Reply
Mon 24 Oct, 2005 08:27 am
So I was reading Jerry Pournelle's blog and came across this paragraph:
Jerry Pournelle wrote:But unity in the US requires, oddly enough, diversity: that is, Federalism. It is much easier to be unified against foreign enemies, and in favor of the constitution, if you live in a state that has laws you like. Consent of the governed doesn't mean forcing a majority opinion on everyone in the nation. The only way we will get national unity back is to allow some real power to the states; and that means reducing Federal power and cutting back or eliminating Federal regulations. It also means that some states will do things that will cause sheer hatred in other states. So be it.
This struck a chord with me. This is diametricly opposed to the Big Government Conservatism as practiced by Bush, DeLay,
et al.
Re: Federalism vs. Democracy
DrewDad wrote:This struck a chord with me. This is diametricly opposed to the Big Government Conservatism as practiced by Bush, DeLay, et al.
Certainly it is inconsistent with their practice, although not with their rhetoric. I would add that it is also inconsistent with the policies and practice of the national Democratic party over the last 70 years.
Can't argue there. But now there are no brakes; if both parties want big government then we are pretty much stuck with it.
I'm also talking about how Republicans lately are sounding off about "fair up-or-down votes;" this sounds remarkably as if they want an absolute Democracy.
And the whole Terry Schiavo Affair made it seem like the Republicans wanted central authority to make decisions, instead of allowing the states to handle their own internal business.
BBB
The Republican party is behaving lately like a schizophrenic who has stopped taking his meds.
BBB
Success does that to political parties.
Democracy means that the people vote. The two-party system doesn't do justice to the 6 or 7 groups in the US whose political leanings may span both parties or neither of them. A multi-party system better reflects democracy.
Congress should have half the seats elected by districts and half by at-large votes where parties are voted in by the proportion of votes garnered. This way Conservatives, Liberals, Environmentalists, Gays, Blacks, Ku Klux Klan, Alligator Party, Greens, Abortionists, non-abortionists, Rhinos, Segregationists, Libertarians, Capitalists, Communists, etc. all participate.
I would agree, except that is a parliamentary system, not a federal or republican system.
IMO, the Founders wanted to make it hard to pass laws. Hard to govern. Correction: hard to rule, but easy to govern.
Hey, cool. When did this get featured?
DrewDad wrote:And the whole Terry Schiavo Affair made it seem like the Republicans wanted central authority to make decisions, instead of allowing the states to handle their own internal business.
It only "made it seem like" it if you weren't paying attention. 58% of Republicans opposed any Federal intervention in the Shiavo case as opposed to 63% of Democrats and 61% amongst Independents. That's a grand total of 5 percentage points difference between Republicans and Democrats in a poll with a margin of error of 4.5 points. IOW, the results are a stastical dead heat.
ABC Poll Results
fishin' wrote:DrewDad wrote:And the whole Terry Schiavo Affair made it seem like the Republicans wanted central authority to make decisions, instead of allowing the states to handle their own internal business.
It only "made it seem like" it if you weren't paying attention. 58% of Republicans opposed any Federal intervention in the Shiavo case as opposed to 63% of Democrats and 61% amongst Independents. That's a grand total of 5 percentage points difference between Republicans and Democrats in a poll with a margin of error of 4.5 points. IOW, the results are a stastical dead heat.
ABC Poll Results
OK. Substitute "Republican leadership" for "Republicans." Jeb Bush, Bill Frist,
et al.
Ok. Don't forget Chuck Hagel, Tom Harkin and the rest of the Democrats that co-sponsored the Federal legislation either.
The rap against communists was that they used "one size fits all". The two-party system just a tad better "2 sizes fit all".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace