ARE conservative. And the companies they run tend to follow suit, and are likewise conservative in their overall bent. I think where the confusion lies is in the fact that reporters TEND TO BE of a more liberal stripe…that is to say, if you do a survey of reporters across the nation, I think you’d find a majority of them to be more liberally minded than conservative, thus the conservative pundits’ conclusions about the “liberal media,” but here’s the thing: reporters don’t get to decide what gets reported.

Let me repeat that for those conservatives who are hard of reading: REPORTERS DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT GETS REPORTED!

Those decisions are universally made by at the Director level and higher, and among that population you find more conservatives than liberals.

Now, you can draw all sorts of catty conclusions about the fact that conservatives tend to hold more positions of authority, tend to make more money, etc., etc., but you can’t have it both ways, and thus, the hypocrisy of the pundits on the right is (once again) revealed.

Not that this is any great surprise.

This is an inherently political blog, and I am certain that the piece above will rankle some conservatives, but the fact is that where there is a “political left,” they tend to be far less organized than their brethren on the right, and to think that this disorganized rabble could ever head up such a vast conspiracy as they are credited with is even more ludicrous than the one that the moon-landing-hoax folks managed to dream up, and that’s really saying something.

Further, such a conclusion is an insult to the intelligence that the right (grudgingly) credits to the left, but…there you go.

Sound off! If you have something to say about anything you’ve read here, then we invite you to participate in our political forums!

Here are a fistful of policy changes I support. I am sure that these will make excellent fodder for political debate, and welcome any of our readers to open threads in the forums relating to any of these they’d care to discuss or debate further.

Energy Policy:
Always a source of excellent political debate, and it may surprise many uber-conservative readers (who no doubt view this as being a member of the family of liberal blogs), but I support the “Drill, baby, drill!” paradigm. Sure. Absolutely. Allow offshore drilling but inform drillers that they will be held 125% liable for any damages done. We’ll use the surplus to help retire debt. Levy a 1 cent per gallon, 10 cent per ton tax on gas/coal. Use these funds to subsidize alt. Energy infrastructure, with a focus on solar and wind, and a lesser focus on bio-D (split the funds roughly 40/40/20 in those three areas). Enable a government profit sharing plan with regards to profits gained from oil harvested from federal lands (ANWAR, The Gulf, etc). Let’s do it, starting today.

Ethics:
This one’s easy, but my position here will no doubt anger people on both sides of the political spectrum and I’m sure this one will be excellent fodder for an ongoing political debate. I’ve not seen too many people on either conservative OR liberal blogs talking much about matters of ethics, but as I see it, this is sorta paving the road. Taking on this issue will make tackling many of the others our nation faces worlds easier, so here’s what I think we ought to do:

No lobbyists allowed within 500 miles of Washington DC. Make it a Federal crime to give any politician, or any staffer WORKING FOR a politician a “gift” of any size whatsoever. Cap donations to political campaigns at $100 per person, PERIOD. Corporations or other organizations are disallowed from giving AT ALL. See? Told you it was inflammatory. And excellent kindling for all manner of colorful political debates!

Changes in law regarding Corporations:
Conservatives will no doubt want to flay me alive for these, and I suspect that this short paragraph alone will be enough for them to forever condemn this site as being among the family of “commie” liberal blogs, but again, in the interest of sparking a lively political debate, I’ll put my ideas “out there,” and see what happens:

I believe strongly in increased regulations in nearly every aspect of corporate life. Contractually obligate them to be good community citizens, since the vast majority seem utterly incapable of doing it on their own. Laws to force full accountability on them. Shut down tax loopholes, stop all corporate welfare (as above, see the exception where fostering native renewable energy sources are concerned), corporations ARE NOT people, and should no longer be considered as such, and money should no longer be considered a form of speech.

Sound off! If you have something to say about anything you’ve read here, then we invite you to participate in our political forums!

There’s likely no bigger item making the rounds of political news sources these days than our (desperate) need to balance the national budget.

As a fiscal conservative myself, I echo these sentiments, but since the politicians currently in office seem more-or-less unconcerned about it, and since the “Party of No” didn’t have a much better track record when THEY last held power (counting the stuff that Bush kept off the books, the deficit was $1.7 Trillion when Obama took office, vs. his budget of $1.9 Trillion, so the two are virtually identical from a fiscal standpoint), I’ve decided to take it upon myself to do it for them.

What follows then, is my plan to immediately (as of the 2010 budget) balance the national budget and give us a small surplus which we can use to begin retiring our massive debt.

I have no doubt that there isn’t a politician alive with the balls to actually take this proposal and run with it, but if such a man or woman DID exist…that, my friends, would be political news worth reporting!

The changes this document proposes will most assuredly not be popular, and would be savagely resisted if anyone were ever to seriously propose them, but they would most assuredly get the job done, which is probably why no one will ever take them seriously.

That said, here’s my plan of attack:

At the present time, we are running a 1.9 Trillion Dollar deficit in our federal budget, so through some combination of tax increases and service reductions, we need to come up with this dollar amount. Actually, I’m going to be shooting for cool 2 Trillion dollars, which will give us at least some money to begin retiring the debt. Retiring the debt will ease our interest burden, which, if we use that additional savings to ALSO retire debt, will see us in a slowly improving financial position, and wouldn’t that be refreshing!

So…the first thing: Effective immediately, stop all corporate welfare, which amounts to some $140 Billion dollars a year (this number based on the 92B 2006 data available, and taking the lower estimate of corporate welfare sucked from states, which is then made up for by the federal government infusing money into the states to keep them from going bankrupt). Corporations routinely take advantage of generous tax breaks while the tax holidays are in effect, only to shut down operations the day the holidays expire, and yet, this never manages to make the political news segments of ANY of the major networks. . This is a case of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and it’s time for big business to pony up, so…no more subsidies. Hand over that cash! (note, the $92B could be as high as 125B, see http://www.virginia-organizing.org/articles/corporate_welfare.php) – I wasn’t sure where these figures came from, so I didn’t use them, but if accurate, this could add another $33B a year to the ultimate savings, below).

Second, let’s start holding companies fully accountable for cleaning up their own damned messes. This would free up an estimated additional 100 billion dollars a year, so in two strokes of the pen, we’ve already dealt a significant blow to the shortfall. (Running total: $240B)

Third, audit the government top-to-bottom. Wasteful spending ALONE make up a staggering (est.) $410 Billion of spending, and this is the so-called “low hanging fruit” that’s easy to recoup. (Running total: $650B)

When you factor in redundant departments and things better handled by states (Federal oversight and state-level implementations), you can recoup an additional ~$200B (Running total: $850B)

Fourth, military spending, and spending related TO the military. This amounts to an estimated $1.4 Trillion (http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm). Let’s slice a cool 10% from this, recouping a neat $140B, and don’t worry, we’ll still be spending more than the next dozen or so nations combined, so I don’t think we’ll be in any immediate danger. (running total = $990B).

Fifth, we’ll slice social security and medicare by an equal measure (10%), and do this hand in hand with pushing the retirement age to 70, so as to preserve the solidity of the trust, and to hold true to the original vision of the safety net (when it was implemented, lifespans were significantly shorter than they are at present…social security was never designed to support mass millions for decades…this will help to remedy that without financially endangering current recipients. Also, we’ll implement a 1% increase in the FICA tax. Collectively then, this should save or raise somewhere in the neighborhood of $100B (Running total $1090B).

Fifth, Close loopholes in corporate tax policies, increasing revenues to the tune of an estimated $100B (again, this benefit is mostly to the states, which means that the federal government still gets to count the benefit, as the federal government is not shelling out money to support the bankrupted states). (Running total $1190B)

Sixth, begin strenuously enforcing the “2-years and you’re out” program re: welfare. Hand in hand with this, allow some federal funds to flow into charitable organizations to help them become a viable secondary layer of the national safety net (estimated to save $80B) (Running total $1270B)

Ninth, increase estate taxes, and close loopholes on taxes for the wealthy, which should see revenues increase by approximately ~EST $150B. (Running total $1420B)

Tenth, explore the idea of taxing the Fed. I have no way of knowing if this plan is viable, and if so, how much money could potentially be raise here, but I don’t think it would hurt to ask the question and explore it honestly.

Eleventh, seek alternate methods of funding. Hire NASA experts and facilities out to private industries. We can lease spare satellite capacity to other countries, or even to private industry, should they have need of it. There’s at least $200B in income producing potential in the assets we have available (Running total: $1620B)

Twelfth: Raise income taxes and tariffs in line with the plans already on the table (the combination of tax breaks expiring and new taxes is slated to raise an additional ~$420B) (Running Total: $2040B, or, 2.004 Trillion Dollars). (note: could be as high as $2073B in total savings, see above, the entry on corporate welfare)

We could do this next year.

If this report ever surfaces in or on the political news segments of any of the major networks, I’d be shocked. If any politician (at ANY level) read it and started talking about the merits of anything found here, I’d likely keel over dead in surprise (which is a think I am certain many of my readers would not object to ), but no worries. It won’t happen, because our current breed of politician was born without conscience or spinal column. In short, they will ride this train until it collides with the mountain of fiscal irresponsibility. Maybe a couple decades of German-style hyperinflation will cure us. I truly hope it doesn’t come to that, but it probably will, because our political news analysts simply aren’t talking about this stuff in any serious kind of way. Simply put, no one can be arsed to care, and that’s a shame.

If finance and budgets are your strong suit, consider earning an online master degree in
accounting.

Sound off! If you have something to say about anything you’ve read here, then we invite you to participate in our political forums!

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

http://hoguenews.com/?p=4834

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1868

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2655

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_schedules_massive_new_tax_hikes_for_2010/

http://www.virginia-organizing.org/articles/corporate_welfare.php