America the Oligarch

The past few weeks have exposed the shortfalls of representative democracy in this current political environment. Politicians feel compelled to go onto TV networks and debase each other in the hope that it ends with multiple networks using their clip. For instance, Republican Joe Wash posting a YouTube video telling President Obama that he should be 'ashamed' of himself. Then subsequently appearing on the networks saying that Obama isn't taking the debt debate 'seriously.' I mean, come on. How can one support a politician as overtly disingenuous as this guy. But obviously his constituents do, or his backers do.

Voters need to be aware of the parties past and present objectives. At one time, parties existed to primarily play to the voters. In other words, the parties gave their representatives the flexibility to give they're constituents what they want regardless of what the party agenda as a whole was trying to accomplish. Now, the political party's objectives are to push their own agenda through supporting candidates who will succumb to the party's position with their wealth of party cash.

Yes, this is oligarchic. Anyone who argues that this country is a democracy will be hard-pressed to defend their view. This explains Obama's dealings with Wall Street and the Financial Sector. This is why the Financial Reform bill changed the financial sector very little and has had little influence. How can a President do what is right for the country when there are so many significant donors that were crucial to their get elected?

The problem with our government isn't just incompetence. It is a combination of incompetence and the political environment. How can you do the right thing where campaign donors want you to do the other? Its less of incompetence and more of incapability. Politicians are incapable of using their independent judgement mixed with public opinion because they have to worry also about their campaign finances. If independent judgement tells a congressmen or women that increasing revenue mixed with responsible cuts in entitlements is the right thing to do, but can't, something is wrong with the system. But how do you get around a Supreme Court ruling that deems corporate spending a form of free speech. Is it possible? It is, but is it likely?

It doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future, for we have the most conservative Supreme Court in our nations history. More liberal judges would have to be appointed. But this also raises the question of judicial accountability. Every other sect of our government is accountable in some form, except the judicial branch. Yes, Presidents have the authority to appoint justices, but afterwards, the justices are immune from all accountability. And I understand the justices have to interpret the Constitution as objectively as they can and rule to what they think the documents' intentions are, but common sense tells us that spending in this environment towards political campaigns isn't a fair form of free speech, and thus shouldn't be allowed. I am a proponent of consistency in the law, as most nations and people are, but sometimes independent judgement and common sense should be the formula for decisions in certain cases, like this one. 

Un-Credible S&P

Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the United States' credit rating should matter very little, which I believe it will. It may have some short-term repercussions but overall will have little influence on the markets. The main issue is S&P's credibility, which they have none of. This was the same agency that was giving incredibly risky subprime mortgage bonds triple-A ratings right before they contributed heavily to the financial collapse of 08'. Its kind of odd that they're still in business. Coupled with the revelation that they made a two trillion dollar miscalculation (that was able to be pointed out by the White House within hours) that influenced this judgement further undermines their already questionable credibility.

However, S&P may have woke up some of the more extremists in each party. Tea Party candidates now may understand the substantial implications of their no-compromise stance. Politicians from both sides now know that the rating agencies aren't afraid to downgrade the most powerful nations' credit rating. They may be forced now to mitigate the rising costs of our entitlements while also raising taxes. But one of S&P's justifications for downgrading the US's credit rating was because the US showed that defaulting on its debts was an actual possibility. Nonetheless, that justification alone doesn't seem significant enough to downgrade our credit rating.

This downgrade, with a certain degree of questionability, exposes the failed leadership of Barack. He ostensibly was for a four trillion dollar plan to cut into our debt before he heard from the House Speaker that it was a no-go for his party (because of "tax increases"). Obama could have easily exposed the hypocrisy of the GOP for their assuming of being the adults who are willing to make the painful decisions. Yet, the GOP cowardly digressed to a 2 trillion dollar plan that cut into discretionary spending adversely affecting the middle and poor class (which are becoming hard to distinguish for one another) because of their insistence on no tax increases. If the GOP were responsible adults like they say they are they wouldn't be acting like little American children who only want it their way. Obama's failure to show this is a characteristic of a mediocre leader. 

Democratic Phantoms

President Obama and the democrats are amazingly bad at politics. They seem to not understand the GOP's successes as politicians . They also must not see how they do it:

The GOP consistently sticks to its talking points throughout their tenure in Congress. For instance, in pretty much every interview in the last few years every GOP affiliated congressmen invariably stated "tax-increases kill jobs, they've referred to owners as 'job creators,' and this government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem." They stick to their points and they never drift elsewhere because they understand that the American people can only take so much. Americans constantly hear that tax increases on the richest Americans will depress the economy and kill jobs. No facts needed in this strategy because a falsity that is said by an elite group of politicians becomes a factually unsupported truth in the minds of a disinterested segment of the public. Accordingly, the American public, as polls show, don't know very much about what is going on in this country. For example, most didn't know which party had control in each house after the 2010 elections. 

The Democratic Party, including President Obama, always get in the political game too late. They fail to persuade the public that they're position is the right one and come out at the last minute on all the news programs stating their reasons for why the other side is wrong and they genuinely look baffled at how their Republican counterparts are getting away with it. Well, the reason that they get away with it is because they do a better job at communicating to the public. Republican congressmen flood the airwaves of the networks throughout any major debate while the Democrats come out in the end to complain about the outcome. I just saw a Democrat on CNN a few minutes ago (who just recently must have found his balls) blasting the debt deal that was reached among Obama and House leaders. He even went so far as to say that he would condone Obama pleading the 14th amendment and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. He said Dick Cheney would have done it. Where was this guy throughout the debate; he was awesome. But awesomely late as well. The Democratic congressmen are intelligent and rational and have the facts on their side, and in this debate the public as well, but they are horrible politicians. They must have an aversion to conformity because Democrats never unite until its too late. When will these Democratic politicians become politicians?