Conflict of the Ideal and the Real

[Griff]

Tony mentioned this on another thread, which many folks have probably given up on by now, so here it is. There is a conflict we face when we support a party or candidate. My ideal candidate is generally unelectable at least at the Federal level as long as he or she is a Libertarian. I could be content with a Republican administration if their rhetoric matched their actions in some small way. A 'humble' foreign policy, balanced budgets, smaller government, freeer markets, these are the things Republicans get elected on and the are really the core of whatever small support the LP does enjoy.

Unfortunately, like Clinton before him Bush really is unpredictable. We know that neither major party has any core beliefs. The two biggies have core constituencies who must be served in whatever haphazard manner is convenient. This leads to major conflicts inside the parties as some voters are deemed expendable. I guess thats just the beast we call democracy, horse trading on a grand scale, trying to see what they can get away with and still get reelected. The two party stranglehold helps make this an on-going project since you know your guys are the only alternative next time.

Then we have the alternative, reckless ideologues, who if elected would destroy any support they had in their hamfisted transition to the ideal.

My main thought here in this literary disaster is that we are too far from the ideal at this time.

[Undertoad]

<li>Part of my "new" thinking is that politics truly is inevitable.

<li>It turns out that "philosophically correct" is even more dangerous, and certainly more annoying, than "politically correct". If we need any more proof of this we can just go back to the other thread.

<li>Why doesn't "government philosophy" strike the same kind of fear in our hearts as "government religion"? Subjecting a philosophy to government would ruin the philosophy first,...

<li>In order to change the actual outcome of "freedom of speech" they had to argue over the meaning of "speech". In order to change the actual outcome of "banning of force and or fraud" they would argue over the meaning of force and fraud. Same outcome.

[warch]

A 'humble' foreign policy, balanced budgets, smaller government, freeer markets, these are the things Republicans get elected on...

Really? People associate "humble" foreign policy with Republicans? I never made that connection, Ive perceived the perception as being more "hardball". I think Republicans get elected by promising tax cuts, quick relief, offering the illusion of fiscal responsibility or reform. But they also dangle the big fuzzy ideas of "old fashioned family values" (ie. curtailing women's reproductive freedom, Denying same sex partner rights, fighting crime with the death penalty, Readin'Ritin'Rithmatics, regulating drugs in one way and firearms in another, etc.) For me this is the big disconnect, But mostly on the ideals of womens' reproductive choice. I will not vote for anyone who isnt pro choice, cause thats my basic liberty.

Here in MN the new Republican Gov and senate have railroaded through an insulting 24 hour waiting period bill for women seeking abortions, sneakily tacked on to the initial vehicle bill which was to (wait for it...)raise the ban on circuses held during the state fair. What the f...? Hello religious right.So when you've made the wrenching decision, found the money, to drive into the cities for an abortion and have the mandatory layover, because the doctor must meet with you to give you the mandatory prolife leaflets, because obviously women are too stupid to make their own medical decisions privately,independently, while youre waiting you can go watch the clowns pile out of a car and get a corn dog, then go sleep in the car.

Having just come from Ventura, who disturbed me with his financial wrecklessness, I am now looking back in nostagia at his crazy, yet at least liberal ways. The current govenor did not receive support from the majority of citizens, he received the highest third. It will be interesting to see what's next.

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think unpredictability goes beyond Clinton or Bush. We've talked on different threads about how quickly people decline while in office, physically I mean. It's hard to second guess anyone that's in a postition that takes that kind of toll on a person. If it effects them that much physicaly, how much is it effecting them mentaly?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The other thing is that if a third party did come in strong then, I think it would be more likely to replace a current party than it would be to become a three-party system. Sure a new major party would be more true to it's platform for awhile, but that hardly fix's the problem. To paraphrase UT "politics happens."
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, the question is how do we get closer to the ideal?

[joemama]

Personally I think the main problem with America concerning third parties is the winner take all method of elections that populate the congress. This system does not accurately represent the number of citizens that hold a particular political belief and it makes excluding other parties from government frighteningly easy.

In my opinion, the seats in Congress should be distributed to parties based upon the number of votes collected per party on a nationwide scale. This keeps geographic favoritism to a minimum, and it allows the people to have more direct control over their government. The parties themselves should have subelections - based upon the relative selection numbers of a party candidate - to put legislators in the seats.

I think that the number of legislators should be determined in a similar method to the present congress, but I think Senators should have a 2 term limit. I think that the association of Congresspeople to their states encourages corruption and abuse, so I would do away with state based system of representation in the House - but I would leave it in the senate.

The president should be forced to come to congress on a regular basis and answer questions from the representatives, and the president should be easily removed from office if he/she looses the faith of 2/3 of the congress.

I think that the idea of appointing judges for life is stupid. I think judges should be appointed for a certain term - maybe 6 years - then the current administration should nominate a new federal judge. I think that only a third of the judges should be up for reappointment at a time.

I think that all public officials should have their records and minutes of all conferences put into the public record. I think it shoul dbe illegal for any administration to make thie records private - forever ( like the Bush administration is doing for Poppy, Clinton, and himself )

The 2 party system is sickening and should be dismantled, but the people in power haev far too much money and vested interest in the current structure, that they will protect it vehemently.

[Griff]

Originally posted by warch

Really? People associate "humble" foreign policy with Republicans?

I was quoting a particular Republican candidate. We are now quite familiar with his actual foreign policy. As far as the "Christian" Right's agenda thats one of the parts that conflicts with the now dead libertarian wing. Sometimes you can predict who is going to be tossed out of the tent...

joemamas been doin' some good thinking.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The current govenor did not receive support from the majority of citizens, he received the highest third. It will be interesting to see what's next.

I would add, of those that bothered to vote. That makes the winners percentage of the populace pretty small. That's a situation where rabid radicals, like he who must not be named, and his cohorts, could pull off a coup.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What Joemama has proposed is a complete revamping of our political system. That means throw out the Constitution. (He who must not be named is going into cardiac arrest.) It seems to me the suggested system sounds awfully similar to what we see in a lot of other countries and none of them seem particularly efficient at getting things done. Too many back room (or open) deals to form coalitions in order to be an effective voting bloc. I think I would rather work within our existing constitutional framework and try to create more interest in the voting (or should be) public to support cleaner candidates. You think I'm a dreamer? Maybe, but I don't want to chuck the constitution.

[joemama]

I am not advocating revolution.

In our thought experiments, everybody respect the same ideas we do - I do not think my idea would be much more efficient than the current system.

Democracy is inherently inefficient. The point is, if a large enough group of people around the nation is disappointed by the current administration, they have a greater chance of electing people in their own party. Many European nations have this kind of parlimentary system and they typically have numerous political parties. This would, at the very least, allow greens, libertarians, and other parties in the door to let their issues be heard.


Don't get me wrong, I would keep the constitution in place, and I would make sure that the system of checks and balances, the bill of rights, and the basic tenents of the constitution was still in place. I do think, however, we should dismantle the electoral college. I also think we should kick every single lobbiest out of washington - including Daschle's wife. I think that candidates should put all their funds into a large pot - and they should be distributed equally among all the candidates that can get on the ballot. But these are just my wacky ideas - if I ever get a country to build form the ground up, I would see if they work.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I once met a man that lived in Philly who was an electrical engineer and a member of the bar. He wrote PA state laws for a living. He was VERY wealthy. A PA congressman or senator would come to him and say, I want a law that will do this or prevent that or both. He would write the law then pass this on to the legislator who would introduce it as a bill with a synopsis attached. The ones he showed me looked like paperback books the size of romance novels This man told me the legislators never read the actual laws he wrote. I suspect the ones that voted yea or nay never did either. I even wonder if their staff did. If I were a lobbyist, there's the man I'd try to get to. Lobbyists do serve a legitmate purpose but like everything else there's opportunity for corruption galore. My guess it's worse on a federal level.

[Torrere]

The lobbyist do provide some benefit to Congress; namely they offer opinions and possibly even facts about the legislation that the members of Congress aren't reading.

Personally, I believe that I would prefer a government in which Congress was required to read their legislation before they pass it. If Congress itself reading their own legislation difficult and not worth their time, how are we supposed to plausibly understand and follow the law?

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by joemama

In my opinion, the seats in Congress should be distributed to parties based upon the number of votes collected per party on a nationwide scale. This keeps geographic favoritism to a minimum, and it allows the people to have more direct control over their government. The parties themselves should have subelections - based upon the relative selection numbers of a party candidate - to put legislators in the seats.

But wouldn't that give a disproportionately large number of representatives to the northeast and to California? That's the sort of thinking that gave states like Rhode Island and Delaware the heebie-jeebies back in 1789.

I think that the association of Congresspeople to their states encourages corruption and abuse, so I would do away with state based system of representation in the House - but I would leave it in the senate.

Well... what else would they be associated with? This country's name is the United States, after all. Your suggestion reeks of Federalism run amok. I don't want my political interests to be represented by some mouth-breathing troll from the Planet of Manhattan. I want a good, old-fashioned East Baltimore Bulldike representing me in Congress, thanks.

The president should be forced to come to congress on a regular basis and answer questions from the representatives, and the president should be easily removed from office if he/she looses the faith of 2/3 of the congress.

This just gets worse and worse. Listen, Joe... you're confusing the office of the President with that of a mere Prime Minister. George Bush, unlike the Rt. Hon. Mr. Blair, is not primus inter pares, he is the Head of State. He is the head of the Executive Branch of our government, and is co-equal with the Congress- not in any sense subordinate to it. The Dead White Men who set up this system knew what they were doing... ya know, that whole checks and balances thing.

I think that all public officials should have their records and minutes of all conferences put into the public record.

Too ridiculous for comment.

The 2 party system is sickening and should be dismantled

I agree. If you ever have any ideas on how we might accomplish this, please let us know.

[ScottSolomon]

But wouldn't that give a disproportionately large number of representatives to the northeast and to California

In the House of representatives, this is the way it works. That is why the Senate has only two members per state ( which should be expanded to 3 ). What I was trying to say - if I was not very clear - is that the House not be divided by state, but the percentage of votes per party would dictate the house's composition. Then, among the parties, the highest voted party members would receive the seats.

This would not necessarily give an extreme representaion to northestern. In the House, since the represetntation is of a point of view - not a geographic reason, the most ardent spokespeople for your political ethos would be receiving the seats - regardless off their state of origin.

The senators would still be state based, but since there are three of them, and the seats are awarded by state political demographics, a third party candidate would only need to get about 30% of the vote to gain entry to a seat of congress.

I think the executive branch has far too much power and far too little oversight. Our Legislative and Judiciary Branches have really lost their ability to effectively limit the powers of the executive branch.

In my opinion, the president should function like a good CEO. He should have to prove his positions and should be interrogated by the board ( Congress ) regularly. I do not think the president should be allowed to keep his seat if he has botched the job to an extreme degree, but not committed an impeachable offense. Even an honest CEO can make major mistakes. If a CEO makes major mistakes, he gets fired. Currently, if the president botches his job, he has 4 years to shift the blame, create scapegoats, and villify dissentors.

I think this gives the president too much leeway.

Too ridiculous for comment.

If it is not talking about the names of spies, contacts, or secret technology, with regard to national security from a credible threat, I do not think it should be kept secret.

Bush signed in a law that keep the president's records out of the public domain for many, many years longer than before. He also made the same protection valid for Bush Sr. and Clinton.

These are just a cheap thought experiments anyway.

[smoothmoniker]

The fixed length of the presidents term serves a valuable purpose. It allows them to make unpopular decisions, and makes them removed by one step from the "ignorant tyranny of the masses". In the same way that lifetime judgeships allows judges to make ethically responsible, but unpopular, decisions (Brown v. Board of Education) without fearing for their immediate removal, so the Executive office must have the ability to make decisions that are clearly necessary, but may be unpopular (annexing Canada) without fear of immediate removal from office.

If their mismanagment is truly egregious, the impeachment process exists to remove them from office immediately. This is, and should be, a very difficult thing to do.

-sm

[richlevy]

If it is not talking about the names of spies, contacts, or secret technology, with regard to national security from a credible threat, I do not think it should be kept secret.

The link below is to the National Security Archive records of the Pentagon Papers case heard by the Supreme Court.

To sum it all up, the justices found that the right and need of the public to know what the goverment is doing overrides the governments right to keep secrets except in the most critical and dangerous situations. This is because what the goverment is keeping from its enemies, it is also keeping from its citizens, who, as part of a republic, are supposed to be part of the system which keeps the government honest.

Even in the middle of a war, the court set a narrow standard of what the goverment could keep secret from the public.

The more this administration moves to keep secrets, the more convinced I am that when the truth finally comes out, history will not be kind to this administration.


The Pentagon Papers - Secrets, Lies, and Audiotapes