a reply to: flice
Well first of all, great OP, good points, sound reason and insightful questioning. Well played.
The root of the problem is, that the people who own the system will not relinquish the mechanisms by which they retain control over it. Simply put,
one cannot wrest the keys to the kingdom from the jealous fists of those who hold them. Unless there were some financial incentive to doing so, the
people who own the Federal Reserve, the people who purchase the candidates, the people who decide who to go to war with next, and then order the
officialdom to find a way to justify it (and have no doubt, that is the order of events in this day and age, much as we would like to believe
otherwise) have no incentive to give up the massive power they have accrued.
It is also worth mentioning that many of these individuals own more than just the United States, but other western national governmental processes,
and international businesses which are vital to the economies of most of the industrialised nations, and certainly the western ones.
The thing with America is, that it is a Republic, with a democratic means of selecting its leader, in that people get a choice every once in a while,
as to who is to be their leader. This is different to the British system in the following respects, and before I detail those, I want to make it clear
that what I am talking about is the way things are actually SUPPOSED to run, not the way they actually do in reality:
In Britain, we are considered a democratic nation because our system of governance is supposed to be servile to its people in every respect, and at
all times. For example, not only do we vote every few years to select which party leads our government, but in the meantime, we are supposed to be
able to have our Members of Parliament act on our behalf, to ensure that our will is done, our needs met, and that our government acts in accordance
with the ethos, beliefs, and spirit of our nations people. They are sworn to represent our various needs, to respond to our input, they are obligated
to do it by way of being in Parliament at all.
In the US however, things are not quite so simple. In actual fact, the only element of American politics which is democratic, is the method by which
leaders and representatives are chosen. There is nothing democratic about what happens in the meantime, there is no expectation that once a candidate
has been selected for ANY office, that they will respond to the needs of the people, take heed of and act in accordance with their will, or any such
notion. Essentially, once a person is in office, they are free to basically do as they please, as long as they are not breaking the law. Simply put,
once elected, the elected person, party, or entity, has all the power, and the people have none. Now, that is actually the system at play, working as
it was designed to. Its not a game, not a hoodwink, its simply what it is. That is why the American people need to be careful as to who they elect,
because even a candidate who makes all the right noises can basically get away with doing anything they like, even if it goes against everything the
people want or believe, with the only caveat being that Congress and the Senate would have to be in agreement. Contrary to popular understanding,
there is no provision in law or the structure of the United States political system, which holds any member of Congress, the Senate, or the
administration in power, to follow through on the instructions of the people.
That is where the US differs from the UK in terms of its visible government structure, because in the UK, there IS a structural expectation that the
government behave as the people will it to.
HOWEVER, please do not misunderstand me, NEITHER of these systems ACTUALLY result in representation for the people of the respective nations governed
by these methodologies. The reason our UK parliament is so deaf to our instruction, despite being set up with the purpose of responding to those
instructions directly, is that it too is owned by powers not of our choosing or representative of our needs. Our political machinery is as gummed up
with corruption as any other, which is why the UK system of democratic governance we allegedly have here, appears about as democratic as a firing
squad in a prison for political activists, more often than not, and ESPECIALLY now.
The result is, that although our system is supposed to be immediately responsive to our needs but is not, the fact that the system is allegedly set
to give us a real time hand on the tiller, which we lack despite the arrangement, sets our nations apparent political machinery apart from that of the
US, in which there has never been any expectation what so ever that mid way through a presidency, the people might change the way the president acts
on a given topic or issue.
What BOTH nations need, and need badly, in order for their people to be represented equally, fairly and justly, is for the people to own the
government wholesale, for no part of it to be privatised (especially not the Federal Reserve, for example), or owned by individuals or any small group
thereof and for all activities of the civil service at every level to be transparent to the point where any Tom, Dick or Harry can literally demand to
see the books, the security tapes, the correspondence of or between, EVERY department of that civil service, to ENSURE that nothing is ever missing
that ought not be, that no hoodwink can occur.
As it is however, both nations are owned outright by groups of individuals whose needs and ideals are not those of the people over whom governance is
wielded, and until that changes in our country here in the UK, and indeed in the United States of America, there will never be any notable difference
between the runaway governments of the Blair/Bush era, and the governments of tomorrow.