SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon. Others at SN have also voiced similar opinions so I thought this might be an interesting read for our members.
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
[Related]: ‘National Security and Double Government’
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:33PM
Frankly, I don't know as they'd actually care. Once you build a system to spoonfeed a dichotomy to people and squash any other alternatives, it doesn't really matter how many or how few people vote.
Really, fewer people voting would actually result in the greater capacity for change, as there would be a greater chance that one of the fringe candidates would be successful. At least, assuming the black boxes are honest.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by Stardner on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:35PM
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:11AM
Wait, what?
Consider the 2008 election. There were about 70 million votes for Pepsi, 60 million votes for Coke, and about .7 million votes for Nader.
Now consider that voter turnout drops to 10% of what it was, roughly even across the board. That's kind of extreme, but this is the internet and accurate voter apathy models isn't something I'd like to do for fun. Now instead of Nader needing about 69.4 million votes to beat Pepsi, he only needs 6.94 million. That's practically a couple internet mobs.
That's what I mean when I say that overall voter apathy reduces barrier to change.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:14PM
spoonfeed a dichotomy
You have a firm grasp on the present state of affairs.
There are, however, still some radio|TeeVee outlets that are fact-based and not beholding to (advertising-revenue-based) corporate decisions on content:
Pacifica Radio
Free Speech TV (cable)
Note that NPR is **not** in this group.
Want to check the veracity of a "news" story?
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting http://fair.org [fair.org]
.
fewer people voting would actually result in the greater capacity for change
...or, maybe MORE people voting with ALL of those folks voting against the status quo.
When the results show that a MAJORITY of the electorate vote not-Blue and not-Red, it will become clear that the first-past-the-post method and the Electoral College are not representative of what the majority want.
At that point, demand that the Constitution be amended so that to win you have to get a MAJORITY.
That will mean ranked voting.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:41PM
FTFY