Letters to the Editor
-
@ reality kid
To Anonymous (or anonymi?) complaining about criticism of Dems
Allegiance to a political party appears to carry much weight in the U.S. two-party system (illusion of choice), but my comments come as a non-American who owes no such allegiance, but who has objective concerns about the cowardice of the U.S. government as a whole. While American politicians play politics, innocent people are dying.
-- The Reality Kid
If by "non-American" you mean you are a citizen of another democracy that could explain the reason why you, and most Americans, don't understand the two-party system we have here. It was not intended. There is no mention of political parties in our Constitution. The idea of them never even entered the Framer's minds. They resulted spontaneously from the system we devised and use. This is why you have to laugh at conspiracists who think it was an ingenious attempt to "rig the system". It is considered a "law" in the socio-political science sense.
Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system naturally leads to a two-party system. The discovery of this principle is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law”. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller, single-issue political parties.
There's more at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
-
One Party State
According to many defenders of Democratic lack of consequential action against the autocratic pretentions of the regime, they are being cautious because they have their eye on 2008 elections and they don't want to do anything that would get the Mighty Wurlitzer cranked up against them and thus destroy their chances for a Veto-Proof-Majority, without the which they can do Nothing.
I can't imagine that anyone who makes this argument has actually thought it through. Or perhaps they have, but they assume that none of us will think it through.
First of all, why do they need a Veto-Proof-Majority in 2009 (or any time, really, but in 2009 specifically?) The current regime will be history, ne? A Democrat will be in the White House (assuming Mitt can't pull out of his current slump). There will be Democratic majorities (but not super-majorities) in the House and Senate if voting trends hold. So what's the point?
Of course, the point is a One Party State, much as the Rs had a One Party State for a while, and the Ds essentially had a One Party State in the New Deal and WWII eras.
The Dems in Congress say they can't function as an institution, because of their "slim" majority. Balderdash. They have a bigger majority in the House than the Rs ever had under the Gingrich Revolt, and their Senate majority would be sufficient if none of the Dems in the Senate voted with the Rs.
Or maybe they believe that Mitt will pull off a surprise victory and there will be a Dem majority in Congress, and in order to enact anything they will have to have a Veto-Proof-Majority, making President Mitt little more than a figurehead. Desirable, hunh?
I saw an AP story today that totally misrepresented the public dismay at Congress, based on results of the AP/Ipsos poll. They claim that Congress is polling poorly because of the "bickering" between them and the White House, and they further claim that the Public wants the White House and the Congress to work together instead of being at one another's throats all the time, and issuing and defying subpoenas about things that don't matter. This is the Narrative that has been pushed since 1995, when Republicans first took over Congress and commenced their "bickering" with the White House over this and that, and all those silly investigations and subpoenas, culminating in Impeachment, which, as we all recall, was devastating to Republicans in the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections, and again in the 2002, and 2004 elections. Rs have not recovered to this day, have they? This is the Narrative. None of it is true, but repeated often enough, we Believe, right?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070713/D8QBUES80.html
"Bickering" is not the problem with this Congress. The problem is that they refuse to use the powers they have to compel the regime to come to heel. Very simple, very straightforward, and you won't read it on the wires.
Not having a Veto-Proof-Majority is not the problem with this Congress. The problem is that they refuse to use the powers they have to compel the regime to come to heel.
Sure they have their eye on '08; all pols do. But the Dems don't need a Veto-Proof-Majority if there's a Dem in the White House. Or... do they know something we don't? The Rs never had a veto-proof-majority while they held Congress, but oddly, even with a Dem President, they managed to bull through most of their agenda, and Bill Clinton signed happily.
This is why, even with a diminishing minority, the Rs are as cocky as ever. Dems -- they are certain -- will capitulate rather than fight. So far, they've been right.
-
@ reality kid
I should add I'm not saying that awareness of this "law" has not led to attempts to exploit it and use it to the benefit of our two parties. And in fact they have. Then there is gerrymandering. I'd like to see some efforts to minimize the negative effects of some of these idiosyncracies in our political system, but there is a downside to some attempts to tinker too much. I do think it's high time we did away with the electoral college.
-
Believe me...
According to many defenders of Democratic lack of consequential action against the autocratic pretentions of the regime, they are being cautious because they have their eye on 2008 elections and they don't want to do anything that would get the Mighty Wurlitzer cranked up against them and thus destroy their chances for a Veto-Proof-Majority, without the which they can do Nothing.
I can't imagine that anyone who makes this argument has actually thought it through. Or perhaps they have, but they assume that none of us will think it through.>/i>
I think it's much more complicated than this. Let me say this as clearly as I can: I'm not defending Democrats so much as refusing to do the GOP's dirty work of bashing them for the GOP. I also am as frustrated and angry as any of you. More so. If you think weakening the Democrats is a path to your ultimate goals, that's between you and your conscience.