What is amazing to me is how many people believe the difference between neocons and neoliberals is more than rhetoric. Electoral mechanisms have long been coopted by actors that employ them without regard to the rhetoric or the 'will of the people' to effect their own agendae.

The policies enacted by government have but little to do with the rhetoric of politicians, and I have come to view political debate regarding candidates as the equivalent of a virtual machine which safely separates the actual policy development mechanisms from electoral mechanisms by keeping them in their little box where they are rendered null.

We all care about the issues flogged by politicians, to lesser or greater extent depending on the issue, but we cannot substantially impact those issues by voting for politicians. As far as I can tell this has always been the case. It has been so all my life, at least.

So how do we impact those issues? Well, what affects a given issue depends on it's nature, but for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and this is as true in human interactions as it is in physics. Do, and it will be done. Talk about doing, and it won't. If we're talking about policies that depend on a body of people all agreeing to implement them, then there is a better way to effect them than to elect a person to do so.

Steem shows the way IMHO. We can discuss policies amongst ourselves, and also commit an action while discussing that others can also commit, such as tipping or voting financial support for something.

If the action attains nominal financial support, by the time we're done talking the action is underway.

Thanks!