Well... blast

[kickaha]

On the good side, the single-party lock on executive and legislative branches has been broken. Excellent. That was entirely too lopsided.

On the bad side, a single party now controls (barely) both halves of the legislative branch... and in two years it's almost certain they'll hold the executive branch as well...

...and we'll be right back where we started. Crap. Watch the insanity begin again as The Other White Meat begins *their* feeding frenzy.

Can a brother get some *balance*??

All I can hope for is that in two years the Congress splits again.

Comments

[georgmi.livejournal.com]

The worst part is how the two parties seem to have chosen issues to differ on that are both polarizing and, in the grand scheme of things, largely unimportant to the task of building and maintaining a society that works over the long haul. (And I say that, having strongly held and admittedly polarized opinions on many of those specific issues, including but not limited to gun control, abortion, and gay marriage.)

Whay is that the worst part? Because those issues get all the press, and the real issues, the important issues, the ones that actually affect a large percentage of the populace. that determine the overall course of our society, get completely ignored.

And the two parties actually _agree_ on these "hidden" issues, and their position IS THE WRONG ONE FOR OUR SOCIETY.

Communication policy--both parties tend to allow large corporations to increase their stranglehold on broadcast media, squeezing out independent voices.

Education--The average kid graduates from high school without the basic reasoning skills necessary to do the research and find out for themselves the likely long-term outcomes of the votes they cast. This was true in the Seventies when I started to observe the educational system (and the products thereof), and it's equally true today. Neither party has done a damn thing to correct this, even though it's nominally a prominent part of the platform of each.

The outcome of just these two issues is to produce an electorate that doesn't get the information they need for informed choice, and that doesn't have the skills to analyze that information if they did have it.

And as long as uninformed sheep are easier to convince to vote your way than informed, thinking individuals, neither party has any incentive to change things. No party does, so don't think that some magical third party will save us, even if one could get a foothold and by some miracle, approach 30% representation. Or even 10%.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2006/results/

PS Don't assume that you can figure out my position on one of the above issues based on my position on another. You can't. Oh, yes. I am an enigma wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a question. Except for the fact that I will shout my opinions to the world at the slightest hint of provocation.

PPS Argh, now I'm not just depressed, I'm also pissed off, and that after an election result that was as good as it could possibly have been, in, as you correctly point out, the short run. Thank you _so_ much.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

My work here is done! Awwwwwwaaaaaaaaaay!

(BTW, I agree with much of what you said...)

[georgmi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know. Otherwise I'd've structured my post as more of an argument, instead of a rant. Or kept my mouth shut entirely. (OK, maybe not entirely. Not sure that's possible.)

Oh, and that NPR link was intended to point out the fact that after the elections, we have two "independent" Senators and _no_ independent Reps in Congress. Two. Out of five hundred thirty-five lawmakers, _two_ have no overt ties to the political machine. I forgot to replace the explanatory sentence after I deleted it.

Two!