Hillary graciously absolving herself of any responsibility

[Gilrandir]

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

Somehow you don't mind TWO parties ruling the nation intermittently for hundreds of years, but are afraid of TWENTY areas which might take a lead if any changes are introduced into the voting system.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Somehow you don't mind TWO parties ruling the nation intermittently for hundreds of years, but are afraid of TWENTY areas which might take a lead if any changes are introduced into the voting system.

Left wing (US def) politics markets better than conservatism. It is easy to feel that the little gal is being "wronged" by corporations, by the moneyed class who gets any opportunity they desire, by fate etc. The US political left plays staunchly to this style of voter, and offers policies to protect and better their lot by taking the money from those who have more and using it to fund government safety, support, and welfare programs. You can feel good emotionally about "helping" by voting for such an agenda.

This approach has put the DEMs into commanding leads -- sometimes approaching 85% of the votes -- in all of our major urban areas.

Conservatism virtually always loses a national popularity contest because -- save immediately after a crisis when jingoism is 'in' -- it simply isn't "sexy." So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

So pardon me if I don't get all "warm and fuzzy" over near absolute democracies. I find the flaws too high a price for the ideals being sought.


Franklin is reputed to have said to one citizen that our government was "A republic, if you can keep it."

The electoral college, FPTP, and other aspects of our Constitution seek to do just that. However flawed it may be in some ways, our founders revered free speech, but feared total democracy.

[Montmorency]

Conservatism virtually always loses a national popularity contest because -- save immediately after a crisis when jingoism is 'in' -- it simply isn't "sexy." So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

Alternatively, a conservative party will coalesce around the rebalanced political spectrum, and will have an easier time attracting urban moderates and Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities.

Much of the country has gone into the diamond-hard right in recent history, and between them and liberals you don't get USSRA. It's only like that if you are ruthlessly protective of the legacy GOP institution, which demands ever-increasing polarization to shore up the philosophical and political deficiencies of the party.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

Over many threads on the Org haven't we come to the conclusion that no act of politics can maintain the customary lifestyle in the long-term? It's a historical aberration and it's unsustainable.

The electoral college, FPTP, and other aspects of our Constitution seek to do just that. However flawed it may be in some ways, our founders revered free speech, but feared total democracy.

I wonder if you would be willing to exchange the EC for another arrangement, one equally undemocratic but less fixated on state-level demarcations. Or are you only in favor of limited democracy when it's more damaging to the opposition?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alternatively, a conservative party will coalesce around the rebalanced political spectrum, and will have an easier time attracting urban moderates and Hispanics, blacks, and other minorities.

It would take a systemic and cultural change that begat at least three viable parties, then conservatism, mugwumps, and liberals could truly each have a home. Urban moderates are mostly moved out to the ruburbs and suburbs, as you are aware. I would DEARLY love to see race drop into the dustbin of history though.

Much of the country has gone into the diamond-hard right in recent history, and between them and liberals you don't get USSRA. It's only like that if you are ruthlessly protective of the legacy GOP institution, which demands ever-increasing polarization to shore up the philosophical and political deficiencies of the party.

The 'big tent' has made for some odd curlicues that do NOT meet anyone's needs readily. And parties seem to think of party first and state second -- even, as Russia shows us, when the party IS the state. Our Constitution is written absent party, (however unrealistic that Washingtonian hope), and it's flaws are plainest when party clashes with government convention. Both parties tend to act extra-constitutionally and by agreement not attack the edifice they create. Some of this is practical and needful (the Constitution was NOT the laws enacted, but their ultimate source of mutually accepted authority), some are nothing but bureaucratic empire-building or party protection tools. Far too much of the later persists.

Personally, I blame that fornicating bastard¹ Hamilton. Wrote beautiful prose in service of a limited federal government that was needful to coordinate the efforts of the separate states. Within ten years, he'd completely suborned the system to enhance federal power as embodied in a political party rather than a government. We'd have been better served as a nation if his argument with Burr had concluded about 8 years earlier.

Over many threads on the Org haven't we come to the conclusion that no act of politics can maintain the customary lifestyle in the long-term? It's a historical aberration and it's unsustainable.

I have never fully agreed with that theme, though I acknowledge that it is considered by many (most?) to be accurate and inevitable. I even agree, if you are referring to our standard of living in terms of comparison to the rest of the planet's societies. The idea that it is doomed to diminishment is too reflective of zero-sum economic thinking (and tends to presume that our standard of living success was only an act of exploitation, which is simplistic).

I wonder if you would be willing to exchange the EC for another arrangement, one equally undemocratic but less fixated on state-level demarcations. Or are you only in favor of limited democracy when it's more damaging to the opposition?

I am enough of a traditionalist to prefer the "several states" but I admit that is not the only way to arrange things to limit the power of an electorate to demolish its future to feel good about themselves in the present. Certainly other arrangements could be conceived to meet these ends, and a proper education/cultural emphasis on participating in the system are part of that. Currently, we have the latter without the former in all too many cases.

My fear is that someone will convoke another Constitutional convention -- the only real means of effecting a shift from states and the EC to different arrangements -- and that that new Constitution will attempt to be a "Homeowner's Association Covenant" version of government. God save us from that.

¹While I use these terms with a snarky tone, it should be noted that they are in Hamilton's case, simple description.

[Montmorency]

I have never fully agreed with that theme, though I acknowledge that it is considered by many (most?) to be accurate and inevitable. I even agree, if you are referring to our standard of living in terms of comparison to the rest of the planet's societies. The idea that it is doomed to diminishment is too reflective of zero-sum economic thinking (and tends to presume that our standard of living success was only an act of exploitation, which is simplistic).

At least, you have to be careful to separate a "standard" of living and the practices and relations by which that standard is achieved.

When we speculate on the end of the post-industrial reinforcing cycle of consumption, and the international capitalist organizations that form its tracks, it doesn't mean we are speculating on a return to subsistence agriculture. (Though I believe some libertarians and syndicalists, especially traditionalist ones like our Rhyfelwyr, look forward to that 18th-century dream.)

Personally, I blame that fornicating bastard1 Hamilton. Wrote beautiful prose in service of a limited federal government that was needful to coordinate the efforts of the separate states. Within ten years, he'd completely suborned the system to enhance federal power as embodied in a political party rather than a government. We'd have been better served as a nation if his argument with Burr had concluded about 8 years earlier.

The ideas don't begin or end with Hamilton. The Founders generally were tempered by experience of government.

I think throughout modernity we have to admit that the best principle of government is determination of needs and ways by locality or subdivision; arbitration, expertise, and investment of means by central government. I just also think that central government should be plenipotentiary.

the power of an electorate to demolish its future to feel good about themselves in the present.

But that's what we've been indulging in! Capital invariably beats labor; that game has ended.

My fear is that someone will convoke another Constitutional convention -- the only real means of effecting a shift from states and the EC to different arrangements -- and that that new Constitution will attempt to be a "Homeowner's Association Covenant" version of government. God save us from that.

That seems to be the plan, presumably to affix Christian white male supremacy as the order of the land.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

At least, you have to be careful to separate a "standard" of living and the practices and relations by which that standard is achieved.

When we speculate on the end of the post-industrial reinforcing cycle of consumption, and the international capitalist organizations that form its tracks, it doesn't mean we are speculating on a return to subsistence agriculture. (Though I believe some libertarians and syndicalists, especially traditionalist ones like our Rhyfelwyr, look forward to that 18th-century dream.)



The ideas don't begin or end with Hamilton. The Founders generally were tempered by experience of government.

I think throughout modernity we have to admit that the best principle of government is determination of needs and ways by locality or subdivision; arbitration, expertise, and investment of means by central government. I just also think that central government should be plenipotentiary.



But that's what we've been indulging in! Capital invariably beats labor; that game has ended.



That seems to be the plan, presumably to affix Christian white male supremacy as the order of the land.

Nice response. I am inclined to more restriction of the central government, but in general you frame the concept well.

As to the 'stale-pale-male-proddy' ascendency thing, I suspect I look forward to such a development almost EXACTLY as much as you do yourself.

[Gilrandir]

So, if we have a completely unrestricted vote that works as one national popularity contest, the conservative side of the GOP is done. There will be the Democrats, who will absorb some of the GOPs elements and morph into a more or less classic Social Democrat style party in Euro terms, and then we will have political growth on the farther left and probably end up with a socialist party and a green party. But the conservatives will be reduced to an 'arm' of the Dems that is listened to but seldom in political affairs.

So, basically, the current system is meant to keep conservatism (embodied in the GOP) afloat? I thought that political systems have other objectives than keep sustaining a part of it which is not viable should the rules of the game change.

I have never viewed the social democrat economic model as capable of sustaining the lifestyle to which Americans are accustomed, certainly not without punitive level taxation.

Then Americans would vote it out and choose the one they like more.

[HopAlongBunny]

This is an outgrowth of the democratic system.
Sure "parties" might start bright eyed and bushy tailed, pursuing ideological goals, pushing visions of social justice and the like; they all end up as brands.
They have a clientele or market and they sell power. The market is secondary; the primary focus is keeping power because that is their "good" for exchange.
It is almost a perfect reflection of the capitalist market (not free market); bureaucratic control, planning, marketing etc. It is, in the final analysis, a self interested corporation.
In the pursuit of power, what is more useful: money, ideas, vision? (the People? Lol )

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, basically, the current system is meant to keep conservatism (embodied in the GOP) afloat? I thought that political systems have other objectives than keep sustaining a part of it which is not viable should the rules of the game change.

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

Then Americans would vote it out and choose the one they like more.

They like that model, mostly, as long as they can be convinced someone else will pay more than they do. In general, the more ignorant an American is of politics (and that can be shockingly near to complete ignorance) the more likely they are to be socialist in their thinking or painfully reactionary in their thinking (this latter is the smaller wedge of the pie).

[Gilrandir]

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

And this minority must neccessarily include the Republican Party? Otherwise the USA will become a tyranny? Then I would suggest a motto for the next Republican election campaign: "It is either us or Kim".

They like that model, mostly, as long as they can be convinced someone else will pay more than they do. In general, the more ignorant an American is of politics (and that can be shockingly near to complete ignorance) the more likely they are to be socialist in their thinking or painfully reactionary in their thinking (this latter is the smaller wedge of the pie).

Thus, the ignorance of Americans combined with the current political system has brought Trump to power? Then there is even more need to change either of them (or both). Definitely, to change the latter will take less time and effort.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And this minority must neccessarily include the Republican Party? Otherwise the USA will become a tyranny? Then I would suggest a motto for the next Republican election campaign: "It is either us or Kim".

Not at all. Parties come and go. At their founding, the Republican Party was the "liberal" party and the Democrats were the "conservatives." The capacity to represent the minority and avoid the majority over-reaching is needful, not any party. Kim lacks the gravitas to be an appropriate evil Emperor anyway -- he doesn't even wear a cowl or wield lightning.

Thus, the ignorance of Americans combined with the current political system has brought Trump to power? Then there is even more need to change either of them (or both). Definitely, to change the latter will take less time and effort.

Voter ignorance is, sadly, an ongoing concern where any polity votes for its leadership. As near as I can tell from the polls, however, a goodly number of Trump's supporters chose him BECAUSE he was so different from our political norm and they liked his brashness and "in-your-face" attitude. Myself, I believe him to be something of an asshat, as I have noted before.

Regardless, he is only the current occupant. We have survived Presidencies that were worse. This too shall pass, as the old Solomonic story reminds us.

[Gilrandir]

Voter ignorance is, sadly, an ongoing concern where any polity votes for its leadership.

Voter ignorance is not endemic to the US only. Yet other countries complaining of it aren't afraid to entrust their citizens with the right to elect their leader directly.

[Pannonian]

All healthy republics/democracies must have some means to maintain some political power in the hands of the minority. Unrestrained democracies do not and beget tyranny of the majority. That's the whole point.

See the case of the UK, where 52% is deemed to merit an irreversible revolution, and any naysayers are dubbed traitors. Particularly notable as polls indicate that any current vote would see the figures reverse. At least your president, having been democratically elected, is working within your constitutional restraints. Our government, working in service of said 52%, has accrued all power to the executive, with outside regulatory powers dismissed in said service.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

See the case of the UK, where 52% is deemed to merit an irreversible revolution, and any naysayers are dubbed traitors. Particularly notable as polls indicate that any current vote would see the figures reverse. At least your president, having been democratically elected, is working within your constitutional restraints. Our government, working in service of said 52%, has accrued all power to the executive, with outside regulatory powers dismissed in said service.

That is a potential problem in unicameral (functionally at least) parliament systems. The majority party/coalition can govern almost as it pleases unless its behavior is so heinous that it loses enough of its own numbers for the government to risk falling. It is a question of how far they can go before their own supporters think it "isn't cricket."

[Sarmatian]

Just seen Hillary on Colbert's show.

She mentions how she made mistakes, but doesn't name one and then goes into details about everyone else. No lesson learned, it's all Putin's fault. America is the greatest country on Earth and he can't stand it.