Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

[n2doc]

Last edited Sun Oct 19, 2014, 09:30 AM - Edit history (1)

The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon

By Jordan Michael Smith | OCTOBER 19, 2014


THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

more

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

[djean111]

1. Been obvious for quite some time, I think.

Hard to get enthusiastic for the game.

[bvf]

9. So are you taking a pass this time around?

I'm asking this seriously.

[MattSh]

10. Agreeing with the obvious is...

grounds for a purity test these days?

[bvf]

16. No purity test.

I was just curious, so I asked the question.

It was comforting to learn one jaded-sounding individual doesn't plan to give up the right to vote.

[jtuck004]

59. Not voting is a vote too, regardless of what the self-righteous say. Ask anyone

who ever left a plantation.

[rhett o rick]

72. I agree. Not voting is a vote. Some of us want sooo badly to believe the system works

that they insist that we vote. As if that matters. With gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and out-right election stealing, our votes are probably meaningless. A recent Princeton study concluded that American have little or no influence in what their government does.

And for the idiots among us, I am not saying to stay home, I am saying we need to do a whole hell of a lot more than voting.

[longship]

83. "I am not saying to stay home"

Really? In spite of this:

As if that matters. With gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and out-right election stealing, our votes are probably meaningless. A recent Princeton study concluded that American have little or no influence in what their government does.

Sounds an awful lot like an argument to stay home to me.

I am utterly against your stance and that argument. It is why we lose these midterms.

GOTV is solution.

[rhett o rick]

92. I assume you know what strawman arguments are. Claiming that others want people

to stay home is used to justify being self righteous. Stating facts as I see them is not telling people not to vote. The recent Princeton study that found that American people have little or zero influence on the working of their government was not published just to encourage people not to vote. The problems I mentioned need to be solved and won't be if we pretend they don't exist.

I vote, in fact I have already voted. I participate in GOTV. But to think that voting is the solution is nonsense. And if you want to encourage people to vote, trying to scare them isn't the best method.

We lose the midterms in part because the Democratic candidates don't have the conviction they need to wake up the apathetic. We lose the midterms because of massive gerrymandering, lopsided campaign spending, dirty tricks, voter disenfranchisement and out right vote counting fraud.

I support GOTV

[bvf]

75. A vote is an expression of a preference.

Abstention is an expression of apathy.

You can mince words and argue that apathy is a preference if you like, but labeling those who believe in the importance of making their voices heard "self-righteous" is tantamount to encouraging people to STFU.

Exactly who would you like to STFU? Who do you see benefitting from that?

[djean111]

11. Oh, I will vote Dem.

Hope to get rid of Rick Scott, will vote straight Dem here in Florida, yes to environmental funds, yes to medical marijuana, no to governor appointing judges at will.

As far as 2016 goes, it will be very difficult for me, if Hillary is the in-your-face corporate candidate.

[bvf]

19. Glad to hear it.

A lot can happen in two years. Here's hoping you're as committed to turning out in '16, even if the top of the ticket doesn't suit you.

I'm in the same boat.

[LiberalArkie]

28. I think you are right, I plan on doing everything local, local, local.

I will not vote for another lawyer for a Washington job.

Edit: Unless the lawyer was a public defender or such

[Android3.14]

89. You know what you can do with that question

The thought police are as banal as farts.

[enough]

2. That link doesn't work for me. Here's one that does.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

[grahamhgreen]

3. That's exactly what they want you to believe. Vote.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. +1 n/t

[bvf]

7. Yes. Any item arguing the futility of voting

is suspect, and especially transparent given the season.

Vote.

[OilemFirchen]

15. Especially one which begins with a ridiculous premise.

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

Nope. They voted for jobs, mortgage relief and health care. And they didn't expect "big changes" to occur overnight, nor within a vacuum. The record reflects that this President has succeeded at meeting and, arguably, exceeding those expectations.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. LOL ...

Say that again, please! ... It won't go over well; but, please say it again for the sake of truth!

[OilemFirchen]

20. Rather than that...

I'll add emphasis:

One-half to one percent from full employment. An actual pony.

[bvf]

21. Nailed it. n/t.

[Deny and Shred]

34. Nope? Maybe for you, not for all voters.

I for one expected the Constitutional scholar to vociferously go after each of your highlighted points, as he declared he would as candidate. He didn't. I expected less militarism, not a pivot to drone murders, nor an unprecedented acceleration of nuclear capabilities. I contend plenty voted for him to get the US out of the Mid East boondoggle, and help restore the idea of the US as a force for good, not the Blackwater para-military free-for-all.

"Those" expectations you list represent moving the goal posts completely, and a premise equally ridiculous.

Tell me, how do we vote to get better transparency of all that goes on behind the veil of National Security?

I will vote, but I have no illusions that any elected official could unwind the national security apparatus. Double government is apt.

[OilemFirchen]

57. MY ridiculous premise?

One needn't even read the contemporaneous polls to understand what the majority of Obama voters wanted. You're the exception to the footnote to the rule.

At any rate, why did you expect Obama to accomplish anything in this realm when you "have no illusions that any elected official could unwind the national security apparatus"?

[deurbano]

67. Maybe that realization came later.

<<At any rate, why did you expect Obama to accomplish anything in this realm when you "have no illusions that any elected official could unwind the national security apparatus"?>>

[Deny and Shred]

90. The OP is about a double government

One that isn't responsive to elected leaders.

Every election focuses on jobs. 2008 more than any other was about more than that. I bet polls in 2008 on 'should we outlaw torture?, should we get out of Iraq? , 'should we rein in Blackwater?' would find majorities as well.

Since the surveillance apparatus explosion and Gitmo torture and other Bush era fun stuff was relatively new and formed primarily by the executive branch, I thought in 2008 it could be possible to rein it in. He didn't try.

Back to the question that isw pertinent to the OP since you dodged it, how do we vote for transparancy of all that goes on behind the national security veil?

[grahamhgreen]

44. Well, we voted for all kinds of stuff, but WE STILL VOTE!

[xocet]

63. "Overnight" and "within a vacuum" do not appear in the article's text. Are you just embellishing or

are you just adding something that makes your proposed refutation of the excerpt that you included seem more authoritative?

The President has done quite a lot, but the article in the OP is on the national security state and what the President has not done (and seemingly cannot do by himself) to change President Bush's previous policies.

[OilemFirchen]

68. It's editorializing.

Certainly if the author of this piece is afforded the luxury, so am I. However, unlike Mr. Smith, my observation has factual bases, one subjective and the other objective. First, his disappointment is usually combined with that common complaint: Obama hasn't done enough fast enough, nor has he used his power of the Presidency effectively. No doubt presumptuous of me, but Smith merely left the blank to be filled in.

More to the point, however, this President's term is not complete. Did you see that in the article cited?

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited.

It's also bullshit. Specifically, despite Congress' refusal to fund closing Gitmo and legislation blocking detainee trials in the U.S., Obama has consistently stated his avowed intention to close the facility. In fact, slightly more than a week ago, it was announced that the White House

...is drafting options that would allow President Barack Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by overriding a congressional ban on bringing detainees to the U.S.

But boo-hoo. That's not yesterday's tomorrow, right? Too bad for Smith - I'm fine with it. Betcha the "majority" he touts is, as well.

[xocet]

74. A subjective factual basis? "...factual bases, one subjective and the other objective...."

Am I reading you right?

[OilemFirchen]

78. Mea culpa.

I should have written that as "a supposition based on predictable patterns and an objective fact". Neither of which, BTW, describes the author's opening paragraph - the basis of this conversation.

Any more nits, or are we done here?

[xocet]

93. Why not? n/t

[Doctor_J]

94. what?

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

You don't think that a lot of the 2008 Obama voters expected him to change at least some of these things?



He also lied about supporting labor, getting health insurance off of backs, offshore drilling, "renegotiating NAFTA" and other things. If you really believe none of this matter to people, you need to come back to reality.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Agreed, though for probably different reasons ...

The OP is just another nihilistic voter surpression piece.

While the "shadow government" that the OP "exposes", actually exists, it is NOT some nepharious, secret collection of moles ... it is the, large non-partisan (which is different from, apolitical) unelected core of permanent bureacrats, that actual makes the government work (and is the repository of all institutional memory) ...

And yes ... they take they marching orders from the President (elected officials) and their appointees. So voting DOES matter.

[zeemike]

14. If the truth suppresses the vote what does a lie do?

And yes it has moles in the government, but they don't work for parties they work for the ones who have the money...cooperation with them can make you and your whole family wealthy...and opposing them can ruin them and you.

If you want the orders given by elected officials to be followed then you have to get the money out of politics and end the corruption...something beyond just voting.
But as long as we just vote for the one who says the things we want to hear nothing will change...it just continues the situation till the next election cycle, where it is repeated.

[Dustlawyer]

30. +1!!!!!

[MisterP]

41. say-so don't make it so

politics without participation or representation relies very heavily on making the voters complicit in the system--it's Poli Sci 101

panic on one person's part doesn't obviate studies on another's part

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. Congress isn't a "shadow government".

If you want change, you need more than just a President, you need a Congress who will work WITH the President, not against.

Most, if not all, of the issues presented here are due to Congress' inaction.

And if you think the Oval Office policies are the same, you're really not paying attention (or you're looking at Bush with rose-tinted glasses, which is kind of creepy).

[AwakeAtLast]

40. This ^^^^^

All the more reason to GOTV!!!!!

[lunasun]

76. + 2014

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. The GOP has consider the Presidentcy to be a PR department since Reagan....

The last actual LEADER they had was Daddy Bush and he strayed off the reservation so he only got one term. The actual leader before him was Nixon. This is why they look back on the Reagan Years as their Golden Age.

[mountain grammy]

22. So very true!

[truedelphi]

45. Well, Nixon would have NEVER allowed for

Main Street's wealth to be delivered over to Wall Street, as has happened from Autumn 2008 until now. (Seventeen trillions of dollars of direct aid, and then indirect transfers of wealth as well -- as our homes are foreclosed, only bankers have good enough credit to buy them, so renters now are renting from Banks.)

Nixon hated the banking crowd. He also would not have allowed for big fracking interests to destroy America's waterways.

It is hard to type this, as I HATED Nixon, but I do know what I am saying about his hatred for banks - I spent half my summer in 1973 re-working insurance policies out in favor of consumers, as any price increases were seen by Nixon as overly-ambitious, and he had a price roll back Executive Order that went into effect.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. The current GOP would call Nixon a "Commie"....

But then, so would the current DLC.

EPA??? OSHA???

Riiiiight.

[oldandhappy]

12. I suspect there is a back government run by black money.

Has been an increasing suspicion recently. Too many good people have been thwarted.

[Mustellus]

13. Gee.. this is helpful. NOT!

The choice between bad and worse is always more important than the choice between good and better.

[Orsino]

17. Right. The people who call the shots are pouring millions into elections for fun.

And they're not afraid of our votes at all.

[mountain grammy]

24. When the money hoarders spend like they do on propaganda,

it does reflect their fear of the people voting. What a shame the people have no clue. Propaganda works.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Your comment is closest to the truth. Propaganda works. Counter propaganda works also, it takes

money to fight the money and liberals are clearly outgunned because the battlefield was "prepared" to favor them.

Goebells said something to the effect that propaganda breaks down as soon as the lie at the heart of the propaganda is exposed, then you need to quickly move on to the next lie, and so on.

That is what so much money can do, the cycle can be extended until there is no time for governing, it is always election season. That battle is lost, but not the war. The last line of defence is the ballot box.

The only solution is the ballot box and the only way to get the folks there is to make them angry or make them frightened or both.

[mountain grammy]

37. I've always believed the people have the power, they just don't know it.

They sure don't vote! Right wingers know the power of the vote and though they might be the minority, they always vote in numbers that dwarf the "it doesn't make any difference" crowd who don't even bother to register to vote or know what's going on because they believe it's not worth the effort. Propaganda abounds.

[bvf]

25. Wouldn't you like to help at least

try to make them afraid?

Hope I'm not misunderstanding here . . .

[Orsino]

26. I was aiming for sarcasm.

Obviously our ballots do matter, or They wouldn't be trying so hard to steer and suppress votes.

[bvf]

35. Great perspective.

Sorry I misunderstood.

[Politicub]

23. It is immoral to discourage people from voting

It's exactly what the GOP wants as evidenced by their odious voter ID laws.

[mahina]

55. +1

with a pile of zeroes.

Not voting isn't rebellion, it's surrender.

[fredamae]

29. This is a very strong

argument to Discourage folks from voting! A$$hole$!
Well, "they" can Kiss my old Arse!
We're All Voting, anyway!

[valerief]

31. All pols are owned by the beasts with the biggest wallets. nt

[cantbeserious]

32. Stating The Obvious - The Deep State Is Perpetual - The President Is Not

eom

[7962]

33. The President sees a lot of things that the public does not.

I think that explains why he has not done some of the things he ran on. We dont see the things he sees or get the reports he gets. There is a lot of bad out there in the world and the public doesnt see a lot of what goes on.
Once you get elected and into office, you realize you cant do some of the things you wanted to do. I think the drone use falls into that category. Obama uses them many times more than Bush did. I think it may be because the Pres would rather use a drone than risk a US life and he sees the threats that we dont.

[NYC Liberal]

36. Congratulations. That's EXACTLY what they want you to do: not vote.

Who benefits the most from low turnout? Right-wing Republicans.

Anyone who doesn't vote has no right to complain about either the candidates or the results of the election.

[center][font size=12]VOTE![/font][/center]

[jwirr]

38. First vote was for JFK and I have never seen a president who did anything alone. That said I think I

agree with the idea espoused in the book.

One thing they did not mention was talked about in another threat here yesterday. It argued that all the presidents since JFK are threatened by the fact that someone (MIC? CIA?) can assassinated them if they carry things too far. Referring to that second government.

Having said that I will still be voting. If I do not then I am part of the problem.

[samsingh]

39. we also got Obama care

[Doctor_J]

95. The biggest transfer of wealth from people to corporations in history

Hooray

[WillyT]

42. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[truedelphi]

43. Over 40 % of all Americans understand this, and are fed up

To the gills with the idea of voting for the Two Big Party People (Which translates into voting for Corporations.)

Even Jon Stewart went ballsitic last week, on the idea that our voting abilities will save us. He featured clips of interviews and debate messages from both the Republican and Democrat candidates running for an elective post in New York. Both sounded like a person coming down from a crack high - except a person coming down froma crack high might have sounded more logical and better informed.

It is all One Big Money Party.

One of the few elected Democrats I admire is the Congressional critter for the district two miles from my own - so I cannot vote for Garamendi, but have to either swallow my stomach lining and vote for Thompson or else vote for third party person who cannot win.

Oh and BTW, Jesse Ventura has been talking about the "unelected secret government" forever, but he is ridiculed by so many here, although he speaks truth all the time. He continually relates the story of how once he was elected governor of MN, he was introduced to one of these "secret government" people. They have perpetual state government positions, and are there to warn the newly elected that certain issues must be understood the way that the PTB want them understood, and voted on accordingly.

It makes sense to me. It is the year 2014, and yet the governor of my state, Jerry Brown, lets us know that the state has absoutely no safeguards against fracking!! So already three to nine billions of gallons of fracking waste waters have been dumped into California aquifers, which happen to be the source of irrigation and drinking water.

[greenman3610]

46. "Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

when will we learn?

[hedgehog]

47. If you don't believe your vote counts, why hang out at DU?

[jtuck004]

60. You must be a community organizer. What a GREAT line that is to encourage future voting! n/t

[Hestia]

48. To get back OT (voting ain't it). From the article:

IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

THIS is what the article is discussing - entrenched bureaucracy and those with an agenda working with and orchestrating outcomes through bureaucracy. Hasn't this been the lament of philosophers since the days of Ancient Greece, Egypt & China? "They" the worker bees - are showing their agenda. I do blame Pres. Obama for this because a) he didn't fire who he could when he walked in to work the first moment and 2) not standing up and loudly condemning when, what 200,000 or more, federal workers lost their jobs, the probably last true functionary workforce without an agenda (mostly), and "allowing" the Teabaggers to hire their friends into those positions after the sequester, at a lower salary of course.

We are now at the mercy of the eunuchs who know how to steal from the treasury, and we are watching it all walk out the door.

[Cha]

49. That's right.. Don't Vote because WAHWAHWAH.. "She's Voting" but, whomever can sit home

on their lazy whiny ass.

[EEO]

50. Presidents have to walk a very fine line...

[imthevicar]

56. Sad to Say But I believe it.

If only a president had the were with all to either shoot the bastards in the room, or resign for this specific reason, shows cowardice.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

62. Arthur Jensen agrees

the world is a business ...

https://m.

[JoePhilly]

51. Depress dem turnout, help GOP win, that simple.

[RufusTFirefly]

71. Save country or kick can further down the road. That simple. n/t

[Maedhros]

52. We should all vote. There's no excuse not to.

BUT - ignoring the fact that our elected representatives take our votes and then ignore us is just as stupid as not voting.

[snappyturtle]

53. What I think won't be popular but I lived on this planet long enough

to realize (sadly) the truth. Anyone who believes voting, especially at the national level, makes a big difference is fooling themselves. imho

[WhiteTara]

54. *co stuffed our governmental offices in lock tight jobs

to keep the wheels falling off the bus and Barack does have poor choice in friends.

[bhikkhu]

58. What do you think McCain/Palin would have done?

...and if you imagine that 2008-2012 would have been just the same if we didn't vote, and that things would be better now, you're delusional.

You can say Obama hasn't accomplished everything he wanted, or that we wanted, and that some things aren't going to change no matter who we elect, but its a huge long distance from that to saying it doesn't matter who we elect. What Obama wasn't able to do is one thing, but what McCain and Palin were unable to do because they weren't elected is a whole different story. I lived through 8 years of idiocy under bush, and I'm not missing another election, ever, regardless of what some narrow-minded idiot who sees "no difference" advises.

[DeSwiss]

64. Accelerate the inevitable process of decay of this decadent capitalist system?

''I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.'' ~Abraham Maslow

[bhikkhu]

77. There are plenty of good governments in the world, and plenty of lives worth living

hoping for decay and collapse is one way, but I'd rather vote for good government, fair taxes, and equality. People deserve as much.

[DeSwiss]

61. Duh.

[xocet]

65. Thanks for posting that clip. You have many of the most curiosity-inciting posts on DU...

Here is a video that contains that excerpt (minus the identifying name and title) at 12:33 in the video:

The Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis -Bill Moyers (PBS 1987)

[RufusTFirefly]

69. I listened to that exchange -- live -- and will never forget it.

It chilled me to the marrow.

Meanwhile, look at that shiny thing over there!

Lah-di-dah!

[xocet]

66. Here is the author's thesis as a journal article. A more informed citizenry and more voting seems

to be the recommended remedy for a "double government" in spite of the Boston Globe's misleading headline:

pgs. 1-2

ARTICLE
National Security and Double Government
[hr]
Michael J. Glennon*


In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the
great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control
the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
—James Madison(1)

Abstract

National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant
from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity
can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century
scholar of the English Constitution Walter Bagehot. As applied to the
United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy
is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the
departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security
and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political
system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional
constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established
institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken.
Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and
presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged
electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the
formulation and execution of national security policy.

...

http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf

[shenmue]

73. If he doesn't want to vote,

my advice to him is, take his passport, pick an airport and go the hell somewhere else.

[Arugula Latte]

79. I think we're screwn, but I'll vote anyway.

[C Moon]

81. and the tea baggers claim President Obama is too liberal.

At the gym tonight, a resident vocal Tea Bagger was telling an elderly right-wing dirt bag, about his new painting (I shudder to see his work): he described it to the elderly man, and the theme of the "work" was saying that President Obama is setting us up for another 911.

[defacto7]

82. Bush Jr. called them

"The deciders" When asked about a position on a number of subjects he said, "that's up to the deciders".

Just sayin'

[area51]

84. "... the same president who won a Nobel Prize ...

"... is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons."

Not a surprise, given that Obama's actually a moderate republican.

[polynomial]

85. The essential in the Democratic thought pattern is education

Surfing the free air stations because I disconnected my cable, now able to search a lot of what was programmed on television when I was a child. At this time as a boomer I can reflect back to really feel remember how people have been manipulated by programming commercials.

Business does affect the young mind and is relentlessly trying to capture it to own it through the home and educational mortgage.

In this phase of advertisements many of the political commercials are very condescending. That coupled with this theme about vote all you want the secret government won’t change seems to cascade or tumbles into my own personal opinion. My theory is that change is upon us, the political lies are becoming way too obvious. And the big shots know it and scrambling to secure that ownership even more by cheating and abuse in criminal ways.

The other day a very inspiring interview was on one of the public free air channels. Bill Moyer interviewed Marilynn Robinson a very delightful interesting discussion about the Democracy America does not have and what we need to do to get it.

Its education that needs reform, from my view further studies need to be entered into the K12 system beyond just the reading of the Constitution.

A complete introduction to the whole paradigm or process of legislation needs to be illustrated debated reviewed and analyzed for improvement.

That done at the K12 level would make that statement; Marilynn Robinson thought about “Encourage The Renewal of Democracy”.

There is a link from our very own DU multi-video section that is inspiring intelligent and very essential in the Democratic thought pattern. Marilynn Robinson has a flair for the deep transcendental imagination that sifts through to weave in the goodness out of the white noise in life. I am convinced the government will change, with a laugh and a chuckle, not as quick as we like.

It took centuries to try and peel away from old world customs of tyranny.

[Jamastiene]

86. I'm voting for who I want to say one thing then turn around and do another and

voting against the Republicans. Hell, if anything, it is worth it to vote against the Republicans.

[tblue37]

87. USSC! That all by itself is a reason to keep Republicans out of power.

If we'd not had Bush, we wouldn't have _Citizens United_ or the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, nor would we have had 9/11 or the illegal invasion of Iraq, since Gore would not have ignored the Aug. 6 presidential briefing--or followed the PNAC program.

The deep state does curtail elected officials' power, but elections DO make a significant difference, even if not as much difference as they should.

[blkmusclmachine]

88. Pull back the curtain to see who's pulling the strings.

"All we need is an empty suit to sign all our pet legislation."

[riqster]

91. Another favor being done for the Repubs, by suppressing the Dem vote.

The problem with studies like this one lies with the assumption that participation will remain low. And studies like this, since they are inherently suppressive, give themselves the appearance of legitimacy while in reality rigging the stats to make themselves look correct.

The shadow government exists because of low voter participation. It will be successful so long as participation remains low.

GOTV on a sustained level is the only way to change the paradigm.

[Blue_Tires]

96. Naturally, these analysis pieces *always* are aimed towards Democratic voters

The next piece I see that encourages Repubs and Teabaggers to stay home will be the first...

DUers cheerleading this piece would do well to keep that in mind...

[Akoto]

97. Screw that. By whatever means you can, vote. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

98. I'm curious as to how many people actually read the full article and interview...

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot."

IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?

GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.

IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.

GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.

IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?

GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.

Sounds like a more nuanced and balanced view than would appear from the title of the article.