Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
I'm an advocate of stopping the problem at it's source. The source for the issues in politics is lobbying. I know, it's impossible. However, I'd rather keep my eye on the target than get caught up in all this song and dance.
|
Okay, fair enough.
So what would you do? How would you stop the efforts of lobbyists from influencing and pandering to politicians?
I can see the point you are making, but acknowledgeing the problem is step 1 out of many.
Part of my perception of this problem is that quite a few have noted it's negative influence on political discourse, but no one seems to see the "light at the end of the tunnel" so to speak.
What will happen when lobbyists are gone?
Should they be removed, regulated more, etc?
Given that they do serve a utilitarian purpose, as guy44 has pointed out, what shall replace them in bringing information to the representative? This question is pertanant because few indiviguals take the time to actually contact their rep on the mistaken impression that "I can't make a difference.".
I truly beleive that civil discourse happens in our political history when an issue arises that causes the public to inform themselves before reacting. At most other times the "public" will sink back into self-chosen apathy to indulge only in the matters of their personal life, rarely pondering the long term picture that is bigger than them.
Given this willfull ignorance by many, would it not be equally valid to say that an active populus that has educated itsef to what needs to get done for now and the future, and has familiarized themselves with the possabilities, is the balance to lobbyists that is currently lacking?