James DeLong argues that while the US has been operating under the same Constitution since 1789, the rearrangements since mean that the US is operating under what he terms the Third American Republic. DeLong reckons that the Civil War ushered in the Second, while the New Deal ushered in this last. The defining criteria, in each case, has been the extent of the Federal Government and its relationship with other elements in society. He maintains that the New Deal established the “special interest State”.
The real-world answer imposed by the New Deal and its progeny turned out to be special interest capture on steroids. Control comes to rest with those with the greatest interest or the most money at stake, and the result was the creation of a polity called “the Special Interest State” or, in Cornell University Professor Theodore Lowi’s terms, “Interest Group Liberalism.” Its essence is that various interest groups seize control over particular power centers of government and use them for their own ends.
It is this combination of plenary government power combined with the seizure of its levers by special interests that constitutes the polity of the current Third American Republic. The influence of “faction” and its control had been a concern since the founding of the nation, but it took the New Deal and its acolytes to decide that control of governmental turf by special interests was a feature, not a bug, a supposedly healthy part of democratic pluralism.
But DeLong thinks that the recent financial crisis and the impending bankruptcy of entitlement programs mark the eventual end of the “special interest State” and hence, the Third American Republic, which is doomed because it simply can’t be sustained. “We are in a crisis of legitimacy,” he says, a crisis of a different kind because the system is not designed to resolve it without a lot of pushing and shoving.
But it is difficult to see any self-correcting mechanisms in the Special Interest State. Quite the reverse; the incentives all seem to be pushing the accelerator rather than the brake. Observers as astute as Jonathan Rauch and Michael Greve came up with little in the way of recommendations for reform, beyond exhortations to change our ways. Rauch commented: “Government has become what it will remain: a large, incoherent, often incomprehensible mass that is solicitous of its clients but impervious to any broad, coherent program of reform. And this evolution cannot be reversed” (italics from the original). He recommended “maturely diminished expectations.”
The problem of course, is that expectations cannot be diminished indefinitely. At some point the expansion of government will generate its own opposition. (And perhaps this is what the Tea Parties are about and why much the MSM, which is part of the special interest State, won’t cover them). And when that happens a discontinuous upheaval is inevitable.
If the evolution cannot be reversed, and mechanisms of gradual adjustment are lacking, abrupt tectonic shifts are the only alternative. Change will not necessarily be violent, though that is certainly possible, but it could be sudden. If one characteristic of political arrangements is to continue longer than one might think possible, another is that when they change, they change with amazing speed. …
Two possibilities for change seem most promising. The first is a third political party that explicitly repudiates the present course and requires that its members eschew the legitimacy of the Special Interest State. This would require a certain almost religious fervor, but the great tides of history and politics are always religious in nature, so that is no bar.
This second would be more bottom-up. The Constitution has a residue of the original alliance-of-states polity that has never been used. Two-thirds of the state legislatures can force Congress to call a constitutional convention, and the results of that enterprise can then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. So reform efforts could start at the grassroots and coalesce around states until two-thirds of them decide to march on the Capitol. There is already a lively movement along these lines. On the other hand, the states are no paragons, in that the model of the Special Interest State reigns triumphantly there as well, so a few comments about pots and kettles could be made. Realistically, though, organization from the bottom up is a real possibility.
While we await events, none of this analysis should be regarded as a counsel of pessimism. Political arrangements should change with time and experience, and to expect the political architects of any era to foresee all the problems inherent in their institutions is to demand the impossible.
Life’s interesting, and history never stops, even for the Sun King.
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Chancellor Palpatine is in control.
Samuel P. Huntington wrote once that the sign of a society in decline was “the distribution of advantages to the greatest number of people to the disadvantage of all.” (I’m quoting from memory.)
When he wrote that, probably over a decade ago, he didn’t think that we were there yet. Perhaps he didn’t want to seem the pessimist.
Well, he’s not around now to revise that, but I pretty much think we’re there.
I don’t know about citing les Miserable as a portrayal of effective revolution that ended well: It lead to le terrorisme, and much vindictive bloodshed.
the “French revolution” was not a peasant uprising, it was a coup de tat, instigated by a handful of spoiled brat aristocrats, exploiting the squalid living conditions of the peasantry into what would qualify as a revolution. One of those 12 liberated from le Bastille was none other than the notorious Marquis de Sade (consult your Edmund Burke on that.)
Much the same as the way the plot by Prince Yusupov, Purishkevich, and drug lord Dr Badmayev”s assassination of Rasputin created mass armed defections, and instability for Vladimir Illich (collaborator w/ Germany, as Rasputin was and also known to the world as) Lenin, to exploit in similar fashion, using le Terrorisme for his purposes once there was capitulation.
Only in recent times in Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, and the rest of eastern europe have ‘revolutions’ had as their priority the establishment of democratic Republics.
Maybe those states and their peoples are more closely connected to their greco-roman predecessors than western europe is now. I don’t know
We need a four pointed star for July 4, 2009: one in D.C., one up north in Wisconsin, one in Texas, one in california.
Vive le revolution! as with our kin from Eastern Europe are now fighting Russian hegemonic real politik. We are fighting Miserablism.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures can force Congress to call a constitutional convention, and the results of that enterprise can then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. So reform efforts could start at the grassroots and coalesce around states until two-thirds of them decide to march on the Capitol. There is already a lively movement along these lines. On the other hand, the states are no paragons, in that the model of the Special Interest State reigns triumphantly there as well, so a few comments about pots and kettles could be made.
As others have noted in previous threads, the constitutional convention is a two-edged sword at best, as the same special interests would undoubtedly come out in force. The new U.S. Constitution would be at least as likely as not to come out looking more like the EU’s book-length proposal than like anything close to the existing model.
With the current crop of pols in power and their unelected swarm of special interest locusts, I would no more hand them the forum of a constitutional convention than I would hand Jack the Ripper a chainsaw.
An Article V convention, which we’ve never had, is what Congress is obligated to call if requested to do so by 2/3 of the states. Since we’ve never had an Article V convention, we’ve no guiding precedent on who the conventioneers would be nor how many, nor how long the convention would meet nor rules of process & debate. Anyone know if there are stipulations about any of these details?
An Article V convention can only propose amendments, I believe. Any proposed amendment would still have to go through the process of ratification by 3/4 of the states.
Essentially, an Article V convention is the “end run” of the states around Congress, if the latter body proves too obdurate to do what there is popular national demand for. The direct route to amending the Constitution is a proposed amendment voted through by 2/3 of each house of Congress, after which it goes back to the states for ratification or non-.
But please indulge me here.
IF we the people could get one or two amendments proposed, what amendments would you all most like to see?
And don’t reply, “never gonna happen.” That’s not the point of my question. I’m asking, what institutional – procedural – fundamental changes to way the federal government is currently run now would you make by Constitutional amendment, if you knew you *could* get such amendments proposed and sent to the states for a vote?
The “revolution” depicted in Les Miserables is not the French Revolution, but the June Rebellion of 1832 which pitted the Republicans and the Legitimists against the July Monarchy.
Of course, we all HOPE that we can affect the CHANGE we seek and know to be needed through the ballot box. That is our legitimate tool.
The ultimate responsiblity lies with lazy or self-deluded voters. The voters need to work to restore our Republic and that will mean, for many, giving up the something for nothing attitude that the cultural degenerators keep pushing.
Before we go off talking about revolution or constitutional conventions, let’s work to ensure a conservative sweep in the 2010 Congressional elections. That is the only course with a pray of working.
I think we are already into the Fourth American Republic by that reckoning — I would call it the Ralph Nader Revolution, and I see it as a much bigger change than the New Deal.
I see the New Deal and the remarks about interest group liberalism as a continuation of trends from the latter 19′th century, but essentially a politics of legislation. The Nader Revolution is the politics of litigation, that the courts would be used to accomplish what could not be done by passing laws.
Think of the latest screwball idea of rule making from the EPA to open a can of courtroom whoopa** on whoever puts CO2 into the atmosphere. If this kind of thing were put to a vote in Congress and made subject to the legislative sausage factory, it would not get anywhere.
Nader had/has perhaps the most radical agenda of anyone of any prominence in recent times, this agenda is a lot more than simply auto safety, and the means to achieve that agenda was the court system because he knew it would not go anywhere in Congress. Why do you think that one can’t build a highway, a coal or nuclear power plant, or much of anything infrastucture-wise anymore? And for those of you wanting mega wind farms, solar power plants, or high-speed train lines, this paralysis affects you too.
Libertarian Marxism.
The Special Interest State will fall due to its own contradictions!
Libertarians will triumph despite losing every election!
Look, it’s BS. There’s no facts, no polls, no data, just a nice soothing narrative about why libertarians are right and will ultimately win.
Whitehall -
I’m afraid that that even a “conservative sweep” in 2010 Congressional elections would, under the current party system, be at best a case of new wine, old wineskins.
The GOP leadership and party operatives, who are a large part of the problem, are going to want to “own” any conservative shift in Congress. There’s a trust deficit between conservative GOP voters and GOP leaders and pols. Even if we *did* elect a bunch of Republicans to Congress in 2010 and retook the House … how do we, the voters, know that they, the newly elected, would do what we sent them there to do? More fundamentally, do we even agree on what we would be sending them there to do? Is there a specific, articulated list? How do we know they wouldn’t get chewed up by the DC system … or turned by it?
Pardon my skepticism and my asterisked French. But before I vote for another g****mn one of those people to go to Washington I really feel like I ought to demand a legal contract articulating specifically what types of bills they are authorized to vote for or against, their pledge to request no earmarks and to vote against any and all earmarked bills, a term limit pledge, and finally a clause in the contract allowing us the undersigned voters to launch a class action lawsuit against said elected official should he/she breach the terms of the contract, with the personal property of said elected official at stake in any potential lawsuit.
The 95% incumbency reelection rate in Congress is an overwhelming temptation to aspiring miscreants and would-be pork kings. They know that if they can just get in, it’s virtually a job for life, and they need have very little fear of average voters as long as they game the system the way their peers have legislated the system to be gamed.
In other words … I don’t think they think we will hold them accountable (vote them out) if they violate their campaign promises. Because, most of the time, we don’t or can’t.
Hence, the contract. If they aren’t afraid of my vote, maybe they will be afraid of my lawyer.
There is another way out for the current government predicament: higher taxes, more government services, and decreased defense spending. In short, the European social democratic welfare state. Maybe they’re in trouble now, but we’re not as far down the road as they are.
What are the voters saying? Why did they vote in the Democrat by the largest margin of any election since 1988? Do you think they wanted less government?
Sure, there are a lot of people unhappy with the way the country is going. I’m one of them. But let’s not cut ourselves off from reality by spinning a fantasy cocoon where we tell ourselves that we’ll win someday because the other side is wrong. They are, but that means nothing. There’s nothing historically unsustainable about big government. It’s all about what people want. If they want a welfare state, they’ll find a way to do it. Even if it leads us to irrelevance and mediocrity.
Don’t fall into the trap. It sucks, but we have to do something. There’s no inevitability in history. Historical forces don’t exist and it’s all up to us.
My own view is that there will be change from runaway left liberalism to a more conventional liberalism, one in which the individual, not the State, is in control of his own destiny, a liberalism that prevailed until the Great Depression brought on the New Deal. How this will be accomplished I do not know, but it will be accomplished, and without violence.
There is far too much going on at the moment; the Democrats seem determined to re-enact the Stalin show trials, the Obama administration has declared carbon dioxide, an essential building block of all life on Earth, to be a poison, the Democrats in Congress seem determined to destroy the economy of the United States with carbon cap and trade, we have just elected a President who seems less and less like us each day, and much else. I don’t wash my hands of all this madness, but I do take time out from time to time to think of other things. And one of the other things is this: Wretchard has titled the post One More Day, and the word Day has set me to thinking about how the days of the week for the English speaking world were named. The short answer is that five thousand years ago the Sumerians did not have telescopes. The longer answer is that without telescopes Sumerian astronomers could see no farther than Saturn with the naked eye, and to the Sumerians the seven points of light moving against the background of the unmoving stars were gods. The Sumerians prayed to these seven gods, each on his own day, giving rise to the custom of a seven day block of time, with the eighth day reverting to god number one, the ninth day to god number two, and so on. This practice moved north through Mesopotamia, eventually reaching Greece and Rome, who of course named the days after their own gods. In the fifth century AD the Emperor Justinian, in an attempt to rescue the Western empire from the barbarians, called the last of the Legions home from Britain, whereupon the Pope, desirous of converting the heathen Norwegians living in the English midlands, as they do to this day, instructed his envoys to give the Norsemen whatever they wanted so long as they converted to Christianity. Curiously, all the Norsemen wanted was a small remembrance of their gods. The following is how I think that went down:
We shall embrace your Christian god
The Norsemen said at once
And hope you do not think it odd
That we accept your months
But must insist that we may name
The days after our own
That you may not return in shame
To fail the papal throne
Your Roman gods have seen their times
Of triumph and despair
But northern gods for northern climes
Is what we think is fair
The god that’s known to you as Sol
To us his name is Sun
So with permission we shall call
The Sun’s day number one
The goddess Luna as you know
Is she we know as Moon
So Moon’s day will come next and so
We’ll all be Christians soon
Now Mercury is surely swift
But Tew is just as fast
So Tew’s day is our little gift
To those who prize the past
Now Wodin must take pride of place
At midweek just because
On Wodin’s day we all must face
The fact that he is boss
And Thor’s day we cannot forget
The man known as The Hammer
A man of princely pride, and yet
Embarrassed by his stammer
The goddess Freya brings us to
The ending of our story
For Freya’s day will see us through
The week of Christian glory
But there are seven days, not six
The papal envoys cried
Another god, you’ve many picks
Including those who’ve died
Or you can use a god of ours
The one we know as Saturn
His countenance we know doth sours
The righteous and the slattern
The Norsemen said your Roman guy
Is not unto our liking
But Saturn’s day, we’re eye to eye
We’ll just make him a Viking
The envoys left, returned to Rome
The Norsemen kept their bargain
But in the dark and safe at home
My heart and soul does hearken
To olden days and olden gods
When strong men strode the earth
And men would fight against the odds
For god and wife and hearth
I would like to see a Constitutional amendment along the lines of a term limit for DC bureaucrats, so that you can’t have the same people at the same job for 20 or 30 years, who then may turn around and try to torpedo a newly-elected President because he’s the wrong party. State Department, Justice Department, the Patent people, the Post Office — all of those entrenched Federal bureaucracies should be limited to their job for – say – ten years. If they want to stay a bureaucrat after that, they have to rotate out to some other city and can’t stay in DC.
It’s bizarre to me that people keep saying that social democracy is fascism. It’s not. The Europeans are not fascists. We won’t be no matter who wins the election. Social democracy is just a bad idea. I wish we’d stop clouding the debate by characterizing our political opponents as potential supporters of dictatorship. They aren’t. We’re not, either. Let’s get over it.
It doesn’t seem that long ago that anybody who didn’t bow low enough at the shrine of Lincoln and had the temerity to mention that the War of Northern Aggression pretty much wrecked the separation of powers between the Federal Government and the State Governments written into the Constitution of 1789 was howled down as a Neo-Confederate racist/sexist/homophobe/politically incorrect/carbon heavy Enemy of The People.
The First American Republic was killed during the American Civil War (which really wasn’t a civil war, but a War for Southern Independence)
The Second Republic was killed in 1913. Woodrow Wilson. The 16th Amendment. The 17th Amendment. The Federal Reserve Act. Follwed by the First World War.
The Third Republic lasted only two decades. The New Deal killed it. Followed by the Second World War.
One could argue that LBJ’s Great Society welfare state killed the Fourth Republic, or was it just a continuation of the New Deal? America was already at war in Vietnam, and got much more involved shortly thereafter.
I see a pattern emerging.
bogie wheel @ 6
This may sound like a cop out, but…
I don’t think that there are one or two amendments would bring about any change because the current crop of politicians would do their level best to circumvent them, much the same way they ignore the 10th amendment (or even the way they “honor” their own much vaunted campaign finance reform.) The problem here isn’t that we don’t have the right laws. What Mr. DeLong doesn’t say is that while we may be in a “special interest state” the most powerful special interest group in the country is our politicians, from the President to Congress and even our Justices and Judges all the way down to the state and local governments.
What is needed is change in attitude, where those that hold office see themselves as stewards of their country or community, instead of seeing themselves as leaders or rulers. Until that happens, no law or constitutional amendment will have any significant benefit.
#7 Selene:
Thanks, looks like I jumped the gun again. I’ll go read all about it first, before jumping in again..
Is social democracy fascism?
Damn close. Mussolini’s “everything inside the state, nothing outside the state” (approximately) does bear an uncanny resemblance to, let’s say, today’s U.K. and much of the rest of Western Europe.
The state-run elements of U.S. society have a very disturbing tonality to them as well. The public schools for instance, for institutions that are not federalized, seem to have a very national flavor to them.
And the deeper the penetration of the state in the U.S. into lives, the more rapidly the family seems to be disappearing.
But I think that the U.K. is the place, because it is really the “mother country” of the U.S. and its language and cultural idioms are more like ours, where even cursory inspection shows an Airstrip One quality that cannot be denied.
You might prefer not to call it fascism. But it certainly doesn’t do much for the reputation of social democracy, if that is its name.
Can the people of the UK vote out social democracy? Yes, they can. They have before. Fascism can’t be voted out. After 1922 Italy didn’t have an election for 25 years. That’s why I get a little tired of everyone, left, right and center, screaming fascism whenever they lose an election.
I wish people would drop the bullshit, stop creating stories for themselves where they’re the heroes of the rebellion against the evil empire, and acknowledge reality as something other than a good vs. evil apocalyptic struggle. It’s not. The republic will survive a lot of bad decisions. When the right starts sounding like the left of the last 8 years, that should be a clue that bullshit is happening.
John Lynch,
From your comments you seem to be saying the all the Obama and minions want is a social democracy that is a democratic welfare state that incorporates both Capitalism and Democracy. I beg to differ.
Among the many definitions of fascism, there are some recurring traits: a centralized autocratic government, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
It’s arguable that we already live in a Social Democracy. In my state, California, I would have to say we’re there already big time. Now our Dear Leader has passed way beyond this Social Democracy thing and seemingly has his sights on those same traits of Fascism :centralized autocratic government, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. All the evidence points in that direction. ACORN, manipulated elections, the DHS Right Wing Terror Alert, Restrictions on Guns, Cap and Trade, the Carbon Tax, Libby Ledbetter workplace rules, Effectiveness Research in Health Care( otherwise known as cost/ benefit costing analysis of your life), Nationalizing the Banks, Heath Care and Energy, and his kiddie Obama Corps. And he is just getting started.
So excuse me if I can’t make up my mind whether the One is a Fascist or a Marxist, or just some sicko controlling con artist thug grasping after uncontested power, but surely he ain’t no nicety nice Social Democrat, who believes in individual liberty.
a) Each act of Congress shall be prefaced by reference to the specific enumerated power under which it is entitled to pass such legislation.
b) Except in times of Declared War, the budget of these United States shall be in balance at an amount not exceeding 15 percent of the previous year’s Gross Domestic Product, with the exception of an additional 3 percent that may be collected for the specific and unique purpose of retiring the national debt.
These two amendments would solve numerous problems, require debate over priorities (like real people), and eliminate any need for either term limits or “campaign finance reform.”
I’ve said it before that my idea for a game changing Amendment would be one that says that no person can hold the Franchise to act as an Elector for any office at a level of government from which they derive the majority of their income, except for enlisted members of the armed forces and officers called to active duty for up to 4 years during a time of war or national emergency as declared by Congress. That means that state workers, including members of the teacher’s unions, would not get to vote in state or local elections and federal employees or contractors would not get to vote for Congress. It would probably also disenfranchise most prisoners.
Second proposal is to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Cannon The next time southern independence is attempted lets get a Navy and some decent artillery. The speed of the first Kenyan presidents transformation of the U.S. is breathtaking. If they attempt to prosecute members of the Bush administration and the pending terrorist attack with the incompetence displayed at Homeland Security, the French Revolution model may be in the future. Napoleon Bonaparte did end the terror sort of, but his course of action did not help France in the long run. A military coupe would be a sad 5th Republic, but the possibility I am afraid does exist. This country is on the rapid transit rails to a catastrophic revolution.
Two things about voting in the UK. The penetration of the state into British life is profound. There is wreckage in the British soul. The Blair years featured tide after tide of new laws and regulations. The idea that a society cannot be fascist because of democracy is to misunderstand both democracy and fascism, much less the sickening turn taken inside the British Labour Party. The Brits could vote forever and not vote themselves out of that mess.
The other thing is the EU parliament and its attending bureaucracy, which has this habit of not taking the sovereign states of Europe seriously, especially when the people who live in them vote against what the EU bureaucrats want.
All very strange. I think that the first thing that modern fascists and national socialists learn is that it’s important to get populations in the habit of voting themselves a bigger helping from the cannibal pot. And before they know it they are being encouraged to jump in the pot themselves.
Also no person who is not a properly registered voter should be allowed to expend on or contribute money to any campaign by any candidate for any office or question that will appear on any ballot conducted under the authority of the United States or any of them.
“IF we the people could get one or two amendments proposed, what amendments would you all most like to see?”
We the people don’t need anymore amendments to the Constitution. What We the People NEED is for our government to start governing within the limits set forth by the Constitution. We the People NEED to rescind the amendment that provides for the direct election of Senators.
The least amount of government needed to properly execute the duties proscribed in the Constitution is the best government!
Jim
“The republic will survive a lot of bad decisions.”
The republic already has. But history tells us that all governments collapse eventually. Try to find the British Empire on the map these days, or the Roman Empire.
Are we approaching the end of the American experiment? It is easy to make the case — educational system has been destroyed; currency has been reduced to a fraction of its original value, with more inflation on the way; Social Security Ponzi scheme is set to implode. Business as usual is not sustainable.
We are approaching a discontinuity. Whether what lies on the other side of that discontinuity will be better or worse will be revealed in due course.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
some may of course, disagree with Tyler’s perspective
To get back to bogie wheel’s thought experiment, what 2 amendments would I propose? Well I have more than two.
1. Legislative and judicial term limits.
2. Eliminate gerrymandering
3. A federal budget that is a no more than some fixed percentage of the economy. This percentage could be temporarily overridden if Congress declares war.
Obviously, the devil’s in the details and #2 would be particularly subjective but we have plenty of smart people who can find creative but agreeable solutions. The overall goal of any amendments should be eliminating the advantage of incumbency by removing the ability of the legislative branch to reward their supporters. This ability would never fully removed but with thoughtful amendments it could be severely restricted.
My problem with all the doom scenarios is that I’ve been hearing them all my life. It’s like, sure, we’ve made it through a lot, but THIS one is different. THIS time we’ve had it. And it always ignores all the previous predictions…
Sure, ultimately, we are doomed. But that’s like saying I’ll die tomorrow because I’ll eventually die. If you predict my death every day of my life, eventually you’ll be right. But most of the time you’ll be wrong.
So, I take all predictions of doom, indeed any prediction at all, with a large grain of salt.
People like to read stories they agree with. Libertarians want to read about the fall of the welfare state because they want the welfare state to fail. Liberals want to read about right-wing extremism behind every bush (so to speak) because they want conservatives to be right-wing extremists. That doesn’t make it true. Beware any piece of writing that rubs your prejudices.
I’ve been thinking of writing a novel about Barack Obama getting assassinated by a right wing racist extremist. Not because I think it will happen (and for any NSA data miners out there, I want him to lead a long and healthy life), but because I think people would buy it. Not the conservatives who loathe him, but the liberals who think this is a deeply racist country and whose beliefs would be reinforced.
For the libertarian extremists, there’s already a book that’s doing well on Amazon called “Patriots:Surviving the Coming Collapse.” I haven’t read it, but I’m sure it taps into a lot of the prevailing mood on the right in an entertaining way.
For the reformists in the thread, there are a lot of good ideas. I think the central problem is that our legislative branch is ossified. When you’ve got zombies like Pelosi, Reed, and Byrd (until recently) in leadership positions, there’s a problem. How are these people supposed to make policy when confronted with a powerful and dynamic executive branch?
A really radical idea is to replace districts with party apportionment by state. Set some arbitrary number of votes to qualify for a seat that keeps out small parties (or let them in if coalition politics attracts you) and that would get rid of safe districts. It’s hard to gerrymander a state.
The Supreme Court is powerful enough, thank you.
Since many feel that third political parties are counter-productive at best, what about a Congressional Conservative Caucus comprised of members of both major parties and of third parties, which could vote as a bloc?
I always prefer to begin my analysis of politics, culture, and society with the basic building blocks: people. What are their visions of how society should be? What is their general understanding of their own government and our history? How broadly educated are they so that they can understand with clarity what is going on around them?
Overall, what I see around me is not very impressive at all, present company excluded, of course.
Not all of us have sworn off using the old media for information and thought-provoking opinion. We are still a minority here, but a growing one. But it’s a race against time, I think. To me, it seems that the propaganda and funding efficacy and efficiency of The Open Society Institute and Antonio Gramsci’s legacy are ahead of us, even if we here at the Belmont Club believe we are not being immodest in thinking we are ahead of the curve of understanding.
As I see it, the government run education system is the sledgehammer that breaks it all to pieces. Dumbed-down education and full throated indoctrination is the fare du jour. Somebody please explain to me how that building block can be overcome?
davidt,
Unnecessary, since the liberals have almost all left the Republicans and the Democrats drove their conservatives out or they bolted long ago. Before Reagan both parties were big tents but that is no longer true. The Democrats did succeed in running candidates who looked more conservative than the Republican in several recent elections but as the metamorphosis of Gallibrand in NY shows it was often just cosmetics. Some moderate Democrats might help sustain a Republican maneuver in the House or a filibuster in the Senate but very few will change their caucus. The cost of joining the minority is enormous and they know that Pelosi and Rahm Emannuel will stop at nothing for vengeance. Also if they are anticipating that Acorn induced reapportionment will seal control for the Move-On Soros Democratic machine then they have little incentive to defect to the Republicans or any new grouping.
fred,
Eventually it (the effects of public education) will be overcome by the irresistible force of reality, but only at enormous cost and suffering.
I’m skeptical of term limits. They certainly have not made California more fiscally conservative!
I’ve been advocating repeal of the 17th Amendment for quite a while now.
Re #6
The amendment I would like to see would set a national referendum every odd year. Unless a majority of voters approved the WHOLE congress, then every last one of them would have reached their term limit in the next election, and a new representative would have to be elected from every district.
This would give odd-year congresses an incentive to cross the aisle and mollify the entire electorate, at the peril of all of them being out of work. Only 1/3 of the senators would be affected.
Alexis, you’re right. So long as Great Parties and great ideological combines exist, term limits will only give more power to the stage-managers. The advantages of individual Members’ seniority and connections will fade, but they will be replaced by a continuity of party staff and shadow cabinets. Look to Britain for what a sneaking, rotten mess that brings about. It is the devotion of people to what Parties “do for them” that creates this: having received succor from the Black Hand, they are faithful to it for generations. Alas.
Gerrymandering presents a similar dilemma. Look up “rotten boroughs” for what happens when districts are not adjusted. It would be fine to take redistricting out of party control, but to whom would we trust it? The courts? Executive appointed blue-ribbon commissions? ACORN?
Let me hear no more of the “argument from Europe”: Europe is full of ‘social democracies’ so there is no totalitarianism to fear. Social Democracy is totalitarian, and exactly what I will not tolerate. Contemporary Europe has all the vices of the Nazis, without the courtly manners and subtle charm. Only impotence and the death of Riefenstahl prevent it from manifesting this character in a more cinematic fashion. I would not live there, or live like them.
Social democracy is a threadbare and haggard veil on the face of statism. Once established, there is no voting it out. It holds no future for individual liberty, or for individual accomplishment outside its corporate strictures. We must recognize it as the same enemy as fascism and communism, and find ways to reverse its progress here.
bogie wheel
First: No person shall serve more than two consecutive terms in the Senate, nor three in the House. No person who is ineligible for one of those terms shall be eligible to run for either of those offices for a period equal to their most recent tenure in office.
Second: that one Senator from each State shall be appointed by the government of the State.
Third: That if the Senate shall refuse for a period of six months to bring to a vote a confirmation of a presidential appointee, that appointee shall be deemed affirmed.
Fourth: That the term of a Supreme Court justice be set for fifteen years, at which time the justice may be submitted for re-appointment and reconfirmation. If the Senate does not pass the reconfirmation, whether a vote be held or no, the reconfirmation is denied.
Fifth: To pass, in essentially the same language as the original, the Bill of Rights, with the added wording that existing case law is nullified.
Sixth: To pass, as an amendment, a restrictive form of the Commerce Clause, with wording allowing exceptions for *temporary* and *specific* remedies to *specific*, *proximate*, and *unconscienable* acts and policies.
Seventh: To require that when government take properties for public purpose, the payment reflect the actual value of the properties taken and the actual costs to those from whom it is taken.
Eighth: That when laws demanding specific actions be passed (I’m thinking of Environmental Impact Statements here) the law be accompanied by an estimate of the monetary cost to individuals and to society, and be made public at least sixty days before the vote shall be taken to pass the law (alternatively, that the law shall be provisional, requiring a second vote at sixty days) and that when, in the future, the law can be shown to have exceeded the estimated cost by an unreasonable amount, any person affected, and any person within the jurisdiction to which the law applies, may petition the court of the jurisdiction in which the law was passed, to have the law struck from the books, and a judge, finding for the petitioner, shall have the power to strike the law. This shall be subject to the ordinary appeals process. Likewise, when a law be passed with the purpose of public safety, an estimate must be made of the gain in safety and the monetary cost as above. If it can be shown that the result of the law is a loss of safety, or a monetary cost exceeding the estimate, the law may be stricken, as above.
(The last part has so many ramifications that it needs a lot more thought. Could the increase in crime in the 60′s and 70′s have been used to strike the Great Society laws, for instance?)
Ninth: a clear statement (which I do not know how to write) to the effect that the federal government has no business running pension plans and medical plans (except for veterans and federal employees NOT represented by bargaining units, and for persons living on federal lands, not to exceed one half of one percent of the population).
This is probably too much rather than too little, and some parts (the promised cost/promised benefit) might be limited to the federal and state governments.
#37 Alexis
Making government more responsive does not guarantee that a majority won’t be foolish or irresponsible. California’s great wealth and natural resources give the impression of a bottomless well for redistribution–the lessons may be hard, but they will be learned. And when they are, they will be learned by the electorate before the long-term politicians. Then, Californians will be well served by term limits.
#40 Comatus
It’s sad to read your despair. The early Americans believed that democracy could do a great deal. Any system can be gamed by shadowy figures to their own benefit; it is part of the human condition. Another part, though, is that every so often really great people come along and defy the odds. I still like to think that a more responsive government is better than a less responsive one.
I really do think something like the amendment I proposed would make a huge difference. There would still be problems no matter what is done, but improvements can be made.
Big topic, far more than can be handled well here. So first, what two amendments:
1) A Federal right of recall, initiative, and referendum. Recall of Congress-critters and the President. The right to initiate Federal Statutes and Constitutional amendments. And since Congress won’t face up to problems, let them refer questions to us. The barriers would be high, but it gives people some leverage against Washington. This comes from something called “The Liberty Tree Constitution”.
2) To register as an voter in any state, proof of identity and citizenship will be produced, and proof of identity will be produced for voting. Absentee ballots only for those who are physically unable to get to the polls. You could throw in that before running for any Federal office, proof of meeting all Constitutional requirements for the office will be furnished. Vote fraud becomes a major felony with no parole.
Right now, rational observers cannot have confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. If you cannot believe that your vote will be counted and also that it will not be cancelled by a fraudulent vote, you cannot believe in the results of that election being legitimate. And thus the government installed by that election and the laws that they make and enforce are not automatically legitimate. That is a major [but not the only] factor in our crisis of legitimacy referred to above.
#15 John Lynch. I don’t think that you can refer to where we are going as social democracy. If fascism had not been misused as a word for so long, it could fit because it did not always have the Nazi taint. Keep in mind that Italy was fascist long before Germany. If you want to be more precise, let us use the term “Corporatism” which is the economic aspect of a facist state. There still is a private sector, but it and those in it exist, figuratively and literally, at the sufferance of the organs of compulsion of the State. Looking at the economic activities of the current occupant of the White House and his party in Congress, “Corporatism” is not a wholly inappropriate designation.
I ran across a saying [can't remember where, but it is not mine, damn it.] to the effect of:
With the exception of death camps and anti-Semitism; there is very little in the National Socialists’ domestic policies that today’s Democrats could find that they would disagree with. And the anti-Semitism exception is in doubt.
Mr.Lynch, I don’t know if you are a Brit or not. I most certainly am not, and I therefore am in the position of looking in from the outside. And I well understand the difficulty of so doing, and the increased possibility of misinterpretation. But right now I look at the Labour regime as far less than democratic, and indeed one that is at great risk of throwing off all pretense of electoral democracy.
Let us note first that Gordon Brown is an unelected Prime Minister who has made reneging on campaign promises a fine art. Despite the fact that he functionally does not have an effective Opposition party [the Tories are as much a bunch of gits as our Institutional Republicans] has a dirty tricks department that has been operating for years and only recently has it accidentally come to light. Control of State media, and government leaks to private media, to smear his opponents in and out of Labour has apparently been common. For that matter, fiscal corruption in the government has also been common.
Since 2000 [long before 9/11] Labour has pushed through a plethora of “anti-terrorist” measures that functionally void the widely scattered charters and bits of legislation that cumulatively make up the British Constitution. Further, most British laws are not made by Parliament, but rather by the EU Commission in Brussels. What law there is in Britain is not applied equally. Try charging a Muslim with the hate crime statutes that are part of the reality for Britons. Finally, the British version of the Enabling Acts was passed in 2007. It is called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act of 2007. Amongst the swamp of bureaucratese, there is a provision allowing a Minister to enact, amend, or repeal any statute with a signature and no reference to Parliament or Crown. It has not been used yet, but it is there waiting.
The Brits I am in contact with are not sure that they can vote out “social democracy”, or even if they will be given another chance to vote. Or if it will have any meaning if they do vote.
The British are also reaching a point of disequalibrium, and their historical models are either Oliver Cromwell or Guy Fawkes. I note that culturally, Britain is our mother country, so I would not rule out either model here, in addition to our own unique cultural variations.
We could be on the point of a new incarnation of America. Or we could be witnessing our own version of the ultimate historical truth. All civilizations fall, all cultures fade, all dynasties end. Liberty and prosperity for the masses are an historical anomaly. The barbarians always win in the end. Tyranny is the normal state of mankind, accompanied by poverty for those not in power. All we can do is our best to hold back the Long Night a little longer. It may not be enough, but we owe it to our children to try.
Subotai Bahadur
njcommuter:
Except for #4 you have some good ones.
Me:
1. Term limits
2. Public monies ONLY for national offices (POTUS & VPOTUS). Strong penalties for violators = jail for a couple of decades.
3. Reaffirm the existing 10th amendment.
“Also no person who is not a properly registered voter should be allowed to expend on or contribute money to any campaign by any candidate for any office or question that will appear on any ballot conducted under the authority of the United States or any of them.”
I sighest, contemplating the influx of overseas donations into the Obama campaign coffers, the blatent illegality of that and the absolute non-interest by anyone in following up on who donated how much, never mind whether or not they were a registered voter.
The adoption of the Constitution itself was a sham perpetrated on the American people by Hamilton and Madison. The real Federalists were those founders who opposed ratification–and there were many. Unfortunately, the Nationalists–Hamilton and Madison–won the day and all the terrible things that their opponents predicted have come to pass. The best thing we Americans could do is scrap the whole damn document and return to the Articles of Confederation. That would put an end to the fascist State that our Federal government has become.
Bring back the death penalty for shoplifting, and debtors prisons!
Walt, you’re a modern-day Homer. You need a column in a national dead tree.
Lots of good folks counseling patience and temperence and time to sort us out –good advice but maybe better advice would nod toward the fact that our bulletproof petrie dish is rapidly developing foreign cracks.
Subotai, you have made a number of good points about Britain. I will add a few more, if I will.
The first point is that the constitution of the UK, such as it is, only stays reasonably stable because of the fundamental good sense and conservatism (small c!) of Britons in general. This is being steadily undermined by the decline in educational standards and the unrestricted immigration allowed by successive governments.
The second point is that the constitution of the UK consists of a scattering of Acts of Parliament, any and all of which are repealable by a simple majority in Commons. (The blocking function of the House of Lords has been gradually neutered throughout the 20th Century, and it is utterly inconceivable that Royal Assent would not be given to a bill passed by Parliament.) This includes the most important of all, the Quinquennial Act. Should either of the parties get a sufficient majority it could repeal this, and hey presto we have a dictatorship.
NullificationNow, they had about as good a Navy as their yards could produce and their cotton could buy from the British. Their deficiencies in ordnance stemmed from their dearth of brass, iron, salt peter, foundries, skilled workmen and technically competent management.
Southern Independence won’t be tried again. The geographical dividing lines will be counties. Fly Over Country versus The Coasts. Urban Vote Buying Machines versus suburban and rural Producers.
If they attempt to prosecute members of the Bush administration that’s a sign that they never intend to leave power peacefully again. They won’t be able to without suffering the same fate they inflicted upon their predecessors. They’ll have to be carried out feet first and displayed from lamp posts.
The Battle for America will be decided in your county at your front door
What will be interesting is how fast the technological improvements in communication will effect the next major political change. The evolution of the printing press/ publishing industry was what made Luther’s protestant Reformation movement possible. After that the pace picked up. Up until recent times communication was concentrated in the hands of those who owned the large presses and the broadcast stations. Now it is different. Imagine what a smart phone with encryption could be used for.
Originally, Congressmen were temporary employees who had to support themselves through means other than taking money away from the taxpayers. I would like to see that return. How much actual work do we get for our dollar? Also why do they get lifetime pensions for only one term of service? Military members must serve a minimum of 20 years for their retirement benefits and then only get 50% of their base pay. I say make the same rules apply. And just like the military, any infraction should be punishable by a court and convictions could be grounds for loss of any benefits depending on infraction. Bottom line, make them servants of the people again, not members of royalty.
So, the Third Republic is broke, and does need fixin’?
I think an alternative to Civil War II (and unlike 1860 it really would be a Civil War this time) is The Gault Option.
Wherever they can gain control, conservatives move individual states toward greater freedom, lower taxes, and more attractive conditions for business. The authorities look the other way and arrange tax laws and other legislation to reduce the amount confiscated by the Federal Government. Those states become havens for employment, business development, and freedom. As people flock there, the influence, wealth, and power of those states grow. And they favor doing business with like states.
In other words, let the New Yorks and Californias get the leftovers. Let them die on the vine. The South rises again, but so do Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Alaska.
Democrats just wanted to impeach Bush and put him in jail for war crimes.
Anti-Obama’s here on Belmont Club want to throw out the whole damned government and start over again. I won’t call them “Republicans” because I think the tea parties are an indication that the anger with our government and its processes has spread beyond party affiliation.
Instead of bopping around the world being youthful and charming, Obama should be very very scared. I don’t know that he’ll make it through a full term the way he’s going, and that history will remember him as the first black President who also managed to get not only his own ass thrown out of office, but everyone else in the Federal government fired, too.
bogie@6
One amendment I’d like to see is the prohibition against new laws being passed, while 10% must be recinded every year. Every federal agency must recind 10% of their rulings every year, etc. For say 5 years, after which we will re-examine the situation. Let’s give the bureaucrats something productive to occupy their time in office.
In 2008, Congress passed 60,000 new federal laws! I doubt most here could name five of them.
Clearly every new law (at this point after 200+ years) is advantaging someone or group at the expense of another. Therein lays the basis for graft and corruption and growth of the gov’t at all levels.
Our lawmakers are encouraged to pass laws, as if that’s their primary function. Unless we stop this foolishness, the level of complexity increases to a point where it’s intolerable and unenforceable. Lest we all become criminals, like today.
If we are to prevail, then we have to stop lawmaking as a business.
davidt@33
Only works if the bloc can achieve a voting majority. Given the level of financial corruption involved, I’d say that the incumbent majority will never permit that to occur. Or, it’d be working in Chicago.
Interesting ideas for constitutional change — but what is going to drive today’s Political Class to institute any change which will inevitably hurt most of them?
Historically, the force for change has either been an unpleasant meeting with economic reality (e.g. Weimar Republic) or an external push (e.g. history of Europe).
Today, both forces are obviously in play, and gathering strength. It is probably impossible to predict what will be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back — but break it eventually will.
The happiest outcome would probably be a Turkish-style intervention by the US Military replacing the dysfunctional Congress, Administration, and Supreme Court. Hopefully, the military would supervise creation of a restructured polity, and eventually restore democracy. But this process could equally lead to the Oliver Cromwell outcome.
“For the libertarian extremists, there’s already a book that’s doing well on Amazon called “Patriots:Surviving the Coming Collapse.” I haven’t read it, but I’m sure it taps into a lot of the prevailing mood on the right in an entertaining way.”
I recently read that book. I was entertained by the denoument, in which people just decided that the Libertarian and Constitution parties would be the new de facto standards rather than the Rs and Ds. Heh.
But really, that book is more of a survival manual than a novel, written by a survivalist for enterprising survivalists to give them ideas, tips and tricks. It’s fairly well-written, and I have to say I liked it. But then I’m a closet prepper.
Geoffgo #58:
You have a point there.
When I was at the Pentagon I came to realize that if you were independently wealthy, did not have to work, and could spend 40 hours a week doing nothing but identifying and understanding all of the Federal regulations and laws that impact you personally, then the results would be…
You could not do it. No way. Not only are they so many, so complex, so well disguised and require so much specialized expertise to understand, but the lawyers and bureaucrats implementing them routinely set aside what the Congress directed anyway and make up new interpretations that may actually reverse what the law really says. And they add thousands of new laws and regs every year.
From where I sit all of the current political winds feel erratic and troubling. I would love to see a cool stabilizing breeze come up. Term limits would be a nice simple start.
fred@34
The solution to the state run education system requires creative destruction. As an advocate for educational reform since 1983, after working on Reagan’s “A Nation at Risk” report, I see home schooling as the only viable path to a more informed society.
Given the hammerlock hold, and it’s demonstrated mundane nature, combined in the infrastructure of education (teachers, adminstrators, legislators, courts, accredidation authorities, tax agents, security forces all aggregating to become a minority that controls the content and the process), then the only solution is to virtualize.
The current system can only be changed by attrition; ie, dismantled against the wishes of those in control.
Charter schools? We can see the incumbent power structure’s response, in spite of superior results. Besides, it’s the brick and mortar issue, reqiring bonds. Science labs cost $1M. Katrina destroyed hundreds of K-12 schools.
Since 1984, those farsighted VCs (who are now living off the carry) have invested less than 2% of total funds raised (100s of billions) in education. And 75% of those investments went to higher ed.
Online, one great teacher like VDH or Richard Feinman can serve hundreds of students. With qualified assistance, thousands. NOVA-quality presentation, only needs 3,000 hours worth of interative scenarios to cover 8 hours per day, for all 4 years of high school, in every subject. “The best education has to offer.”
Online, the INDIVIDUAL student’s attention and comprehension can be measured AND remediated in real-time. Content and avatars can be tailored and questions rephrased instantly, to check progress. Eliminates cheating. Deliverable on the student’s schedule and optimized for the individual student’s pace – anywhere.
It’s apolitical, if the provider is motivated by profit to deliver the truth.
No standup lecture can deliver these benefits, no matter how small the class size. One-on-one is best. Just ask the gamers about captivating their target audience every day for hours on end. Their players are enthusiastically volunteering their undivided attention toward achieving ever better results, every time. Would that our education system could compete.
It’s next gen stuff for education. Those 3000 hours of interactive intruction? Cost about $30M – for 5 languages $50M.
3 million home-schooling subcribers at $2,500/year (including the 21″ wireless workstation) = $7.5B per year – forever. Nifty return, no?
And, for a product that once produced doesn’t need to altered very much, except to continually improve/augment every facet of the delivery. And costs near nothing to serve an ever greater number of subscibers, anywhere. (worldwide – eventually 10M subs)
I can attest to the fact that VCs don’t see the opportunity that way, since it was first proposed using interactive laserdisc technologies to convey superior content and learning experiences (NASDAQ:IIAT in 1984).
Now the advantages of ubiquitous connectivity are availed to the parent – the network effect will begin its destruction.
Of course, we’ll need to eliminate all the legal restrictions on home-schooling for the free market to ever succeed in fixing the problem. And, we will have to endure a gruesome and costly deterioration of the extant public education structure.
I would propose a few Amendments that change the level of competition for ideas in Washington, and change the incentives of elected officials.
What I would do:
1) Strictly prohibit acceptance of campaign contributions from any source not an actual person and constituent of that politician. No PACs, no corporate contributions. There would be jail time for anyone (pol or citizen) trying to make and end-run around this system. Naturally the 1st Amendment would allow any person to say what they want, but no monetary contributions. Personal contributions would be capped at some dollar figure ($10,000?) plus inflation over time to prohibit some wealthy magnate from outspending rivals 10:1.
Reasoning: Campaign donations are an arms race with no logical ceiling. This hard limit will put all competitors on equal footing and discourage wasteful campaigns.
2) Require that the voting system for all single-winner elections change from plurality wins to “Ranged Voting.” I would also consider that Legislatures (both House of Reps and State-level) are elected using proportional representation.
Reasoning: The above system would break the stranglehold that the Democrats and Republicans have held on American politics for nearly two centuries. Ma Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft can’t hold a candle to those political parties for abuse of monopoly power. Allowing third parties to meaningfully compete for Representation will improve the quality of all politicians (including the existing parties).
3) Strict prohibition on tax breaks and tax credits. If the Government wants to subsidize something it needs to write a check.
Reasoning: The tax system is too tempting a target for abuse.
4) “Single Subject” limitation on Federal bills, as reflected in the title. This clause was one of the ways in which the Confederate Constitution was superior to the Union Constitution, and it is still a very good idea. Relatedly, this same Amendment would make all laws unenforceable unless approved by vote – anything put in during a committee session is null value.
Reasoning: A classic abuse of power is to put a small statute favorable to special interest in a larger, unrelated bill (sometimes even after the bill is approved by majority vote). This would kill that practice dead.
5) Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Reasoning: The Senate (as a body representing the State governments, rather than the people directly) was supposed to be check on Federal power. It should be so again.
6) Require 75% Legislative approval to pass a new law but only 25% approval to abolish a law.
Reasoning: All laws (even the ‘good’ ones) are a restriction on individual liberty. It should be easier to abolish restrictions than to create them. This would be a strong, structural check against a tyranny of the majority.
7) All statutes to automatically expire after a period of time such as twenty or thirty years (other than criminal felonies carrying a minimum sentence of five years or more). If the law is to continue it must be passed again.
Reasoning: This would prevent special interests from capturing the government and then allowing the issue to fade into the background. This would be a structural requirement that all restrictions on freedom (which is what laws are) come back for debate every now and then.
There’s an article in the WSJ , ” Presidential Poison”, unattributed, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html#mod=rss_opinion_main, which opines that Obama’s proposed indictment of Bush Administration officials is a terrible turning point in American History.
I heartily agree. Once that line is crossed there is no going back. Retaliation trials will be the order of the day for each new Administration.
Although Cannoneer puts it well “If they attempt to prosecute members of the Bush administration that’s a sign that they never intend to leave power peacefully again.” Because retaliation trials will follow Obama and his minions once they leave power.
As much as I would like to try each and every member of the Obama Adminstsration for treason, convict em, and hang em from the nearest tree, I don’t think that would be a good thing for the Republic.
Anyone who thinks term limits will do crap doesn’t understand how government works. Term Limits don’t change how the Parties choose who will run for what office, or what the agenda will be, or who to take money from. Term Limits will just change the names on the door without changing who they work for. Does it matter if you’re arrested by Officer Dodge or Officer Grit? Of course not – it’s the system which must be changed, not the people.
Shays’ Rebellion II may be in our future.
Two off-the-wall suggestions:
Move the capital every ten years. Specifically, where Congress and the Supreme Court meet, and where the President and all Senate-confirmed appointees work. Move it to the least-populated county according to the last census.
Forbid air-conditioning in government offices. Washington DC used to empty in the summer, and that was a good thing!
“Single Subject” limitation on Federal bills…”
I heartily approve of this idea and it seems like it might be simple enough to actually enforce.
We don’t need to amend the Constitution, we just need to enforce its plain language. E.g., no money but gold and silver–poof, the special interest state can’t fund itself.
Cannoneer @51,
That sure worked for Sheriff Lee Baca, when he exchanged concealed carry permits for the right to hang out with celebrities. Still, reading about The Oath Keepers has given me hope.
@6,
1) Line item veto
2) Term Limits (2 terms) for all federal legislators
3) Repeal the 17th amendment
4) Fix the upper bounds of persons per representative at 100,000 to 1
5) Redistricting after each census to be done by computer algorithm. Open source code, hosted at sourceforge, in something readable like c# (ha!)
Two items:
1) Tort reform: loser pays the winner’s court costs.
. The benefits of this reform is fairly obvious.
2) Restructure federal income tax code to
. a) fixed tax of 10% for servicing four basic services (Dept of War, Dept of Law, Dept of Energy, and Dept of Govt); everyone pays.
. b) voluntary itemized contribution in which payer decides how much to pay a set of services they want to support. Contribution here will remove 1/2 of income from above
. c) keep/increase charity deduction, start phasing out of mortgage deduction.
#42 Ed “It’s sad to read your despair.”
I’m not so desperate as all that. Democracy was held in some suspicion by early Americans. That’s why they did that Republic thing, the balance of powers, the electoral college, and the Bill of Rights. They’d seen the Great Beast, up close and personal.
It’s plausible that one representative could do so well in “responding to” his district, or one Senator so wise in deliberation, that, even without the fiduciary trappings of Party allegiance, the voters might return him again and again. We should not ban this, merely discourage it. And watch it closely.
The abusable powers that accrue from long seniority in office are conferred by the Parties’ management of the houses. It would not take an amendment to end this, merely an extension of existing law against secret collusion, combination in restraint of trade, and coersion. An amendment wouldn’t hurt, though.
If adherence to a Party meant only ideological agreement, absent the ablility to ship pork, end careers, and vend influence, we wouldn’t need McCain-Feingold. The very best people won’t do these things, but the very best parties, as now empowered, must.
John Lynch #10:
The Special Interest State will fall due to its own contradictions!
Yes, it will. One of the interesting points in DeLong’s column is that our current Federal government has altered it’s source of legitimacy. Originally, federal legitimacy came from it’s adherence to the Constitution with significantly limited powers as authorized by We The People trying for form a more perfect union. Today’s Federal government pays little attention to the limits imposed by the Constituion, arguing that it must have greater power in order to deliver wonderous things – healthcare, welfare (specific, not general), “fairness” and, the kicker, prosperity. The Federal Government, especially so under Pelosi-Obama-Reid, are basing their legitimacy on their ability to deliver a better life.
They can’t.
They’ll fail.
And when they do, they can’t fall back on the Constitution as the foundation of their legitimacy, because they chucked the spirit of it in order to expand their power.
So, if the Feds don’t reverse course soon, we’ll find ourselves with a government that the people no longer think of as legitimate. That’s DeLong’s entire argument.
What comes after is not known. DeLong thinks it will be fundamentally democratic, because that’s the nature of the American people. He may or may not be overly optimistic there, but I think he’s essentially right in his larger point. Our current government has made a deal with the country that it can’t deliver on and will find itself chucked out on its ear not too far down the road. Whether it’s replaced by something better or something worse is for us to find out.
Several ideas involving true breaks with the past have been mentioned here: home schooling, constitutional amendments, Gault’s way, term limits for bureaucrats, etc. Antonio Gramsci was also mentioned, and some here seem unaware of that subject matter regarding potential dictatorship in America. The assumption that there are only two alternatives, a third party or a nice little bottom-up call for a convention, is flawed based on the Constitution as it is written. A third option was the one utilized versus the British Empire in the late 1700′s, and it is provided for in modern times by the Second Amendment.
Patriots, visit http://patdollard.com
Regarding ammendments, the problem is we have plenty of good ammendments already, but they’re ignored. The fourth, ninth and tenth are routinely ignored. The second is also, though less successfully. The first is mostly observed only in perverted (literally in some cases) form.
What we need is to break up and redistribute power again. The Founders understood that as the real issue. No constitution, no mere words no matter how noble and wise, can serve as a check to tyranny. Neither can faith in the wisdom and benevolence of “good” leaders. The only thing that can check tyranny is to scatter power widely and let each node of power jealously guard itself against encroachments.
That’s what has broken down and needs to be re-established. More restrictions on the existing concentrations of power won’t work because they’ll simply be ignored.
Cannoneer/50; –and yet for a few feet of elevation, Lee’s 100 gun two-hour preparation for Pickett’s Charge would not have carried harmlessly over the Union entrenchment on the ridge line, and perhaps the Charge would’ve carried the ridge, and the battle won, and Europe in with the South, and the nation split in two. Another one of those tiny twitches in the hand-of-destiny.
Under no circumstances shall the judiciary overturn a law enacted by a majority of the people in an election.
Honorable military service shall be a mandatory pre-requisite for election to President, Vice President, Governor and Lieutenant Governor or any elected official who shall stand in the line of succession to these offices.
Lots of good suggestions here.
I’d add two more.
1. One against unfunded mandates. Something like this:
‘No level of government, federal, state, county, or municipal, may pass a law requiring public monies be appropriated or spent by another level of government. Any monies required to enact or enforce a law must be appropriated by taxation or fees on individuals or corporations at that level of government only.’
2. Ban public sector unions, along these lines:
‘i. Any individual or group of individuals or corporation who is engaged in or attempts to engage in labor union activity, labor union organization, or collective bargaining with any entity of government, any public employees, or any civil servants at any level of government, shall be deemed to be attempting treason against the people of the United States, and shall be prosecuted for that crime.
ii. Such unions and organizations which now exist will be deemed null and void one year from the passage of this amendment, and members of said unions and organizations will be exempt for treason prosecution for that time period. Any monies, funds, properties, trusts, or copyrights owned by public sector unions at the time of passage of this amendment are to be dissolved and distributed equitably and lawfully by the unions, their membership, their leaders, and their subsidiaries, within one year of the passage of this amendment, with the Supreme Court acting as final arbiter in any disputes regarding the distribution and disposition of those monies, funds, properties, trusts, or copyrights.”
Public sector unions are a terminal civic disease –look at California. And what is a public sector union *for* anyway? If a union is for labor to collectively bargain with capital, what is a public sector union to bargain wth? There is no capital to form the other side. There is only the tax revenue –which is expense, not capital. The whole structural concept is absurdist and Kafka-esque. It makes every civil servant a monopoly-entrepreneur with a captive market, who can’t be fired, and is owed an expensive lifetime care at the captive’s expense. yes, Kafka.
or spartan/helote. ok what the hell, master/slave. Ask a Californian on the payee end –if you can find one that ain’t busy packing a moving van.
I’ll add another possible amendment:
That every tax or other levy be laid upon real persons, not upon corporations or other entities created by the legal system, and that every tax that must be collected by one person or entity in a transaction with another must be disclosed fully.
21:unsk-yup
41:njcommuter-you put in a lot of thought
53:speakeasy-real close
If the job of politician is relegated to a service rather than a career with retirement packages and health benefits, it would be a lot less atractive to those who would pursue it as a career, or professional politician.
The rules of the Senate and House usurp the equality of each vote. Those representatives that have seniority in effect multiply the power of their constituents. Take away the power granted by seniority, and there would be a lot less clamor for re-election.
None of this requires constitutional convention, but sure could shake up DC.
tom
Yes, how did we end up with a committee chair seniority system anyway? How freaking Bolshevik can ya get? Merit –or lotto –anything but the crap system results we’re getting now.
Here’s three amendments:
-A sunset amendment. All laws are required to have a sunset established no longer than ten years.
-An amendment that states: Tax and spending increases will require a two thirds majority in both houses of congress. Tax and spending cuts will require a minimum of 40% of congressional votes to get passed.
-Flat tax amendment.
Buddy Larson
The Constitution provides that the House and Senate shall make their own rules. This is an area where I fear that a cure might be worse than the disease.