Honest answer: Committees are key to legislative power and they're determined mostly by seniority. Thus party voters are incentive'ized both directly and indirectly to re-elect congresspeople that absolutely suck because to either Primary or throw them out in a General is to give up tremendous power.
For example: Pelosi's district direct…
Honest answer: Committees are key to legislative power and they're determined mostly by seniority. Thus party voters are incentive'ized both directly and indirectly to re-elect congresspeople that absolutely suck because to either Primary or throw them out in a General is to give up tremendous power.
For example: Pelosi's district directly gained outsized federal power compared to almost any other district in any state when she was serving in committees like Approprations and Intelligence. Now she's Speaker whenever the Dem's have a majority which means more power. So then why would her own district willingly give up this much power and control even if they did hate her? These DC Brahmins know that they know this, of course. It keeps them safe every two years.
Indirectly: Additionally it can be perceived as a bulwark against the opposing Party gaining this all-important committee power. these same Brahmins - once again - like the people to think like this. Logically speaking, doesn't it seem like this type of system would lead career politicians on opposing sides helping each other stay in office through stoking of fear of what the other side would do?
This is a major reason why congress sucks, even when you don't include the anti-democratic-by-nature Senate in consideration of said suckage. They're not all equal. If you can't get a committee to work with you on your bill, you're dead in the water. They force newly elected congresspeople to make all sorts of stupid compromises and pay fealty for years before they let them even get a vote on anything.
Hey, I looked it up and you're correct that Gingrich led a committee rules change. I honestly wasn't aware (my social studies schooldays came before these changes in the mid 90's).
It appears that the Party Leadership now selects committee members, which means you're probably de facto correct about the fundraising being the determining factor for membership.
So I guess everyone can toss all that committee stuff out except when applying to the Senate, which as I mentioned sucks in its own anti-democratic way.
I can only guess the answer then becomes that Pelosi and McConnell and their ilk just have their respective Party leaderships that keep them in power on committees. Just gold ol' fashioned casual corruption of dogshit politicians keeping each other in power. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If that's the case, is it not still to my point that they're too powerful and entrenched for their districts to give up?
For the record I don't disagree about your point here and in another reply about the government - using my words here - probably crossed the point of becoming hopelessly corrupt and a de facto Plutocracy. I just don't know what to do but keep trying our best to push them to help where they can until people finally get pushed past the brink to the point of R_________. I don't know, the future is very frightening and bleak either way it goes.
We're just along for the ride at this point. When the elite fight each other for control they use siege warfare. WW3 is in full swing and I think all this austerity is a big game of chicken since there are so many nuclear countries aligning in different factions while all trying to hedge their bets.
You just have to remember that the elite cherish being elite and don't want to die because it would end their elitism and no one would be left to remember them.
Fair enough about no longer having any power or hope to re-establish a real democracy now. I agree this is a likely case.
I'd add that on top of the Siege, I think part of their strategy is to foster resentment between the different classes, disguising it as incompetency. I see them doing this on even more local levels now.
The nukes are a tricky deal for the ultra-wealthy to navigate, along with climate change. I think they always look for opportunities to help their hand, even if they're playing with the ultimate Fire. It'll be "interesting" to see at what point they try to lock them down if they think it has gone past the point of using it for submission.
Regarding the mentality of what they want, I always think in terms of the elite class wanting as many people under their thumb as possible - which is why they don't really care at all about the overpopulation problem (in addition to the fact that it fosters class warfare). More desparate people is better for them along with a greater pool from which to snag the doctors and scientists they'll require.
It's funny to me, I was imagining a few weeks ago that centuries from now in an underground or domed bunker, they'll probably be teaching the descendants of Bill Gates and whomever else bunkered with them about Bill and what a legendary leader he was and how he tried so hard to help the people with his vast intellect and grace but they wouldn't listen so they all suffered and died without him. Basically they'll give him the Christopher Columbus treatment in the history books. Does it matter? Kinda bitterly funny to me.
The strategy is definitely to foster resentment between different groups that are not part of the elite. Fostering discord either internally or ideally externally with other countries is a great way for the elites to get people to focus on something other than their gross corruption. This is why endless wars are popular on both sides of the aisle.
Khalil Gibran Muhammad makes a pretty good case in his book The Condemnation of Blackness that the separation of blacks as a class and race statistically from the rest of US society is a control mechanism. It not only controls blacks by isolating them from the rest of society it also keeps other demographics focused on them as the problem rather than looking at the system that oppresses them as the issue. Having someone to blame other than elites for society's problems goes a long way towards keeping those elites in power.
That's what I really hate about the BLM/ANTIFA stuff right now. It's clear as day to me that corps/wealthy love it because it won't affect their money at all and it's a perfect opportunity to very easily and inexpensively sew class infighting whenever they see anything forming.
All you need is one agent in any socialist group that's gaining traction to start yelling about triggers and intersectionalism and at worst you've just introduced a ton of noise that has to be sifted through before work can resume on effective action. At best you've installed incompetent membership that will steer the group toward pointless woke pandering or even upended the leadership. ex. DSA.
Most of the time they don't even need an agent. Useful idiots will do their work for them.
Focusing on socialist groups doesn’t help. You could say the same thing about any grassroots organization conservative or liberal that brings up issues that threaten the power elite. The problem is not that these organizations exist or that they have a particular political bent, it’s that those in power have a lot of ways to disrupt them and they have been doing it for decades. Getting any organization to work effectively to create real, lasting change against power brokers that control the media, government and law enforcement is a tall order.
Honest answer: Committees are key to legislative power and they're determined mostly by seniority. Thus party voters are incentive'ized both directly and indirectly to re-elect congresspeople that absolutely suck because to either Primary or throw them out in a General is to give up tremendous power.
For example: Pelosi's district directly gained outsized federal power compared to almost any other district in any state when she was serving in committees like Approprations and Intelligence. Now she's Speaker whenever the Dem's have a majority which means more power. So then why would her own district willingly give up this much power and control even if they did hate her? These DC Brahmins know that they know this, of course. It keeps them safe every two years.
Indirectly: Additionally it can be perceived as a bulwark against the opposing Party gaining this all-important committee power. these same Brahmins - once again - like the people to think like this. Logically speaking, doesn't it seem like this type of system would lead career politicians on opposing sides helping each other stay in office through stoking of fear of what the other side would do?
This is a major reason why congress sucks, even when you don't include the anti-democratic-by-nature Senate in consideration of said suckage. They're not all equal. If you can't get a committee to work with you on your bill, you're dead in the water. They force newly elected congresspeople to make all sorts of stupid compromises and pay fealty for years before they let them even get a vote on anything.
"Committees are key to legislative power and they're determined mostly by seniority."
Wrong, Newt Gingrich changed this from seniority to highest fund raising clear back in the 90's.
The coup was over long ago and the people lost.
Hey, I looked it up and you're correct that Gingrich led a committee rules change. I honestly wasn't aware (my social studies schooldays came before these changes in the mid 90's).
It appears that the Party Leadership now selects committee members, which means you're probably de facto correct about the fundraising being the determining factor for membership.
So I guess everyone can toss all that committee stuff out except when applying to the Senate, which as I mentioned sucks in its own anti-democratic way.
I can only guess the answer then becomes that Pelosi and McConnell and their ilk just have their respective Party leaderships that keep them in power on committees. Just gold ol' fashioned casual corruption of dogshit politicians keeping each other in power. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If that's the case, is it not still to my point that they're too powerful and entrenched for their districts to give up?
For the record I don't disagree about your point here and in another reply about the government - using my words here - probably crossed the point of becoming hopelessly corrupt and a de facto Plutocracy. I just don't know what to do but keep trying our best to push them to help where they can until people finally get pushed past the brink to the point of R_________. I don't know, the future is very frightening and bleak either way it goes.
We're just along for the ride at this point. When the elite fight each other for control they use siege warfare. WW3 is in full swing and I think all this austerity is a big game of chicken since there are so many nuclear countries aligning in different factions while all trying to hedge their bets.
You just have to remember that the elite cherish being elite and don't want to die because it would end their elitism and no one would be left to remember them.
Plus ca change, plus la meme chose
Fair enough about no longer having any power or hope to re-establish a real democracy now. I agree this is a likely case.
I'd add that on top of the Siege, I think part of their strategy is to foster resentment between the different classes, disguising it as incompetency. I see them doing this on even more local levels now.
The nukes are a tricky deal for the ultra-wealthy to navigate, along with climate change. I think they always look for opportunities to help their hand, even if they're playing with the ultimate Fire. It'll be "interesting" to see at what point they try to lock them down if they think it has gone past the point of using it for submission.
Regarding the mentality of what they want, I always think in terms of the elite class wanting as many people under their thumb as possible - which is why they don't really care at all about the overpopulation problem (in addition to the fact that it fosters class warfare). More desparate people is better for them along with a greater pool from which to snag the doctors and scientists they'll require.
It's funny to me, I was imagining a few weeks ago that centuries from now in an underground or domed bunker, they'll probably be teaching the descendants of Bill Gates and whomever else bunkered with them about Bill and what a legendary leader he was and how he tried so hard to help the people with his vast intellect and grace but they wouldn't listen so they all suffered and died without him. Basically they'll give him the Christopher Columbus treatment in the history books. Does it matter? Kinda bitterly funny to me.
The strategy is definitely to foster resentment between different groups that are not part of the elite. Fostering discord either internally or ideally externally with other countries is a great way for the elites to get people to focus on something other than their gross corruption. This is why endless wars are popular on both sides of the aisle.
Khalil Gibran Muhammad makes a pretty good case in his book The Condemnation of Blackness that the separation of blacks as a class and race statistically from the rest of US society is a control mechanism. It not only controls blacks by isolating them from the rest of society it also keeps other demographics focused on them as the problem rather than looking at the system that oppresses them as the issue. Having someone to blame other than elites for society's problems goes a long way towards keeping those elites in power.
That's what I really hate about the BLM/ANTIFA stuff right now. It's clear as day to me that corps/wealthy love it because it won't affect their money at all and it's a perfect opportunity to very easily and inexpensively sew class infighting whenever they see anything forming.
All you need is one agent in any socialist group that's gaining traction to start yelling about triggers and intersectionalism and at worst you've just introduced a ton of noise that has to be sifted through before work can resume on effective action. At best you've installed incompetent membership that will steer the group toward pointless woke pandering or even upended the leadership. ex. DSA.
Most of the time they don't even need an agent. Useful idiots will do their work for them.
Focusing on socialist groups doesn’t help. You could say the same thing about any grassroots organization conservative or liberal that brings up issues that threaten the power elite. The problem is not that these organizations exist or that they have a particular political bent, it’s that those in power have a lot of ways to disrupt them and they have been doing it for decades. Getting any organization to work effectively to create real, lasting change against power brokers that control the media, government and law enforcement is a tall order.
That has been their strategy for 30 years!