I'm a little confused here. Prof. Levinson of course would not allow the candidates' position on the farm bill to determine his vote in a single election, but he wants to revamp the entire constitution on account of it? Total non sequitur.
 

1) Government is and always has been naturally corrupt. The American insight was to limit government by establishing a Constitution with a myriad of checks and balances.

That Constitution worked as intended for the first century or so. One would never have seen a monstrosity like this year's farm bill under our 18th or 19th Century Constitutions, even with our non-proportional Senate.

Rather, I would suggest that big government monstrosities like the farm bill are decidedly the product of our 20th Century Constitution as modified by the 16th Amendment allowing an enormous inflow of tax revenues to finance such bills and the New Deal court eviscerations of constitutional limits allowing the bureaucracies to lobby for and administer these bills.

Perhaps, you would support a return to our 18th or 19th Century Constitutions to remedy this situation?

2) I had to chuckle when I read the Zakaria piece. It was a familair echo of the lectures I received in University back in the late 70s and early 80s from my liberal economics and poli sci professors, who direly warned me about the end of the American Century because the Japanese, Euro and/or Soviet governments were so much better at enacting grand strategic plans than our hopelessly decentralized political economy.

Yet, despite all these grand strategic plans, the Japanese went into a decade long recession, the Euros plunged into a stagnation from which they have yet to emerge and the Soviets ended up on the ash heap of history. In contrast, our decentralized political economy ended up as the world "hyper power." How could that possibly have happened?

Now the latest contender is China. The Chinese are a contender, not because of a strategic plan, but because they adopted an American style market economy. Unfortunately, the Chinese market miracle is likely to grind to a halt in about 20 years because of Chinese strategic planning in the form of their one child policy. The Chinese strategic planners ignored simple math - one child cannot do the work of two parents when they retire. Worse yet, that one child will have to support the two parents and perhaps a grand parent or two. Another strategic plan resulting in a train wreck.

Those who worship at the alter of centralized government planning need to heed the warning about the best laid plans of mice and men.
 

McCain now wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent when it suddenly becomes politically useful to do so. His overall fiscal policies are not grand either. He didn't pass much of a test overall. His lobbyist problems underlines it.

The farm bill is most assuredly too small of a step, though honestly there are other compelling national concerns of the day that must be addressed more important that it, but if McCain opposes it for fiscal reasons, sorry, inconsistent maverick, per usual.

It is easy for McCain to use his 'drunken sailor' card and oppose this deal. Fact is, he is the same as the others. He sticks with his party and the system overall. Selective maverickism only helps by letting off some steam.

We protect minorities in this country, including interest groups and states. There is some benefit to this, including protecting what really matters deeply to certain areas. There are burdens too.

Likewise, big change can and has come at certain times. 2008 might have that potential. But, until there is a strong united front, the party will be a coalition, held together by people with certain concerns that they will not give up.

This is how things work. It might be a flaw, but it will be there in other cases too. It is like someone who thinks a certain amendment was a big factor, when it was but a symptom of a broader trend.

This is not a defect of the "C"onstitution. It is of the "c"onstitution -- how we do business. And, 2008 might just change that some. We shall see.
 

I've been telling people for years that while the US had a good recipe for success, somebody was inevitably going to come along who was willing to follow it more closely, and they'd clean the floor with us.

I don't think China is going to be that somebody, though; Their government hasn't given up on central planning by a long shot, and their 'brand' is starting to be hurt badly by a combination of what looks like terrible quality control and outright sabotoge.
 

When you look at political systems and try to decide which ones are better or worse, I'm curious to whom you are referring to who are "running hard and saving fast" with "strategic plans to improve competitiveness." The Chinese? Try being a Chinese professor writing a blog post criticizing the government as a and see how long it is before you are a former professor or more likely a current prisoner. India? Their ethnic strife makes our race relations look like a mild disagreement. Europe? They're in a complete demographic death spital, and when they have 3 retirees for every one worker they're savings rate will be non-existent. So where are these countries with "strategic plans" that are going to leave us in the dust?

Which countries have a better system? Again, I hope your not aping for the Chinese authoritarian free market. Europe? Please they got just as many ridiculous subsidies as we have and bigger long-term budget issues. Look at the German experience, where they can't reform any benefits that desperately need reforming. Russia? While I guess you think Bush is Putin, I think our current system is slightly better.

So whose governmental system would you emulate? I'd argue ours has worked as well or better than anyone else's for the past 100 years or so, despite the occassional ridiculous farm bill.
 

The US system is hardly perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The strategic advantage of the Anglo American model, as described exceedingly well in Walter Mead's "God and Gold," is that we have embraced the decentralized freedom and the flexibility which arises from free market creative destruction. Central government planners simply cannot duplicate the experience and knowledge of millions of individuals in a free market economy.

While it is true that we do not value education and savings nearly to the extent which we should. However, our system attracts the educated and savings because one can get the best return here for those investments.
 

Right, our system has worked best as a way of skimming the cream from other societies that put more emphasis on education, but limit the benefit you can get from it. Which is what makes our current immigration policy, which closes the borders to all but a small fraction of the highly educated who'd like to move here, while throwing the borders open to illiterates willing to break our laws, so insane.
 

while throwing the borders open to illiterates willing to break our laws, so insane.

It appears that we're willing to overlook the law breaking thing if they're willing to mow our lawns and pick our crops for cheap money. Isn't cheap labor good for big business?
 

Nope. Cheap and safely abused labor causes business to refrain from needed investments in increased productivity. It's bad for business in the long run.
 

Nope. Cheap and safely abused labor causes business to refrain from needed investments in increased productivity. It's bad for business in the long run.

Like automated apple pickers? Automated grape pickers? Automated office cleaning people?

Pretty soon we won't have jobs for anyone. That will teach those immigrants a lesson.
 

“That was fine in a world when a lot of other countries were not performing,” argues Zakaria, but now the best of the rest are running fast, working hard, saving well and thinking long term. “They have adopted our lessons and are playing our game,” he said. If we don’t fix our political system and start thinking strategically about how to improve our competitiveness, he added, “the U.S. risks having its unique and advantageous position in the world erode as other countries rise.”

The problem with this is that it's completely nonsensical. It imports the notion of companies in an industry competing to the international realm, which makes no sense. We're not competing with other countries, so talking about our "competitiveness" in that sense is just confused.

Other countries getting richer -- another way of saying, "the U.S. having its unique and advantageous position in the world erode as other countries rise" -- is good for us, not bad.

Bart's exactly right: it's the same sort of late-80s/early-90s Ross Perotian nonsense about Japan and industrial policy and managed trade.
 

brett:

Immigration - the importation of productive human beings and the wealth they create - is one of this nation's strengths and not a drain on the economy. In economic terms, each employed immigrant is added value to the economy.

I posted a series of reports on my blog discussing how the very unusual combination of low unemployment while job and GDP growth slow significantly is very likely being caused by the reverse immigration over the past 16 months or so. in short, reverse immigration is making our country poorer. See here, here and here.
 

the Euros plunged into a stagnation from which they have yet to emerge....

HA-HA-HAA-HHHaaahhh-hahh-haaahhh-heh....

Wow, that was a real thigh-slapper. Got any other ones, "Bart"? I need a chuckle today....

Oh.

The Soviets ended up on the ash heap of history. In contrast, our decentralized political economy ended up as the world "hyper power."

Typo there: I think you misspelled "world's largest debtor nation"

Keep 'em coming. I tell you, Jon Stewart needs to look over his shoulder at you coming up.

Maybe you can write for these guys. Oh. Right. They folded....

Cheers,
 

"Immigration - the importation of productive human beings and the wealth they create - is one of this nation's strengths and not a drain on the economy. In economic terms, each employed immigrant is added value to the economy."

I make two claims, which you're free to disagree with:

1. Some human beings are more productive than others.

2. We're better off as a nation allocating our limited capacity to cope with immigrants to the more productive, rather than the least.

Even if no immigrant was a net loss to the country, a dubious proposition at best, some potential immigrants are greater net gains than others. Like, college educated, law abiding, English literate immigrants might just be a greater boon than illiterate, law breaking, non English speaking illegal immigrants.
 

some potential immigrants are greater net gains than others. Like, college educated, law abiding, English literate immigrants might just be a greater boon than illiterate, law breaking, non English speaking illegal immigrants.

Unless you like to work in a clean office and eat relatively cheap food. Then the illiterate, spanish speaking, law breaking, crop picking, toilet cleaner suddenly starts looking like a net gain.
 

brett:

In general, I do not disagree that our immigration policy should favor immigrants who can add the most value to our economy. However, we also need blue collar and agricultural workers as well. There are crops rotting in the field here in CO as food prices spike because there is no one to harvest them.

So long as they are gainfully employed, all immigrants add value to our economy.
 

We are a nation of immigrants, including those "illiterates" Brett references. They did and continue to make us who we are. Not just college educated sorts.

Some of us, though darn if Bart is again making some sense, think this is a good thing, even not in a solely economic sense. I need not just reference those who wish to do the crummy jobs.

[Though over time w/o them, our history would be quite different (e.g., the late 19th Century) I doubt for all the better.

And, if there was hope for advancement in the end, including for thier children -- less evident these days -- it would be just too w better safeguards tossed in.]

I also don't need to note that much of the crime in this country, including the "right" sort of crime in some people's minds ("white" collar crime, etc.) is not a result of the "illiterates" at all. But their exploiters.

I remember that old cartoon in our history books. The better sorts look down upon the great unwashed, but we see where they came from. The shadows of their "illiterate" ancestors, some not too old at all, are there for all to see.

Like Andrew Jackson et. al., among the great illiterates, who apparently are a drag on our country. Anyway, the pigs were fed in the 19th Century too BP. Pork and such is not just an invention of post-New Deal.
 

I'd add that the structure of the 19th Century Congress brought other charming things ... like the continuance of slavery.

I'll take farm pork over that.