I loved the people, and LOVED the flying. Some of the best times of my life. But, the organizational bloat, bureaucratic BS, and constant deployments just became too much.
As you can imagine, it really wears on you to be gone 6 mo's every year risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening.
While ATC isn't fighter pilot cool, it was an amazing job to have when you're 18 at the beginning of the war (2003), but after 11 years of many similar experiences, as I illustrated above, I left. What struck me most, was when I told my Chief, Flight Commander, and SQ/CC I wasn't reenlisting, none of them tried to talk me into staying. I was dual rated - Tower and RAPCON (with ARTCC) - with 4 different facility ratings plus a deployment to Balad AB where we were pushing 1000+ aircraft a day. They could care less to keep their experienced NCOs in, their sole focus appeared to be on their next promotion and/or assignment. It solidified my choice while reassuring me I made the right decision.
Yet the American public happily votes for these wars over and over.
See the sister comment about voting for HC against DT because it's all or nothing.
You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive.
An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
No, it's really not, because there is no alternative: the voters are the ones who have the ultimate power and responsibility here. This isn't China where the Party controls everything.
>An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot
People have been trying that for ages, and it doesn't work; the system itself is broken, and when they do get "better" candidates elected, those candidates don't actually make any big changes because they don't really want to.
>This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point
The only way to do this is to change the voting system altogether to one like those used in Europe. Working to get "better" candidates on the ballot isn't going to accomplish that. I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems.
Popular candidates are the ones that get elected. By definition. So yes, trying to push forward better candidates supported by a party the support of which will automatically raise their profile is the way to fix the problem. Plus, as noted, voting for the changes you want (including reforming voting & districting, if that's your thing) at levels closer to home, where non-big-two candidates or oddballs within the big two might actually win.
How have we reformed elections in the past, against the wishes of entrenched, powerful groups? Replace or win over one of the big two parties (the latter is easier—the former's rarely worked) and push your candidates forward. The Democrats have a strong incentive right now to get rid of gerrymandering, for instance. There are local and state level movements to reform voting—it's mostly a state-level issue—so try to get some initiatives on the ballot. Work with that. One step at a time. Voting Green or Libertarian or whatever for President or Senator's simply pointless, good feels aside—though only barely more pointless than any other vote for a federal office, under the current system. It just doesn't matter.
Feel good, or get something done? For the former, keep on voting however you like. For the latter, work to change the ballot. Initiatives/referendums and influencing candidate selection in the big two. You can try other stuff, but those are the first things you should look at if you're serious about getting things done.
The basic principles are 1) the earlier you're involved in the process (e.g. influencing who's running, what's on the ballot) the more effective you're likely to be, 2) the more you're swimming downstream the better (if you can work in one of the big two, 100% you should), and 3) the smaller scale the election, the more likely you can affect the outcome (obviously).
Those are real stakes.
In 2016 I voted for HC (no love) as a vote against DT. Some things are more existential than others.
Honestly, I can kinda understand why some people would be turned into Trump voters after seeing what kind of people Hillary fans are really like. They're truly horrible human beings. I even had the displeasure of having to sit through a nasty argument between a Trump fan and a Hillary fan while in a carpool last year, and it was pretty interesting how the Trump fan was the one who actually cared about rural voters, and the Hillary fan's attitude was seriously "let them die". It's no wonder things are falling apart in this country.
Did you not think about that before signing up? What, honestly, did you expect military life to be like?
The entire history of military organisations has been pushing the individuals at the sharp-edge to their limits and beyond in order to achieve the unachievable as directed by the politicians. And usually without anyone knowing about their sacrifice.
There is nothing unusual or inconsistent with the modern USAF. Back in the 1960s "SAC SUCKS" could be found scraped on the interiors of B-52s after 26-hour Chrome Dome missions.