7 ms·
I appreciate your optimism, but the reality is we don't have a choice on the issues that matter the most. The issue of NSA surveillance, the War on Terror, the
by LeoTolstoyJr 13y ago
I appreciate your optimism, but the reality is we don't have a choice on the issues that matter the most. The issue of NSA surveillance, the War on Terror, the Ware on Drugs, the deterioration of our civil liberties, and a lot more issues that directly affect every person in the USA are supported by both parties and by every major candidate.
Personally I think our best hope is to try to fix the media. If our media was doing what it was intended to do, keep us informed on the goings on of our representatives, the actions of our government might actually reflect the wishes and best interest of its constituents. Unfortunately that's not the case today.
- cgag 13y agoSounds like our representation system is entirely broken, I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that.
- davidcuddeback 13y agoBecause the news media's job is to be a government watchdog. "The concept of the media or press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the news media's responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of the democracy" [1]. They haven't been doing their job for a long time. Edited to explain: Fixing the news media could be viewed as addressing an underlying cause for a dysfunctional representational system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government
- dllthomas 13y agoAs I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically.
- davidcuddeback 13y ago> As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. If you look at it from a capitalistic perspective, I suppose you're right. I meant it from a civics perspective. For "job," try substituting "importance." You can't have a functioning democracy (or representational government) without an informed electorate. > Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically. You're right that the motives to sell papers (capitalistic goals) don't require them to fulfil their role as a watchdog (civics goals). I don't think these incentives were ever aligned, and I think that's what you meant by your last statement. I never said that it was any different in the past. Not being "substantially [different] now than historically" doesn't preclude something from being broken. I was just explaining to the parent commenter who said, "I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that."
- dllthomas 13y agoAll perfectly reasonable. I wholeheartedly agree we need means of being informed; I welcome proposals. I'm always skeptical about stopping the discussion at vague notions of "fix X".
- dllthomas 13y agoSo let's look at the parties. If we run primary candidates, there will be choice in the primaries. If one of our primary candidates wins and the other doesn't, in a given race, then we have choice in the general election. If our candidates win in the primaries of both parties, then again we don't have choice in the general election but that is because we already won.
- nitrogen 13y agoIt's too easy to "steal" a primary by bringing all your friends to the local party caucuses, moving to replace the caucus chair (seconded and voted by your friends), then electing your friends to replace the local delegates to the statewide party.
- dllthomas 13y agoWell, let's do this then. :-P