The Misinterpretation of Historical Events

[LMNO]

Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.

This is true for me, as well.  In the years since I have been able to vote, I have never found a candidate that I feel truly represents me and my interests.

[Adios]

Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.

This is true for me, as well.  In the years since I have been able to vote, I have never found a candidate that I feel truly represents me and my interests.

Exactly. Even if they move yo to actually vote for them, the second they are elected, well, you know the rest of the story.

[Elder Iptuous]

didn't the colonies have some folks in parliament that were assigned to represent them?
if i am not mistaken in that, then the founding fellows also didn't feel represented....
so perhaps that is the important part.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

didn't the colonies have some folks in parliament that were assigned to represent them?
if i am not mistaken in that, then the founding fellows also didn't feel represented....
so perhaps that is the important part.

If I recall, that representation was chosen by people in England. Probably a Parliamentary committee on colonial affairs.

[Elder Iptuous]

true...
so it's not really the same situation in any regard other than the fact that the state considered representation to be in place, but the subjects weren't really feelin' it...

[Adios]

Same thing, only different.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

true...
so it's not really the same situation in any regard other than the fact that the state considered representation to be in place, but the subjects weren't really feelin' it...

The difference is is that the Empire felt that representation was in place, even though the representation was not chosen by the colonists themselves, whereas Tea Partiers don't feel representation is in place, even though they were able to vote for said representation and happen to be disatisfied with the outcome.

It's something I've noticed about people with strong political identification. They get pissed off when their team loses. People now are basically pissed off because there is a Democrat President and a majority Democrat Congress. Democrats were equally pissed off during the Bush years. Sure, you can make an argument about corruption in the system when talking about 2000, but in 2004 the only people you could blame are the American people. The second Bush administration was representation that America wanted at the time, even though people did it begrudgingly. The more I reflect on it the more I think of 2000 onward as an era of American masochism. But at any rate, if Gore won, the GOP would raise the same objections the Dems did. Not that any of it matters, both parties walk like a duck and talk like a duck, they just quack differently on a few hot button issues so we don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain

/mixed metaphor for corporate interests.

At any rate, I don't get pissed off when my team loses, I'm used to it.

Twid,
Red Sox fan who tends to vote Green

[Adios]

1) I am not a tea bagger.

2) No matter which party wins I don't feel represented, in spite of having an opportunity to vote.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Slight tangent, but I don't feel represented.

This is true for me, as well.  In the years since I have been able to vote, I have never found a candidate that I feel truly represents me and my interests.

Exactly. Even if they move yo to actually vote for them, the second they are elected, well, you know the rest of the story.

This I can agree with. Probably the only thing I like about the Tea Party movement is the anti-establishment aspect that wants to get the career politicians out. But, since career politics is a sweet deal if you can get your foot in the door, successful Tea Party candidates would quickly fall into the trap of being part of the system and end up talking about cutting taxes and reducing spending, all the while voting to give themselves raises.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, then we get into the definition of 'Representation' vs 'Administration'. The British had appointed Administrators to cover the affairs of the colonies, vs Representatives that represented the interests of the colonists.

In our current system there is a real debate over representation, but that's the crux of the 'representative democracy' vs 'democracy'. A representative democracy doesn't guarantee that your personal interests will be represented. It only guarantees that your district/state will be able to vote on who will represent them in Congress. In the end, that representative could vote completely opposite of what their constituents want/need and still be 'representing' them. The best you can hope for with representative democracy is that the district is small enough, or cohesive enough that your views and their views will match; and that your representative wants to be reelected, thus increasing the likelihood that they will vote in a way that represents your views.

In America, as its configured today, such a situation seems nearly impossible. Most districts are not cohesive, most representatives will play politics and trade representation on some issues to get support on other issues (or reelection). If the Tea Party were seriously interested in the topic of representation (rather than using it as a strawman),  their first focus should be in pushing for changes to how representatives are selected, how districts are selected and culpability for representatives voting choices. However, since they're mostly interested in just getting social-fiscal conservatives elected, the real agenda appears patently obvious. They are an activist group based on the disenfranchised social conservatives who are bucking the moderate* flavor of the GOP. The fiscal aspect of their argument is completely out of line with their actual actions. If they were pushing for fiscal responsibility, we would see candidates that were fiscally responsible businessmen with documented plans on getting from where we are now, to a more responsible position in X years. That we are instead seeing political nobodies, with little to no experience in politics, business or well much of anything other than spouting off... speaks volumes to the populist nature of the movement.

Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.




*relatively speaking, obviously.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

1) I am not a tea bagger.

2) No matter which party wins I don't feel represented, in spite of having an opportunity to vote.

Oh, I know. Your sense of lack of representation is more due to the way America is set up, and I don't disagree with you.

[Adios]

Well said Rat.

[Doktor Howl]

1) I am not a tea bagger.

2) No matter which party wins I don't feel represented, in spite of having an opportunity to vote.

Nonsense.  You have a 1 in 301,000,000 say in matters, which is about half the chance you have of winning the powerball lottery.

[Doktor Howl]

Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.

They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants. 

They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Sharron Angle etc are not 'fiscally responsible' options... they are populist 'Know Nothing' style politicians. Jesus is no fill in for a Balanced Budget.

They are, apparently, what 48% of the nation desperately wants. 

They - the 48% - need their bigotry validated by the electorate.