What s/he said.

Although, I'd like to point out, for sake of sincerity, that this isn't a purely "Republican" (although I did use the term "predominantly" in the OP, and still stick by it) issue. It's displayed on both sides of the aisle.

The OP is referring to the fact that congressional legislation is nearly always (something like >90% of the time) in line with what the very wealthy wish. — MindForged

It's not just the wealthy that have power, it's not that simple. The government is also an entity in its own that has power over the rich people, and it's connected to many other entities like CIA or army that don't have so clear ties to the class economics. In fact, these have to do with the topics in respect to which the common folk are completely indifferent that I mentioned. The rich have a big role in making USA the place it is, but that's more building up anger, unhappiness, dissatisfaction and conflicts than fear or culture. For example the countless human rights violations made by CIA don't really affect average people, but they build up certain mental images of what those organizations and by associations USA as a whole are. These mental images create the collective thoughts that America is not safe etc.

So, just to carry on the idea of the ordinary folk not having their voice heard (What I'll refer to as the 'alignment problem'). What can be done about this? It seems to me that the rhetoric of "draining the swamp" and such matters are just a distraction from the larger issue of not having the interests of the few and powerful only realized at the highest levels of governance, and with that a growing sense of distrust, paranoia, and even fear.

Is this simply a systemic feature of our form of governance in the US?

It's not just the wealthy that have power, it's not that simple. The government is also an entity in its own that has power over the rich people, — BlueBanana

Which it does not exercise for the obvious reason that politicians won't bite the hands that feed them (lobbying, campaign finance, etc.). The example you gave (CIA human rights violations) are predominately regarding what is done to non-Americans, so it seems disconnected from your statement about the government having power over rich people. So while the government does all sorts of awful things in the States and abroad, the most it will do at home that "hurts" the wealthy is what the Democratic Party will do, which is very little (Democratic party can't even get as far as supporting disallowing private financing of election runs so they too won't bite the hand that feeds them). I think the inheritance tax is about as much as they support in practice.

This foolish, stupid, screwed up view of the world is no defense against the harsh realities of a globalized economy.
— Bitter Crank

Are you saying that I got it all wrong, with projecting my own concern about these issues here? — Posty McPostface

No. The "fooling, stupid, screwed up view of the world" belongs to people who think that they will be rich someday, when there is less than a snowball's chance in hell of them getting rich.

Maybe I was born yesterday; but, I recall hordes of school kids doing a walkout requesting some action on gun violence to be undertaken by our great and caring leaders. — Posty McPostface

Yes, they did -- and good for them. But this was less fear driven than idealism driven. The high school students in Florida, managed to get their act together and speak-out on the side of a sane national policy towards guns and violence. I take my hat off to them -- they are doing what clear thinking sensible young people ought to do. It would be a good thing if clear thinking sensible older people also acted up about gun violence.

You really believe that? I find that hard to believe (?) I can post studies showing that special interest groups and a handful of elite have more power than what my vote can ever hope to do. Hell, you had Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation telling us that the Military Industrial Complex was getting out of hand in, back in 1961... — Posty McPostface

YOU know there are several groups of special interests and elites who control the balance of political power in the US Congress and President's Office. I know that too, and maybe a couple of million inquiring minds in the country know that, but most people are not aware of how extremely disproportionate the power the elites have is and how little the population at large has.

That's happened, and Eisenhower was right. What happened was that the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about had gotten big, and has since gotten a lot bigger. Armaments are a major export item and support a lot of jobs. Military bases bring income into the regions in which they are located.

On the other hand, wars have gotten a lot more expensive. Avoiding the body bag PR problem of Vietnam has led to war with low death rates (for us), and a lot of smart bombs, cruise missiles, drones, heavier armoring of vehicles, more electronic warfare, etc. etc. (Unfortunately, that doesn't mean our military activities achieve exactly what they are intended to achieve, but...)

I think a lot of Americans are aligned with the Military Industrial Complex's capacity to rain death and destruction (shock and awe) down on Islamic Enemies, or whoever else is next. Yes, there is human rights nattering about civilians getting blown up, but civilians have always been getting blown up in war. It's one of the great War Time Traditions. And in a cultural war of Islam Vs. Western CIVILIZATION, who is a civilian anyway? If it wasn't for all those other pesky nuclear powers, we'd probably should have just nuked the whole Middle East and been done with it. [These are not my personal views, mind you.]

SO THEN THE ALIGNMENT QUESTION: The people are aligned with what they believe the Government is doing, and why the government is doing what the government does -- most of the time. Every now and then the curtain is pulled back a little and people see that what the government is doing is not necessarily what they would like the government to be doing. The mismatch between belief and reality has to be egregious before people can really see it, because we are all drenched in a lot of misleading propaganda.

The People may not be aligned with my view of the government; the people may not be aligned with your view of the government. We are voices howling in the wilderness, RISE UP AND SMITE THE WICKED SONS OF BITCHES. Our howls are lost in the moaning wind of the wilderness, and the people are more likely to smite us for making too much noise.

But this was less fear driven than idealism driven. — Bitter Crank

That's a statement worth exploring in more detail, I think. See this video for instance:

'It was going to happen eventually' says student on Texas shooting

YOU know there are several groups of special interests and elites who control the balance of political power in the US Congress and President's Office. I know that too, and maybe a couple of million inquiring minds in the country know that, but most people are not aware of how extremely disproportionate the power the elites have is and how little the population at large has. — Bitter Crank

They might not know it, however you want to define that term; but, I'm sure they have some inkling about it in general. Low voter turnout, disenfranchisement among young voters, and other trends point to this idea.

That's happened, and Eisenhower was right. What happened was that the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about had gotten big, and has since gotten a lot bigger. Armaments are a major export item and support a lot of jobs. Military bases bring income into the regions in which they are located. — Bitter Crank

I'm not against the MIC. For all intents and purposes, it's a net positive on the economy and social welfare. I also don't really buy into the idea that the country being run by generals or a deep state, although Eisenhower was one hell of an awesome president in my book.

On the other hand, wars have gotten a lot more expensive. Avoiding the body bag PR problem of Vietnam has led to war with low death rates (for us), and a lot of smart bombs, cruise missiles, drones, heavier armoring of vehicles, more electronic warfare, etc. etc. (Unfortunately, that doesn't mean our military activities achieve exactly what they are intended to achieve, but...) — Bitter Crank

Well, that's solely because our aversion towards war has grown so high that it's hard to justify any jingoistic tendencies anymore. A topic worth exploring, perhaps.

I think a lot of Americans are aligned with the Military Industrial Complex's capacity to rain death and destruction (shock and awe) down on Islamic Enemies, or whoever else is next. Yes, there is human rights nattering about civilians getting blown up, but civilians have always been getting blown up in war. It's one of the great War Time Traditions. And in a cultural war of Islam Vs. Western CIVILIZATION, who is a civilian anyway? If it wasn't for all those other pesky nuclear powers, we'd probably should have just nuked the whole Middle East and been done with it. [These are not my personal views, mind you.] — Bitter Crank

Yeah, as much as I'd like to think that the above is just batshit, there are quite a few people with the above views.

SO THEN THE ALIGNMENT QUESTION: The people are aligned with what they believe the Government is doing, and why the government is doing what the government does -- most of the time. Every now and then the curtain is pulled back a little and people see that what the government is doing is not necessarily what they would like the government to be doing. The mismatch between belief and reality has to be egregious before people can really see it, because we are all drenched in a lot of misleading propaganda. — Bitter Crank

Fundamentally, the problem is that this is a top down process that has going on in regards to aligning the will of the people to the doings of our government, not the other way around, unfortunately. Why do you think that is?

I have been reading the diary of Victor Klemperer, a German (Jewish) professor; it covers about 13 years, up to 1945. He struggles to figure out "what does the average man think about... the war, the Jews, the rationing..." He is unable to come to a conclusion because "the German people" as represented in "the average man" is frustratingly kaleidoscopic. The pattern is constantly changing from person to person.

The same thing applies here: We try to understand what "the 300 million American people" think, as represented in bits and pieces of reportage, conversations with other people, and so forth. The picture we see, like Professor Klemperer, is kaleidoscopic, constantly changing from view to view.

It is yet to change. It needs to change. I'm prepared to give this new administration the benefit of the doubt at this point.

If Trump's narcissism actually takes the form whereby he wants to be regarded as an historic sort of hero president, so therefore maybe just to personally bathe in his own glory, then it is a better outcome than the previous narcissistic war mongering presidents.

I don't believe a non-narcissist would ever become, or want to strive to be, a national leader. Humanity on the whole is not evolved enough for it.

What's the underlying source of all this fear and paranoia? — Posty McPostface

Ask George Orwell.

Now what was the crux of '1984'?

Was it as Hillary Clinton said in her book that it's crux was the danger of not trusting your government?

Now why would she get that so wrong by flipping it on it's head? I suggest she hoped the younger population would have been too lazy to look it up for themselves and therefore should have blindly trusted her for the leadership role.

It does make one sigh with a certain amount of relief, however, that she is not president.

Gun control advocacy, arguments against the 2nd amendment, “war on terror” (while simultaneously financing and arming terrorist groups), is about the business of security companies.

The security business requires that individuals and citizen militias cannot protect themselves.

“Government” has essentially grown to become “Security Corp” and it only wants to grow more. Consequently it loves school shootings and terrorist attacks probably to the point of enabling and manufacturing such events.


Unrestrained “government”, therefore, is essentially a manufacturing industry. More recentlly, the last 3 decades, it has been trying to manufacture your consent to disarm yourselves by the dirtiest means possible. It has no more interest in protecting an American citizen than a foreign citizen.

For an unrestrained security manufacturing industry government Corp any citizen of anywhere is expendable towards those ends.

It does not discriminate. In fact an armed private American citizen is it’s greatest threat. The Consitution itself is it’s greatest threat just as the ‘freeman’ principals of the Magna Carta is and once was.

Every dictatorship has always found ways and flavours to disarm it’s own citizens prior to progressing its interests.