And with good reason, e.g. mob rule. (As an American I hope this remains so.)
> bought out by lobbyists
On all sides. Goldman Sachs has their man in Washington, as does Planned Parenthood.
> only have two parties
America has multiple parties, but two are the most ascendant. And the reason for this is more complicated than the US Constitution, e.g. writing state laws that a party must have so many members to qualify for automatic enrollment on a ballot.
> the spectrum of politics is very narrow
Americans aware of European politics view Europe much the same way, that is, even the 'far right' of Europe more or less equals the 'center left to center right' of the United States.
> less open discussion
In a sense this is true. American media companies, for example, are dominated by non-Conservatives (the 'center right to far right' of the US) and so they choose their subjects, guests, talking points, etc., from amongst those they favor, i.e. non-Conservative sources. There is much more open discussion on the Internet but, as this post shows, even Big Tech is in favor of shutting down certain (non-Progressive) viewpoints they disagree with.
> On all sides. Goldman Sachs has their man in Washington, as does Planned Parenthood.
I might be misinterpreting you here but it sounds as if you're saying that all is well and good since all lobby organisations are represented in Washington. The problem to me with this idea would be that not all of the people are represented by all of the lobby organisations. Which makes the system not even a mob rule, but simply a plutocracy.
I would say that striving to be 'all is well and good' is a never-ending chore. (As in never will end.)
> since all lobby organizations are represented in Washington.
Not all, but many. There are also many lobbying firms local to states and cities.
Can we do with less lobbying? Sure. But we'll only ever be able to go so far given that organized petitions are guaranteed by the First Amendment '... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This can take the form of a single person, a parade of protestors, a lobbying firm, or what have you. Which also means a single person with deep pockets (e.g. actor Kevin Costner) can have more sway than a lobbying outfit (e.g. a law firm representing the Lakota Sioux of the Black Hills.)
> not all of the people are represented by all of the lobby organizations.
Agreed.
I would go even further and say not all of the people are represented by those who actually vote or those who actually occupy office. Undocumented migrants, children, the mentally challenged, jailed felons, those who don't vote whatsoever—all are supposedly represented by Congress and the President, but who really gave Congress and the President the right to represent those who didn't vote for them? (Joking here—many in the US feel that Trump does NOT represent them, despite him being President. Not joking here—but are they right?)
> plutocracy
It's close. Given the lobbying arms of Planned Parenthood, the Teamsters, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Audubon Society, and many, many (, many) others, that is, the lobbying arms of well-monied groups, we see that organized groups can act as wealthy individuals. So it's a mix of plutocracy and monied non-profits.
> youtube
Good video, and it captures the big-picture problem with American political lobbying. I wish them luck with the solution they've offered—currently, marijuana laws are undergoing the same course that women's suffrage did, so it works as long as people are driven to finish what they started. (Which is not necessarily a good thing—US Prohibition also was a state matter before finally being made an Amendment, the 18th, the one that came right before giving women the right to vote. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state .)
And with good reason, e.g. mob rule. (As an American I hope this remains so.)
> bought out by lobbyists
On all sides. Goldman Sachs has their man in Washington, as does Planned Parenthood.
> only have two parties
America has multiple parties, but two are the most ascendant. And the reason for this is more complicated than the US Constitution, e.g. writing state laws that a party must have so many members to qualify for automatic enrollment on a ballot.
> the spectrum of politics is very narrow
Americans aware of European politics view Europe much the same way, that is, even the 'far right' of Europe more or less equals the 'center left to center right' of the United States.
> less open discussion
In a sense this is true. American media companies, for example, are dominated by non-Conservatives (the 'center right to far right' of the US) and so they choose their subjects, guests, talking points, etc., from amongst those they favor, i.e. non-Conservative sources. There is much more open discussion on the Internet but, as this post shows, even Big Tech is in favor of shutting down certain (non-Progressive) viewpoints they disagree with.