What makes you think that's true? I think you're very, very incorrect here. Indeed, the situation has changed considerably in the past three years. Public outrage has set the government back on its heels. Yes, it's trying to continue its evil policies, but it's not being nearly as successful at it.
Three years ago, their CIA operatives in Iraq were openly abusing prisoners, almost at random, and gloating about it. Today, they are under the spotlight: they haven't *entirely* stopped, but they've probably backed off by 80%, and even that last 20% is under serious challenge. Three years ago, they had a compliant and complacent Congress. Today, even despite the incompetence of the Democrats, they have largely been stopped in most of their desired activities, and are having greater and greater difficulty getting their way. Three years ago, they had an Attorney General determined to subvert the justice system through political appointments. Today, that man has been fired (and may yet be indicted for his malfeasance), and they were forced to appoint a relatively politically neutral replacement. Three years ago, the Republican Party was riding high on the back of its "tough" policies. Today, they are facing possible electoral wipeout, and their only chance of retaining the Presidency is the fact that their candidate is one of their harshest internal critics. The list goes on -- in pretty much every respect the government *has* been forced to back down. Not all the way yet, but they're losing ground steadily.
Sorry, but it looks to me like you expect the opposition to be able to wave a magic wand and make The Bad Things go away. That isn't how it works, and this is *exactly* what the article was talking about. It takes *years* of sustained effort to change things for the better, and the fuel for that effort is well-measured, patient outrage. But things are a *hell* of a lot better than they were in 2004, and they are moving steadily in the right direction. *Keeping* them in the right direction requires constant heavy pressure from the public.
merely the opinions of the wealthy sponsors who put them into office.
And you think those wealthy sponsors don't pay attention to the public? If you believe that, you haven't studied enough American history. Those sponsors want to be on the side of the *winners*. They scarcely give a damn about policy details, so long as they get the specific narrow slice that they want. If they smell a change in the wind, they'll go with it so long as they can get what they need.
That's part of why Bush is increasingly ineffective: many of his backers have backed away from him. Hell, a fair number of them are quietly trying to get out of the political sphere entirely, because it's damaged them. This is why the religious right is in serious trouble: their involvement in politics has increasingly damaged their internal support, and their followers are beginning to shift towards more moderate religious voices instead.
Yes, it's a delicate game. But you sound very much like a typical cynic: someone whose expectations were way too high, and now disclaims all ideals because reality is imperfect. But that simply misunderstands reality in exactly the same way. The problem with both extremes -- the idealistic and the cynical -- is that they believe the political world is *simple*. That's the logical flaw. The reality is that it's a complex dynamic system, with a lot of moving parts. But the biggest of those parts is still the vox populi. Get the people moving in the right direction, and the "leaders" will meekly follow along behind, claiming that it was all their idea in the first place...
no subject
What makes you think that's true? I think you're very, very incorrect here. Indeed, the situation has changed considerably in the past three years. Public outrage has set the government back on its heels. Yes, it's trying to continue its evil policies, but it's not being nearly as successful at it.
Three years ago, their CIA operatives in Iraq were openly abusing prisoners, almost at random, and gloating about it. Today, they are under the spotlight: they haven't *entirely* stopped, but they've probably backed off by 80%, and even that last 20% is under serious challenge. Three years ago, they had a compliant and complacent Congress. Today, even despite the incompetence of the Democrats, they have largely been stopped in most of their desired activities, and are having greater and greater difficulty getting their way. Three years ago, they had an Attorney General determined to subvert the justice system through political appointments. Today, that man has been fired (and may yet be indicted for his malfeasance), and they were forced to appoint a relatively politically neutral replacement. Three years ago, the Republican Party was riding high on the back of its "tough" policies. Today, they are facing possible electoral wipeout, and their only chance of retaining the Presidency is the fact that their candidate is one of their harshest internal critics. The list goes on -- in pretty much every respect the government *has* been forced to back down. Not all the way yet, but they're losing ground steadily.
Sorry, but it looks to me like you expect the opposition to be able to wave a magic wand and make The Bad Things go away. That isn't how it works, and this is *exactly* what the article was talking about. It takes *years* of sustained effort to change things for the better, and the fuel for that effort is well-measured, patient outrage. But things are a *hell* of a lot better than they were in 2004, and they are moving steadily in the right direction. *Keeping* them in the right direction requires constant heavy pressure from the public.
merely the opinions of the wealthy sponsors who put them into office.
And you think those wealthy sponsors don't pay attention to the public? If you believe that, you haven't studied enough American history. Those sponsors want to be on the side of the *winners*. They scarcely give a damn about policy details, so long as they get the specific narrow slice that they want. If they smell a change in the wind, they'll go with it so long as they can get what they need.
That's part of why Bush is increasingly ineffective: many of his backers have backed away from him. Hell, a fair number of them are quietly trying to get out of the political sphere entirely, because it's damaged them. This is why the religious right is in serious trouble: their involvement in politics has increasingly damaged their internal support, and their followers are beginning to shift towards more moderate religious voices instead.
Yes, it's a delicate game. But you sound very much like a typical cynic: someone whose expectations were way too high, and now disclaims all ideals because reality is imperfect. But that simply misunderstands reality in exactly the same way. The problem with both extremes -- the idealistic and the cynical -- is that they believe the political world is *simple*. That's the logical flaw. The reality is that it's a complex dynamic system, with a lot of moving parts. But the biggest of those parts is still the vox populi. Get the people moving in the right direction, and the "leaders" will meekly follow along behind, claiming that it was all their idea in the first place...