american empire

got your attention? lol

i pose a question! what are the opinions in this forum as to the state of the american 'democracy' *cough socialistleaningrepublic cough*?

i have recently read the rise and fall of the roman empire, and the writings of tacitus, and i am drawn to the conclusion that we have not had a democracy for a long time.

bush '00; (and i HATE to drag old waters) a man becomes president expressly AGAINST the will of the majority, because he won the college.

wtf?

the patriot act, increasing 'dole' programs, outrageous military spending, annexing territories, disappearing middle class, floods of truly well meaning but destabilizing aliens, an epidemic of tort abuse, increasing censorship, and above all this government and corporate fed cloud of FEAR that we are all expected to live under.

to anyone offended by this post, and especially if it has been done to death i ask your pardon.

still i will ask the question; anyone else hear visigoths?

I think we were on the road to losing Democracy.
Remember Jefferson said Democracy is an on going experiment. But People are so dissatisfied with whats happened under the Bush Admin, that Obama's Change approach showed how much we want to return to Democracy.
People are crying because Obama didn't bring in Fresh Blood like he said, but Clinton's people were some of the best that this country has seen. Obama is trying to imitate both FDR and Reagan, two of the most innovative presidents ever.

Personal Opinion: Bush caused this mess in 8 Yrs, lets wait and see what Obama does in the first 6 Months of his administration before we start judging him.

good man!

in six months if its still around i'll bump this thread lol and or just ask the question again.

:)

Not sure you ever really had a true democracy... not sure any country does. Especially not the ones who actually call themselves 'Democratic republic of... whatever' as it always strikes me that they are trying to prove too much in the name and never do it in action.

America is (and always has been) a republic with some democracy in the way that Britain is a monarchy with some democracy. Both have an elite, select group who effectively control it all. The fact that a president can effectively over rule the vote of the senate and do what he damn well pleases is a sign of this - no different in a fundamental way to various early modern English monarchs (Charles I as a prime example) who randomly decided to dissolve parliament and rule without their support. If one individual (whether he or she is elected or not) can eliminate one aspect of the democracy from the system by effectively ignoring it then that is not a democracy.

As I said above, I am not sure the ideal of true democracy exists in practise at present. I think that the size of a population is important in democracy - on a small scale it works really well but after a certain size it begins to lose power. You need things to support it - parliaments, senates, congress - and they bring with them a whole host of problems which detract from true democracy.

what i find fascinating is the idea that we now have the technology to make an actual democratic society feasible. one vote for one legal adult.

computers, phones, and the internet make me wonder why we still need something like an electoral college.

on a small scale democracy works great. in the northeast where i'm originally from the town hall meetings and caucuses are a great thing, pure democracy in action. once you get to a larger population tho that starts to break down.

my idea was that anyone who wanted to vote could buy a small handheld device, basically a cell phone, that's dedicated to a server that can log the individual id of the person voting. once a vote has been cast that unit is locked out of the server, or passed onto a different server handling a different election.

did that make any sense?

-matin

Nice Point matin:
Small Population govt can go either way either a totall true democracy or a midevil Fiefdom. It just depends on if the people will fight for their rights.

We have never had a true democracy in the United States, nor did the founding fathers wish for us to have one at any time.

The resons for this are as simple as the reasons Plato found for that of Athens failed attempt at true democracy to not be a desireable form of Government. In fact it failed the Athenians on numerous occassions.

Mob rule subsitutes a blind system in the place of any actualy intellegent mindset at the helm of the people with a true democracy. It also promotes demigogues rising to power and possible tyranny as opposed to good knowedgable people. (our most recent election case in point)

One reason why the Romans after having overthrown thier kings addopted instead thier "Republican" form of Government, and if you study history you will see our own government in america more closely resembles the romans than the greeks.


As for the elctoral college, well no one I know likes it, outside of the founding fathers who wanted it as a safe gaurd to keep "we the people" from doing what the ruleing class of america (senetorial ranks who by the way were not elected by popular vote at the time) didnt want.

As for a the Bush Gore election being a sign of Americas fall, one might perchance review the history books a little bit and see that this was not the first or even the second time that someone won the popular vote but did not become the president due to the electoral college and or the senate intervening.

Also the idea that the "President" can overrule and do what ever he pleases is to say the least unrealistic, especially if your talking about Bush again, you will find if you look that he got approval from the senate for things that previous presidents didnt even bother apealing for support. (Jefferson, Wilson, Kennedy and Johnson are the biggest offenders in that camp of walking on other branches of government)

The Roman Empire fell after allmost more than a thousand years of rule in the east and a little over 500 years in the west and there are many oppinions as to how that came about.

Some blame the Christians, others blame the barbarian migrations, and yet others blame complacency induced by over abundance.

The most recent work of cross disiplinary fields is coming up with a far more complex explanation for the fall which alltough includes some of the forementoned it also dismissess some things like christanity (which actually may have sustained it) outright and lays the majority of the blame on conditions outside the romans control at the time as there is strong evidence now that climate change played a majior role in both the invasions and lack of manpower to resist them (cooling period simular to the one that brought dorian invaders to allmost wipe out the Myceaneans).

Tacitus wrote a brilliant example of how absolute power corruptes quickely, in his annuals of imperial rome (inpaticular the section about the year of four emperors) however Rome did go on for several hundred years after he Tacitus was long dead.

All thats required to vote now, is getting up off ones lazy ass to do so, which that in and of itself is a large reduction factor. When most of the people who voted in this past election didnt even know who the running mates were let alone what the canadates actual stood for, I am not so sure I want them voting anyway.

As for blaming one man like "Bush or Carter, or FDR or whoever) for the faults of many, (ie congress and the many buracratic departments of government) all I can say there is that it is all too typical for people that are swept up in religious like feavor over thier chosen party or demagouge to dismiss logic for passion or allow passion to overshadow what reason they may have possed to begin with where as things of this nature are conserned.

My opinion of the health of the "American Experiment" in government is akin to the famous Mark Twain quote, (paraphrased from my memory) "The rumor of my death is somewhat exaggerated." I believe there are many centuries yet to come.

Was not referring to Bush at all in my points. The fact remains that there are certain situations in which an American president may, without the support of either elected body, make an executive decision.

As for the electoral colleges... very good point about why these were put in place. And also good points about the reasons why America is a republic. However, the public face of American politics always claims that it is a democracy (indeed some claim it to be the greatest democracy) and yet many of the points made so far in this thread present evidence (however speculative) that it is not a democracy at all (and as has been stated, was never actually intended to be so). So, to what extent is American democracy a lie? And is that lie justified?

As for 'computer democracy' not sure even that will work in practise. There is still the problem of far too many people all wanting something different...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fetishdj

The fact remains that there are certain situations in which an American president may, without the support of either elected body, make an executive decision.

---

While technically true, there could come a time when he would have to justify that decision. That's why they have the impeachment process. The problem with that is that party politics tends to override intelligence. They would rather keep their bad president, just because he belongs to their party, than put him on trial for his indiscretions and risk losing the presidency to the other party.

The biggest problem with any democracy is not necessarily the number of people involved, but the number of intelligent people involved. I don't think I would want to live in a true democracy where the majority of people are voting with their gut rather than their brain.

thank you to everyone who decided to weigh in on this one. ^.^ i find it's hard to get a good conversation going in my little burgh about, i guess i'd say, 'basic' politics.

you all are smart people; you know the definition of democracy; mob rule. the only societies i know of in history to ever have truly practised this was a series of native american societies on the southwest.

even those athenians had sub-classes who couldn't vote - a great deal like our founding fathers' 'democracy'.

"sure you can vote if you happen to be a white protestant male landowner!" :)

this country wasn't designed to function without a ruling class, so what to do as we hopefully advance to a point where a genuine effort is made to give all 300 million of us a legitimate stake in the leadership?

i don't mind so much an undereducated populace voting their guts instead of their minds. i think america suffers a great deal for our - and i'm as guilty as anyone at times - elitist thinking. do you want a democracy? then you have to accept the results of the vote.

and denuseri, you are right; what happened in '00 happened twice before, in the 1800's. i think the relevance is different today, however, due to the connectedness and access of the american people. yes, america has survived ruthless men and ugly politics before(abraham lincoln) but during more inherently uncertain times.

in today's america it seems to me that our fearless leaders are very much afraid of letting the populace get a chance to stop and smell the roses. there is a constant rush from war to war keeping the patriotic fervor up, and a nonstop barrage of fear mongery in the media to keep us under our desks and docile.

we have constututional rights. or we did. now there are less. and apparently they are open to interpretation. this is a more recent development - since 9/11 - and it's one i really don't like. never before has the government sought so much influence over and access to the private lives of americans. some say that if one isn't a criminal there is no reason to be bothered by gov't observation. i see it as a step toward a police state.

so what happens, i wonder, to out gov't if we haven't got the fervor and the fear? opinions? why is that happening?

so maybe i think i didn't clarify my opening post enough; i feel that any semblance or facade of representative government in america is slipping away, to be replaced with something much more totalitarian. agree? disagree?

one of the aspects of british politics that i greatly respect - from the admittedly little i know of it - is the multi party system they use. in america our two party system dominates the ballots and the media. in a lot of places a third party candidate can't even make it on the roster, and independants sometimes can't vote because they're not aligned with one of the parties.

where then is the ACCURATE representation? a choice is given between two veteran politicos. is it naive to imagine that were there more competition for office - like in britain(i think. lol) - then we might not always be feeling that we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils?

also i need to clarify, i had mentioned the roman empire because i was alluding to the death of the republic.

and to belabor a much abused subject, i still don't feel that any good arguments have been made against a direct democracy.

According to the CIA World Factbook the United States form of government is "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". Pretty much touches all the bases of our government.

Note: I use that website for reference fairly regularly for a variety of subjects, check it out sometime. It takes the Joe Friday approach to information, "Just the facts, nothing but the facts, ma'am". https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...ook/index.html

The government and to a large extent the people of the U.S reacted to 9/11 as this and many other countries have in the past; a willingness to trade civil rights and individual freedoms for security. The time right after 9/11 was chaos, fear was rampant. While anyone that has read other political threads that I've commented on can attest that I'm a long way from a Bush/Cheney supporter, I can't fault the decisions made in the immediacy of post-9/11 in the actual interest of public safety. Now having said that, the callous use of 9/11 to further erode individual rights, i.e. Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, Miranda, etc troubles me. The relatively recent revelation that the eaves-dropping ability has been used to entertain the technicians by listening to personal conversations of American citizens and the admission by the FBI of their agents abusing the warrentless wire-tapping laws, the revealed abuse of the Watch List on citizens who fly by putting political opponents on the list, show how quickly what appeared to be needed constrictions of constitutional rights are abused.

The case of Ali al-Marri, a Qatar citizen that was studying at Bradley University and is being held in the Charleston Navy brig without any charges except his being denoted by the administration as an "enemy combatant" without any offer of proof should be watched very carefully. Is he a terrorist bent on the destruction of the U.S.? We don't know. He's a student in the U.S. subject to the laws of the U.S. Doesn't he deserve the right of trial by jury? If we are going to err should it be on the side of letting a guilty man go free or sending an innocent man to prison? By a single executive order anyone can be held without access to counsel, without facing his accuser, without a Grand Jury indictment, without judicial review, without Habeas Corpus. That scares me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

That's why they have the impeachment process. The problem with that is that party politics tends to override intelligence. They would rather keep their bad president, just because he belongs to their party, than put him on trial for his indiscretions and risk losing the presidency to the other party.

The biggest problem with any democracy is not necessarily the number of people involved, but the number of intelligent people involved. I don't think I would want to live in a true democracy where the majority of people are voting with their gut rather than their brain.

---

Keep in mind that the impeachment process is based on the commission of "High crimes and misdemeanors". It would be very difficult to overcome an executive order through that process. With enough votes Congress could enact a veto-proof law to reverse an executive order but that could be negated through a Signing Statement by the President. (Bush has used signing statements to avoid parts of laws more than the other Presidents of the 20th century combined, as I recall.) There is the route of challenge of the constitutionality of an order through the Supreme Court but that is time consuming and is based on an interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to right/wrong of the order.


The aspect of a pure democracy (1 person one vote, majority rules) on all subjects without checks and balances appears to offer more anarchy than anything else. I agree that gut voting as opposed to intelligent thought is most often the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr_BuzzCzar

The government and to a large extent the people of the U.S reacted to 9/11 as this and many other countries have in the past; a willingness to trade civil rights and individual freedoms for security. The time right after 9/11 was chaos, fear was rampant.

---

I don't like that comment. I agree with your assessment of trading civil rights and freedoms for security, and indeed, post 9/11 was chaos. But other than those people living in NYC and DC, was fear that pronounced? Oh, certainly, politicians were terrified! A plane hitting the pentagon, one apparently targetting the White House? Their own lives might be on the line! Failing to act on intelligence information? What about their careers! They were certainly afraid. Personally, while horrified by the acts and the results of those acts, I can't say that my level of fear went any higher just because of 9/11. And that despite the fear-mongering of the American (primarily) press and TV news media.

Quote:

---

...I can't fault the decisions made in the immediacy of post-9/11 in the actual interest of public safety. Now having said that, the callous use of 9/11 to further erode individual rights, i.e. Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, Miranda, etc troubles me. The relatively recent revelation that the eaves-dropping ability has been used to entertain the technicians by listening to personal conversations of American citizens and the admission by the FBI of their agents abusing the warrentless wire-tapping laws, the revealed abuse of the Watch List on citizens who fly by putting political opponents on the list, show how quickly what appeared to be needed constrictions of constitutional rights are abused.

---

I'm with you on this one! "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Quote:

---

That scares me.

---

And me as well. Far more than the threat of further terrorist actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I don't like that comment. I agree with your assessment of trading civil rights and freedoms for security, and indeed, post 9/11 was chaos. But other than those people living in NYC and DC, was fear that pronounced?

---

Speaking as an outside observer, my expereince was that my US friends were not just frightened but literally hysterical. Any attempt to reason with them, to suggest that they might be over-reacting or lashing out at the wrong target, was met with reactions on the level of "WHY DO YOU HATE US? YOU'RE ON THEIR SIDE!"

It wasn't universal by any means, but the impression from this side of the pond was that a large percentage of the population simply lost their marbles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

It wasn't universal by any means, but the impression from this side of the pond was that a large percentage of the population simply lost their marbles.

---

I don't know. Maybe it was mostly people from the NYC area, and the DC area, as I said. I'm sure that there were some people who frightened, and some even now who won't get on a plane for fear of it being hijacked. But I can't think of a single person I know who was "terrified" by the whole thing. Sure, we were upset, and certainly concerned about the potential for more incidents, but except for the government crack downs on our civil liberties, I can't think of one tangible effect from 9/11. Aside from the financial impacts, of course. And naturally, those who lost friends or family are more affected. I would venture to guess that most of those hysterical people you mentioned were probably in this category, having lived through the ordeal directly. Their reaction is understandable.

I do remember in the hours following the Oklahoma City bombing that many people, including the media, were very quick to blame Arab terrorists, but I have always been of the opinion that anything the Arab fanatics can do, homegrown fanatics can do. In that case I was proved right, and I felt the same way about 9/11 until the evidence started coming in about the Muslims who boarded the planes.

Don't jump to conclusions, and don't judge all Americans by the handful who may have, indeed, panicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I don't like that comment. I agree with your assessment of trading civil rights and freedoms for security, and indeed, post 9/11 was chaos. But other than those people living in NYC and DC, was fear that pronounced? Oh, certainly, politicians were terrified! A plane hitting the pentagon, one apparently targeting the White House? Their own lives might be on the line! Failing to act on intelligence information? What about their careers! They were certainly afraid. Personally, while horrified by the acts and the results of those acts, I can't say that my level of fear went any higher just because of 9/11. And that despite the fear-mongering of the American (primarily) press and TV news media.

.

---

I was on the west coast in an airport when this came down. Long story that's not different from a lot of others but I ended up driving across the country from California to South Carolina. I listened to a lot of talk radio and to a lot of news. I stopped each night and chatted with people in hotels and restaurants. Fear was rampant. While I didn't observe anyone running around like their hair was on fire, there was a great deal of anxiety and unease immediately after the attack. The entire air travel system shut down, guards on chemical plants and nuclear plants, etc. that good old all-American practice of price gouging worked on Mr and Mrs America because of fear. Anyone who lived in the U.S on 9/11 and wasn't afraid for their family members, friends, co-workers, or themselves is in a very small minority.

Fear isn't a bad thing. Panic is bad, fear can keep you alive. I've been shot, I've been blown up, I've ambushed and been ambushed. Fear has worked very well for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

Speaking as an outside observer, my experience was that my US friends were not just frightened but literally hysterical. Any attempt to reason with them, to suggest that they might be over-reacting or lashing out at the wrong target, was met with reactions on the level of "WHY DO YOU HATE US? YOU'RE ON THEIR SIDE!"

It wasn't universal by any means, but the impression from this side of the pond was that a large percentage of the population simply lost their marbles.

---

I didn't observe such reactions but I was not in NY or Washington so can't speak for them. I didn't see panic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr_BuzzCzar

I was on the west coast in an airport when this came down. Long story that's not different from a lot of others but I ended up driving across the country from California to South Carolina. I listened to a lot of talk radio and to a lot of news. I stopped each night and chatted with people in hotels and restaurants. Fear was rampant. While I didn't observe anyone running around like their hair was on fire, there was a great deal of anxiety and unease immediately after the attack. The entire air travel system shut down, guards on chemical plants and nuclear plants, etc. that good old all-American practice of price gouging worked on Mr and Mrs America because of fear. Anyone who lived in the U.S on 9/11 and wasn't afraid for their family members, friends, co-workers, or themselves is in a very small minority.

Fear isn't a bad thing. Panic is bad, fear can keep you alive. I've been shot, I've been blown up, I've ambushed and been ambushed. Fear has worked very well for me.

---

I can understand your point. If you were travelling, or knew someone who was travelling, I can imagine being worried, even fearful. If you live in a large city, one which might be considered a target for a terrorist act, a certain amount of fear is understandable. I will admit, I was concerned that there might be additional attacks, but I can't say that I was afraid for myself or my family. I just couldn't see us being in the bullseye.

There are probably a few people here who remember the 50's and early 60's, when the threat of nuclear war was extremely high. I remember having to practice diving under our school desks and covering our heads with our arms as air raid drills. And each Saturday at noon, all the air raid sirens in the area would blast for a minute's test. (I can remember thinking that if the Russian's attacked at noon no one would know it was a real air raid.) I suppose that growing up with that threat has made me less fearful of other threats. I also grew up not far from Newark, NJ during the height of the race riots in the 60's. Perhaps that also works to temper my fear reflex.

I take it from your last paragraph that you were in the military, or maybe in Newark. I have never been in positions such as you describe. I can well believe that one would develop a fine sense of caution and awareness, and even fear, as survival mechanisms. And I am concerned about the prospect of terrorists launching a nuclear or biological attack against this country or other countries. But I'm with you: panic is more often than not counterproductive. And blaming everyone with a Middle East background for the acts of a few fanatics is also counterproductive. Yet that is what panic will do.

The worst thing about 9/11 is the damage caused to America's travel/holiday industry, exacerbated by the President's "War on Tourism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

The worst thing about 9/11 is the damage caused to America's travel/holiday industry, exacerbated by the President's "War on Tourism".

---

You mean, worse than the destruction of Iraq, the draining of the US economy, the shredding of civil rights at home and abroad or the ruination of America's reputation around the world?

But I guess you could argue that all those things would have happened without 9/11, since it's now an open secret that Bush already had plans in place to be a "war president" and would have found some other pretext if Bin Laden hadn't obliged.

so we have sacrificed our civil liberties in exchange for an increased sense of security.

is this trend reversibe? should it be reversed?

is it possible to increase security without losing our rights?

and finally the question that really scares me; will the politicians, having grown accustomed to their control, ever let that measure of oversight go?

Its the last part you mentioned about getting any freedom back thats the hardest part Matin.

Those in power very rarely will reliquish such control once it's firmly in thier grasp.

I imagine the panic was perhaps exascurbated by the media of course since it thrives on conflict.

I had left the U.S.A. only 2 weeks prior to the attacks to visit the country of my birth and visit my estranged remaining relatives from my mothers side of the family (who were forced to move from Beruit to Isreal and other places as refugees in the 80's).

For a little while there it was just crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

The worst thing about 9/11 is the damage caused to America's travel/holiday industry, exacerbated by the President's "War on Tourism".

---

i personally feel that by far the biggest issue and perhaps the longer lasting legacy and damage done has been the undermining of the democratic processes in those countries sucked into the resulting conflict.

the loss of trust and belief in governments is i feel far more reaching than any impact to the tourism and travel industries, and is something that we will all have to deal with and face going forward.

after the initial attacks, whilst there was not panic, there was genuine shock and disbelief, the realism that now irrespective of where one is they are potentially at risk really hit home. i lost 295 colleagues, in both towers and on one of the planes and i recall being in a meeting on the 35th floor in canary wharf london, which overlooks london city airport a few days after planes were allowed back in the air, and the meeting room was silenced as to a person we all looked out of the window at a plane banking after takeoff.

words were not necessary we all knew what we were thinking

the first casualty of any war is the truth, will we ever know the real whole unadulterated truth, your guess is as good as mine, i very much doubt it.

has the resulting legislation introduced reduced the risk of terrorist attack, possibly, very debatable, one thing is however for sure, we are now more watched, monitored and controlled than ever before, should the threat desist will this trend be reversed, of that i am sure....... no it will not.

once surrendered liberties are very, very rarely handed back

Sorry i feel i should state that my views are of course from a european perspective

leo, craven. You make very good points and I have no issue with any of them.

Please read my post again. Out loud, perhaps ...

lol noted yes

a bleak picture craven... i agree and i wish i didn't. i hold hope that it may yet change back.

we - myself and SO - have talked about children... i don't wan't to bring them into some orwellian purgatory...

One old greek described democracy as two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinnner. Strictly speaking Britain is not a democracy, it is parliamentary representation. The people do not vote for their leader or government. Democracy is one of those words that have changed.

The dictionary definition is still the same but the way the word is used by politicians and others encompasses more than simply how a government is chosen. Concepts like the rule of law, rights of the people and government taking into account the interests of all people are important aspects of the modern usage of democracy.

Personally I am so sure that one man one vote is a good basis for government or decisions. You don't have democracy in the military or business and they seem to run far better than most governments. Come to think of it, is a bdsm relationship democratic with equal say.

Incidentally and off topic, isn't it strange that we seemed so obsessed with bring democracy to other countries when as we all know it is far from perfect. Isn't it ironic that many of those who claim the war brought democracy to Iraq regard Saudi Arabia with its absolute monarchy as a staunch ally for freedom. Perhaps every country should be free to work out for itself how it wants to be governed and there is no one shoe that fits all.

All true... as I said, there are no true democracies (even with the slight change in meaning). We do, however, have more rights than ever before which is a good thing.

Autocracies tend to get things done quicker because there is no one to argue with the autocrat.

I also agree that countries should be allowed to choose thier own government and their own religion so long as neither is detrimental to the rest of the world. The last clause is needed to prevent America from taking over the world :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matin

got your attention? lol

i pose a question! what are the opinions in this forum as to the state of the american 'democracy' *cough socialistleaningrepublic cough*?

i have recently read the rise and fall of the roman empire, and the writings of tacitus, and i am drawn to the conclusion that we have not had a democracy for a long time.

---

The U.S. has never been a democracy, it has always been a republic.

Quote:

---

bush '00; (and i HATE to drag old waters) a man becomes president expressly AGAINST the will of the majority, because he won the college.

wtf?

---

The system worked exactly as intended (allegations of voter fraud aside).

Quote:

---

the patriot act, increasing 'dole' programs, outrageous military spending, annexing territories, disappearing middle class, floods of truly well meaning but destabilizing aliens, an epidemic of tort abuse, increasing censorship, and above all this government and corporate fed cloud of FEAR that we are all expected to live under.

to anyone offended by this post, and especially if it has been done to death i ask your pardon.

still i will ask the question; anyone else hear visigoths?

---

Biggest problems facing the U.S.:

Our increasing state of debt, both private and public.

Our reliance on foreign energy.

Increasing wealth disparity. It threatens our economic health and civil stability.

A government that is hyper sensitive to public opinion and monetary influence. This is by far the most insidious as it keeps any realistic solution to the prior problems (or any major problem for that matter) from being tabled. Some sensitivity is important, however "the people" are stupid. "The people" know next to nothing and instead respond almost entirely on emotion and self interest, because "the people" are only as smart as the average person's knowledge on any given subject. If you were to choose subjects at random, the average person will almost certainly know next to nothing on that subject. Hence the failure of governing by polls. Government is supposed to be a moderating factor on the public's will, not it's bitch.

No, I don't hear visigoths. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. falls out of the #1 super power slot in the next 50 years.