makingmusic476 said:
I'm inclined to think the bolded is a case of politicians influencing their constituents, by using their political soap boxes to espouse the threats of other nations and whatnot. And then there was that story a couple of months back about the reporter that sat in on a meeting beetween a congressmen and a lobbyist, and the congressmen straight up said "how big of a check will you cut me if I vote for this?" Googling generic terms like lobbyist and congressmen isn't turning any articles, however. I can't help but feel that in many situations, a corporation influences a congressmen, who in turn influences their own constituents, and in others a corporation directly influences the voter. And in many more the congressmen's simply voting on an issue their constituents probably won't care about or ever even hear about, and thus they know it won't really effect their chances for re-election either way, but it still negatively influences the voter. Given your post in the Russian thread, I guess you'd feel that congressmen seemingly not voting in our best interests all goes back to our FPTP system? That, while a lot of people may not support increased military spending, most people do, and that manifests itself in both major parties? I suppose that could partially cause the problems I'm talking about. The major parties adopting a platform probably creates a sort of feedback loop where that then influences parts of the population to support such positions when they otherwise might not, simply because they are unaware of decent alternatives. Thus if, for example, the Green party gained some significant presence on the national stage, we'd also see an increase in support for something like single-payer healthcare as Green politicians talk about its benefits in speeches, etc. So following this line of thinking, in the end it would all boil down to what politicians are runnning, and the current limit on which politicians do well has to do with FPTP instead of corporate influence. |
A) Your feel free to think this way, but it's simply not true. If it was true we wouldn't be divided so regionally when it comes to politics. The reasons Americans support the things they do is american culture.
For example, people in the US don't like government run healthcare, because they don't like healthcare rationing, which is a halmark of every government healthcare system. It's how the prices stay down.
B) As for that congressman and lobbyiest article. I'm guessing it came from a reporter or source who COMPLETELY MADE IT UP.
There is literally no other legitamite explination for such a conversation to go on, let alone infront of a news reporter... and if it did, they would of published said persons name and had a career making story. The fact that you can't find it on the interenet more or less proves it's fake.
C) Politicians don't always vote in the best interest of their consituents because we live in a democracy. Congressmen more often then not adopt most of the stances of the people they represent. 75% of the time If people DON'T want to do something you'd see as better, it's simply because they don't want to do it. Not because they're ignorant of other options or just aren't informed. For the things you mentioned I could name a number of reasons the public thinks the costs outway the advantages. I don't agree with them, but there are plenty of persuasive reasons.
They just have a different opinion on what they see as best.
Popularity follows position changes, not vice versa... whenever public policy shifts, so to will politician positions... no the other way around.
Though often times public sentiment makes it seem otherwise.
The rest of that time is generally just issues the general populace doesn't care that much about one way or another or in general deal making. You need to vote for things important to other senators to get your stuff passed.
