Is it true that our nation's congress governs motivated by fear?

Apparently. I am saddened and appalled today but will not engage in arguments about it.

I’m afraid so, @ETpro. That’s the simple answer.

The american public isn’t their main bread and butter. I never doubted for a minute that this whole thing was just for show. They were never going to bite the hand that feeds them. This is why we need to remember the name of every idiot who voted against it and, vote them out next year. Then they will start to fear us. Then the nra will realize that there is only so much their money will get them.

The present congress is an appalling place. Somehow the need to be re-elected trumps the needs of the people. We need a complete clean sweep and re-organization. The entire body must be cleansed, even if we like our particular representative or senator.

I find the idea of painting the president as evil, or voting against him because he is part black appeals only to the lowest levels of society. I feel that the prejudiced anti-government segment of the electorate is overly represented. When simple things like “background checks” are voted down because of the opposition of one lobby group indicates that the entire system is corrupt and running scared. I think we should give them what they deserve, defeat.

“They don’t have a multibillion dollar industry funding them.” This is it in a nutshell.

“Will the forces who have massive financial interests at stake always get their way?” Yes unless Move to Amend can somehow get the ball rolling in a big way.

They enjoy the power, it gives them a hardon.
To stay in power they need to stay in office.
To stay in office they need to be re-elected every few years
To be re-elected (or even elected in the first place) they need money
To get money they have to do political favors for those with money.

So, with the possible exception of fearing the loss of position, I would say greed and not fear was the prime motivational factor.

It always comes down to money. Same thing with our legal system. Justice is bought by the highest bidder. If you don’t have the money to pay those insane legal fees, you’re screwed.

This is interesting:

Do interest groups corrupt government by “buying” influence? Critics believe that they do because more money comes from businesses and corporations than from any other source. This, they contend, gives them a connection to government that ordinary people do not have. From another point of view, everyone is free to form and join interest groups. So many exist that there is literally a group for everyone. These multiple contacts make the American democracy stronger, because they give the opportunity for all Americans to have better access to their government.
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5c.asp

@KNOWITALL but you are still saying money buys influence no matter what the source.

And when a single individual or business can come up with large amounts of ready cash they have more “opportunity” than a group that has to depend on members who are drawing from a much smaller individual cash reserve.

@rojo Absolutely. When I first realized it, I thought why bother voting for a corrupt system then that turned into a little bit of anger and I started paying more attention as I gained more perspective. The general consensus online in several sources was that it started with railroads in America.

^^^And oil too, I’d bet.

Yes!

I think it has as much to do with how representation and voting occurs in the Senate as anything else. It takes 60 votes to pass that kind of bill in the Senate. The bill that failed got solid majority with 54 [or was it 56?]. But you need 60.

But more importantly, as you know, the thing with the Senate, is that smaller population states get the same number of votes as the large ones. So if everybody in a hugely populated state like California is for something and they get 2 votes for it, and everybody in a sparcely populated state like Montana is against it, they get 2 votes against. So an issue with large popular backing overall gets equalized in the Senate. Not saying you or I or anybody should like the outcomes, but it is how it was designed.

I really do not think it is all about fear and lobbyists. Some of it is mechanics.

@janbb Thanks. Sadly, I must agree.

@KNOWITALL Same as @janbb

@Pandora I’m remembering. And it’s going to direct my campaign contributions.

@Ron_C I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. My target is those who reek of corruption. Throw them out, then with less foul air, we can begin to selectively remove the additional ones that stink based on who befouls the air the most.

@Dutchess_III We can still take back democracy. But we need to do so soon or revolution and lots of plutocrat heads rolling à la French Revolution will be the next big thing.

@KNOWITALL The system has an inbuilt interest in selling you the notion that it works just fine the way it is. But let’s take CO2 pollution and anthropomorphic global warming. The global fossil fuel industry brings in $40 trillion a year. They will think NOTHING of putting four billion up to buy politicians to defend their massive profits. After all, that’s just 1/1000th of their income. Are a group of tree huggers really going to match that.

@Dutchess_III Yep. Rail, steel, energy, oil.

@josie That certainly enters into it. But when an issue has 90% plus support of the American People, it is not even remotely possible to work out how small state vs. big state accounts for a 54 to 46, and the amendment to stiffen penalties for “straw purchasers,” 58 to 42.

What, I don’t get an acknowledgement? Good thing I have my self esteem.

@rojo My mistake. It was an unintentional oversight. Your comments here, here and elsewhere in the thread were spot on, greatly appreciated, and given great answers (even though I know I’m far past being maxed out on giving you Lurve).