Politicians: being angry and doing nothing -

[Loxiozzz]

A lot of crazy shit has happened in the last couple of years. From an orange haired man shooting up a movie theater, to cartoonists being shot dead in the workplace by extremists, to college aged vigilantes taking the law into their own hands because they believe enforcement isn't doing enough. We were concerned when these actions first made headlines in papers. No one seems shocked by it anymore though. I'm not saying that we stopped caring about those involved, but after a while, we get seemed used to it. We run out of things to say other than "Pray for (insert country/town/gathering here)". Some argue on social about who's fault it is. Some make jokes. Some rant on youtube. But then what?

It happens over and over again. Here's an example:

>Man with untreated mental disability gets a weapon
>Kills people
>Big news companies talk about it for a few days
>"We need to talk about gun control and the neglected mentally unstable in this country"
>Never have serious discussion
>Forget about it
>Happens again, repeat


I know there's not much we can do, but what about the people we vote for? It feels like they either don't care or think the problem will resolve itself if we stop saying mean things. If. They'll show emotion on camera, say how displeased they are, and do nothing right after. Are we ever going to get to a point where they at least try to do something to stop the madness?

 

[ICametoLurk]

lol no

 

[Joan Nyan]

Not until more brave revolutionaries like the comrade who shot Steve Scalise take up arms against the bourgeoisie.

 

[DuskEngine]

Not until more brave revolutionaries like the comrade who shot Steve Scalise take up arms against the bourgeoisie.

inshallah the maverick will be next

 

[Joan Nyan]

inshallah the maverick will be next

I hope he dies of a gunshot wound and brain cancer simultaneously.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

I think it's just easier for politicians to have a good sound bite response that can be repeated on the news and reposted on social media.

I mean they are probally trying to help but mental health problems or extremism won't be solved by a single policy decision.

 

[Ruminous]

Politicians haven't exactly been doing nothing. Police expansion and militarization has been happening for over a decade now. The near-universal response across the world to acts of terror has been to fuel expansion of the power of government security apparatus, whether that is giving cops APCs or dragnet surveillance of the public.

 

[Wallace]

Politicians haven't exactly been doing nothing. Police expansion and militarization has been happening for over a decade now. The near-universal response across the world to acts of terror has been to fuel expansion of the power of government security apparatus, whether that is giving cops APCs or dragnet surveillance of the public.

The question is, will the militarized police force and increased government surveillance actually treat this problem?

We live in an era where Congress has single-digit approval ratings, yet 90+% of congressmen coast to easy re-election. This sends them the message that their competence as statesmen is secondary to their ability to sell stories to the media and raise money. So they only do the absolute bare minimum to keep the lights on.

 

[polonium]

Politicians don't have any incentive to actually do anything. They get paid to talk and consume resources with no end product, and that's what they do.
If there were real market forces pushing back on politicians, then you'd see government employees suddenly start turning up to work on time, not having so much absenteeism, and producing results in a timely fashion, and the cost of government services would fall dramatically. Even just allowing people to compete with the government on equal terms would be a huge step in the right direction.

Imagine if you could opt out of paying the portion of your taxes that go to garbage collection, and residents could appoint their own garbage collection contractors, if they liked. You'd see a huge improvement in the quality of service offered, because it allows for the possibility that under-performing contractors could get removed. Apply that to all areas of government and you suddenly realise why they appoint themselves a monopoly and hang onto it to the grim end.

 

[AnOminous]

Politicians don't have any incentive to actually do anything. They get paid to talk and consume resources with no end product, and that's what they do.

It's hard to argue they should work harder when, on the occasions they do, it's to do something awful.

 

[sikotik]

We live in an era where Congress has single-digit approval ratings, yet 90+% of congressmen coast to easy re-election.

This happens because it's never your congressman that's doing a bad job. It's all the other bums that need to be thrown out.

 

[polonium]

It's hard to argue they should work harder when, on the occasions they do, it's to do something awful.

Agreed. I don't want them to "work harder" just work properly.
It'd be a fun experiment, to leave government the way it is, but take away its ability to fund itself through mandatory taxes. If they had to see their services on the open market, how many people would choose to do business with them?

 

[BILLY MAYS]

The real question is whether they shit themselves while doing nothing

 

[SwanDive]

The CNN Effect began with the founding of the first 24 hour news cycle station, CNN, in 1980. Because incidents would be reported on to a greater extent, politicians realized that they needed to provide some input on the matter in order to come off as up-to-date on current events. This proliferated the use of sound-bites and the creation of the cycle we see today.

 

[Ruminous]

The question is, will the militarized police force and increased government surveillance actually treat this problem?

Violent crime is at historic lows and many terror attacks are thwarted, but in the long run no it will not stop lone-wolf attacks or the one in ten radical cell that manages to escape the dragnet. More specifically, it will not stop the memetic influence of terror on the public. Outside of 9/11 sized events, or nuclear plots, the actual physical effects of terror are insignificant compared to the effect on the public's mindset.

We live in an era where Congress has single-digit approval ratings, yet 90+% of congressmen coast to easy re-election. This sends them the message that their competence as statesmen is secondary to their ability to sell stories to the media and raise money. So they only do the absolute bare minimum to keep the lights on.

Congress is not elected as a whole. Each congressman must only win their own district in order to be re-elected. However yes, it's fucked, but I don't know if you could really say it is an exception in America rather than the rule, with the period of relative grace between ~1940 and ~1980 being the exception. The original American progressive movement and the labor vs capital struggles in the late 19th/early 20th century were vicious and bitter.

 

[friedshrimp]

Not unless we have another Kennedy-like event. But if random kids, cartoonists die, pfft, who cares? Just nameless nobodies nobody will care for in the long run, unlike all the dear rich fatties.