I have a question. I keep hearing about so many problems with the way things are done in the US. The tax filing system. Mass incarceration. Problematic police departments. Reproductive rights. Privacy rights. And on and on and on.
But few (if any) representatives seem to want to fix any of this stuff. I see no progress. Just an ever increasing partisan divide based largely around religion and an "us vs them" mentality.
Where do we go from here? Does this stuff ever get better?
There's problems in every country - no political system is devoid of corruption, cronyism and the influence of lobbyists. But one thing I do find unusual about US (and to a lesser extent the UK) politics is how extreme the partisan nature of every aspect of politics is. Any explicit discussion of politics is about "sides"; even the most good-natured discussions are about "balancing" red and blue, rather than representing the reality of diversity of thought. And that word - "diversity" - even means something different in the US than elsewhere: rather than actual diversity (acceptance of a spectrum), it rather tends to mean hitting a set of strictly predefined (discrete!) boxes.
I can't help but think - especially given the existence of some parallels in UK politics - that FPTP must have some input into creating this culture.
The US system elects based on popularity, but the problems require technocrats. Decrease in educational standards and funding, as well as funding for other services, is both the reason and part of the answer.
We need bureaucracies that can be evaluated on efficiency in performance to mission. Many US representatives, ideologically, want to starve the US government of resources for a variety of reasons (serving the wealthy, lost cause, religious background, Reaganite). Rather than target efficiency, it's a simpler narrative to point to an underfunded, possibly brain-drained agency and make fun of its failings as it seeks to achieve its particular mission.
> We need bureaucracies that can be evaluated on efficiency in performance to mission.
That implies that there's broad agreement on a) the mission of various government agencies, and b) the desirability of the mission or even the agency. There are large subsets of the American population that question the desirability and disagree about the mission of the ATF, DEA, INS, CIA, FBI, and several other agencies. Electing and appointing people who are good at accomplishing those missions is not enough to satisfy many Americans.
Something like the Prime Law of Politics applies everywhere and at all times; things tend to stay the same even with apparently "large" political changes, because in mostly democratic countries, the people have what they want, even if they complain about it.
We'll also see laws flapping back and fourth between administrations. This already happens with some funding for NGOs and they hate it (funding for birth control and abortions in sub-saharan africa is one notable example). It's going to be very stressful.
Should we be able to chart a consistent course on issues where there is no broad agreement among the people? Should the government involve itself in such issues at all, rather than leaving highly controversial purposes to be accomplished by voluntary means?
This stuff literally only gets better if people get out and vote
Politics in the western world is shedding the 19-20th-century ideologies and right/left wing parties and devolving into at it's root, autocracy vs small-d democracy.
The problem here is that the autocrats also support 'free-market capitalism' (which works basically as described in this article - crony capitalism), and motivates their voting blocs with fear. Their voting blocks vote reliably. The result is things like Trump and Brexit.
The small-d democratic parties basically motivate their voters with hope and freedom to do your own thing. the problem is that their voters tend to do their own thing, and that thing is not attempting to control others for profit, and they tend to be apathetic about voting. Especially since their demographic tends to be young, and the young are famous for having loads of political opinions but not actually showing up to vote - especially in minor elections, such as mid-terms and state elections in the USA. Active disinformation campaigns don't help.
Somehow, the Nordic countries seem to have cracked the participation code a few generations ago, and are anti-autocratic and nice places to live. Whether this can be sustained in other democracies is an open question.
No, it is not, if you are paying the slightest bit of attention to the world or to history
In the US, there is a structural electoral deficit for mainly urban voters in favor of small-d democracy and more progressive approaches, vs more authoritarian approaches, both because of the Electoral College in presidential elections and gerrymandering in other elections. Only when there is a greater wave of voting do candidates slightly favoring the people (vs corporations & authoritarians) get elected. See 2008, 2020. These had substantially greater overall and youth turnout. When the overall and youth turnout is low, the better motivated right-wing and often elder voters still turn out and they win.
Seriously, just read something on the issue before posting such generic nonsense - it's not clever. If you have am actual question, post that.
Dose it get better? No. It’s very a profitable setup for some, and representatives need support from some to maintain their position so they can do “Good.” Trying to make stuff better will get you branded somewhere between a raciest and a Nazi.
I’m curious of what sort of examples you would categorize as “people who were trying to make things better but ended up getting branded as racist or nazi”.
But few (if any) representatives seem to want to fix any of this stuff. I see no progress. Just an ever increasing partisan divide based largely around religion and an "us vs them" mentality.
Where do we go from here? Does this stuff ever get better?