| Author |
Message |
Jerry Okamura
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject:
We The Peopple |
|
|
Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:04 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
Jerry Okamura wrote:
| Quote: | Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
|
Neither. The strategists, perhaps........grin
cheers
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Okamura
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:04 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
"Wayne Lundberg" <Waynelund@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:e6hxe.1062231$w62.1038957@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: |
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Jjfxe.5849$aA5.172@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
We the people make up most special interest groups. Teachers, teamsters,
Bureaucrats, AARP, GE stockholders......
I do not think that is true. Most special interest groups are controlled by |
very few people. They decide on which agenda they feel is important for the
people they represent. The people they represent do not really have a say
in whether all of the positions they take, they are in favor of. Take a
labor union special interest groups. Do they consult and get the approval
of all of their members to determine if the positions they are taking on
their behalf has the majority support of the members? As for the AARP. I
think enough has been written about their positions, can any of us say that
they represent the majority position of all seniors, or even a vast majority
of seniors. As for stockholders they are even less represented. Unless
there is some activist, either individually or a small group with enough
clot (translation: owns enough shares), the people who run the corporations
decide what they will support or what they will not support, they certainly
do not ask for a vote of the shareholders to determine if the majority of
shareholders approve of their position.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary James
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:04 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:46:17 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
|
Considering the Special Interests control the paid political shills,
I would assume it fair to say they control everything. Possibly more
under some presidents than others. Or at least different things.
The People's best hope to control anything, is a divided government
with one party controlling the Legislative and the other the
Administrative. That way the Special Interests are so busy trying to
screw each other, they leave us alone for short periods of time.
Which is very restful, as we saw in the 1950s, the 1980s and the
1990s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayne Lundberg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:04 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Jjfxe.5849$aA5.172@tornado.socal.rr.com...
| Quote: | Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
We the people make up most special interest groups. Teachers, teamsters, |
Bureaucrats, AARP, GE stockholders......
silly question!
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Simpson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:
Govt. reforms, was Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
Gary James wrote:
| Quote: | The People's best hope to control anything, is a divided government
with one party controlling the Legislative and the other the
Administrative [the Executive].
|
Well, at least you didn't say "convert the Senate to another House,"
or "abolish the Senate," much less base that goal on the Preamble, as
the worst losers have done in the past.
The only people that normally like "divided government" are people
who don't think government can do anything good, so while it's
wasteful, they like having govenrnment inhibited from doing any more
harm!
Actually, "divided government" was what the elites hated in the 1980s
(translation: a Democratic-controlled Congress no longer was aided by a
Democratic White House and the Democrats' agenda was no longer making
"progress") and was why "fusion" was a beloved word when discussing
government redesign and constitutional reform. (I have read and owned
a number of books on constitutional reform and reorganization of
government, including the book by Sundquist below.)
"In this revised edition of his highly acclaimed 1986 volume, James
Sundquist reviews the origins and rationale of the constitutional
structure and the current debate about whether reform is needed, then
raises practical questions about what changes might work best if a
consensus should emerge that the national [sic; federal] government is
too prone to stalemate to meet its responsibilities [sic; do all that
interventionists desire]."
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/constitutionalreformreved.htm
The elites also not merely hated (and still hate) proportional
representation and multiple parties, but they hated "ticket splitting"
and wanted the "team ticket" (just like many forms of proportional
representation, except -- the only choices would be the Dems or the
GOP) and a prohibition or impossibility of ticket splitting. (Such
elitism not only is found inside the Beltway among the camp whore
talking heads and DC commentators, who loathed Ross Perot openly on the
air, for example, but exists and has expressed contempt for
proportional representation and more than two political parties, and
independent candidates, from the establishment likes of organizations
such as the Wall Street Journal.)
Something slightly different than what you have described, Gary,
actually achieves even more directly what it is you desire. That was
the advocation by at least one person (in at least two books, which I
have now in storage at home somewhere) of an effective formal
government perpetuation of the Dems and GOP, structured in a way that
defines two roles for the two parties at any given time: The Government
(most recent majority victory in the most recent election) and the
Opposition. The Opposition has a formally defined role (including, if
I recall, its leader being made the Speaker of the House -- note that,
Gary, Congress truly versus the White House) and I wish I had the book
handy so I could provide more information. I don't like the
enshrinement of the two major parties (we need more parties), but as
you were thinking in terms of division and I suspect, guaranteed
opposition or at least guaranteed representation of (protection of?)
the last election's losers, there is an interesting example for you
(and other readers).
(Note that while since its evolution, it has been idiotic for the
"other" major party to have "opposing party's" speeches whenever the
President gives a speech, it might become appropriate if this
Government and Opposition scheme ever materialized, as the Opposition
would be a formal, official part of the government and a role that
would be required to be filled.)
The book was written by Charles Hardin. I have found a short blurb
from a site that mentions a number of works about constitutional
changes (I have some of these, including Henry Hazlitt's "A New
Constitution Now" and Rexford Tugwell's massive "The Emerging
Constitution" in addition to Sundquist's edited book and the book by
Hardin.)
"Political scientist Charles Hardin published a book in 1974, in direct
response to the Watergate scandal. However, he acknowledged previous
contemporary authors, indicating that Watergate was not his only
motivation. From the Civil War to Watergate, he saw scandals as an
inevitable symptom of the structure of government provided by the
Constitution. He envisioned a more Parliamentary government, with a
strong party flavor. He favored equal terms for the President and
Congress, with simultaneous elections and votes of no confidence;
at-large members of the House;
an official opposition with its own shadow cabinet;
and election of the President by simple majority vote."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumper
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:48:26 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
<Waynelund@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Jjfxe.5849$aA5.172@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
We the people make up most special interest groups. Teachers, teamsters,
Bureaucrats, AARP, GE stockholders......
|
Not compared to the really big groups such as the pharmaceutical
group.
Thumper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Chamblee
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
Wayne Lundberg at Waynelund@worldnet.att.net wrote
| Quote: |
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Jjfxe.5849$aA5.172@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
We the people make up most special interest groups. Teachers, teamsters,
Bureaucrats, AARP, GE stockholders......
|
The answer lies where the money to keep Congress and the White House bribed
comes from; and it's not the people.
Consider how an Indian Tribe paid $84 Million in the belief that their
casino interests would be protected by DeLay, Holy Roller Ralph Reed and
other lobbyists, when in fact their own money was partially used to fund
their opposition, while DeLay and Reed denigrated them as stupid.
Reed & DeLay should be sent to Gitmo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpelstiltskin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:59 am Post subject:
Re: We The Peopple |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:05:56 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:48:26 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
Waynelund@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Jjfxe.5849$aA5.172@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Who controls the political agenda, the people or the special interest
groups?
We the people make up most special interest groups. Teachers, teamsters,
Bureaucrats, AARP, GE stockholders......
Not compared to the really big groups such as the pharmaceutical
group.
|
To be sure. If it weren't in fact the case, wouldn't it seem
preposterous that the US government would deliberately
pursue policies that make drugs more expensive in the US
than anywhere else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in