This is the real problem. I can't imagine any current politician giving a speech like the one quoted in the article. Politics today is not about "How do we make our country as good as possible?". Instead politicians only care about "How do I get my party to win and make the other party look bad?"
Everyone should read Galbraith's "the Affluent Society". Our economy is built on scarcity; we couple productivity to consumption (thus, we need jobs because we need to have money so we can buy things so we have jobs). This is idiotic, especially when we don't have scarcity any more. It's very likely humanity is productive enough to give everyone a high standard of living, but our economics don't permit it. We're too busy redistributing income upwards.
Basic income seems a way out, at first. But a post-scarcity economy should be fundamentally different. This likely means getting rid of some forms of property; this won't be easy.
We are nowhere near living in a post-scarcity world - a world isn't possible anyway (assuming an earth based society) because there is a finite amount of resources such as land, water, minerals, ect.
Humans have been doing agriculture for 10's of 1000's of years. Simply stating, "Well, that just has to go, period." without explanation (and then moving on from there) is cute, and ridiculous.
I agree that we're not near living in a post-scarcity society, but not necessarily because of technical limitations. Humans don't need infinite amounts of land, water, minerals, etc.
The biggest problem is that a scarcity-based economy hinders the development of a post-scarcity society, by creating artificial scarcity.
And considering that robots already took all the agriculture and manufacturing jobs, and we're supposedly split between "knowledge workers" and "service workers", I'd say the problem of automation taking our jobs still has a long way to go.
It's entirely a function of economics. When JFK gave speeches, the U.S. was on the top of a world in which all its competitors had bombed each other to pieces. When Obama gives a speech, it's in a world where U.S. blue collar jobs have fled to China and Mexico. Idealism just rings hollow under those circumstances.
It also just so happens that one of the main parties in the US has been working tirelessly for the last 40 years to make sure that faith in government is lowered. I believe it's their overarching strategy to get people to disconnect from politics, so they can rule the roost. What other reason for their party's popularity, when the party policies are not in the best interest of those voting for it?
However, do not confuse the national parties and the Washington establishment with local Democrats and Republicans. The local level politicians usually are much more responsive to the needs of their constituents.
I think your statements are not in line with the facts, not by far. State Republican governments are often more beholden to corporate interests than even the federal party. They often fall in line with federal level ideological ploys as well (eg. banning gay marriage), so they're no better on that front.
I was merely trying to point out the cause of one aspect of the original post.
Regarding "rape", perhaps Google [mimi alford]; it comes close.
His overall point was to contrast the actual behavior of elected officials with the mores of the time. Compare the epic freak-out over Clinton and Lewinsky to the reverence people have for JFK.
It has never been. Parties or other representatives will represent (or claim to represent) their backers, not everyone. The more important the backers are the more they will influence the politicians. If there are two parties, one represents everyone equally and the other provides you slightly more advantage than to others, then you will (normally) vote for the latter.
You should _always_ look at politics from the game theoretical and/or evolutionary perspective. (Read 'The Dictators' Handbook').
The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
It's not just a problem with politicians, it's a problem with all of us. We have, en masse, forgotten what actually matters in life.
I'd probably be sick all the time with all that wind.
Edit: did I say something offensive?
One would be better off looking at what candidates and their backers truthfully represent.
We who?
> And the other party will just drag you through the mud if you try to run on something like "hope."
A pretty much immutable property of the two-party system in the US has been -- from day one -- that the other side will drag you through the mud for whatever you say. Whether it is idealistic or pragmatic or anything else.
The idea that this is somehow new is, well, historically blind.
If there is one thing Americans hate more than they gov killing Americans abroad, its Americans getting killed by terrorists at home. Ya, this is a very abstract threat, but politics revolves around it.
One could ask however, is that kind of thinking what people expected or hoped for?
You don't have to imagine... if you like, you could listen to them all day. They hire speechwriters who author stirring oration, and not even just during campaign season.
No one bothers to listen. Ignorance? A disdain for becoming informed?
I actually think that it's we all know how hollow their words are. How conditional and revocable their not-really-promises are. How many excuses they have ready when nothing changes.