Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 1113 Editor's Choice: 106
-
Why they call it a "republic"
[Read the article: The presidential primary scam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The United States is structurally (if not functionally) as democratic now, in 2007, as it has ever been in its history, and much of the movement toward greater democracy happened in the second half of the 20th century. While there are many aspects of the presidential primary system that are quaint or outmoded, to argue that they run counter to national tradition is misleading, if not downright wrong.
The "the ideals of the nation," as Michael Scherer puts it, are republican in nature, not democratic, and were explicitly intended to be so by the people who first codified them. The foundational concept to republican government is representation rather than direct democracy.
That point bears repeating. Republics and democracies do not work the same way. Representative government is not the same as direct government. Representation means legislators rather than referenda, and in the same way it means delegates in primaries rather than popular nomination. In fact as Scherer himself reluctantly gets around to admitting, the party primary process has shifted steadily away from indirect decision-making over the decades and is now more democratic than it has ever been.
So by all means, let's talk about continuing to change the way our parties do their business. Holding on to systems we don't want anymore simply because of familiarity is foolish consistency. (So long as we don't start passing laws that codify the place of parties in American political life any more than they already are.)
More importantly, let's also be clear that in bringing change to the electoral process we aren't returning to some golden age of original American political virtue. The original state of American politics was so exclusive, arcane, and undemocratic that we should be grateful that only its vestiges remain.
And while a greater and stronger multiplicity of parties is an asset to American politics, let's not forget that no blossoming of political diversity in this country will matter one fig if the crypto-fascists currently in charge are allowed to remain in power. Whomever you vote for and whenever you vote, make your vote matter against them in 2008.
-
Pass it now, pass another one next year
[Read the article: How did the T get in LGBT?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't see what the fuss is. Pass what you can when you can, and if the fight isn't finished then pass another bill next year. That's how it always is.
It may come as a surprise to some who are ensconced in the queer scene, but everyone, even if they're as gay as a cinder block, benefits directly and immediately from a bill like ENDA passing, in any form. Liberty is a tide that raises all boats. We all should want to see it flourish any time we can.
So what's really going on here? What nobody seems willing to come out and state is the underlying presumption that "the gays" will dump "the trannies" and go their separate way as soon as they get their version of ENDA passed. This is the real reason for the objection to Barney Frank's maneuver.
Why are the Ts so insecure about this? Surely it's not a rational concern — if the history of civil rights has taught us anything, it's that a world in which ENDA is part of the cultural landscape is one which will be much easier for the trans community to find acceptance.
It really doesn't seem like it's about legislative priorities at all. It's about T-versus-non-T queer politics, and ENDA is being used as a hostage. John Aravosis is right on the money, though he may not realize it, in revealing the issue to be a dispute over identity group membership.
-
The easy way or the hard way
[Read the article: How global warming will save us from peak oil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems to me that there's an easy way to engineer the post-petrochemical revolution, and a hard way.
If we wait until oil is already peaking, we'll be desperate and out of options, and desperate people with no options pay through the nose for what they need. Flood reconstruction, to use an analogy, is incomparably more expensive than flood prevention.
The alternative is to anticipate the eventual scarcity now, while we have time and choices in building an energy economy that doesn't depend on oil. Suppose that global warming does make new supplies of oil more accessible — in a sane world we would take advantage of all such opportunities to artificially inflate scarcity and move toward new solutions with a cushion (such that it is).
In the US the strategic petroleum reserve has long been used as a means of creating artificial scarcity for the purpose of price support — it could also serve the purpose of accelerating conversion to the emerging energy paradigm.
So if we're going to have a jack-booted authoritarian government, why not get all "khaki green" (to use Bruce Sterling's phrase) and seize newly-thawed Alaskan oil resources in the name of the common good?