Few Americans Want Members of Congress Re-Elected, Poll Finds

By | February 12, 2010

Few Americans Want Members of Congress Re-Elected Poll Finds

Just 8 percent of Americans want the members of Congress re-elected, according to a CBS News-New York Times poll taken nine months before roughly one-third of the Senate and the entire House face voters.

The Feb. 5-10 survey found 81 percent of respondents saying the lawmakers shouldn’t receive another term.

By 80 percent to 13 percent, Americans said members of Congress are more interested in serving special interests than the people they represent.

Also, 75 percent disapproved of the job Congress is doing, the highest level since 74 percent said they disapproved in October 2008. Congress’s job approval rating was 15 percent in the current survey; it was 12 percent in October 2008.

The new poll of 1,084 adults had a margin of error of plus- or-minus 3 percentage points.

Half of those surveyed said they wanted to abolish the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, the procedural move by which bills can be stalled unless 60 lawmakers vote to shut off debate, while 44 percent disagreed.

via Few Americans Want Members of Congress Re-Elected, Poll Finds – Yahoo! News.

Congress is the opposite of progress. Science is making great progress, but politically and morally, we are slipping when “anyone, anywhere may be abducted, secretly imprisoned, tortured, and murdered in cold blood.”

6 thoughts on “Few Americans Want Members of Congress Re-Elected, Poll Finds

  1. Ann

    Where is this “progress” of science, you speak of, going?

    Progress is a notion we inherited from, no less, our pre-Enlightenment Christian forefathers and exalted Church leaders even before Middle Ages. Progress was a key notion during colonialism in the 19th century, when as it turned out to be not much more than the exploitation of the “White man’s burden.”

    “Progress” our reason for doing so much today, whether we want to admit or not, that we cannot even think of a society not having such a notion. And, if we do, we think, oh the people of that society must be, therefore, backward or “primitive.”

    I submit we don’t really want nor need “progress,” because not only is inhumane and unethical, but impractical. What we really want and need is a science and a society that looks at the present, at the here and now. We have more wealth and knowledge than we really know what to do with.

    Just think how much money was spent just in the wars in the Middle East since 9-11 (just under $1 trillion – do you know how much that is? Few people do). Just think of the alternate forms of energy, you yourself have posted at this website. There are countless of ways we can think of a society and its science that stops thinking about some mythical science fiction type of future and work at making people happy in the NOW!

    Whatever, that’s how I feel, thanks.

    1. Xeno Post author

      You may object to the term progress, but in the here and now, things need to be improved. Improvements worldwide are needed in the areas of: new jobs, health, education, peace, energy, food and water, etc. Take care of that and you will mostly take care of crime, terrorism, etc. We suffer from the same problem of a wrong focus in other areas like medicine. We mostly treat symptoms while ignoring the cause of disease.

      Progress in science depends on your point of view. ABC has a list of the Biggest Science Breahthroughs of 2008, and Wired has an article titled Top Scientific Breakthroughs of 2009. Personally, despite some flaws, I think the iPhone is progress in terms of making my life easier and more enjoyable, but to others, the technology to pull water out of the air using windmills would be the best.

      I like to believe our intelligence organizations are doing the best they can to help the country, and that to do that, some super secret neural net quantum supercomputer in an underground undisclosed location ran the simulations and determined that we had to go to war in Iraq and we had to fool people into wanting to go to war or we’d run out of energy and die of starvation. Again, perhaps there is a focus problem. Ask the computer the best way to improve the condition of everyone on the planet instead of just our country and you may find the way to benefit the USA in the longer term.

      If there was a vote, I’d have voted to put that $1 trillion into alternative energy R&D, converting this country to one or more forms of new renewable energy, and into ending poverty and hunger. Building good will and using the Internet to get everyone in the world contributing to finding solutions is, to me, the way to go. We are wasting time. I don’t understand why we can’t cooperate.

      Most of the good things in our lives today come in part from the contributions of people who had beliefs and cultures different from our own.

  2. Ann

    “Progress” was a term used by early Christians when they viewed the World in terms of Biblical goals of “Salvation” and the coming “Judgment Day.”

    It was a term used by even pre-Augustinian Christians – in fact, they were called “the Progressivists” as they thought the collapse of Rome was imminent. (If you didn’t know “St.” Augustine, an influential spokesman of the early Christian church, changed all that and said “progress,” according to Scripture, was spiritual thing. But, it was still “progress” however nebulous and aloof … that far off vision of the “The City of God” etc.)

    But, after the “Enlightenment,” and about same time the “Scientific Revolution,” (with Newton et al.) progress reverted back to material goals, but in this case people didn’t look forward to a better world with the collapse of Rome but to technology, the results of “science.”

    Ok, that was few hundred years ago, and still today we are worshiping at the alter of Science and waiting for the Gifts of Technology.

    Your right we can cooperate … but first we must stop thinking about the future. It is all here and now. Everything resources, ideas, technology etc. All here and now.

    The future is in our heads, in our imagination .. Oh, wonderful, but so it has been for over 200 years. People have been talking about “utopias,” and a better world far too long. We need a fundamental changes in the way we think.

    Instead of inventions and break-throughs, there is an entire body of knowledge floundering about how to apply what we already know and have. Why is it floundering? Merely because it is not considered important. We want “new,” when we should be thinking how to apply what we have.

    We must not list “goals” but demands!

    (But, really “whatever.” I’m just the voice of one.)

    1. Xeno Post author

      Good points. Applying everything we now know to be best for us would be new. But around us are toxic people wracked by denial who can’t face their own inner pain and who thus multiply it and spread it to others. There is a simple fix that is an attitude change: Relax and trust people. Stop being afraid. Stop being defensive. Stop attacking and blaming. Listen with compassion. If the evidence is clear for something, accept it. If it is unclear, open your mind, get new evidence and find out. Don’t hate the messenger. If truth, based on the best available evidence mattered to everyone, we would not be in the mess we are now.

  3. gavin

    Interesting historical perspective on “progress.” Ann, do you have examples on what you think is floundering today?

    “Progress” can be both good (machines keep us from having to hunt and gather) and destructive (Hitler and the Nazis sought progress).

    However, I disagree that our society should just focus on today. By thinking about and planning for tomorrow, we make better decisions today.

    Xeno, if you put $1 trillion into ending poverty, you would be trying to bail out the titanic with a bucket. Poverty cannot be eradicated. The best you can hope for would be living in Soviet Russia and waiting in line for bread.

    If you put $1 trillion into alternative energy, you may come out with some good breakthroughs, but until the rest of the market catches up, those breakthroughs will be meaningless, and you’ll need another $1 trillion.

    I would suggest not taking $1 trillion out of the economy and allowing trade among nations. I’m sure if we had been trading with cuba for the past 50 years, their people would be better off and the economy in Florida (where I live) would be better than 12% unemployment. China has made tremendous progress over the past 30 years due to trade, and we pay less now for better goods than we did 30 years ago, which gives us more money to spend on college, retirement, R&D, etc.

    I’ll keep sprayin’ what I’ve always sprayed on these boards–roll back our country to embrace federalism, which will allow states to shape their own economic, social, and moral goals. (I can only dream of a day when abortion issue is left to the states. That way, there is no one-issue litmus test for our supreme court nominees.) When you make a federal issue about everything, people have no choice in the matter.

    1. Xeno Post author

      I do have to defer to those who have studied these things so I appreciate the corrections. Now I’m even more curious. Has anyone figured out the cost of various entire world improvement projects? How much would it cost to: get clean water to everyone everywhere? How much for basic sanitation? How much, and is it even possible, to set up farming and distribution so no one dies of hunger? If we can’t do it, what population target would permit that? How much to get rid of all the diseases we know how to cure?

Leave a Reply