Korean Job Discussion Forums

Fox · Joined: 04 Mar 2009

... or other procedural obstructionism in the legislative process? Here's an article that discusses America's procedural obstruction issues in comparison to those faced by the Roman Republic. It's conclusion:

caniff · Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map

geldedgoat · Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

What geldedgoat said. Some of the proposals that were floating around last fall were in the right direction and should have received more serious consideration. They seemed to preserve the minority's right to be heard, but also the majority's right and responsibility to govern (elections should have consequences). I don't think any of us signed up for government by the minority.

caniff · Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

(I had to hit the submit button after talking on the phone�I really hate it when I write a long paragraph and then Dave's ESL Cafe tosses my gems of wisdom out into the cold empty spaces of cyberspace.)

So yes, in that sense, the two parties are the same. European political philosophies don't translate all that well to our continent. Why should they? They are their continent and we are ours and there is no particular reason their political philosophies should be relevant to us, nor ours to them.

But back to us...

In foreign affairs, the current GOP has a radical wing of neo-cons that seems to be oddly hung up on the fate of Israel, seemingly because of right-wing Christianity and end of the world stuff. Their over-all policy is to bring democracy to the world, or at least the Middle East. They are also aggressively into military things. The Democrats are also into bringing democracy to the world. (I think this goes back to our revolutionary American roots.) I don't see much difference between the two parties, except that the neo-cons jumped the gun and tried to push democracy before Iraq and Afghanistan were ready and the Dems waited until the Middle East started the movement themselves and now we can swoop in and 'help' them. (The non-neo-con conservatives are just gnashing their teeth because Obama came along and made a good speech that created the space for the internal problems in Tunisia to mature. They actually are jumping up and down with glee at the prospect of finally modernizing North Africa while bemoaning the fact that Obama may get the credit.) The 'difference' is really 'how' and 'when', not 'what'.

The real differences are in domestic affairs. The current dominant wing of the GOP really does want to turn over all the money and power to the wealthy. They don't see that as a problem. They have convinced themselves that the corporate CEOs have the best interests of the nation (and the world and US) in mind, rather than their own privilege. (Self-deception is not dead.) This is class warfare. The Dems really do (regardless of the traitors among them) want to defend the interests of the working class. This goes back to the debate between Jefferson and Hamilton. There has always been a conflict between the idea of a prosperous small man kind of society and a government dominated by the 'moneyed interests' as Jackson called them. [The stuff about states rights is a side show. The Anti-federalists lost the argument in 1788 but never gave up. Any group that finds itself out of power appeals to the Anti-federalist position and today that is the GOP. The last time that position was newsworthy was when they tipped the country into the Civil War. It could happen again.]

Conclusion: Ignore 90% of the arguments about foreign affairs, it's all just political theater; they really agree. You're right. They are just two sides of the same coin. Don't ignore the domestic arguments. The future of the country lies here. (My assessment: We all smack each other up side the head while the Chinese move to the head of the class.)