Ozymandius
What can Colin Powell, John Kerry, Frank Carlucci and Zbigniew Brzezinski all agree on? The US government is no longer dysfunctional; it’s broken.
In his latest book – America’s Promise Restored: Preventing Culture, Crusade and Partisanship from Wrecking Our Nation – columnist and strategic thinker Harlan Ullman delivers a scorching indictment of self-inflicted wounds that have now imperiled democracy itself.
The unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has become alienable. For a politician to tell his/her constituents the truth in a democratic country – here the United States is no exception – is to ensure defeat at the next election. A guaranteed laugh line outside the Beltway is “I come to you from Washington, our bilingual capital where truth is now the second language … seldom spoken.”
The war on terror is misguided because the causes of terrorism are ignored. Terror, ideas and ideologies are Al Qaeda’s main weapons against which conventional forces are powerless. Iraq is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in US history. It robbed us of the moral high ground. The crusade in the Middle East to democratize Iraq has unleashed the forces of extremism and totalitarian political ambitions.
A resurgent Asia, immigration, soaring debts and deficits and skyrocketing expenses for retirement plans, health care and energy are but a few of the acute problems that elude bad government. The gap between obligations and resources grows unbridgeable with two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, climbing past the half trillion dollar mark and a defense budget of $500 billion a year that now exceeds what the rest of the world spends on defense, including Russia, China, Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
Broken government stems, in large part, from the strength and growing influence of special interest groups and lobbies that all too often represent political extremes and narrow constituencies that agitate outside the mainstream.
Borchgrave moves on to
I don’t think this really needs a response, or a hoard of agreement. we all agree its broke, what’s left to talk about? Unless we think we can fix it here, on a blog
The main problem as I see it is no two people agree on 1) Exactly what is broken and 2) How to fix any given broken part.
We all can see something is wrong and has been for 30-50 years. JUst what that something is…arduing about it is called politics, and it’s how we got here.
I have no solutions, but I do have plenty of ammo for when someone finally snaps and the whole place goes Mad Max.
Empires come and go all the time, ours was short.
Mad Max, cool.
I have full optimism in “the people”-unfortunately, our government is run by not “people” but corporations. The military industrial complex and corporate greed have ruined what we once cherished. It is time to limit corporate power and influence.
I’m kind of hoping Hillary gets elected and that the House or Senate remains Republican. (No – this isn’t a joke)
My thoughts are:
Having Hillary as president will mean that all the nay-sayers for war, when it comes up, will likely be quiet. You can look back to the Clinton administration for that. Bosnia wasn’t U.N. supported and we were supposed to be out in 1 year. Didn’t happen – no complaints. No one protesting in the streets about it. The Republicans will go along with the president during war time. The Democrats won’t unless their guy is in office. I believe that had Gore been elected he likely would have been about the same as Bush in terms of foreign policy (we were attacked) and fiscal irresponsibility. The only difference with Gore in charge is that the Republicans would have argued about him spending too much on social programs (they would have argued becaause it’s not their guy in office).
Also, with Hillary in office I think most people see her as a bitch not to cross. The would help some of the nuttier people out there looking to attack us.
With Republicans controlling at least either the House or the Senate they’d go back to spending their time arguing about stupid crap. Yeah, we have to pay them to to argue about stupid crap but at least they wouldn’t be on a spending spree.
Basically, a Democrat in the Whitehouse gets rid of the annoying protesters.
A Republican/Democrat mix for the House/Senate (and presidency) gets us the ‘nothing getting done’ mode which is way better than the ‘we can’t spend it fast enough’ mode that you get from one party of the other controlling all of it.
Nothing getting done doesn’t make things better but at least it doesn’t make things worse (or it slows the stupidity a good bit).
I like Hillary because she is divisive.
Interesting thoughts…
As an USA citizen, I think both the Republican and Democratic parties need to be disbanded and/or re-organized. They certainly need their heads cut off. Many of the leaders of both parties blindly follow party lines, without deep thought on consequences.
They also make everything a war. The war on terror. The war on drugs. The war on poverty. The war on gas prices. The war on global warming.
How about a war on corruption? Or, a war on greed? Maybe a war on ignorance, or extremism? Here’s a good one: the war on national debt. These are some of the most pressing and prevalent problems that need to be solved, and once these wars are won, they’ll inherently stop the aforementioned wars.
Perhaps we just need a war on the stupid politicians that are self-serving, and certainly are NOT representative of the people.
Personally I think this guy has his head up his tookus. He doesn’t really get why we went to Iraq and the progress that is being made there. Most of his arguments are to the extreme and are ignorant of history. For example, “The sheer magnitude and scope of the dangers, challenges and problems facing the United States have never been greater both at home and abroad.” Really. You mean unlike the Revolution, the Civil War, both World Wars or the Cold War? His statements about politicians are laughable such as that politicians can’t be truthful or are bent on destroying their opponents. He should read a bit about the Romans.
Let’s look at his solutions:
Solutions:
1. Forced voting – a fringe idea, but not a bad one.
2a. Sarbarnes-Oxley for Congress – Horrid idea. What are you going to do: require them to write a book report? A better idea would be further subdivide the government and create formal sub-Congresses comprised of elected officials in charge of specific aspects of the government. Better accountability can be had by spreading power across more people.
2b. Sarbarnes-Oxley for the President – Again, horrid idea. Remember that President’s budget is a plan, not an accounting of profit/loss. As above, removing some powers from the executive branch into sub-Congresses would help solve this problem. Rather than the President proposing a budget, create a sub-Senate comprised of two officials (elected or appointed by the State governor) from each State whose sole purpose is to create a budget instead appointed clerks doing that job.
3. Code of Conduct for the War on Terror. Keep in mind that there is already a code of conduct for the military which was violated by the Abu Ghraib soliders and that the Constitution and the Courts are there to ensure that legislation follows the “code of conduct” for law. So, I don’t really see how this would help.
4. “Strategic construct..” Huh? I’m not sure what exactly he is talking about here however the execu-speak (lofty speech that doesn’t say anything) is impressive.
5. National Security University. They have such a thing. It is called the Department of Defense who purpose is to analyze the state of the world and determine the best approach for defending US interests. The “open to all agencies” presents the fundamental problem with security: prevent abuse and mistake while maintaining confidentiality. That said however, that is the purpose behind the Department of Homeland Security. Their job is to get the agencies to work in unison.
IMO, the core problem is that the ratio of governed to governing is far too high. In the original design of the government, there were to be 100K people for every one Representative. However, when they capped that number, there are now essentially 500 people governing to 300 million people being governed. The best way to solve this problem is take as much power as possible in the Federal government and give it back to the States (what a novel idea ;->). What’s left should be split into sub-Congresses which focus on specific aspects of the government (Housing, Education, Budgets etc). There is just too much for one body of people to handle.
I don’t care what you do to the politicians as long as they stop spending our money like drunken sailors. Gridlock is good. Bring back divided government.
Mandatory Voting? The Klowns in Kongress don’t want too many voters to show up, now, as it is. It would throw a panic attack right through both incompetent parties.
Too bad, Thomas really hasn’t a clue about Ullman’s credentials, though. Especially when he says he doesn’t have a clue about how or why we went to Iraq — or wants to explain the Department of Defense to him. Ullman invented “Shock and Awe”, Thomas. He’s an advisor to the D of D — the dorks just don’t listen.
Frankly, I haven’t yet made my mind up about mandatory voting; but, I’ll bet it could work.
I say the republican party needs to be disbanned and built back to resemble old republican ideals. I would love a party that promoted state rights, entrepreneurship, small federal gov, etc.
“The party founders adopted the name “Republican” to indicate it was the carrier of “republican” beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption” ~ Wikipedia on the birth of the republican party (oh how it strays).
Which American government, the one run by the people or the one run by the corporations?
Term limits – 2 six year terms for the Senate, 3 four year terms for the House. It is insane that the House members have to basically start running for reelection the minute they are elected and it is insane that the same people stay in office for decades. Half the House is up for grabs every 2 years, and 1/3 the Senate.
Have you ever noticed that politicians start telling the truth once they announce they are not going to run for reelection?
For the presidency – end the winner-take-all per state for the Electoral College. Whoever wins each House district gets its vote. Whoever wins most votes in the state gets the two Senate Electoral votes.
That way, at least part of state is up for grabs – the Red parts of California and Ilinois, and the Blue parts of FLA, etc. It could also help break up the two-party presidential system as well, giving third-party candidates the chance to pick up some electoral votes.
Campaign finance reform – no one can contribute more than $100 to a candidate or any organization attacking or advocating any candidate. All candidates who get x number of signatures get free TV ad time for a few months prior to the primaries and the election. Anyone accepting the free air time cannot put on more commercials than his allotment.
The wholesale corruption of American government by way of $10k/plate fundraisers must be broken, as well as the interminable political campaigns that wear out the electorate.
opening up the system is key – the riduculous rate of incumbency is a travesty as is the mammoth sums of money that go into campaigns. the Framers would be ashamed.
Our “inalienable” rights have been alienated since the beginning of the 20th century. Bush and his gang are merely the inevitable result of the majority-rules style democracy that we’ve been told is the best for us. No liberal or conservative can reconcile his or her views with self-ownership. Conservative wish to restrict social activities and so must tell us we don’t have the right to dispose of our lives and persons. Liberals wish to take our property to give to others, so they must tell us that we don’t ahve the right to dispose of our property – all property is essentially owned by the government.
Well, that puts everyone in the position of wanting to get the most they can from government – corporations rent seeking, groups claiming victim status, and worst sort of people realizing they can make a fortune as politicians pandering to every interest group.
Term limits would just put control into the hands of the major parties – as if they don’t have enough already. You might not get the same politicians, but they’d all be carbon copies of the ones who went before.
> Too bad, Thomas really hasn’t a clue about Ullman’s
> credentials, though.
I could care less about his credentials. My opinion is based on what he says.
> ..Especially when he says he doesn’t
> have a clue about how or why we went to Iraq or wants to
> explain the Department of Defense to him. Ullman invented
> “Shock and Awe”, Thomas. He’s an advisor to the D of D —
> the dorks just don’t listen.
If this is bozo represents the quality of the advisors to the DOD it would go along way towards explaining why people think the DOD is messed up.
Adding yet another bureaucracy is not the solution. You remind of the people who after 9/11, clamored for an organization to sift through the evidence of terrorist activities and apprehend terrorists at home and abroad. That is what the FBI and CIA are supposed to do. If they aren’t doing it, then we should fix the existing organization, not add another one. Similarly, if the DOD is not listening or is performing their job poorly, we should look into correcting the DOD not add another organization that does exactly what the DOD is supposed to do.
Sorry, Thomas; but, after you skittered over your unwillingness to look beyond your uninformed opinion, I think you missed a much more important feature of what this is about.
We’re discussing, after all, a Lifer in the military whose conservative history and analytical experience well served a segment of American government for thirty years or more. Regardless of the number of times I disagreed with past or recent policies advocated by Ullman — and there are a number, the significance is that yet another leading figure in the American military and political establishment is fed up with the crappola that passes for administration and ethics.
I could care less who or what that reminds you of. That’s another uninformed opinion.
#15,,,doug….wow….I actually like almost all of what you suggest. It is not only clear and to the point, but makes sense.
The only way term limits can work is with your finance laws. And contrary to what BHK says about the parties, term limits with your proposal for giving electoral votes by districts won would indeed make the parties as we know them now become a thing of the past.The only thing that I wasn’t to sure about is the free ad time. You make it a lot like public financing is now, if you take it, you are stuck with it and if the other guy dosen’t, he can out buy or spend you.
As to someone’s suggestion for mandatory voting(Ullmans i believe), that I don’t agree with, I would rather have a smaller pool of knowledgable voters than a massive pool of uninformed ones any day.
As it is today, a lot of people who vote aren’t informed of whats what on the ballots, but at least they have enough gumption to get out and vote. The rest just make excuses or aren’t interested, they would be the lowest possible denominator of voter.
also Doug……I think your right that your proposals could lead to other viable parties, thus other views on goverment being able to be heard.
Mandatory VOTINg isnt BAd, as long as you give us a CHOICE, and a button that says, NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Hilary, will be used as a scape goat, ANT president will be the NEXt scape goat, I dont want the job, and NEITHER do you.
It takes 1-2 terms before WHAT HAs been done, makes an affect. And Bush has set up some MAJOR STUFF.
forget term limits, Kill the Pension fund…They can serve 2 terms, and RETIRE on full wages…
The electrorial is a sham, It USEd to be split, for each that was voted, and NOW only 3 states split the electorial.
A third party that wins some seats would be enough to fix the worst excesses. The rest probably aren’t fixable. I don’t think any other country in the world is mired in a 2 party system as the US is. It’s better than one party sure but a third party would actually rock the boat because it’s their only way of maybe getting power.
The easiest way to break up the two party system would be run-off elections. At that point you can vote your conscience and then, if that guy doesn’t pan out, try again until someone has at least 51% of the vote.
Brad
If it’s as broke as everyone seems to think it is, perhaps we ought to toss democracy and try something else. A constitutional monarchy, perhaps? Or maybe impose a ten year moratorium on lawyers running for elective office? I personally believe we are way too big to govern from a central point, such as Washington. We should return the power and the money to the states, and go from there. We can do this in an orderly manner, or just wait for the ineveitable blow-up.
Its not broke that bad, its just that we have to TAKE control back from the corps, and clean up whats been done.
And if you REALLy care, this is NOT a democracy…Its federalism.
the fun way yo get MORE persons to vote(IMHO) is to run in each state, and each state to select 1 person to run. From that you get regional elections to break it down to 5… Select atates with LIKE economies in groups of 10. this would really put a damper on the East coast, and Cali.. With ALOT more coming from the central US.
THEn run Sponsored debates, REAL ones. Stick those guys up and LET them ramble for a whole day, and lets see what we get.
moss,
You keep basing your opinon on his credentials and instead of what he says. If that’s your MO in life, you are doomed to be fooled by appeals to authority. I have met high ranking miltary people that were utter bozos ( As well as many that were not obviously ). Just because they are in the military and are an advisor to the DoD does not prevent them from being full of crap.
I never denied that the DoD might have problems. However, I disagree with adding another bureaucracy to do what the DoD is supposed to do. If the DoD broken, then let’s fix the DoD. If small fixes won’t do it, then overhaul it. Having two bureaucracies in charge of the same thing is a galactic mistake.
I think this is enough troll bait. You can circus-seal this guy all you want but based on his statements, he sounds like he’s mostly full of crap.
Even an idiot can have a good idea, once in awhile.
Even Einstein has been disproven on a few facts.
Thomas, you make a few good points about redundancy and overlapping jurisdictions. Why do we have the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Marshal’s Service, the Secret Service, the Immigration Enforcement branch, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. And if that isn’t enough, there is the the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
I don’t know if I missed any armed federal policing agencies, but is there some reason they could not be merged into one police force? Or even two or three at most?
Now, how about the civil investigation divisions. There is the Department of Labor investigating OSHA compliance, minimum wage, and manufacturing facilities, there are Agriculture Inspectors investigating food packing plants and certain chemicals and applications, there is Medicare investigating Nursing homes and medical payments, there is the IRS investigating proper tax collections, there is the FDA investigating the manufacture of drugs and medical devices as well as some food purity. Half of each agency overlaps another agency’s area.
So why invent another agency to do the same thing already being done. If it isn’t being done as well as it might, then fix it, don’t add another problem.
Thank you Mr. H. Fusion. Exactly my point. We already have problems with mulitple agencies having overlapping authorities. Adding additional agencies is not the solution. The solution is to fix the ones that are not performing well.