Why the U.S. Government Can’t Seem to Do It’s Job

Vision of things to come?

Liberals like to point to the Fall of Rome (and some of the reasons for its decline) and then point to America as if this will prove that Republicans have caused these things to come about.  Rome was around for a long time and the reasons for its decline were many but most often if we listen to Liberals it becomes apparent that they often cite Rome’s military endeavours and all of the groups they angered (Barbarians) for the Fall.  They cite the draining of the treasury as one of the biggest reasons.  Thus, according to Liberal’s, Rome’s Fall is reduced to two reasons:

1. Over-zealous military campaigns
2. Over-spending on the military

Civilizations fail for more complicated reasons than the two listed above.  The main reasons are:

1. Scarcity of resources (food, fuel, etc…)
2. Lack of civic participation
3. Decline of trade
4. Enemies (domestic and foreign, mainly foreign)
5. Environmental changes

The United States, fortunately, does not yet have to be concerned with any of the reasons listed above save for one: Lack of civic participation.

America is a vast enough land so that drought or flooding in one area will not affect the nation as a whole enough to cause a collapse or anything more than a temporary decline in food production, etc…  Our markets are the biggest in the world though they will gradually cede leadership to China as that population matures economically.  Because of the vastness of America, we have plenty of resources and the technological know-how to exploit existing supplies as well as to develop new ones.  As a country, we are lucky for many reasons.

But a lack of civic participation is killing this country.  The 2008 presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain broke all records regarding voter turnout.  In fact, more than 130 million Americans voted, around 62% of all those eligible.  On the face of it one would think that Americans do fulfill their civic duty to vote.  But that one number doesn’t tell much of the story.  Presidential elections happen only every four years and Obama’s youth and campaign promises brought many to the polls for the first time (and there is little evidence that those youth have continued to play a role politically).

If we look at Wikipedia on the matter we will see that, for national lower house elections the U.S. sits at just 54% versus countries such as the UK, France, South Korea, Canada, and Italy which are all above 70% (most are much higher than that).  A low voter turnout means that our politicians know their constituents are not paying attention to what they are doing and thus will most likely not punish them in the next election should they do a bad job.  If we look at the 2000 elections, there were “435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as “safe” by Congressional Quarterly.” That means that almost 83% of the politicians who stood for re-election did not have to worry about winning their races.

The American public simply does not consider knowing what their elected officials are up to as being a priority in their life.  And the results show it.  Considering all of the tools and information to which we have available to learn who voted how and who donated money to whom versus what was available even 20 years ago is staggering.  Everything really can be found on the Internet about our elected officials.

But people do not want to spend the time to do what they should be doing.

This lack of civic participation combined with an electorate that trends towards social, economic, and political moderation means our elected officials have no clear mandate to shake up the status quo or to worry about being held accountable for their actions.

It is a recipe for disaster and the state of our nation is showing the effects of this.

When George W. Bush became president few expected much in terms of his accomplishments.  After all, as a former Texas governor who had little power himself and with little time in elected office, many thought he would simply be a caretaker president, perhaps furthering some traditional Republican goals such as lowering taxes and providing a counter-balance to what many others saw as the morally bereft Clinton administration.  Few saw that 9-11 was on the horizon and that, in its aftermath, Bush would try and make some radical changes to help the nation respond to the Islamic terrorist threat.  Not surprisingly, Bush’s administration was met with vehement opposition from Liberals who were soon joined by their Democratic elected officials once their fear of being punished for being soft on terrorism vanished.

And so we ended up with Barack Obama, a man who promised the sun, moon, and stars but provided no menu as to what that meant or a roadmap as to how he would get us there.  After a year in office, Obama is being punished in the polls because he is trying to deliver things America didn’t think he would offer and, to be fair to the man, because he hasn’t been able to noticeably improve a bad economy and two foreign wars to the degree to which he said he would be able.

Both men, Bush and Obama, pushed a moderate electorate too far, the first out of necessity (terrorism) the second because of ideology (Liberalsim).  Both men saw their numbers drop in the polls (though for Bush this was more about negative press coverage than reality).

I can cut Bush more slack than Obama because Bush was simply reacting to what had been done to America while Obama is actively trying to change the face of the country.

In the case of Americans’ lack of civic responsibility we can say that Bush was re-elected so how high was his disapproval really?  In the case of Obama… Americans should have seen his agenda coming as their was plenty of evidence to suggest what his goals would be despite his assertions to the contrary.

Now voters are caught in a Rope-a-Dope Loop where Obama’s actions are leading to a backlash which will most likely send many anti-Obamas into government.  We have already seen several high profile Democratic senators either announce they won’t stand for re-election or polling data which suggests many will lose in November 2010.  The situation that is brewing will be a re-play of Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America which saw a standoff between Clinton and Gingrich which caused the U.S. government to shut down over lack of funds.  And so it will continue…

A Russian by the name of Igor Panarin has postulated that America is doomed to break up into six different countries.  Another Russian, Dmitry Orlov, has a similar idea and has five “stages” we as a nation will go through before the process is completed:

1. Financial collapse
2. Commercial collapse
3. Political collapse
4. Social collapse
5. Cultural collapse

Reading over their thoughts it is difficult to find much fault with their logic.  The only thing that can postpone their predictions is if the American public starts to pay attention to what their elected officials are doing on a local and on a national level.  If people do not start paying attention my hunch is that the U.S. has perhaps fewer than 40 years before the split happens.

Liberals are incorrect in saying that foreign enemies will destory us or that costly wars will bankrupt us.  Instead, it will be entrophy caused by voter apathy that will destoy this nation.

Launch Slate.com’s “Choose Your Own Apocalypse” for some possible scenarios… some far out, others more basic.

Related posts:

Obama’s Selective Application of “Change”
What Liberals Will Say If the Iranian Government Falls
Obama and the Media’s Iran Blindspot
Obama’s Jimmy Carter Style Not Making Friends – Surprised?
Why the Democrats are Failing in the Polls
Democrats Are Ruining America