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: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:05PM
Me-quote:
I think the corollary to "if you're going to vote cynicly, please just stay home" is "if you're going to vote idealistically, please come out to the polls." I guess I should have stated this outright, because evidently it wasn't clear enough.
When I say that there is no reason to vote except as an idealistic gesture, I say that as somebody who voted in the last election and intends to vote in the next one. I like idealistic gestures. I don't see it as self-delusion, I see it as fighting the good fight and losing. Better to fight and lose than stay home apathetic. I think that being oppositional to those in power is something that we should be in the regular practice of, for personal reasons.
I still don't think that an individual voting third party changes anything, except in that individual. I agree with this part of your first post:
I just think that "enough" is a great deal more than one. Individual votes are statistically insignificant. If you could sway ten percent of the votes (or even two percent), I agree that putting it towards a third party would do more to pull the rope in your desired direction than voting Red or Blue.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:09PM
Fair enough; I think we're at a happy medium of agreement. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:35PM
No! That's not aloud! This is the internet.