Glaring faults of US style democracy

Hi blatham, and thanks. I was at a party last night, and my son refused to let me talk about politics. So now I'm bursting at the seams.

mamajuana,

So good to see you here. Wrongheaded as always in matters political, but pleasant and interesting nonetheless.

On the matter of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was forced to act by a Florida Court, dominated by yellow dog Democrats actively rewriting the state's election law - after the fact and in direct conflict with the State and National Constitutions. The Supreme Court was forced to act and on this point there were 7 justices (of 9) who held this position.

A very good turn of phrase ----

I'm not clear what George0b1 means by "direct expenditures of labor unions" since the soft money ban also effects them. You want restrictions of political activities of labor unions? What are these "activities?" Are they lobbying? For shame! I suppose corporations who lobby but also employ persons of diverse political persuations should be exempt.

george

I understand your complaint regarding equity in consequences, though I'm not certain you assess this correctly (it's just one more subject I need to study further). As the present court challenges get fleshed out, I'll continue following the story.

However on the other two points I'm in clear disagreement. That the two parties are acting so as to maintain a corrupt system doesn't excuse either one of them. And I'd love to see citizens be mercilessly demanding. It was no small task McCain and Feingold and their staffs had to go through to get this in place, and throughout that process and now, the voices in opposition have been mainly disengenuous. If there was ever a case for supporting incremental progress, and for pushing against back-sliding, this is it.

The free speech argument is one I consider particular specious. Though the ACLU is one of the parties who've brought actions against the legislation, I think this situation is a misapplication of the principle in question, the limits and controls not reducing any citizen's ability to be heard whereas the dominance of money in the system effectively does limit the individual citizen's ability to be heard. Jefferson would, I have no doubt, pull out his dueling pistols if he wasn't already too weak from vomiting.

Georgeob1

In answer to your question if how would I implement and enforce my suggestions: your analogy of putting the bell on the cat is very appropriate. My intention here is to create some thought and controversy about the weaknesses of our system. I believe sincerely that I have identifiedthe most obvious faults----how we correct them is an entirely different matter.

To me it is very disturbing to see our legislative branch at work and how they yield to the temptations presented such as voting themselves pay raises, pension plans, exemptions that will fatten their pockets and yet pontificate and ignore the plight of the average citizen. I truly believe our founding fathers did not forsee the ability of the legislative branch to broaden their power to affect other branches of gov't but make their power untouchable. An example--they cut the terms for a president to serve to two terms which was wise but they will fight to the death any effort to cut their terms or any effort to diminish their own power. It is absolutely ludicrous to allow one of their members(who doens't have enough sense to retire) to continue serving when brain dead.
Strom Thurmond of SC.

I don't know that "specious" is the word I'd choose there. Mixed in with all of this is the freedom of association issue. I am free to join with any group I may chose (and that will have me..) and IMO, the courts will recognize that an individual may not have the financial resources to "get their message out" to the public by themselves. Why should I not be able to split the cost of a newspaper ad with my neighbor?

That interest has to be balanced against the issue of undue influence and that balance is what the courts will have to decide on. My own guess is that the USSC will recognize the right of groups to organize and pool monies for political ads but they will create a set of rules in doing so to attempt to maintain the original intent of the McCain-Feingold legislation.

blatham, Don't let the attack on the words you use to describe your arguement for the McCain-Feingold initiative deter you. I'm in agreement with your side of the discussion; and I trust McCain more than I do the ACLU. c.i.

Nobody has come up with any other drawbacks to the McCain/Feingold bill than John McCain himself -- he has delineated all the loopholes and simply said that those bridges would have to be crossed when necessary. I see the campaign finance reform as a step forward regardless of nit picking at it's effectiveness. We don't really know yet how effective it will be. I continually get a kick out of the Criswell's in these discussions. They may have the privelege to say "I told you so," but somehow I think if all goes well, they'll have selective memory loss.

ci

Thank you kindly for your support. As you've come to appreciate, I am a very sensitive fellow and the slightest breeze up out of the south shivers my timbers, deflates my sails, and leaves me whimpering for my dear mother back home who is, ironically, probably entertaining a sailor as we speak.

fishin

Specious is a word I don't get to use nearly often enough and I'd like to keep it there if I may. Though, yes, you make a good point. But of course it is not the problem of you and Fred and Jim down the street pooling your poker money to post in the Biloxi Bugle that has messed things up. Nor is it you three who have launched the legal challenges. You three, or even three hundred of you, wouldn't be able to muster the necessary dollars to hire some of the legal staffs at work in these cases.

I am praying that the Supreme Court doesn't decide on the basis of a simplistic, black and white set of notions as regards the constitutional questions, but you are perhaps more confident than I.

blatham, My support is of very little value, because I also have a thin skin. However, you do show some class, and by your moniker/avatar presume you have some "blue blood" background in your genes. c.i.

Born cynical, raised in a city of dirty politics (which actually includes many cities) - I find myself increasingly skeptical of much thought given to the greater good.

As for the ACLU (and they accomplished many ground-breaking things during their history), once Barr and Armey said they were joiniing it little red flags went up for me.

But what we have to figure out is how not to let money invade all sections of our democratic process. Gradually, the possession of money, and the possessions the expenditure of it brings, have come to be all pervasive. We are a nation of consumers and possessors, so the buying of politicians, and ads, and airtime...that's all part of it. Politicians are commodities, to be bought and sold like anything else. And I don't really see how we can get away from the idea that if you have enough money you can buy anyone. Unless we start to become more moderate, which these decreasingly downwards time might lead us to. When Bush came in on the theory of rule by corporate law, the whole situation was exacerbated. To arms, citizens, attend the voices. We need an enlightened uprising from a fed-up middle class.

george - always a pleasure, although you're dead wrong on so much of it.

I think one thing that may be happening is that we are slowly becoming more aware of the individual. Perhaps if enough individuals die from lack of health care, grow illiterate from poor management of education, live on the streets because of lack of jobs and then housing - maybe then somebody at te top will stop thinking only of his bottom line figures.

The Electoral College. I always have to stop and think about that. I know why it was created, can think of why it could be abolished. And yet - it offers us representative choices we might not have. And which would be constantly shifting.

george is dead wrong on pleasure?

blatham & Perception,

I'll confess I am basically suspicious of government. We certainly need it to limit the dark side of human nature, but it always brings side effects and they are usually bad, Government is self-reinforcing and always seeks to grow and extend its reach. Those who populate it, convinced of the goodness of their intentions and the rightness of their purpose, will always work to perpetuate and grow the institutions they serve, the regulations they enforce, and to propose new governmental solutions, whether or not that is in the public good. In addition government is easily manipulated for political purposes - every new rule or bureaucracy offers new potential for unequal application of the government's power. For these reasons it is important to consider carefully the side effects of any new governmental program, particularly those that would themselves reduce the ability of the public or of ordinary private citizens to oppose their government's actions or to limit its intrusion into their lives.

With this in mind, I see great danger and many bad side effects emerging from greater government control over the actions of people or their associations in pursuing their political objectives. Our political process has always been loud, disorderly and full of organized efforts to gain advantage, and yet it has served us well. We have a perfect knowledge of the bad side effects of the system we have used for so long. We can only imagine the bad side effects of the changes being imposed on us by foolishly conceived laws.

With respect to labor unions, the new law constrains their political activities far less than it does that of corporations. The 'public education' expenditures and direct member action programs of large unions are unregulated and are almost always political in their purpose. I have a good deal of personal experience in dealing with unions, both metal trades and building trades, and I can tell you that most are corrupt to the core and all are dominated by the most manipulative and unproductive of their members.

I think I'd settle for some bad side effects of government recently, rather than the bad side effects of business practices -- government and unions have no corner on the market for corruption. If the unions you're referring to are corrupt to the core, I'd say it's time to investigate them and send some people to jail. I'm sure there someone in the media who would call out the bloodhounds. I know when I found the last corporation I worked for was operating illegally in several of its proceedures and I turned whistleblower -- they are no longer in business. It's ironic that I was an art sales director for the company but they weren't aware that I had a work credential in my resume as a comptroller.

ci

My father was English, but investigations of our family heritage have proven disappointing in the extreme...potato farmers and char ladies as far as the eye can see.

george

It is, as you suggest, a balance. Yet I am less suspicious of government than you and share LW's suspicion of business. This is something of an old problem of course, these two positions.

What turns the balance for me is how downright wierd it is to rewrite Lincoln's famous Gettsyburg line in the following manner:

"A multi-national corporate conglomerate of the people, by the people, and for the people"

I am suspecious of both government and business. A healthy dose of suspecion concerning both is the rational way to live. c.i.

I give no relative credit whatever for either wisdom or morality to businesses. Whatever practical merit it has is due exclusively to a rather efficient process for the annihilation of the seriously incompetent or criminal. Governments and Unions, however are much more tenacious, and therefore more worthy of dread.

Yes, big lack of silver bullets for much in the human condition.

Okay, lightwizard. It's always a pleasure meeting up with george, but he and I disagree on many things, so I say he's dead wrong, but of course he isn't. (Tonight is not my night for syntax.)

I've never understood this less government - more government, anyway. Most times, it seems to me, the definition depends on who needs what, and who is saying which.

I'm for capitalsim, but not when it becomes greed.