Do you know what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to say about the 2 party system?

Question

The first clue to what they thought would happen become apparent in the bill of rights. You can read it at: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

George Washington himself said that the problem with a 2 party system is that eventually the politicians would stop serving the interests of the people and start serving the interests of the party.

I don’t know about you, but from my perspective it appears that the forefathers could have opened a psychic hotline. It seems that the priorities that are being set by our leaders are not necessarily in line with what the immediate needs of the average American are. Considering the amount of money it takes to finance war, the effort, the lives lost; It just doesn’t seem like the leadership is using common sense, but rather serving the interests of the parties, some exceptions to the rule.

It seems like basic common sense to me. When given the choice between asking our brothers and sisters in the military to risk their lives and asking the American Business Juggernaut to step in and provide structural integrity to a nation with a shattered foundation, it seems that business would cause less loss of live, would actually generate money, and help provide the necessary operating capital to rebuild the infrastructure necessary for the basic needs of those humans. It was reported that the conditions that people are living in there are third world. Imagine if all the sudden we did not have power, water or sewage. It has happened in areas here and everyone who has been involved in a situation like that could surely agree that it makes one frustrated. Just think, the worst thing we saw lately was the mishandling of the hurricane Katrina disaster. Imagine that on a countrywide scale.

Then imagine what you would feel after a couple years with no solutions. They are fighting a civil war because they cannot meet the basic needs of the humans. It seems they are fighting over resources, not only religious beliefs. The religious sects use the religion to bolster the numbers on each side so they can gain desirable living standards. So if the standards where brought at least back up to where they were, power, water, sewers, food, and medicine, the fighting would decrease significantly. With that foundation, they can then start to work on the other main problems, employment and education. There is 40% unemployment, which means they need work. So lets help them find ways to market products from Iraq and Afghanistan globally to create industry. This will take time, but it does not have to take soldiers.

It is just common sense to me that if the funding for the initiation and continuation of war should be used to cure the social economic scratches we have here. It is time for the US to step up, and start being the model the world can look up to. How can we tell other countries what works when we have not mastered it ourselves? What about our homeless? What about our hungry people? Does everyone have healthcare? How many unemployed do we have here? There is a change happening in the global economy right now, a transition that is going to see the expansion of local economies into a global marketing position. The internet transcends all language and religious barriers when as it pertains to marketing. We are in a position now where a human can take a picture of a product, put it one the internet, and translate the text into regional dialects in desired markets. You see, the Egyptians had the right idea with hieroglyphs, a picture is a picture.

The internet has also opened us up to a new kind of politics, town hall democracy on a nationwide scale. The thing is that because we have adapted our economy to accommodate industry the byproduct is that we can utilize the existing tools within the system to make adjustments to the system.

There is this line in Article V of the US Constitution, which pertains to amending the constitution. It goes like this:
“…when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof…”
When I was very young I went to a private school, and we were taught constitutional law and drilled on our rights, so that we knew them inside and out. The statement “or by conventions in three fourths thereof” the word “conventions” can be defined as a gathering of the people, “three fourths” we know to be 75%, so it translates to if 75% of the people want an amendment, then it becomes an amendment.

So, given the ease with which a legal signature can be obtained these days, (via internet, email, phone, fax, in person), if we really felt that we figured out a better way to do something, like say healthcare, we could simply do it instead of ask a lobby influenced and corrupt system to do it for us.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if we want to stop the war we can. Think about what was accomplished in the 1960’s early 70’s in the anti war movement, in this day in age a protest could turn into an amendment. There aint nothing to it but to do it.

Would you sign a petition to end the war that was gathered outside traditional political means, or would you rather let the politicians make the decisions?

Answer 1

It's not so much that they were psychic -- they just had a lifetime of experience watching the political system, and suffering under a regime that enjoyed abusing its power.

Senior elected officials long ago stopped being interested in doing what's best for the general populace. They don't even try to come up with rational moderate solutions anymore.

They just tailor their message to convince a bare majority of 51% to support them, and then claim a mandate to do whatever is on their own personal agendas. And we let them.