This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I thought this might be of interest to the Dems who post here.

After maneuvering the Obama campaign to agree to convention rules allowing a full vote at the Denver convention, Hillary is now orchestrating a full blown campaign to convince Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable and to vote Hillary as the nominee.

Given that Obama's poll support has collapsed, partially due to superior commercials like the one Sandy is criticizing, the Dem Super Delegates may be willing to listen to this appeal and you Dems may end up with a full blown convention battle.

I think I may enjoy a cool one and actually watch the fun in Denver in a few days.
 

Doesn't McCain restrict his notion of the "broken" government to the influence of lobbyists and pork-barrel politics? Does a constitutional fix of the sort you normally propose make sense in the context of lobby reform?

I know that this is, in Sandy's view, another example of the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution obstructing true reform. However, can't the rearrangement of the deck chairs facilitate easier movement, even if that movement is to the lifeboats? Is reform an all-or-nothing game where only a constitutional convention will suffice?
 

Yeah... that's kind of beyond every politician's ken but Ron Paul's, and Paul is a nut. You could adduce all sorts of reasons that McCain isn't really a maverick, but his failure to admit that our Constitution is broken (stipulating that it actually is), isn't one of them.
 

Actually Bart, the scenario that makes the most sense given the decision to give Hillary a vote at the convention is that Hillary is the VP choice.

I don't think Obama is dumb enough to let her name be put in nomination if he did not know the outcome in advance. But it is smart to do it if he knows the results in advance because it attracts people looking for drama, who otherwise would not dream of watching anything as scripted as a political convention circa 2008. You are falling right into their trap. I guess Barnum was right . . .

As for Sandy's post, I wonder if there is any set of facts that could reasonably happen in our universe that would not be a catalyst for him again insisting that the constitution is broken. Apart from, of course, all of his policy preferences being enacted into law, all of his preferred judges being confirmed, etc.

The fact that this document was instrumental in allowing us to move from being 13 fledgling colonies to the world's only cultural, military and economic superpower in only 219 years, while other superpowers have languished under other systems of democratic government proves absolutely nothing, of course.

Nothing must get in the way of Sandy's hypothesis. Particularly with the beginning of the school year, a presidential election and the Christmas book-buying season right around the corner!
 

And actually, Paul's claim isn't that the Constitution's broken; it's the very opposite - that our system is broken because we don't adhere to the Constitution. So I guess by Levinson's lights there isn't a single maverick in Congress.
 

Will Zach be kind enough to admit that the Constitution was also "instrumental" in generating a brutal war that killed 2% of the entire American population between 1861-1865, not to mention "instrumental" in protecting the enslavement of human beings between 1788-1865? And will Zach treat the possibility that the Constitution was "instrumental" in adding to the ravages of the Great Depression by helping to create a situation where the Democrats in Congress had no incentive to cooperate with the Republican Herbert Hoover because of their desire to replace him after the 1932 election.

It's also unclear, incidentally, how the Constitution particularly contributed to America's rise. One might think that the decision of Europeans to slaughter each other throughout the first half of the 20th century had far more to do with it than, say, our having a fixed-term presidency or giving Wyoming equal representation in the Senate with California.

Also, I'd be interested in his response to Steve Griffin's fine book on American constitutionalism arguing that America prospered only because of decidedly non-Article V de-facto amendments that allowed us collectively to work around an 18th century Constitution at least in some important (though, from my perspective, no enough) respects.
 

These sort of posts are SL's right an all, especially if the venting helps, but lots of talking past each other. I like to vent and repeat myself too, so I will say a bit (again) on this issue.

First, if SL wants structural change, having a national in place more trustworthy and competent than the current one is probably necessary. This is more a matter of re-arranging deck chairs. Inour imperfect existence a better flawed candidate means a lot.

Unless one is of the variety who wants bad things to happen since it will force change. Nader voters (not all of them, but some of them) who took that stance in 2000 ... how did that go?

SL reminds that our Constitution was an important factor in various bad things over our history. As compared to what though? Slavery was furthered because a significant chunk of the country had it.

Blaming the Constitution for the Civil War is rather unfair. SL raises the point of 'de facto' amendments. I reject the term. The same C. he begrudges to offer much credit for at all (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) is in part so useful in that it has so much play in its joints.

The opening for development of let's say equality is part of its charm. Any Constitution is going to be flawed, so citing the fact Wyoming has a lot of weight really only takes you so far. SL's ideal Constitution won't happen, it will at best be imperfect.

It will have its own Wyomings and potential dangers. This is how things work outside of Utopia. So, SL can vent all he likes, but honestly should tone it down a tad.
 

I agree with Prof. Levinson on the need to make certain basic changes. I don't see how the country will cope with the challenges of this coming century unless it establishes a mechanism for translating the wishes of actual majorities into policy. Maybe we could afford to give WY equal representation in the Senate when the ration was 25-1 and times were simpler. Continuing to do so today when it's over 70-1 and times are not simple at all is a prescription for disaster. Let's hope it's not the crisis which triggers the change instead.
 

Will Zach be kind enough to admit that the Constitution was also "instrumental" in generating a brutal war that killed 2% of the entire American population between 1861-1865, not to mention "instrumental" in protecting the enslavement of human beings between 1788-1865?

Well, not really, no. The design of the Constitution isn't what protected slavery -- that's a symptom, not a cause -- nor is it what caused the Civil War. Nothing -- that is, nothing in the realm of Constitutional design -- could have ended slavery in 1789.

Nor is there any reason to think that redesigning the constitution could have avoided war in 1861. The constitution made Southern secession unnecessary, and yet they seceded anyway.

And will Zach treat the possibility that the Constitution was "instrumental" in adding to the ravages of the Great Depression by helping to create a situation where the Democrats in Congress had no incentive to cooperate with the Republican Herbert Hoover because of their desire to replace him after the 1932 election.

Since the cause of the Great Depression was too much government intervention in the economy rather than too little, that seems pretty dubious.
 

David:

Since the cause of the Great Depression was too much government intervention in the economy rather than too little, that seems pretty dubious.

How so? This claim is news to me....

Cheers,
 

The Maverick branding may be permanent for media darlings although the Maverick may herd (and politically mate) with lobbyists. No, McCain is more like Jim Garner's Maverick with a string tie and his (McCain's) short arms holding his cards close to the vest, except that McCain lacks Jim's charm and is quick on the trigger (and I don't mean Roy Rogers' horse).
 

Will Zach be kind enough to admit that the Constitution was also "instrumental" in generating a brutal war that killed 2% of the entire American population between 1861-1865, not to mention "instrumental" in protecting the enslavement of human beings between 1788-1865?

How do you figure that the Constitution started the Civil War?

In any case, the states were free to outlaw slavery and did so. Your argument is with the results of democracy in the slave holding states.

And will Zach treat the possibility that the Constitution was "instrumental" in adding to the ravages of the Great Depression by helping to create a situation where the Democrats in Congress had no incentive to cooperate with the Republican Herbert Hoover because of their desire to replace him after the 1932 election.

Assuming your preferred alternative was a unitary parliamentary system, I would observe Britain was no more successful avoiding the Depression than the United States.

Unitary government was hardly the answer for the United States during that period. The Depression was triggered by a GOP controlled government through the enactment of the Smoot Hawley trade barriers and deepened by a Dem controlled government by the New Deal in 1937. There was no concept at that time of removing government barriers to economic growth and keeping the money supply balanced.

Our government has performed rather well over the years with divided government checking the worst impulses of the two parties.

It's also unclear, incidentally, how the Constitution particularly contributed to America's rise.

The checks and balances in the Constitution checked the power of government and allowed rapid economic growth and social freedom.

Also, I'd be interested in his response to Steve Griffin's fine book on American constitutionalism arguing that America prospered only because of decidedly non-Article V de-facto amendments that allowed us collectively to work around an 18th century Constitution at least in some important (though, from my perspective, no enough) respects.

To which of Griffin's books on the subject and to which de fact amendments are you referring?

If your are referring to the extra constitutional revisions which permitted the largely unconstitutional New Deal and the modern bureaucratic state, then this development slowed rather than accelerated economic growth.

The New Deal deepened the Depression in the mid to latter 30s.

WWII artificially increased economic growth by placing the economy on a total war footing. However, this growth was not enjoyed by the population placed on rations of nearly every good.

The 50s were a slow recovery from the prior two decades of upheaval punctuated by recessions.

Briefly in the 60s, the economy responded to the first revision of the punitive New Deal tax code by the Kennedy/Johnson tax rate reductions.

However, the 70s were a step backward as government regulation of the economy exploded and government induced inflation drove more and more of the country into high marginal tax rates, creating the income destroying stagflation.

The reversal of the New Deal model of government regulation of the economy and progressively more punitive tax rates on income in favor of a freer market with substantially lower tax rates started in earnest in the 1980s and continued through the present under both parties. As a result, the economy has boomed for nearly a quarter century with two minor and short lived slowdowns - one an official recession in the early 90s and the most recent one in the 2001 has been removed from the recession category because it could not manage two quarters of negative growth. Indeed, the population has become so used to a high level of economic growth under this free market model that the current slow growth is considered to be a "recession."

Thus, one can argue that the revisions of the constitution permitting the growth of government almost certainly slowed rather than enhanced prosperity.
 

"Thus, one can argue that the revisions of the constitution permitting the growth of government almost certainly slowed rather than enhanced prosperity.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:49 AM"

And these " ... revisions of the constitution permitting the growth of government ... " are where in the Constitution? And what about the "growth of government" under Reagan and Bush 43? How would prosperity have been enhanced without growth of government? What would prosperity have been without the GI Bill?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

shag:

The point is that the judicial revisions of the commerce and takings clauses, among others, are nowhere to be found in the Constitution and are unlawful.

The major hindrances to economic growth are primarily government regulation of the economy and tax policy which punishes the creation of wealth. The size of government has an indirect effect on growth in that government is far less efficient in delivering services than the private sector for nearly everything that this not a commonly shared service like roads and infrastructure.

Reagan actually reduced the percentage of GDP taken by the federal government. The absolute increase in government revenues and spending was a product of a booming economy.

As I noted a few threads down on another political thread, George II's oxymornonic "big government conservatism" did increase the percentage of GDP taken by the government for the first time since the 70s and is hardly conservative. This is one of the reason's why I always found it amusing to hear Dems call Bush some sort of a hard right conservative when he spent like a drunken Dem.

It is useful to note that all that new government spending did not increase economic growth during this first term. The economy only took off when he cut marginal income tax rates in the Summer of 2003.
 

The design of the Constitution isn't what protected slavery -- that's a symptom, not a cause -- nor is it what caused the Civil War. Nothing -- that is, nothing in the realm of Constitutional design -- could have ended slavery in 1789.

I don't think anyone suggests that the Constitution could have "ended" slavery in 1789. It could, however, easily have ended the slave trade. Instead that got extended for 20 years, apparently as part of the same sordid deal which gave us the malapportioned Senate.

Of course the Constitution was a symptom of Southern pro-slavery policies, but it's foolish to deny that the document itself buttressed slavery. The 3/5 clause alone assured that the majority would not rule, that the slaveholding minority could preserve its power against the interests of the whole. The whole doctrine of states rights then left control over slavery in the states to the mercies of the slaveholding class. Again, this supported the "peculiar institution". Though unanticipated at the time, the equal representation in the Senate gave the South additional leverage it didn't deserve.

It didn't have to be this way, of course. Note, though, that all these features had something in common -- they were anti-majoritarian. That flaw remains today in the Senate and also in the abuses of the right to vote seen in Southern states and wherever Republicans can pretend to "protect us" against "voter fraud". Apparently the costs of the Civil War weren't lesson enough.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

There is an internal contradiction in the Dem position on economics that denies them sucess.

The Dems are the party of government and exist to provide more and better government services. However, they also retain the socialist class warfare view that it is necessary to punish those that create wealth. Unfortunately, the result of punishing the creation of wealth is lower tax revenues with which to provide government services.

Allow me to suggest a different model which would allow the Dems to offer prosperity and government services. Treat the creators of wealth as prize milk cows rather than steers to be slaughtered. Keep tax rates low and the government from interfering with the work of creating wealth and then spend the windfall of tax revenues on government programs.

The Dems would dominate politics with this model. Although this libertarian does not like many government programs, the American citizenry does so long as they do not cost them too much.
 

Rethuglican Myth #1:

The size of government has an indirect effect on growth in that government is far less efficient in delivering services than the private sector for nearly everything that this not a commonly shared service like roads and infrastructure.

Not true.

Cheers,
 

However, they also retain the socialist class warfare view that it is necessary to punish those that create wealth.\

At this point, I'd settle for just punishing those that break the law. But we have the Libby commutation, and Mukasey [her and internal links] refusing to even investigate the crimes of the maladministration.

FWIW, speaking of "class warfare", McSame doesn't know how many houses he has (he says to ask his servants, and even they don't know), and thinks that some billionaires are "poor".... That's your Rethuglican candidate for preznit.

Cheers,
 

SOS [which means "same ol' song; shame on you for suggesting otherwise]:

Unfortunately, the result of punishing the creation of wealth is lower tax revenues with which to provide government services.

The "Laffer Curve". Which garnered Arthur Laffer the much coveted Nobel Prize in Economics after it was proven to be true ... oh, waiddaminnit....

Allow me to suggest a different model which would allow the Dems to offer prosperity and government services. Treat the creators of wealth as prize milk cows rather than steers to be slaughtered. Keep tax rates low and the government from interfering with the work of creating wealth and then spend the windfall of tax revenues on government programs.

The "Trickle-Down Theory" [a/k/a the "let them eat cake" theory of another era]. Another fine piece of RW 'economic' pseudo-science, which now manifests itself in the largest disparity ever between the rich and poor. But not to worry, some of those billionaires are "poor" in having existential angst (see link in my post just above).

Cheers,
 

Thinking a little about the issue of whether your Constitution is "broken", one might say that every constitutional settlement is imperfect but that no constitutional settlement is 'broken' unless and until it is overturned (by revolution or some other cataclysmic event) and discarded.

The Founding Fathers well knew that the product of the Convention was imperfect and quite often the product of compromise. As Madison said in the Federalist Papers No 37:

"But the truth is, that these papers are not addressed to persons falling under either of these characters. They solicit the attention of those only, who add to a sincere zeal for the happiness of their country, a temper favorable to a just estimate of the means of promoting it.

Persons of this character will proceed to an examination of the plan submitted by the convention, not only without a disposition to find or to magnify faults; but will see the propriety of reflecting, that a faultless plan was not to be expected. Nor will they barely make allowances for the errors which may be chargeable on the fallibility to which the convention, as a body of men, were liable; but will keep in mind, that they themselves also are but men, and ought not to assume an infallibility in rejudging the fallible opinions of others.

Later in the same paper Madison observed:

"Experience has instructed us that no skill in the science of government has yet been able to discriminate and define, with sufficient certainty, its three great provinces the legislative, executive, and judiciary; or even the privileges and powers of the different legislative branches. Questions daily occur in the course of practice, which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle the greatest adepts in political science.

The experience of ages, with the continued and combined labors of the most enlightened legislatures and jurists, has been equally unsuccessful in delineating the several objects and limits of different codes of laws and different tribunals of justice. The precise extent of the common law, and the statute law, the maritime law, the ecclesiastical law, the law of corporations, and other local laws and customs, remains still to be clearly and finally established in Great Britain, where accuracy in such subjects has been more industriously pursued than in any other part of the world. The jurisdiction of her several courts, general and local, of law, of equity, of admiralty, etc., is not less a source of frequent and intricate discussions, sufficiently denoting the indeterminate limits by which they are respectively circumscribed. All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.

An expert in constitutional affairs suddenly transposed from 1788 to 2008, would, I think, find that the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom has changed much more radically in that time than has that of the United States of America. We have opted for evolution rather than revolution.

Sometimes, our inspiration for change has come from the United States. Shortly before the 13 British colonies seceded in 1776 to form the United States of America, the philosopher statesman, Thomas Jefferson, wrote anonymously a pamphlet entitled: A Summary View of the Rights of British America which was sent over to England, re-printed and widely circulated. As Jefferson later explained, see: Jefferson's Account of the Declaration -

"I took the ground which, from the beginning I had thought the only one orthodox or tenable, which was that the relation between Great Britain and these colonies was exactly the same as that of England & Scotland after the accession of James and until the Union, and the same as her present relations with Hanover, having the same Executive chief but no other necessary political connection; and that our emigration from England to this country gave her no more rights over us, than the emigrations of the Danes and Saxons gave to the present authorities of the mother country over England."

This is, of course, the modern constitutional view of the role of the British Crown in the several countries of the Commonwealth where the Queen remains Head of State. Her Majesty is quite separately Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada. In each realm she acts only on the advice of Her elected Prime Minister. The Crown as "the Government" has separate legal personalities: both for states and political sub-divisions - eg: The Queen in right of Canada, The Queen in right of the United Kingdom, The Queen in right of Nova Scotia, the Queen in right of Gibraltar. Jefferson anticipated by 160 years the British Constitutional Settlement embodied in the Statute of Westminster 1936 - it just took us a little time to get there.

Likewise, we are just getting round to ending the system where our ultimate Court of Appeal will no longer technically be the House of Lords, but a separate Supreme Court, although here the impetus has primarily been the requirement for separation of powers required by the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, decisions of the US Supreme Court, are frequently cited as persuasive authority in our Courts.

Perhaps there are today difficulties in how both our constitutions work - one of which difficulties we share with you - and that is the breakdown of the unwritten convention which we both shared in or around 1760 (and certainly for quite a while later) that both legislators and ministers in the executive would be "gentlemen" and therefore "honourable".

This unwritten convention is still reflected today in the fact that members of the House of Commons are referred to as "honourable gentlemen [ladies]" and the expressions "honourable" and "gentlemen" are still used in the USA. In the Senate you still speak of "the gentleman [lady] from [state]. Secretaries of Departments are also officially "honourable".

The UK convention that parliamentarians were gentlemen led to the convention that Ministers who deceived or misled the House should resign their office. Deception was considered far worse than incompetence because deception was dishonourable while mere incompetence was not.

Today, certainly since the advent of "New Labour", that is a convention which has been more marked by its breach than its observance. No more so than over the Iraq War.

How one can return our politics to observance of the concepts of honour and truthfulness in public life is an issue for both our societies.

One difference between our two nations is that the expression "liberal" has of late become a term of abuse in the USA, principally from those who would wish to see perpetuated for ever the inequalities manifest in both British and American society in 1766.

Until recently, there was a great tradition of liberalism in both the Republican and Democratic parties of the USA. They were both "one nation" parties. They may have differed on the best means of achieving the common objective, but they agreed on the objective, well encapsulated in the 1892 recitation for schoolchildren which later became the Pledge of Allegiance:-

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: One Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

"Liberty and Justice for All" - not, it will be noted, liberty and justice only for the few, not only for the corporate elite, not only for the wealthy residents of exclusive homes in gated and security-guarded suburbia.

In July 1997, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy published a Report which showed that some 12 conservative foundations were targeting their giving towards organisations aiming to move public policy to the right - an agenda including the privatisation of government services, deep reductions in federal anti-poverty spending, industrial deregulation, and the transfer of responsibility for social welfare to state and local government and the charitable sector [Moving A Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations].

The Neoconservatives very effectively hijacked the Republican Party to promote their legislative agenda and have now just about succeeded in also obtaining a Neoconservative Supreme Court so as to enable a more permanent rolling back of progress.

The judiciary is now infected by that nasty virus called "originalism" which, like a death watch beetle, is ticking away and destroying much of the splendour that once was the American legal system. That has already had terrible consequences when it comes to human rights and civil liberties.

This crackpot judicial theory seeks to interpret the US Constitution and the rights it gives to the American people according to what "originalists" claim to have been the understanding of society at the time of the Founding Fathers. But what the "originalists" in the USA are reluctant to state openly is that they view this theory of the Constitution as a means of "rolling back" legislation on matters of social concern by having the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional.

That is why the huge business fortunes of the far right are expended on promoting Neoconservatism and the Federalist Society. They would like to invalidate much of the inheritance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society - not primarily because they are all white racist thugs (although many doubtless are), but because they do not want equality and regulation getting in the way of their personal and corporate greed.

The watchwords of the Reagan and Bush Administrations were "Greed is Good" and it is now certain that McSame is promoting the same agenda.

Neoconservatives have pushed their agenda in many ways: not least by manipulating the education system, particularly in universities and law schools, by creating bogus "non partisan" foundations to sell their political ideas to the public like washing powder, and by financing politicians prepared to sign up to their policies.

Those who use the designation "liberal" as a term of abuse have as much in common with historical and genuine "one nation" conservatism as did Mussolini.

In my view it is high time that Neoconservatives were aggressively exposed as nothing more or less than fascists - prepared to subordinate the rights and interests of the many to their corporate state which favours the interests of the few.

This philosophy is profoundly Un-American. It is the absolute antithesis of why America, generous and unselfish, was the hope of the free world (and, indeed, with a generosity unique in history the economic saviour of Western Europe after World War II).

If I am right, the time is overdue for the American people to reclaim their rights to see progress towards liberty and justice for all, just as their Founding Fathers intended.

While the Constitution might in an ideal world might need some amendment, I believe (as an outside observer) that it is still fundamentally sound.

However, just as an absolute majority of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence - 29 in number - were lawyers steeped in the best traditions of the common law and chancery, (the remaining delegates being from Commerce and Industry (11), Farmers (6), Physicians (4) and 6 others including 1 genius (Benjamin Franklin) and 1 clergyman - Dr Witherspoon, the President of the College of New Jersey, now Princeton), I think lawyers may now need to play a greater role in reclaiming both the tradition of honour in public life and in defeating Neconservatism.

If it was legitimate for a few right wing billionaires to use big money to deliberately shift the political agenda to the right, it is equally legitimate for others to mobilise to shift matters back towards the centre.

Obviously that will not happen if the lawyers just sit around (academics in their "ivory towers" and others in their "palatial partnerships").

I would also argue that those in academic life who allowed the shift right to happen within their own institutions by accepting the 30 (million or more) pieces of silver of the Neocon foundations now have a great deal to answer for.

Those who care about honour, truthfulness, and "one Nation" need in this election to be "out on the streets" engaging as activists.

In our politics we have a rule of thumb which is that it is very dangerous to allow the same party (of whichever kind) to have more than two consecutive terms: the executive gets "too purple" - begins to think it rules "by divine right" rather than by the will of the electorate. The same conventional wisdom might also be true of your body politic.

Senator Obama may well not be a "liberal" in the accepted English sense of that word but he does come across as someone who cares deeply about the Constitution and its true values. He should be given a chance to at least attempt to remedy that which is malfunctioning.
 

arne:

You are Exhibit 1 of my point concerning a near pathological need to punish the wealthy among Dems.

"Trickle down" is a political rather than economic pejorative term which denigrates the jobs and income created through economic growth as a mere trickle.

The term has nothing to do with my suggestion that the Dems can milk the creators of wealth to finance government programs.

Given that this libertarian views most government programs as ranging from wastes of money to counterproductive, I am glad that the Dems are too foolish to see the contradiction in their position, the elimination of which would allow them to create more government programs.

Keep up the faith, bro!
 

The Constitution's 3/5 compromise, reflected in the allocation of votes for the electoral college, was directly responsible for Jeffeerson's beating Adams in 1800 and certainly contributed to the fact that most of our pre-War presidents were slave-owners. And, as Mark Graber points out in his brilliant book, the fact that every member of Congress is elected locally means that any issue that divides the polity along regional lines will tend to be exacerbated in Congress, as happened in the 1850s, as against a political system that includes more "national" representatives. (As I have argued elsewhere, because of the electoral college, it is fallacious even to view the president as a truly "nationally"-elected official, even if he is clearly more so than any member of Congress.
 

Bart, "punish the wealthy" is ALSO a "political rather than economic pejorative term."

The policy behind progressive taxation is to distribute the tax burden based on ability to pay.

It is nonsense to claim that liberal support for a progressive tax system is based on a desire to "punish" successful people. It's the same thing as labeling opponents of Bush's foreign policy as "Saddam apologists" or "terrorist sympathizers."
 

"Bart" DeWannabe:

You are Exhibit 1 of my point concerning a near pathological need to punish the wealthy among Dems.

Look, "Bart", you're the lawyer that can't even afford WestLaw; maybe you ought to look at where you fit in the grand scheme of things, huh?

"Trickle down" is a political rather than economic pejorative term which denigrates the jobs and income created through economic growth as a mere trickle.

You misspelled "describes". FWIW, while productivity has gone up consistently, wages in real terms have declined in recent years.

Here's what you said:

Treat the creators of wealth as prize milk cows rather than steers to be slaughtered. Keep tax rates low and the government from interfering with the work of creating wealth and then spend the windfall of tax revenues on government programs.

That's "trickle down" (otherwise known as "piss on me and tell me it's raining"). Let the rich go free and making boodles of money, and enough of it will fall off the apple cart to keep everyone happy....

"Bart" has this crazy idea that money can just be conjured up magically. "Three for me, one for you, ten for me, one for you....." Repeat ad nauseam (or until the treasury's run dry ... oh, waiddaminnit....)

Cheers,
 

don said...

Bart, "punish the wealthy" is ALSO a "political rather than economic pejorative term.

OK, I consider it a punishment when the government essentially levies a fine for creating greater wealth.

However, if you like, we can call it a disincentive to the creation of wealth.
 

However, if you like, we can call it a disincentive to the creation of wealth.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:00 PM

Actually, I think "piss on the poor" summarizes your views quite nicely.
 

Arne:-

Don't be naive - Bart can certainly afford Westlaw. It's just that in his largely DUI practice, he doesn't need Westlaw. The law according to Bart is what he says it ought to be.

The characteristic of Reagan/Thatcher economics is not the reduction of tax rates for the very wealthy.

Firstly, it is the transfer of the burden of taxation wherever possible from direct taxation of income towards indirect taxation of consumption of items of necessity. This ensures that the tax burden falls more heavily on the poor. Two examples are the transfer of the cost of essential municipal services to property taxes and sales taxes rather than income tax.

Then there is the creation of tax loopholes, particularly in relation to unearned income, so that the very wealthy can lawfully avoid taxation on large slices of their income altogether, thereby increasing the burden on those who do pay tax.

The notorious "trickle down" fallacy was the argument that if more people were allowed to become obscenely wealthy, their consumption would "trickle down" to the poor by way of creating more employment for domestic servants, gardeners for the estates, catering staff for the lavish parties, etc. It was, of course, a fallacy. The strategy is best described as "soak the poor to shelter the rich".

On some previous thread on this blog, Bart has justified this on the grounds that he has various investments which achieve a high rate of return and which he does not want to see taxed more proportionately. The "Greed is Good" syndrome. It seems therefore that his DUI clientele are quite willing to pay quite handsomely for the hope of being able to continue to drive rather than having to get on the bus like the poor people.

Likewise with Bart's support of Reagan/Bush/McSame's war policies. Most of the Neocon advocates of the Bush wars were "chickenhawks" who had studiously avoided the draft and, instead of making prudent provision to finance the wars on a "pay as you spend" basis, they borrowed money (mostly from China) and financed the war by running a deficit. Quite a large one. How large we do not yet know. All this was justified, of course, by the expectation and the assertion that the war would be paid for out of the profit of selling off the Iraqi state oil company. Only it was not legally theirs to sell and the policy has had to be abandoned. Result: that is going to be a part of the tax burden of the poor for the next two generations but not for McSame's tax loopohole-enjoying friends.

Their conspicuous consumption in their many mansions will probably provide a little employment for still more domestic servants, gardeners for the estates and catering staff for the lavish parties - and to make sure the "right kind of servants" will be around, McSame has voted against benefits for veterans to allow them to participate in the American dream.

It's all unsurprising when you remember that McSame (who is so obscenely rich that when asked yesterday how many properties he owned he could not even say - actually it appears they are 7 in number worth over US$13 million) also said in answer to a question that he did not disagree that his Administration would have to bring back the draft to be able to fight the wars he has in mind. No doubt the wives of Arizona draftees will be able to apply for posts as domestic servants at one of the McSame mansions and some others engaged to keep the family jet aircraft polished while the couple enjoy official housing and taxpayer provided transportation. "Trickle down" economics.

I wonder if Mrs McCain pays over minimum wage - underneath all that polyfilla by way of make-up I suspect she's as tough as old boots.
 

Mr. Obama is really the true "maverick" of this race.

I doubt this has come to the attention of many of you, but Mr. Obama has a serious problem on his hands concerning his arguments and votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) in Illinois and then lying repeatedly about it during this race.

Prior to the enactment of the Federal BAIPA in 2002, there was a particularly ghastly abortion procedure whereby labor was artificially induced in the second or third trimesters with the intent that the child die during delivery. However, many children were born alive and then thrown away to literally die in the trash.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the pro-life community has just obtained and posted on youtube an audio clip of Obama arguing against providing health care for children born alive during this "procedure" because seeking out medical care would only "burden the original decision" to kill the child through an abortion.

In this position essentially arguing for infanticide, Mr. Obama is truly a maverick because even the most ardent pro-abortion senators in Illinois and the US Senate voted for BAIPA to prohibit this form of infanticide.

This man does not have the moral qualifications to serve as dog catcher, nevertheless President.

I only hope this is not pushed too hard until Obama gets nominated.
 

anre/mourad:

Westlaw is overpriced. You can get the same thing from a variety of free or less expensive sources.

BTW, the 25% of my practice dedicated to DUI requires far more research than most other types of law because it is proven primarily through scientific and pseudo scientific evidence.
 

Bart,

OK, fine, you believe progressive taxation is "punishment." However, that's beside the point.

You complain about the use of the term "trickle down." I agree, "trickle down" is a loaded term..."supply side" would probably be a neutral description for that economic model. But, in the same breath, you use the term "punishment" to describe progressive taxation. So, you are demanding that others use neutral language to describe policies you favor, while continuing to use loaded language to describe policies you disfavor. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
 

Mourad:

Then there is the creation of tax loopholes, particularly in relation to unearned income, so that the very wealthy can lawfully avoid taxation on large slices of their income altogether, thereby increasing the burden on those who do pay tax.

You misspelled "... on those that actually do productive work".

;-)

Why passive income, the nectar and sustenance of the idle rich, should be taxed less than the wages of people directly producing goods and services is beyond me....

Cheers,
 

BTW, Bart,

I also question your contention that higher taxes are necessarily a disincentive to create wealth. I just graduated law school in May. Right now, I'm in one of the lowest tax brackets. I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, the fact of higher taxes in no way discourages me from pursuing the path to higher income.

Is that really how you think? I mean, if progressive taxes are a disincentive to "create wealth," maybe progressive taxes are also an incentive to NOT create wealth.

Do you feel any desire to REDUCE your income so you can take advantage of lower tax rates? I seriously doubt it...
 

"Bart" DeIgnerrent:

Westlaw is overpriced. You can get the same thing from a variety of free or less expensive sources.

... like Freeperville, LittleFreepGoofballs, ClownHall, and WhirledNutzDaily (which is the crapola you cite here).

Nonetheless, Westlaw would help you avoid your constant misstatements of the law (provided you knew how to use it), and keep you from embarrassing yourself by claiming "holdings" that simply don't exist and citing cases for propositions that they simply don't support.

Of course, this deficit is of no matter to a person that can simply declare any Supreme Court decision they don't agree with "wrong", and such decisions "unconstitutional" and of no legal import.

BTW, the 25% of my practice dedicated to DUI requires far more research than most other types of law because it is proven primarily through scientific and pseudo scientific evidence.

Far be it from me to keep you from your pseudo-scientific pursuits, but may I suggest that if you're having this much difficulty in handling DUI plea-bargains and motions for leniency, that you spend the other 75% of your time that you waste here instead boning up on simple matters of law and court procedure. Both your clients and the denizens here would appreciate it.

And one final jape: "[r]eseach"? You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the a$$. I've actually done more research than you will ever do in your life, and I should explain that it actually involves more that your pathetic Googling for favourite keywords, followed by mechanical cutting'n'pasting....

Cheers,
 

And post-Wilson to 1929 -

"The major hindrances to economic growth are primarily government regulation of the economy and tax policy which punishes the creation of wealth." -

please describe the government regulation of the economy and tax policy that punished the creation of wealth during Harding, Coolidge and Hoover terms.
 

Will Zach be kind enough to admit that the Constitution was also "instrumental" in generating a brutal war that killed 2% of the entire American population between 1861-1865, not to mention "instrumental" in protecting the enslavement of human beings between 1788-1865? And will Zach treat the possibility that the Constitution was "instrumental" in adding to the ravages of the Great Depression by helping to create a situation where the Democrats in Congress had no incentive to cooperate with the Republican Herbert Hoover because of their desire to replace him after the 1932 election.

Other commenters have already addressed the first point, but I will reiterate that there probably was not a way out of the compromise on slavery on the constitution. Holding fast to the anti-slavery line would have generated at best two nation states, one pro-slavery and one anti-slavery. Would that have been a better result? Probably not for the slaves, or for the northern states. Obviously allowing slavery to continue indefinitely was out of the question. The compromise was probably the best that could be done.

I'm not sure that I agree with your evaluation of partisan incentives. For example, Democrats have an incentive to cooperate with Bush on easing offshore drilling restrictions currently, despite their historical opposition to this, precisely because they understand that standing in the way of this may induce Americans to vote GOP in the fall. I don't know enough about the Depression incident to understand what may have stood in the way of cooperation, but more generally, especially in an era of TV and blogging and instant media, the public will surely know if a party is being obstructionist.

But more to the point, your thesis is that the current constitution is broken, not the pre-civil war constitution, or the constitution absent decisions by the Supreme Court that allowed for flexibility (e.g., Wickard v. Filburn). So how does it help your case that there were defects in the document that have since ben corrected? All that proves is that it was broken before, but is now fixed. To claim that the current document is broken, you need to show problems with it currently that are material, and for which the solutions you identify would not pose greater risks than the problems you identify.

It's also unclear, incidentally, how the Constitution particularly contributed to America's rise. One might think that the decision of Europeans to slaughter each other throughout the first half of the 20th century had far more to do with it than, say, our having a fixed-term presidency or giving Wyoming equal representation in the Senate with California.

It is beyond argument that we have progressed farther in 219 years than any other nation has under any other governmental arrangement. That is my point. It is difficult, if not downright humorous to describe the arrangements making this possible as "broken." Especially as so "broken" that it is surprising that a presidential candidate would not elevate the fix to a campaign issue. Notably, hardly anyone else in America thinks it is the case that the constitution is broken. Maybe you are ahead of the curve, but it is more likely that you just favor a more powerful and efficient national government than the rest of America does.

Also, I'd be interested in his response to Steve Griffin's fine book on American constitutionalism arguing that America prospered only because of decidedly non-Article V de-facto amendments that allowed us collectively to work around an 18th century Constitution at least in some important (though, from my perspective, no enough) respects.

I have not read this book, but see my note above re Wickard and other similar decisions allowing for the regulatory state and massive delegation of power from Congress to the many organs of this state, or more recent decisions by the Court obstructing federal puppetry of the states (e.g., New York v U.S.).

The very small number of "constitutional crises" that have happened in the last 50 years suggests that the arrangements are doing just fine, and that when we encounter a loophole for which the framers did not provide, we find ways to finesse it without too much of an issue.

As for Wyoming, which you seem to be really bothered by, I suppose I should mention I am from California, so it is in my interests to give California 40 senators to their 2. Nevertheless, there is value in giving representation by area, if not by population, to ensure that value-judgments have some buy-in on a national level and not just in population centers, as well as to provide for future migration patterns. Frankly, Rhode Island bothers me more than Wyoming, but that is the fault of the framers for allowing such a tiny little backlot to be a state by itself.

Anyway, any defects in the constitution are few and of little consequence, and I am far more concerned with the law of unintended consequences than I am with the occasional "crisis" they may cause.
 

The Constitution's 3/5 compromise, reflected in the allocation of votes for the electoral college, was directly responsible for Jeffeerson's beating Adams in 1800

Quibbling a bit, it does so only if you assume no other changes in the system. Once you make one change, it's harder to argue that others shouldn't be made also. For example, if there had been no 3/5 rule, would we have had equal representation in the Senate? What would have happened in NY and PA (the key states) in that election under different electoral rules? Etc.

But the general point remains true -- the 3/5 clause and the unrepublican Senate gave the South much more influence in national affairs than it deserved, and that increased the eventual odds of Civil War.

In any truly republican system, the goal of the government must be the adoption of policies which represent, in Madison's phrase, the "permanent and aggregate interests" of the polity. Government by minority rule might hit upon such interests occasionally, but in the long run only majority rule can establish such policies as a general practice. We continue to allow nonsense such as an unrepublican Senate at the expense of our own national interests.
 

It is beyond argument that we have progressed farther in 219 years than any other nation has under any other governmental arrangement.

Well I'd argue with it. If you take 1789 as the starting point, virtually every government in the world has progressed much MORE than we have. That's in substantial part because the Constitution we adopted was so progressive, and our material conditions so favorable, that we had less ground to cover. Comparing the France of Louis XVI to the France of Sarkozy shows much more change than we've gone through. The same is true for the Prussia of Frederick the Great and the Germany of Merkel, even the Russia of Catherine and Putin, etc.

As for Wyoming, which you seem to be really bothered by, I suppose I should mention I am from California, so it is in my interests to give California 40 senators to their 2.

The actual ratio is more like 73-1.

Nevertheless, there is value in giving representation by area, if not by population, to ensure that value-judgments have some buy-in on a national level and not just in population centers, as well as to provide for future migration patterns.

It's hard for me to see any such value. The whole basis of republican government is sovereignty of the people, not sovereignty of the vacant land. There is indeed importance to a national "buy in", but that importance derives from the approval of people.

The argument for future migration makes no sense to me. If the apportionment of the Senate changed every census like the House, then future migration would be automatically incorporated into the system. Granting each state 2 Senators regardless of population does the exact opposite -- it locks in representation regardless of future population movement.
 

But states are not given representation based on area, but on the fact that they are considered equal quasi-sovereign players in our federal government, be they rhode island, cali or wyoming. ending equal representation in the senate would be, in my opinion, hurtful to our federal system, and would erode the power of states (or begin the creation of superstates, like ala-louie-ippi). unless you want to create a process to continuously redraw state lines to reflect near equal populations in each, you might as well eliminate the state level of government.

the worst thing in our constitutional system is the fact that per capita representation in the house has remained unchanged since 1911, where it was 1 rep to 215,000 people, now it is 1:693000.

that increases the potential for incumbancy and the power of special interests, not to mention those in power are the least likely to want to change it.
 

If you take 1789 as the starting point, virtually every government in the world has progressed much MORE than we have.

I was referring to the progression of America in terms of our cultural, military and economic power.

In 1789, on the world scale, we were nothing; we had little power or influence outside of our borders relative to other world powers (Britain or France, obviously, but also Spain, Italy, Russia, etc.). Today, we are the dominant superpower and other nations who held that designation no longer do, though China is on the rise.

The gap in time between 1789 and 2008 is fairly short by historical standards, and other nations did not stand still in that time. So if our constitution is so defective, how were we able to achieve this success? It is not due to luck or to the world wars. If it was the world wars, other non-European nations (besides Japan) would have surged ahead in that time relative to Europe. If it was luck, it is was an awful lot of luck!

I think it is due in no small part to the governmental arrangements we made, and how well they worked out. This undermines the case that the constitution is broken. (Although ironically, it does support the case that politicians who claim it is are mavericks!)

Why would we attempt to fix something without a consensus that it is broken? Where are the continuing constitutional crises that would indicate that it is broken? (Compare the situation post-Articles of Confederation and pre-constitution with today.)

How do we know that any fix to what Sandy calls a problem won't create more problems than it supposedly solves?
 

Arne:-

Re Neocon Bart's observation:-

"BTW, the 25% of my practice dedicated to DUI requires far more research than most other types of law because it is proven primarily through scientific and pseudo scientific evidence."

The mind boggles a little at the idea of "pseudo-science". Just picture the scene:-

Lawyer: "Well, Mr Ible, I'm sure I can help you avoid the worst consequences of your recent unfortunate encounter with law enforcement. Let's just have a look at the evidence.....

[Refers to statement of cocktail waitress testifying to the consumption of 6 frozen daquiries in the "2 for 1 happy hour" period ended 1 hr and 30 minutes before arrest with a food intake of 1 plate of stuffed olives and 150 grams of dry roast peanuts. Refers to statement of the arresting officers, of the Medical examiner, the printouts of the Intoximeter breath analysis and the lab report on the blood alohol level in the blood sample taken by the medical examiner].

It's not going to be cheap, you know, we are going to need quite a lot of pseudo scientific evidence to open up a reasonable doubt sufficient to avoid your conviction.

Still, don't worry my friend, I know just the pseudo-scientists who can assist. You'd better let my Secretary have some funds on account of attorney fees and pseudo-scientist disbursements and I'll commission the Reports right away"

Lawyer presses intercom switch for Secretary -

"My dear, Mr Ible is coming out now. Would you notarise his signature to the fee agreement and take the usual advance on account of a DUI not guilty plea please. What name ? Oh...Mr Ible. Mr Gul. L. Ible."


Pity the poor Colorado Judge - masses of pseudo-scientific evidence, followed by pseudo-forensic argument from our dear "loathsome spotted reptile"

Judge: "Aaaggghhhh!, Your client is free to go Mr De Palma...I can't take any more...Call the next case!"

De Palma: "I appear for this Defendant also, Your Honour."

Judge: "One moment Counsel"

Judge rises and retires to chambers. The sound of a gunshot is heard....
 

Of course the Constitution was a symptom of Southern pro-slavery policies, but it's foolish to deny that the document itself buttressed slavery. The 3/5 clause alone assured that the majority would not rule, that the slaveholding minority could preserve its power against the interests of the whole. The whole doctrine of states rights then left control over slavery in the states to the mercies of the slaveholding class. Again, this supported the "peculiar institution". Though unanticipated at the time, the equal representation in the Senate gave the South additional leverage it didn't deserve.

All the things you say are true, but (as the Civil War itself demonstrates) they miss the point: the South wasn't giving up slavery. It doesn't matter what the Constitution said or whether it protected slavery or slave interests. Had the Constitution been written differently, to provide for more majoritarian rule, that wouldn't have eliminated slavery; it would have eliminated the country. Southerners ignored the Constitution in 1860 anyway, when necessary to protect the peculiar institution. So, contrary to what you say below, I think it did have to be this way.

(I think we had a related debate over at Volokh, although it was many months ago and I don't remember the _precise_ position you took.)

It didn't have to be this way, of course. Note, though, that all these features had something in common -- they were anti-majoritarian. That flaw remains today in the Senate and also in the abuses of the right to vote seen in Southern states and wherever Republicans can pretend to "protect us" against "voter fraud". Apparently the costs of the Civil War weren't lesson enough.

(1) I don't see what voter fraud laws -- which are popular -- have to do with anti-majoritarianism. It's opponents of voter fraud laws who seek to use antimajoritarian arguments to overturn them.
(2) As I say above, I don't see how the costs of the civil war can be assigned to anti-majoritarianism. As long as outside conditions made slavery profitable on a regional basis, there was going to be a civil war. Hence, whether anti-majoritarian design is a "flaw" -- I don't see how any supporter of the Bill of Rights can make such an argument, btw -- will have to rest on something other than the existence of the Civil War.
 

Zachary wrote a lot of what seems to me like sense above ending with this:-

"How do we know that any fix to what Sandy calls a problem won't create more problems than it supposedly solves?"

The answer has to be that one can't know until it is tried which is why the amendment process is difficult requiring a very large national consensus so as to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

There are, however, arguments for trying to build a consensus incrementally to achieve some changes. The Founding Fathers well knew that the document was an imperfect compromise and the fact that some previous attempts have failed does not mean the amendment process should not be tried.

After all, any nation which could vote for prohibition and then recognise the need for repeal is capable of voting for change.

Other desirable reforms might not need federal constitutional amendments. For example, could not an end to gerrymandering of House districts be achieved at state level ? Can the states not deal with the winner takes all approach to the casting of electoral college votes ?

The Senate Rules of Procedure could be changed by a sufficient vote.
 

Other desirable reforms might not need federal constitutional amendments. For example, could not an end to gerrymandering of House districts be achieved at state level ?

Generally speaking, yes -- although (and I'm not a VRA expect) it seems to me that the Voting Rights Act might pose some challenge for doing so in covered states. At large voting is one of the things that 'civil rights' advocates often go after.

Can the states not deal with the winner takes all approach to the casting of electoral college votes ?

Yes; indeed, ME and NE have done so. But states -- particularly the larger ones where it would make a difference -- have no incentive to do so.
 

But states are not given representation based on area, but on the fact that they are considered equal quasi-sovereign players in our federal government

This is the heresy which won't die. States are not "sovereign". Under republican theory, both state governments and the national governments are agents of the sovereign people. The slaveholder view of the Constitution -- predicated on the "sovereignty" of states -- was always wrong.

I was referring to the progression of America in terms of our cultural, military and economic power.

Oh, well on that score I probably agree with you, at least on an absolute scale (it's possible some other country has come further in percentage terms). But to say that all that progress is due to the Constitution would be overstating it, I think.

All the things you say are true, but (as the Civil War itself demonstrates) they miss the point: the South wasn't giving up slavery.

Agreed. The issue is to what extent a different Constitution might have limited the expansion of slavery from where it was in 1789 to where it was in 1860. That's the great unknown.

Using Zach's argument, after all, we surely could say that the Constitution certainly was no drag on slavery given how far it progressed under that system of government.

Ultimately, though, I'm not trying to re-argue the merits of the original Constitution. I personally take the view that many of the problems of the ante-bellum period stemmed from dubious interpretations of the Constitution (e.g., state sovereignty) rather than the wording itself. My point is that the failure to institute a true republic from the beginning enabled a minority to seize control of the system to the detriment of the nation at large. That's the danger Madison fought vigorously against in the Convention, and it remains today a danger with a Senate as poorly constructed as ours.

I don't see what voter fraud laws -- which are popular -- have to do with anti-majoritarianism. It's opponents of voter fraud laws who seek to use antimajoritarian arguments to overturn them.

So-called voter fraud laws are pretextual. The real goal is not to prevent something which is either non-existent or existent on a trivial scale, it's to discourage participation by selected classes of people.

I don't see how the costs of the civil war can be assigned to anti-majoritarianism.

As I said above, the key contra-factual is whether and to what extent slavery would have flourished in a true majoritarian system. IMHO, it would have been blocked earlier and been less powerful.

That's not altogether the result of majority rule at the national level. It also is true because the Southern states were relatively unrepublican (by the standards of the time), and gave undue power to the slaveholders. They, in turn, perpetuated their rule with such laws as those imposing the death penalty for advocating abolition.

As I said, the Constitution itself isn't necessarily to blame here, just the implementation of it in those days. That's what I meant by my phrase "it didn't have to be that way".

As long as outside conditions made slavery profitable on a regional basis, there was going to be a civil war.

It wasn't just outside conditions (e.g., the market for cotton). It also included internal conditions such as the cost of labor; the ability to import cheap slaves from Africa for 20 years; and the expansion of slaveholding territory due to national efforts in, for example, the Mexican War.

I don't see how any supporter of the Bill of Rights can make such an argument

I agree that it can get tricky to establish the boundaries of majority rule. But the problem with the Senate goes far beyond any such boundaries. The unrepublican nature of the Senate means that the federal government is ALWAYS at risk that policies will be decided by minority rule, on every subject. That's a loophole bigger than the rule.
 

Mourad:

Lawyer presses intercom switch for Secretary - ....

Get real. "Bart" doesn't have a secretary.

Cheers,
 

This is the heresy which won't die. States are not "sovereign". Under republican theory, both state governments and the national governments are agents of the sovereign people. The slaveholder view of the Constitution -- predicated on the "sovereignty" of states -- was always wrong.

whether or not you want to quibble about the nature of the republican form of sovereignty, you ignored the main point: what happens to the states? they are, whether "sovereign" or not, separate polities, and will have no representation as such in the federal level if you get rid of equal representation. is this a problem, or not? is there no concern for domination of small states by the high population areas?
 

Arne,

My entirely imaginary DUI lawyer scenario carefully referred to "Lawyer:..."

Therefore it could not have been referring to our own dear Neocon loathsome spotted reptile and smear merchant.

Bart may be a member of one or two US bars, but he is no lawyer and no gentleman - as far too many of his posts amply demonstrate.
 

Sandy:

While we are discussing your critiques of the Constitution, electionprojection.com has an interesting projection with McCain winning the electoral college by 10 votes, but losing to Obama by 2% of the popular vote.

Of course, I doubt that this projection is at all accurate. The anomaly is probably being caused by McCain puling ahead in battleground states where his commercial buys are apparently hitting home while the national polls of adults and registered voters (many of whom will not show up at the polls) still gives Obama an overall narrow lead. It would be an historical first for a presidential candidate to win by 2% and lose the electoral college.

However, I thought you might be interested in the possibility of a replay of 2000 as an argument for your ongoing quest to change the Constitution.
 

what happens to the states? they are, whether "sovereign" or not, separate polities, and will have no representation as such in the federal level if you get rid of equal representation.

I disagree that states have representation "as such". They did have such representation until the passage of the 17th A. Some people like Brett think that's a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. Either way, representation now is based on people, not entities.

I also deny that states, as states, have interests. The people in a state have interests; the state per se does not. Those people are entitled to representation, but not to a form of gerrymandering which gives them extra clout.
 

Nerpzillcus wrote:-

"...is there no concern for domination of small states by the high population areas ?"

This is for somewhere where I see genuine areas of real concern. The "undue influence" of the small population often rural states is pretty flagrantly anti-democratic and it results in real economic distortion where at present struggling urban areas subsidize uneconomic agri-business.

Yet in a federal/confederal system there is also need to avoid the phenomenon of oppression by the majority.

Neocon Bart will probably have an apoplectic fit about this suggestion, but it might be worth exploring the concept of "qualified majority voting" used in the EU. Some decisions in the Council of Ministers are taken on a unanimity vote - the vote of tiny Luxembourg counts for as much as that of Germany. But for certain specified subjects voting is on a "qualified majority basis" where a state casts votes which are weighted so that for the proposition to pass, at votes representing half the population of Europe and half the number of member states must be in favour.

Some similar formula for the Senate might be a solution - but it would require a complex amendment to Article 3.

Next more general question, could not the power of the house and senate to regulate their own procedures provide a great deal by way of ethical reform which once in place would be difficult to undo and if so is not that an argument for not having more of the McSame party this time round?
 

mourad said...

Neocon Bart will probably have an apoplectic fit about this suggestion, but it might be worth exploring the concept of "qualified majority voting" used in the EU. Some decisions in the Council of Ministers are taken on a unanimity vote - the vote of tiny Luxembourg counts for as much as that of Germany. But for certain specified subjects voting is on a "qualified majority basis" where a state casts votes which are weighted so that for the proposition to pass, at votes representing half the population of Europe and half the number of member states must be in favour.

How does the "qualified majority basis" differ from our requirement that both the House representing a majority of the population and the Senate representing a majority of the states must both vote to pass a bill?
 

Bart:
How does the "qualified majority basis" differ from our requirement that both the House representing a majority of the population and the Senate representing a majority of the states must both vote to pass a bill?

Separating the requirements based on the qualities of the bill. The US is monolithic in this regard.
 

It seems that Bart's grasp of the English language is not comprehensive enough to embrace the means of the words "explore the concept.

As I see it the biggest problem is the the Senate is able to thwart the popular will with a voting system which does not represent the presumed will of the majority of the people.

Constitutional scholars may recall this was a problem with our House of Lords resolved by the Parliament Act of 1911 when the King told the Conservatives he would if need be create enough new Liberal peers to ensure the reform bill passed.

As an example of a possible reform, since the House is the chamber were money bills originate, which is proper because the People's House ought to control the incidence of taxation, then there could be a rule that the Senate could only modify a money bill provision passed in the House with a super majority equivalent to a given weight of popular vote and a given weight by no of states

There could be similar provisions for "advise and consent" matters where only a senate vote is required.
 

Mourad:

I will take that non response as a confirmation that the EU ""qualified majority basis" is substantially the same as the US requirement of a majority of the population (House) and states (Senate).

Why exactly would I be upset about the EU imitating our successful system? After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Perhaps the problem for which you are fumbling around is our Senate's filibuster rule requiring an effective supermajority of states to enact laws. Our Constitution does not impose this rule. It is an internal procedural rule.
 

eRelated to one of Mark Field's points, "state rights" always seemed to me a misnomer, since states have power, only the people of the states have "rights."

More from Sandy ..

The Constitution's 3/5 compromise, reflected in the allocation of votes for the electoral college, was directly responsible for Jeffeerson's beating Adams in 1800

Contra: "AMERICAN HISTORIANS VERSUS AMERICAN FOUNDERS: The Details of Greatness" by Sean Wilentz [New Republic, 03.29.04] which disputes the point.

Anyway, given how the Federalists soon fell apart as a national party, this really only takes you so far even if true.

and certainly contributed to the fact that most of our pre-War presidents were slave-owners.

I assume this includes the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Did Jackson own slaves? The military hero Taylor?

Also, a compromise choice given the importance of slavery to a significant chunk of the party very well would more likely than not include a moderate slaveowner.

So, how much influence really?

And, as Mark Graber points out in his brilliant book

many here respectfully disagree

the fact that every member of Congress is elected locally means that any issue that divides the polity along regional lines will tend to be exacerbated in Congress

let's take this as a given; early on, early development of truly national communications etc. made localism simply a necessity.

Later on, it provided a good in that a local interests are also protected and a true diversity is expressed as compared to some other means of election, even at large voting.

as happened in the 1850s, as against a political system that includes more "national" representatives.

to blame the Constitution (big C) for this state of affairs, which like slavery was likely to exist anyway given railroads and telegraphs were still in their infancy etc. is silly

As I have argued elsewhere, because of the electoral college, it is fallacious even to view the president as a truly "nationally"-elected official, even if he is clearly more so than any member of Congress.

I'm not big fan of the EC, which never really operated as a whole as many thought it would (and to the degree it did, mixed bag at best), but I'm unclear about that.

The "because of" is particularly curious. First, the EC as operated today is in no way compelled by the C. In fact, Madison at one point supported a district by district method.

Second, a popular vote can lead to regional candidates, esp. if it comes out a certain way, and certain procedures are in place.

----

As aside, just read "Finding Jefferson" and its author cited SL's book on the need to change constitutions as time goes on. I'm fine with that, and we did change things in many ways (see 14A and 16A etc.), and reasonable minds can consider other tweaks.

Also, I find Lexis useful too.
 

Will someone please explain to Neocon Bart that the reason I choose not further to address him directly is his quite gratuitous insult to the EU military war dead in Afghanistan on this earlier thread.

I am well able to defend myself, but these young men are no longer in a position to do so.

May Allah Subhana receive them all into His vast paradise.
 

Did Jackson own slaves? The military hero Taylor?

Yes and yes. Other than the two Adams's, the first non-slaveowning President was Fillmore. See here for the complete list.
 

Mourad:

Will someone please explain to Neocon Bart that the reason I choose not further to address him directly is his quite gratuitous insult to the EU military war dead in Afghanistan on this earlier thread.

While sufficient reason to refuse further "discourse" with him, I often take the same approach, simply because it makes no sense to address a comment to someone who simply doesn't listen. That being the case, the more honest approach is to address such comments to the general audience (who are indeed more inclined and more able to appreciate the gist of the comment) while addressing the the 'substance' of whatever latest emanations we have left on the floor from our lizard.

Cheers,
 

Eric - Yes, one of the possibilities is differentiating by subject matter.

Necon Bart BTW has entirely missed the point.

The Council of Ministers is not the EU Parliament. That is unicameral. Members are are elected by proportional representation. Within the Parliament, they sit not by country but by political groups effectively, right, centre and left, plus the lunatic fringes at either end. One person one vote - majority rules.

QMV is used in the Council to prevent legislative and executive paralysis.

On certain important matters the rule is unanimity - one state can effectively impose a veto.

The general rule for bicameral legislatures is that the upper house (often indirectly elected, or part elected and part appointed - there are many permuations) will defer to the house with the popular mandate. The upper house may be able to require the lower to reconsider (delay and require reconsideration - not veto) or to block but only with some kind of enhanced majority.
 

Mourad, a piece of friendly advice: you'd look a lot less foolish if you didn't use the word "neoconservative" without knowing what it meant.
 

David Nierpoint wrote:-

"Mourad, a piece of friendly advice: you'd look a lot less foolish if you didn't use the word neoconservative" without knowing what it meant."

Since I've devoted quite some time to a study of Neoconservatism and its disciples as well their impact on the policies of the Reagan/Bush Jnr administrations, I'm intrigued by the implications of the assertion that I do not know what it means.

Further and Better Particulars please.
 

mourad said...

Will someone please explain to Neocon Bart that the reason I choose not further to address him directly is his quite gratuitous insult to the EU military war dead in Afghanistan on this earlier thread.

You have linked to this thread. However, I presume you are speaking about this post:

The BBC claim that the Taliban control much of the country is baseless nonsense. However, I did find it interesting to learn recently that the Taliban shifted away from the south where the US had been routinely decimating them to move against the EU troops on guard duty in the north thinking that they would not have to fight.

The EU has made it clear that they will not fight. I wonder if the Taliban are now trying to bloody the EU to make them cut and run.

I do believe I was criticizing the spineless cowards in the EU governments who refuse to fight out of fear of taking any casualties and will only use their troops as guard duty window dressing.

However, since you brought up the subject, allow me to add to the criticism.

These irresponsible EU fools have grossly underfunded their militaries after the Cold War was won, denying them necessary training and equipment to fund their damned welfare states.

As a result of this not so benign neglect, apart from the Brits, EU troops are grossly unprepared for a real shooting war. The EU troops are currently about on par with the US "hollow military" of the 1970s - incompetent to fight and win a real shooting war against a determined enemy.

The post 70s success of the US military is not the result of blind luck or a genetic talent for war. We spend a great deal of money equipping our troops and even more importantly training them continuously when they are not on the battlefield practicing their profession. There is a truism which is used in the US Army: Better sweat during training than bleeding on the battlefield.

Let me be even more blunt. These clueless EU politicians sent their unprepared troops into a war zone against a determined enemy and got them killed.

The Canadian troops already went through this grinder. Man for man, the Canadian Army used to be one of the best in the world during WWII and Korea. However, after decades of neglect, the Canadian troops were thrown into the grinder of the very real Afghan War and suffered grossly disproportionate casualties because of their inexperience.

In 2006, the Canadians underwent the same demands to cut and run from Afghanistan that the US was dealing with concerning Iraq. I was afraid the Canadian government was going to cave and leave us and the Brits holding the bag in southern Afghanistan, but to their immense credit the Canadian government hung tough and got their troops squared away.

Although Sarkozy's response to the ambush of his troops is encouraging in this regard, I have no great faith in the politicians of Old Europe to stomach ongoing casualties and actually get into the fight.

Spanish withdrawal from Iraq after being attacked in Madrid is the model for the enemy.

Al Qaeda tried the same thing against the US with a massive Tet style offensive in Iraq in 2006. They did succeed in gaining a change of Congress in the elections that year, but failed to sway Mr. Bush. Instead, the 2006 offensive finally convinced Bush to fire Rumsfeld and change to the offensive counter insurgency strategy with more troops which won the Iraq War in fairly short order.

Now, I suspect the Taliban have given up in trying to intimidate the US and are refocusing their attacks on the EU to gain the result al Qaeda accomplished with the fellow EU government in Spain. Time will tell.
 

Mourad:

You have no idea to what the term "neoconservative" applies. You carelessly use the phrase as a catchall term for American conservatism in general. Indeed, the left has replaced fascist with noecon as their favorite epithet that can be used against all things conservative. Sticks and stones.

In fact, "neoconservative" was a term given to hawkish Dem internationalists of the FDR and JFK stripe who rejected their party's post Vietnam EU style pacifism and joined the Reagan conservative coalition. These folks were not necessarily full converts to conservatism at the outset and often retained some liberal domestic views, thus the term "neoconservatives."

The neocons joined Reagan's bandwagon, not the other way around. The GOP conservative movement of Goldwater and Reagan were already long time anti-communists who believed in a muscular foreign policy starting back in the 50s. The Dem neocons simply shared this philosophy and joined the movement in the late 70s after losing a home in the Dem Party.

What is amusing about your labeling me as a noecon is that neither I nor my family are Dems who changed parties. Rather, we are a long time GOP family which has been part of that Goldwater/Reagan conservative GOP movement from the beginning. We were conservative long before it was cool and the neocons joined.

I suspect that your antipathy towards the neocons is that many are pro Israel jews.
 

I disagree that states have representation "as such". They did have such representation until the passage of the 17th A. Some people like Brett think that's a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. Either way, representation now is based on people, not entities.

I also deny that states, as states, have interests. The people in a state have interests; the state per se does not. Those people are entitled to representation, but not to a form of gerrymandering which gives them extra clout.



prior to the 17th, the people's representatives in the state picked the senators. sure, another layer of representation, buy they still represented the state. now, sure the people elect them directly, but are they any less the "senator from north carolina" etc.?

I like the 17th, but i still like the equal representation in the senate, protecting state interests from the federal government. states are still separate entities, with separate powers, and absolutely have separate interests vis-a-vis the federal government. allowing both state reps and people's reps to vote on legislation (in theory) balances the interests, and should result in legislation that is desired by the majority and protective of the minority. i think you are far off on this - don't states have an interest in protecting their ability to legislate locally on traditional state powers? are you proposing having only national law?

the real evil is party. that's why a republican from texas, florida, and idaho can vote the same, even if it really isn't in their state or district's interest. almost all politicians are beholden to their party first and special interests second, with the constituents far behind. none of these structural complaints will fix the problem party creates.

The FISA vote this year was an egregious violation of each yea member's duty to defend the constitution. if they had not been so united by party (the republicans as the "get away with crime party" and the dems as the "spineless coward party"), and instead acted as independent agents whose loyalty was only to the Constitution, and their districts/states, there's no way it would have passed. I just don't see how eliminating equal representation in the senate helps. i think it'll weaken independence among individual members, increase dependence on the party structure, and further consolidate power in the beltway.

TJ would say we need to diffuse power, and prevent aggregation in the hands of a few. If you and prof Levinson think removing state representation in the senate (without any addressing of party) will advance the goal of more responsive and accountable democracy, please set forth your argument. I honestly don't see it from where I sit.
 

Since I've devoted quite some time to a study of Neoconservatism and its disciples as well their impact on the policies of the Reagan/Bush Jnr administrations, I'm intrigued by the implications of the assertion that I do not know what it means.

Mourad, since you use the term in this thread as just some sort of all-purpose epithet for anybody to the right of, say, Bill Clinton, with no actual relation to any neoconservative ideas at all, I'm intrigued by the notion that you've studied the topic at all. You apply the term randomly to ordinary conservatives, supply siders, hawks, small government conservatives, and of course imaginary "white racist thugs" (who would be on the opposite side of any movement from neoconservatives if they represented any constituency in the U.S. at all). As an example of your utter misuse of the term, the very first time you used it on this discussion thread was

"The Neoconservatives very effectively hijacked the Republican Party to promote their legislative agenda and have now just about succeeded in also obtaining a Neoconservative Supreme Court so as to enable a more permanent rolling back of progress."

We can get to the weird notion of a neoconservative "legislative agenda" in a second, but first, "Neoconservative Supreme Court"? There is not the slightest thing about neoconservativsism that has any connection to any Supreme Court Justices or any Supreme Court decisions. It's not merely that you've mischaracterized a particular decision or a particular justice, but that you've applied the term in an arena that has nothing to do with the topic. It would be like talking about a neoconservative zone defense in basketball.

Then you write, "That is why the huge business fortunes of the far right are expended on promoting Neoconservatism and the Federalist Society. They would like to invalidate much of the inheritance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society - not primarily because they are all white racist thugs (although many doubtless are), but because they do not want equality and regulation getting in the way of their personal and corporate greed."

But neoconservativism and the federalist society are two entirely different concepts, and neoconservatives are pro-New Deal, to the extent that the phrase "pro-New Deal" makes any sense in a 21st century America where only libertarians still oppose FDR's tyrannical agenda. Setting aside whether it's actually true that "The watchwords of the Reagan and Bush Administrations were 'Greed is Good,'" that's not a "neoconservative" position at all.
 

More bollocks from Bart, I see.

Obviously, with the benefit of a single brief active overseas duty tour Bart considers himself qualified to further pontificate on matters military. Since I finished up my service experience as a NCO Instructor training officers of Bart's rank (known in our 'argot' as "chinless wonders") in the realities of urban warfare, peace enforcement and peacekeeping - matters in which HM Forces have rather more relevant experience than the USA had before the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, I think I also have a modicum of relevant knowledge.

Since this thread is largely on another subject, I will content myself with these observations:

Over many posts on the subject of terrorism and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bart has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he knows as little on matters of military doctrine, strategy, or counter-insurgency tactics as he does on international law, the law of treaties, or other legal issues. What little knowledge he has gleaned from elsewhere, he misinterprets.

On the broad issue, the level of military expenditure a country decides is necessary is a matter for the democratic institutions of each country. I have never yet known of service chiefs would would not like more funding than they receive.

I deplore the decisions taken at the political level by the Bush Administration both as regards Afghanistan and Iraq. As in any democracy the US military tried to do what they were asked to do by the civilian leadership with the resources they were allowed to use. As in our country, any disagreements the Joint Chiefs may have had with the civilian leadership have by and large taken place behind closed doors. At best we have the pundrity of some retired generals to give us a steer.

But to any reasonably well-informed observer, there were some pretty gross failures of strategy, doctrine, tactics and training. It would take a book rather than a blog to write about all of them (and, no doubt those books are already being written by others much more qualified by Bart - or me), but I will mention just three: (i) failure to train down to the lowest level in the customs and habits of the target country and how not to alienate the local civil population; (ii) bad doctrine as regards what we call "street fighting" and what I understand the US military (never an organisation to prefer the simple expression where a circumlocution can be devised) refers to as "military operations in urban territory" and (iii) a gross shortage of Arabic (Iraq) or Pushtu (Afghanistan) speaking military personnel.

As a result of combinations of all three coupled with insufficient numbers of combat troops (because Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith were convinced that the troops would be greeted as liberators), many young US lives (and many, many more Iraqi lives) were quite needlessly lost and a local resistance (both active and passive) provoked within the target population.

Because US military commanders tend with some exceptions to have more persicacity than the political staffs of US secretaries of defense, the US Army has made remarkable progress on total immersion language and culture courses and made some considerable adaptions by trial and error to doctrine. There is in general still far too much use of air power as a substitute for manpower. The USA will exit in relative safety after a wholly unneccesary Iraq war.

Afghanistan is a very different matter. I am much less sanguine about the eventual outcome.

Europe might with perfect propriety have applied what Colin Powell refers to as "the pottery barn rule" and have refused any assistance at all to the USA as regards Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, I think it was madness for the NATO countries (not the EU) to agree ISAF in parallel to the separate US Enduring Freedom command in cahoots with the Northern Alliance. NATO should have insisted on a single merged operation under NATO command, but only on terms that any and all (including US) troops be under UN mandate the CinC to be a person other than a US person.

The way things developed under this misbegotten Administration, the USA should be very surprised indeed that there are any European troops involved at all, but old European gratitudes for past American wartime assistance and post war aid still live on.
 

This makes mu blood boil:

["Bart"]: The post 70s success of the US military ....

What "success"?!?!?

["Bart"]: Let me be even more blunt....

Translated from neocon into English: "More of an azo."

... These clueless EU politicians sent their unprepared troops into a war zone against a determined enemy and got them killed.

The Canadian troops already went through this grinder.

A lot of the Canadian troops killed were killed by U.S. fire. "Bart" is such an azo.....

Cheers,
 

David Nieporent:

You apply the term randomly to ordinary conservatives, supply siders, hawks, small government conservatives, and of course imaginary "white racist thugs" (who would be on the opposite side of any movement from neoconservatives if they represented any constituency in the U.S. at all).

How do you explain the sucking up of the conservative Jews (like Lieberman, not to mention half the PNAC) to the RW fundie preachers that have as their wettest fantasy the final conflagration on Har Magiddon that will usher in the second coming of Jaaaayyyyyzzzuuuss (and leave most of not all of the Jews dead)? A "marriage of convenience", I'd call it; they're all of them amoral thugs and more interested in "results" than they are in principle.

BTW, there's nothing "imaginary" about white racist thugs.

Cheers,
 

David Nieporent:

But neoconservativism and the federalist society are two entirely different concepts, and neoconservatives are pro-New Deal, to the extent that the phrase "pro-New Deal" makes any sense in a 21st century America where only libertarians still oppose FDR's tyrannical agenda. Setting aside whether it's actually true that "The watchwords of the Reagan and Bush Administrations were 'Greed is Good,'" that's not a "neoconservative" position at all.

Glenn Greenwald has pointed out (as has John Dean) that there's little consistent philosophy that can be attributed to "conservatives" (much less "neoconservatives"), at least as measured by actions. The best categorisation is an operational one: look at who hangs out with who, and how do they behave. Authoritarianism in its various forms has infested the RW (as was true of previous authoritarian regimes such as the fascists and Nazis), and seems to be the lone functional common thread. "Bart", totally aprincipaled, totally amoral, and totally immune to logic and fact, and solely interested in power, is the prime example here.

I will be glad when this abberation on humanity is tossed on the trash-heap of history (and if the prime culprits suffer a fate similar to Mussolini, I won't shed too many tears).

Cheers,
 

David,

Thank you for reverting. I thought I remembered your name from somewhere. You are the young man from Princeton, who used to blog from time to time on the Volokh Conspiracy or somewhere like that when you were hardly out of legal nappies on the vexed US subject of Tort Reform are you not? It would have been sometime between 1999 and 2005 which, as you probably well know, was the time when when my home jurisdiction was gearing up to drop what we call "the indemnity principle" in favour of a form of contingency litigation now known as "Conditional Fee Agreements". However, I'm sure that's of no present interest to you.

In the interests of a little clarity, let's begin with my understanding of some terms. In my country we have a single properly viable political political party on the right, the Conservative Party. Their progenitors were the tories. In the middle we had the Liberal Pary (once the whigs) and to the left the Labour Party (socialist). By the early 1960's when I started to take an interest in politics, the Liberal Party had been reduced to a tiny rump and the two viable parties were the Conservatives and Labour. Like most in my country, I considered the Conservatives as broadly equivalent to US Republicans and the US Democrats as broadly somewhere between Liberals and Labour.

Thus for me, the US the equivalent of an English Conservative was a Republican. Up to and including Eisenhower, the analogy seemed to work very well. I first became interested in Neoconservatism when the UK Conservative party split into two broad factions, the "one nation tories" of Edward Heath and the Thatcherite faction which eventually routed the "one nation" faction - although at the present time the pendulum is swinging the other way.

I am aware that the broad conservative church in the USA is a bit like the Anglican Communion, with multiple belief strands often bitterly opposed to one another on particular issues. Bart claims to have originally been from a Goldwater/Reagan GOP family. So be it. I know not yet know how you identify youself and for present purposes it is irrelevant.

If asked I would today begin a very potted essay on "Neoconservatism for Foreign Students" along these lines:

The Great Depression marked a step change in the fortunes of the right in both the UK and the USA. Politicians of the old right were identified as failures. Massive Keynesian economic intervention become the order of the day and World War II identified fascism as an evil which it was necessary to defeat by all means - including an alliance with Soviet Russia. After World War II, big government and high taxation remained. Governments were broadly internationalist in outlook, supporting the United Nations, NATO, Bretton Woods, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. In the post-war era, in order to be electable, Conservatives in England and Republicans in the USA had to become "one nation tories". While they differed from the left on matters of detail, the goal of all politicians was (at least in public) to reduce the gap between rich and poor and to promote equality of opportunity - and if that meant redistribution of wealth through taxation - so be it.

During the Cold War, the great bugbear of the US right was "Communism" as practised in the Soviet Union and its satellites. It became the enemy to be contained. Fearful of the "domino effect", the USA intervened, both openly and covertly, to contain and defeat the spread of communist regimes:
(1) openly through NATO, SEATO, the Baghdad Pact and the like organisations and with wars in Korea and then Indochina; (2) covertly through activities such as the funding of Christian Democrat parties in Europe (especially in post-war Italy), clandestine CIA support for "regime changes" in Latin America, Greece, Iran and Iraq, which favoured military dictatorship over democracy, and, above all, with the proxy war in Afghanistan. Up to and including the Nixon - Kissinger years, this policy was essentially pragmatic. It sought to achieve a "balance of power", or even a "balance of terror" between the Western, democratic, bloc and the Eastern, communist, bloc.

The advent of Ronald Reagan shifted the emphasis from pragmatism to an ideology. Now, the emphasis was on "the Evil Empire", which was not merely to be contained, but overthrown. An ideology was supplied for this tendency on the US right by a group of self-proclaimed intellectuals, many of them apostates from communism and Trotskyism, who gathered at the National Review magazine, James Burnham, David Horowitz, Irving Kristol, Frank Mayer, Norman Podhoretz, Willi Schlamm - to name but a few - who started to call themselves Neoconservatives", presumably because they did not wish to emphasise the fascist nature of the ideology they were preaching but also to distinguish themselves from "old" US Conservatives (whom they labelled "Paleoconservatives").

In contrast to the "old" Conservatives who were often anti-semitic, the first Neoconservatives had originally come from a liberal Jewish and therefore Democrat Party background.

According to an article by Michael Lind in the New Statesman, the Neoconservatives were:-

"products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right."

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute, defined Neoconservatism thus:

"Neo-conservatism is the secular political philosophy that defined the reaction of a group of former liberals to what they felt was the Democratic party's policy of appeasement toward the Soviet Union--most especially the USSR's treatment of its Jewish population and its relations with the Arab world. They were a small but influential group of writers, commentators and government officials."

Godfrey Hodgson was for many years as a foreign correspondent in Washington. He was at different times the Washington correspondent of The Observer, the editor of Insight on the Sunday Times, the presenter of the London Programme and of Channel Four News, the foreign editor of The Independent and the director of the Reuters Foundation Programme for Journalists at Oxford University. In his book, "The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America" Publ: Houghton Mifflin Company 1996, Hodgson described the Neoconservatives as:-

"a cross between a generation of New York intellectuals, a coterie, and a tendency." Together, they reflected a narrow alcove of American society: essentially, they are products of Ivy League graduate schools and "a corner of the New York literary world."

Hodgson points out:-

"Beginning in the late 1960s this group did develop a cluster of ideas and attitudes that were characteristic of what evolved into an identifiable neoconservative movement. It was to have an immense effect on the form American conservatism took in the 1970s and 1980s.

Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies."

"This belief has been deeply ingrained in the United States since the Revolution. It was strong in the American colonies before the Revolution. It has origins in the Puritanism of the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and it has religious overtones, in the idea that it is the destiny of the United States to "redeem" a sinful world, as well as nationalist ones. Indeed, it has sometimes been called a "secular religion." It is found in every corner of the country geographically and in Americans of every ethnic origin and social class, even among many black Americans."

I comment that the Neoconservative conviction that American society is "innately morally superior" is one of the marks of the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought. A somewhat similar view of the superiority of British societal and moral values marked the high point of British Imperialism and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that some Neoconservatives talk in terms of taking up "the White Man's Burden" in the Third World.

Pausing there, Bart wrote:

"I suspect that your antipathy towards the neocons is that many are pro-Israeli jews"

I am, of course, as my name suggests of Muslim faith and part Ottoman Empire descent, but like many Sephardi Jews from North Africa our family first began to migrate to England before the USA became a Nation, we think somewhere shortly before the death of Lord Protector Cromwell.

It is because of that background that I became aware of the American Jewish Council's proposal to Trueman that Mandated Palestine become an officially secular state for Jews Christians and Muslims living in harmony (as our forebears had lived in Andalusia), a proposal torpedoed because the WASP US establishment was unwilling to open up the Displaced Persons' Immigration quota to surviving European Jewish holocaust survivors - doubtless because they did not want to have to admit them to their suburbs and country clubs. A precursor of what I would today describe as the offence of Flying While Arab.

I consider that this was a lost opportunity of the first magnitude and the consequence has been that Israel has become precisely the sort of client state of which Washington warned in his Farewell Address to the Nation.

I do not like Neoconservatism for many reasons and one is because it is so rabidly pro-Israel, but not because some Neoconservatives are of a particular very minor strand of a far from monolithic Jewish political identity.

Returning, to the potted essay:-

"I am aware that much of the intellectual underpinning of Neoconservative thought came from two academics at the University of Chicago, Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter and of the potency of the combination of the Straussian predilection for Machiavellian politics and the Wohlstetter strategic computer brain.

I would list among those who came to Neconservatism via Chicago and went on to the Bush Adminstration, Ashcroft, Chalabi, Bennett, Edson, Ho, Khalilzad, Mobbs, Perle, Schmitt, Shulsky and Wolfowitz. I think other academics who have influenced Neoconservative thought include Bernard Lewis, Stephen Huntington and Philip Bobbitt.

I believe that the Neoconservatives did hijack the Republican Party. You say this is "an utter misuse of the term" but you do not say in what respect.

I would remind you that corporate America had withdrawn to the political sidelines since the Great Depression. They had participated in the war effort under Roosevelt and in the reconstruction of Europe under Truman. They had lobbied Washington for the special interests of business but they had generally stayed out of the wider political debate.

For me the initial influential trigger development was the 13 September 1971 Memorandum from Lewis Powell, (then the Nixon nominee to succeed Justice Black on the Supreme Court) to the General Counsel of GM. You are doubtless familiar with this document which is preserved in the Powell Archives at the Washington & Lee University School of Law.

You may by now have some idea of how I intend to develop this argument, but I think that for the moment we have trespassed on the hospitality of this thread for quite long enough.

Anyway I have some skeleton argument to draft.
 

Please Mr. DePalma, would you tell me whether the phrase "create wealth"
is a euphemism for "get rich" and does one "create wealth" in the same
way God created The Heavens and The Earth and all the plants and
animals therein? Or is the creation of wealth simply a clever form of
what is otherwise called "redistribution"?
 

In view of two stories on this thread about the state of the Mc-Same-Obama race, I thought I might without impropriety observe that Former Naval Officers are rather prone to make foot-in mouth remarks.

The UK's most notorious example is Admiral of the Fleet, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh KG, more popularly known as Prince Philip, the consort of HM The Queen.

A good few years ago now he accompanied HM on a State Visit to Brazil. Her Majesty & HRH were at the Presidential Palace in front of which is a lake and HRH in uniform was making small talk with the President's ADC:

HRH (jovial joshing between senior and junior NO's on social occasion):
Are you the Admiral of the Lake ?

ADC: (deadpan)
No, Sir, I'm the President's ADC.

HRH:
Where did you get all those gongs? [slang for medals]

ADC: In the War, Sir.

HRH: Really? I did't know Brazil was in the War that long!

[Brazil had declared war on Germany in August 1942 - It's war was relatively short but its naval operations gallant - Prince Philip of Greece had served with distinction thoughout the war, been decorated and had ended his war as Lieut Philip Mountbatten RN].

ADC: slowly eyeing HRH's Garter Star, Knight's Orders and formidable rows of medals - still deadpan)
At, least Sir, I did not get mine by marrying my wife!

GOTCHA!

[HM and Brazilian President try for some minutes to keep a straight face then both start quietly heaving with laughter.]

Moral: Even marrying money can sometimes result in an unanticipated foot-in mouth incident.

McSame Foot in Mouth Story

In McSame's case, as with HRH, this latest one looks set to be an early example of what will hopefully turn out to be very many more.
 

Mourad:

"I think other academics who have influenced Neoconservative thought include Bernard Lewis, Stephen Huntington and Philip Bobbitt."

This Philip Bobbitt?

Cheers,
 

Mourad:

In McSame's case, as with HRH, this latest one looks set to be an early example of what will hopefully turn out to be very many more.

McSame's latest nonsense (or cluelessnes, whichever) has been batted about the internet a far bit. I collate and summarize these stories in my latest five posts on my blog. My tag line for all such posts if going to be: "Why is this guy polling anything above 5%?!?!?"

Cheers,
 

Bart writes:
The New Deal deepened the Depression in the mid to latter 30s.

Can you expand on that? Exactly what parts of which New Deal exacerbated the depression, and why?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

bitswapper said...

Bart writes: The New Deal deepened the Depression in the mid to latter 30s.

Can you expand on that? Exactly what parts of which New Deal exacerbated the depression, and why?

1) New Deal labor policies which significantly raised the cost of industrial labor and thus forced more unemployment are primarily to blame.

In a free market, reduced demand for goods and services forces employers to either cut employees or reduce their compensation. The threat or reality of unemployment forces workers to temporarily accept lower compensation until the economy picks up again and it becomes an employees' labor market.

The New Deal artificially reduced the pool of labor through its make work programs and reduced the downward pressure to make compensation match demand for goods and services. The Dems exacerbated the problem by actually increasing labor costs through the promotion of labor unions and frequent strikes.

Because business could not pay the artificially increased labor costs when demand for goods and services was so low, they either fired workers to reduce labor costs or went out of business entirely. See the EU for a modern example of high unemployment caused by artificially high labor costs.

Of course, this new round of unemployment made the market for goods and services even weaker and fed on itself to drive the economy further south.

2) Markets run on confidence, the Crash had already shaken confidence and FDR kept scaring the hell out of investors with all the new economic regulatory agencies which began to come on line at this time. Investors pulled their money and the credit markets dried up again.

Short of not doing this in the first place, the New Dealers would have been far better advised to have all the business stake holders involved in the development of the bureaucracies from the outset to remove the uncertainty from the process. The failure to do so drove the country deeper into depression.
 

now, sure the people elect them directly, but are they any less the "senator from north carolina" etc.?

Before the 17th A there was at least the potential for Senators to represent the corporate interests of a state (corporate in the sense of municipal corporation, not business). Today, everybody agrees that the Senators represent the people of their respective states.

To reiterate fundamental republican doctrine, a state, as such, has no interest deserving of representation. Only people, the sole sovereigns, are represented in a true republic.

don't states have an interest in protecting their ability to legislate locally on traditional state powers?

To the extent they have such an interest, they can do so using the same methods all other parties use. From Federalist 44:

"If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."

are you proposing having only national law?

No. There are two separate and distinct issues here. Under republican theory, the people are sovereign. When they institute a government, they can allocate to it whatever power they choose. They can also, as we've done, allocate some of that power to the national government and some to the states. That's a matter of administrative convenience, not principle. If the federal government oversteps its power, it's up to the courts, or, in the last resort, the people, to enforce limits.

the real evil is party.

Parties are to politics what the poor are to religion: they're always with us. We can't avoid them. Madison acknowledged that in Federalist 10 and gave the solution:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts....

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose....

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other....

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage."

The FISA vote this year was an egregious violation of each yea member's duty to defend the constitution.

Agreed.

If you and prof Levinson think removing state representation in the senate (without any addressing of party) will advance the goal of more responsive and accountable democracy, please set forth your argument.

As I said, I don't think states, per se, have any such representation now. Making the Senate a truly representative body wouldn't change that, it would simply make the national government more reflective of the interests of those who matter: We, the People.
 

BTW, there's nothing "imaginary" about white racist thugs.

Well, not technically, no. In the same way that there's nothing technically imaginary about Mexican irredentists promoting the idea of reconquista of the American southwest. It's just that they're so insignificant as to be essentially rhetorical bogeymen raised for the sole purpose of partisan verbal jousting on the internet.

How do you explain the sucking up of the conservative Jews (like Lieberman, not to mention half the PNAC) to the RW fundie preachers that have as their wettest fantasy the final conflagration on Har Magiddon that will usher in the second coming of Jaaaayyyyyzzzuuuss (and leave most of not all of the Jews dead)? A "marriage of convenience", I'd call it; they're all of them amoral thugs and more interested in "results" than they are in principle.

How do I explain your simplistic stereotypes? Pretty much as simplistic stereotypes.

First I'd point out that your question is entirely a non-sequitur; it's just your version of the ritual Two Minute Hate. I noted that Mourad was mis-applying the word neoconservative to all sorts of people across the conservative spectrum, and you ask me (except in more pejorative terms) why some conservative Jews are allegedly friendly with the religious right? Let's assume the premise of your question is accurate; how would that be responsive to my statement?

Calling Lieberman a "conservative Jew" makes little sense to begin with; as a religious description, it's incorrect, and as a political one, it's wildly off base. Lieberman is a hawk as far as our foreign policy towards the Middle East goes; assuming that's fairly described as a conservative position, he's still not a "conservative" in any other sense.

Second, the PNAC has (or had -- I'm not sure it's still operating) a neoconservative agenda, but is focused only on foreign policy, which points out exactly what I was talking about with respect to Mourad's comments: I don't have any idea what Anthony Kennedy's foreign policy views are, or John Roberts's, but I'm pretty sure that on an official level, the Supreme Court isn't going around enacting them, one way or the other. Nor does the PNAC say anything about tax policy or anything else related to that long rant of Mourad's I was responding to.

Third your question is full of stereotypes. Your description of religious conservatives is pure caricature (not to mention bigotry), and your question implicitly equates "neoconservative" to "Jew." I mean, it's obvious that the word is used that way by many on the left, but it's honest of you to openly admit it.

Fourth, what on earth is wrong with what you call a "marriage of convenience"? If two groups share the same view on a particular issue, why wouldn't they work together on that issue? How is that unprincipled? (Unless, of course, one's "principle" is that the other side is evil and cannot be tolerated at all.)

Finally, ignoring all the problems identified above with the assumptions underlying your question, the most one could conclude would be that neoconservatives ally with the religious right on one issue. So what? Coalitions exist in politics, sometimes in seemingly-odd pairings on certain issues. That doesn't mean that the groups are the same people or have the same overall agendas. In other words, I would explain conservative Jews working with the religious right on certain aspects of foreign policy as the two groups sharing policy goals on those policies and working together to achieve them.
 

"Bart" trots out the standard RW "free market" propaganda horse patooties, all asserted but unsupported. In the midst of all that he says this:

Of course, this new round of unemployment made the market for goods and services even weaker and fed on itself to drive the economy further south.

Yes, but you ignore the effect of the "make work" programs that put dollars in people's pockets and made the demand for goods and services stronger.

So even if everything you say about the delta effects on the labour market is true, your conclusions don't necessarily follow.

Cheers,
 

ROFLMAO:

["Bart"]: 2) Markets run on confidence,....

No, "Bart". Con games run on "confidence". If fact, for someone as enamoured of "free markets" as you, I'd have thought you'd say that the 'invisible hand' of the inevitable and justified market levels and transations would work to set prices at the 'correct' level, and that 'confidence' has nothing to do with it.

Of course, if you listen to those commie Nobel economics laureates, they have explained that, of course, "free markets" are not quite so intrinsically "fair" and "rational", mainly because people are not rational. Buying state lottery tickets is just the most egregious example of this.....

Cheers,
 

now, sure the people elect them directly, but are they any less the "senator from north carolina" etc.?

Before the 17th A there was at least the potential for Senators to represent the corporate interests of a state (corporate in the sense of municipal corporation, not business). Today, everybody agrees that the Senators represent the people of their respective states.

To reiterate fundamental republican doctrine, a state, as such, has no interest deserving of representation. Only people, the sole sovereigns, are represented in a true republic.

I think this is a distinction without a difference – independent of the method of selection, the senator should, in theory, be representing the people – as a state. Wisconsin’s senator was not elected to represent the interests of the people of Illinois, nor vise versa. One would hope the senate would also take into account the national interest, but as long as a locality is voting for the position, certainly that locality’s interests are going to be held in highest regard of that representative’s mind. I don’t see how creating another house of representatives, based on different districting, would accomplish any goal that is not already reflected in the house. If you are talking about some kind of party-based house, where the people as a nation vote for party lists, who then take a percentage of the seats based on national vote totals - that makes sense. But to simply redo the house based on different districts seems silly. I never understood the bicameral representation in the states, where assembly districts are simply smaller districts than the senate districts. If the senate was based on a party coalition, than that would work, but the redundancy doesn’t seem to accomplish anything.

Most importantly, we are not a “true” or “pure” republic, but a federal republic, therefore, the doctrine you cite is not directly applicable to the US (see Madison below).



don't states have an interest in protecting their ability to legislate locally on traditional state powers?

To the extent they have such an interest, they can do so using the same methods all other parties use. From Federalist 44:

"If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."

Of course, in Federalist 62, Madison explained that it would be good to have an ex ante check on constitutional abuses, instead of only ex post (p.s. – he seems to disagree with your concept of sovereignty, though I acknowledge I am no expert in the historical definition of that term):

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.


are you proposing having only national law?

No. There are two separate and distinct issues here. Under republican theory, the people are sovereign. When they institute a government, they can allocate to it whatever power they choose. They can also, as we've done, allocate some of that power to the national government and some to the states. That's a matter of administrative convenience, not principle. If the federal government oversteps its power, it's up to the courts, or, in the last resort, the people, to enforce limits.


Isn’t it better to prevent those things ex ante than through constant litigation?


the real evil is party.

Parties are to politics what the poor are to religion: they're always with us. We can't avoid them. Madison acknowledged that in Federalist 10 and gave the solution:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts....

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose....

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other....

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage."


But therein is the problem – Madison’s solution did not play out. The union has consolidated into two national parties, both of which are excessively beholden to certain interests (and sometimes the same interests, in detriment to the people).

The FISA vote this year was an egregious violation of each yea member's duty to defend the constitution.

Agreed.


Would proportional representation in the senate prevented that travesty? Wasn’t the best chance to prevent it, after Pelosi’s despicably cowardly move of letting the bill get to the house floor, a senate filibuster lead by Obama? Would proportional representation have prevented serial liar Kit Bond from spewing his falsehoods of “patriotic corporate citizens,” etc. – if so, how?


If you and prof Levinson think removing state representation in the senate (without any addressing of party) will advance the goal of more responsive and accountable democracy, please set forth your argument.

As I said, I don't think states, per se, have any such representation now. Making the Senate a truly representative body wouldn't change that, it would simply make the national government more reflective of the interests of those who matter: We, the People.


But this is still not a solution to our problems, only a reiteration of your theory that the states should not have representation as states, and that the people of a state have no interests as such. Just because the senators are directly elected now, you have not presented any evidence that they do not represent the body politic of a state. You simply assume this key fact. A senator is directly elected, but how do you get to the conclusion that he or she does not represent the people of that state as a state. If you are right, who does a senator represent now? What is his or her constituency?


How would a second house of representatives help? The dems ostensibly have the majority in the senate now, and will have a bigger one soon. If the issue is the filibuster, that (again, in theory) does not need a constitutional amendment to change. How would you divide up the senate districts, and how would this create any better law? The problem with the filibuster isn’t domination by the minority – its that no one debates anymore to come up with joint solutions – either the republicans in lockstep prevent any law from passing, or the dems cave with no real concessions to make better law. The problem is with party, not with equal representation. I understand party is here to stay, and can be constructed for good, but the Constitutional amendments that are needed are ones to address parties, rules in the houses, getting rid of the electoral college, and money in politics. I just don’t see how a second house is going to fix anything, even if it is supposedly more responsive to the people (though i doubt, at a proportion of 1 to 3,000,000 keeping the number of senators static, would create responsiveness, but more incumbent retrenching). Why is the equal representation in the senate the bugaboo of you and Prof. Levinson, and how does its elimination fix the complaints you have?
 

FDR kept scaring the hell out of investors with all the new economic regulatory agencies which began to come on line at this time.

Such as? Exactly what regulations were scaring the hell out of investors?
 

David Nieporent:

Calling Lieberman a "conservative Jew" makes little sense to begin with; as a religious description, it's incorrect, and as a political one, it's wildly off base.

If I'd said "Conservative Jew", that might be true. He's actually Orthodox, so he's even more conservative than the Conservatives. Did you have a point?

As for his politics, he's getting VIP treatment at the GOP Fight Cage next week, if not the VEEP nod or a Cabinet appointment. With a Republican party as ERW as this one (or the McSame), yes, Lieberman's a RWer (or wishes he was, because he's just aas enamoured of power as the rest of them). I dislikes Lieberman when he was a "Democratic" AG in CT, running against Weicker; I thought Weicker far the better. That was back in the days when there was still some honour amongst a few Republicans.

Second, the PNAC has (or had -- I'm not sure it's still operating) a neoconservative agenda, but is focused only on foreign policy, which points out exactly what I was talking about with respect to Mourad's comments:...

Nonsense. That PNAC has a marked (and public) foreign policy agenda hardly means they have no agenda at home; in fact, their foreign policy objectives almost require certain domestic activities and goals. They're not some Chataqua discussion group.

Third your question is full of stereotypes. Your description of religious conservatives is pure caricature (not to mention bigotry), and your question implicitly equates "neoconservative" to "Jew." I mean, it's obvious that the word is used that way by many on the left, but it's honest of you to openly admit it.

It's no accident that a major point of the PNAC types is an almost unquestioning support of Likudnik Israeli policy. Some find themselves fellow travellers with just the same "American exceptionalism"/"RW authoritarian" bent, others are out-and-out Likudniks themselves.

I don't "implicitly" equate "neoconservative" to "Jew". In, fact, I know many Jews, and none that I know of is neoconservative. But it is an undisputable fact that a large portion of the neoconservatives are RW Jews of the Likudnik persuasion. This is not an accident.

Fourth, what on earth is wrong with what you call a "marriage of convenience"? If two groups share the same view on a particular issue, why wouldn't they work together on that issue? How is that unprincipled? (Unless, of course, one's "principle" is that the other side is evil and cannot be tolerated at all.)

Not to my tastes. You make your own bed, and the De'el take the hindmost of you ... and it will serve you right.

Cheers,
 

I think this is a distinction without a difference – independent of the method of selection, the senator should, in theory, be representing the people – as a state.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I agree that Senators represent people, and that those people live in a particular state. Senators represent the people who live in that state. They don't represent the state as an entity, though, just the people within it.

Under such circumstances, there's no justification for giving WY more say in the Senate than CA or TX.

I don’t see how creating another house of representatives, based on different districting, would accomplish any goal that is not already reflected in the house. ... I never understood the bicameral representation in the states, where assembly districts are simply smaller districts than the senate districts.

Whenever you re-district the electorate, you get different interests represented in the districts. That's because they never split the same way, so the dominate group within the district changes. Creating a separate house in the state legislatures takes advantage of this fact to increase the diversity of voices heard there.

In addition, each House of a legislature tends to develop its own practices and behavior patterns; it's own culture, if you will. That's especially true when one is much smaller than the other, as the Senate is to the House. This also makes it more likely that the full expression of popular sentiment will take place in a two branch legislature than a single branch.

Most importantly, we are not a “true” or “pure” republic, but a federal republic, therefore, the doctrine you cite is not directly applicable to the US (see Madison below).

Again, it's important to separate out the two different issues: who gets represented (people only); and how power is distributed (state and federal). Our republic is federal because we allocate some power to the states, not because we (any more) give states a direct say in the national government. That hasn't been true since the 17th A and really never should have been true in the first place.

Madison explained that it would be good to have an ex ante check on constitutional abuses

In Federalist 62 Madison was doing his best to make an argument for something he didn't believe in. At the Convention, Madison had vehemently opposed the equal representation in the Senate.

Let me review the sequence in the Convention to give some flavor to it. When the Convention began, the Virginia delegation proposed an outline of the new government known as the Virginia Plan. It provided for representation proportional to population. Representatives from the smaller states then offered their own counter-plan known as the New Jersey Plan. Under the New Jersey Plan, each state would have an equal vote, just as they had under the Articles of Confederation. This proposal triggered a lengthy debate. Madison spoke repeatedly on this subject. He pointed out that equal representation in the Senate violated the basic republican principle of representation:

“Mr. MADISON expressed his apprehensions that if the proper foundation of Government was destroyed, by substituting an equality in place of a proportional Representation, no proper superstructure would be raised … It had been very properly observed by [Mr. Patterson, the sponsor of the New Jersey Plan] that Representation was an expedient by which the meeting of the people themselves was rendered unnecessary; and that the representatives ought therefore to bear a proportion to the votes which their constituents, if convened, would respectively have. Was not this remark as applicable to one branch of the Representation as to the other? … He enumerated the objections against an equality of votes in the [Senate], notwithstanding the proportional representation in the [House]. 1. the minority could negative the will of the majority of the people. 2. they could extort measures by making them a condition of their assent to other necessary measures. 3. they could obtrude measures on the majority by virtue of the peculiar powers which would be vested in the Senate. 4. the evil instead of being cured by time, would increase with every new State that should be admitted, as they must all be admitted on the principle of equality.” Similar, in some cases impassioned remarks, can be found on June 28, 29, 30, July 5, 7, and 9.

Nor was Madison the only one. Also on July 14, James Wilson added that “If equality in the [Senate] was an error that time would correct, he should be less anxious to exclude it … but being a fundamental and a perpetual error, it ought by all means to be avoided. A vice in the Representation, like an error in the first [medicine], must be followed by disease, convulsions, and finally death itself. The justice of the general principle of proportional representation has not … been yet contradicted.” Alexander Hamilton had previously made a similar point on June 18: “Another destructive ingredient in the [New Jersey] plan is that equality of suffrage which is so much desired by the small States. It is not in human nature that Va. & the large States should consent to it, or if they did that they should long abide by it. It shocks too much the ideas of Justice, and every human feeling. Bad principles in a Government, though slow, are sure in their operation and will gradually destroy it.”

This issue was so divisive, it nearly broke the Convention apart. The opponents of equal representation met and discussed alternatives, but eventually gave in.

Thus, in Federalist 62 Madison refused to excuse such a fundamental departure from republican theory. Instead, he did the best he could (as he expressly said), and constructed an argument in which he personally didn't believe.

he seems to disagree with your concept of sovereignty

It's a confusing term and gets used in various ways. In essence, there can be only one sovereign in a body politic. That is, there can be only one ultimate arbiter of how things will run. However, the term often gets used in expressions like "sovereign immunity" because concepts like that were carried over from British practice, and in that government the people were NOT sovereign. Here's Madison explaining this point:

“In the British government, the danger of encroachments on the rights of the people is understood to be confined to the [King]. The representatives of the people in the legislature are not only exempt ... from distrust, but are considered as sufficient guardians of the rights of their constituents against the danger from the executive. Hence it is a principle that the parliament is unlimited in its power; or in their own language, is omnipotent. Hence, too, all the ramparts for protecting the rights of the people, such as their magna charta, their bill of rights, etc. are not reared against the parliament, but against the royal prerogative. They are merely legislative precautions against executive usurpations. ...

In the United States, the case is altogether different. The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty. The legislature, no less than the executive, is under limitations of power. Encroachments are regarded as possible from the one as well as from the other. Hence in the United States, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as against executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative; but by constitutions paramount to laws.” My emphasis. The quote is from Madison's Report of 1800; similar expressions can be found in Federalist 53.

Nor was Madison alone here. James Wilson made the same point in the PA ratifying convention on November 26, 1787:

“There necessarily exists in every government a power from which there is no appeal; and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Sir William Blackstone will tell you that in Britain the power is lodged in the British Parliament; that the parliament may alter the form of the government; and that its power is absolute and without control. The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. …. The British constitution is just what the British parliament pleases. …

To control the power and conduct of the legislature, by an overruling constitution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American States.

Perhaps some politician who has not considered, with sufficient accuracy, our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is that in our governments the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the People. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions…. The consequence is that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please.” My emphasis.

Isn’t it better to prevent those things ex ante than through constant litigation?

Not according to Madison in Federalist 44. Nor in my view would it be better, not if the cost is a violation of fundamental right. Giving WY extra votes is no different in concept from giving men extra votes or Christians extra votes or white people extra votes. It's wrong at the core.

The problem with the filibuster isn’t domination by the minority

I disagree. That's exactly what the problem is. Just to reiterate what I said above in response to David Warner, there certainly are times when we want to protect minorities. What we don't want is a device which can obstruct every measure, even those which we all agree should be passed by majority vote. That defeats the fundamental purpose of implementing policies which reflect "the permanent and aggregate interests" of the nation.

Madison’s solution did not play out. The union has consolidated into two national parties, both of which are excessively beholden to certain interests (and sometimes the same interests, in detriment to the people).

To some extent that's true. But as Madison would surely agree, the solution is not less democracy, it's more.

Wasn’t the best chance to prevent it, after Pelosi’s despicably cowardly move of letting the bill get to the house floor, a senate filibuster lead by Obama? Would proportional representation have prevented serial liar Kit Bond from spewing his falsehoods of “patriotic corporate citizens,” etc. – if so, how?

This is too focused on one issue in particular. I'm concerned with how we implement a system which operates overall.

That said, the problem here had nothing to do with the design of the system, except that Republican extremists are probably over-represented in the Senate due to its unrepublican design. However, I doubt that mattered because the real story was that Pelosi and Obama sold out the nation. No system, no matter how well designed, can prevent that.

Constitutional amendments that are needed are ones to address parties, rules in the houses, getting rid of the electoral college, and money in politics.

I agree with all of this. Changing the Senate would not be a panacea, it would only solve one (very important) problem. Other problems would still need solving as well. The good thing about changing the Senate is that it might well be possible to address those other problems; that's something we can't do because some interests are over-represented.
 

Nonsense. That PNAC has a marked (and public) foreign policy agenda hardly means they have no agenda at home;

Right; it doesn't "mean" that. It's simply the case that it didn't have one.

Of course, the members of PNAC had views on domestic issues -- who on earth doesn't? -- but those views differed from member to member, and the organization itself had no such agenda.

in fact, their foreign policy objectives almost require certain domestic activities and goals. They're not some Chataqua discussion group.

No, it was a foreign policy group. Which meant it had no domestic agenda. It took no position on abortion, the deficit, social security privatization, taxes, gay marriage, socialized medicine, medical marijuana, Sarbanes-Oxley, or any other issue unrelated to foreign policy (under which I include military policy).


As for his politics, he's getting VIP treatment at the GOP Fight Cage next week, if not the VEEP nod or a Cabinet appointment. With a Republican party as ERW as this one (or the McSame), yes, Lieberman's a RWer (or wishes he was, because he's just aas enamoured of power as the rest of them).

Lieberman holds liberal views on almost every issue. He happens to believe that a strong (or hawkish, if you prefer) foreign policy is more important right now than other issues, at least as far as the presidency goes, and for that reason has endorsed McCain. That may be foolish or counterproductive, but it doesn’t erase his views on other issues.

He’s pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-welfare state, pro-big government, pro-labor… the fact that your hatred of a hawkish foreign policy blinds you so much that you see no difference between American Jews, neoconservatives, the Likud party in Israel (*), McCain, and Lieberman doesn’t mean that these are all the same thing.

(*) And ranting about “Likudniks” among American Jews on issues that have nothing to do with Israeli politics starts to come perilously close to looking anti-semitic.
 

David,

Further to your comments to Arene, I should like to say the following,

So far as I am concerned, the ethnicity or religion of any person I characterise as a Neoconservative is an irrelevance. Jewishness is perhaps unique among the the names of the religions is that it is used interchangeably by many to allude to both ethnicity and to broad religious affiliation and this can give rise to misunderstandings. To profess Islam makes no statement about race or nationality at all, although in some areas non-Muslims are to prone to assume that "Muslim=Arab". Any more informed person well knows that persons of Arab ethnicity are a very small proportion indeed of Muslims
worldwide. The first Arab state in the Muslim league, Egypt, stands at No 7 from the top. Of places often not counted, there are over 30 million Muslims in Europe. There are about 7 million or so in Russia and coming up for 800k within Israel. Indeed within Israel some are concerned that with the difference in birthrates of the two groupings and with immigration declining somewhat, Muslims may one day be a majority of the Israeli population.

The USA itself is unique in that it is the only country of the world holding more people of Jewish ethnicity than Israel itself.

The late Abba Eban once said that there were only ever two places in the diaspora where Jews felt secure (i) Muslim Andalusia and (ii) the USA. Sadly, of course the mutual tolerance of Dar-el Andalus came to an end with the the persecution and forced conversion, expulsion or extermination of both Muslims and Jews at the hands of Christians although there remained - and remain to this day - communities of Sephardi Jews in Morocco and some Andalus Muslims and Sephardi Jews found their way to London and settled. Leslie Hore-Belisha, 1st Baron Hore-Belisa, was a descendant of Sephardi Jews from Chefchaouen. Secretary of State for War in 1937 and ennobled in 1954 at the instance of Winston Churchill, he sadly died in 1957. His name lives on in popular language because the illuminated orange globes at each end of UK pedestrian crossings are known as "Belisha Beacons" because they were first introduced when he was Minister of Transport.

Decendants of minority communities (as I am) try to be sensitive about our brethren in other minorities because we have all known or suspected discrimination - although for me any perceivable overt discrimination in the UK was, until September 11th 2001, very rare indeed and if perceived was certain or likely to be without malice. Where I live Christianity may well be the minority faith - it certainly is in the local primary and secondary school - which means the kids get to learn about a lot of festivals!

More definitions
The Conservative Party is a real political party in the UK. I think Willam Buckely once founded a Conservative Party in New York and I suppose it may still exist.

But outside those two 'official' parties I am not aware of any party using the word "Conservative" as its official name. As far as I know the Republican Party claims it has members who espouse 'conservative' principles and the Constitution Party also claims to follow 'true conservative principles' (whatever they may be).

As far as I am concerned conservative' (small 'c') is a mere vague descriptor whose meaning means anything the user wants it to.

To me, the expression 'conservative' in politics means:

1. "NEVER move forward.
2. If you MUST move, move backwards if at all possible.
3. If you cannot move backwards move SIDEWAYS, preferably to the RIGHT.

That's my definition. You will understand that I'm not an admirer of conservatism - though I can live with and respect one-nation UK tories who have little by way of ideology - they are highly pragamatic - "the NHS would be safe in their hands" - always a useful UK litmus test.

The one-nation Conservatism of the UK Conservative Party is for me very akin to orthodox US Republican conservatism in that it admits the goal is progress towards "one-nation" - the words of the pledge every American takes on at least hears on so many occasions. The differences of emphasis are about the best means and the speed of progress.

As with (small c) conservatism, neoconservatism is not and does not claim to be a political party. Therefore the word means what the user wants it to mean and it can be written with a large or small initial, it matters not.

I would define it as (i) describing an ideology, (ii) a group of like- minded people and (iii) an entryist movement.

By "an entryist movement", I mean a loosely organised group of people who seek to influence policy and take control of an established political party either openly or covertly).

There was a trotskyist group called Militant Tendency which tried to do that covertly to the UK Labour Party. They nearly won but were fought by John Smith, Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair in a very dirty war for the control of the Party. The "Trots" were eventually expelled by a kind of Star Chamber process.

I would argue that when Militant went out and Blair refounded Labour as "New Labour", persons with pronounced neoconservative leanings came in the front door as the Trots were kicked out the back.

I contend there has been the same entryism into the US Administration and the Republican Party more generally. That would continue were McSame to be the next US President - at least for the first 2 years.

Were the GOP candidate not to achieve his long held ambition in his twilight years, the inevitable post election houseclean by the GOP survivors could well return the party to its more traditional one-nation values.
 

David Nierporent:

the fact that your hatred of a hawkish foreign policy blinds you so much that you see no difference between American Jews, neoconservatives, the Likud party in Israel (*), McCain, and Lieberman doesn’t mean that these are all the same thing.

In fact I do. I even pointed them out. In fact, it's part of my first observation, which is that various groups with what ought to be rather different agendae and aims seem to be banding together with results that cannot be good for one (or both) of them should they "succeed".

Please do try to read for understanding.

Cheers
 

David Nieporent:

(*) And ranting about “Likudniks” among American Jews on issues that have nothing to do with Israeli politics starts to come perilously close to looking anti-semitic.

Oh, 4Q and the horse you rode in on. That trope is getting real stale. Hate to say it, but opposition to the Likud party and the hard RW azos in Israel (and their buddies in the U.S.) is hardly "anti-Semitic". AMongst other things, many Jews are anti-Likud .... but then again you'll dismiss them as "self-hating Jews" (despite the fact that many n my acquaintance are far more intelligent ... and self-aware ... than you).

See if you can come up with a new song, eh?

Cheers,
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mourad:

You are using the classic definition of "conservative" when modern US conservatism and liberalism are really ideological hybrids.

In the 19th Century, classical liberalism held that human freedom from the state was the surest path to advancement of the common people and tended to be expansionist and even revolutionary in foreign policy. In contrast, classical conservatism believed in tradition and were reactionary in domestic policy and were isolationist and protectionist in their foreign policy.

However, with the advent of socialism, our liberals abandoned freedom in economics and became the party of government, but kept a belief in freedom from social regulation. Meanwhile, our conservatives became the party of classically liberal free markets while maintaining their belief in government social regulation to advance traditional values.

Between WWII and Vietnam, both liberals and conservatives were muscularly internationalist in their foreign policy, which was an anomaly because there has always been a strong isolationist streak in the US which was traditionally identified with conservatives.

However, Vietnam flipped the normal state of affairs in international policy. The liberals became isolationist while the conservatives and the neocon Dem refugees kept the WWII based ideology of muscular internationalism.

In sum, the so called "conservatives" today represent 2/3 of the old classical liberal platform while the so called "liberals" represent 2/3 of the old classical conservative platform. Thus, the original terms mean very little today in the US.

To put my point of view in context, I am closer to the original classical liberals with a belief in freedom at home and a hawkish view of foreign policy. The so called conservative movement fits my POV the closest so long as they do not go crazy with social legislation.

The Pew polling folks call the roughly 10% of the US who share my viewpoint "Enterprisers." You might be interested in taking the Pew self test to see where you might fall in the US political spectrum. Although you can see some of Pew's leftist biases creep into the wording of the questions, the results appear to be pretty accurate.
 

Holding the Executive to Account.

Outside the sittings of the chamber and committees most UK members of parliament need to spend at least a full day or an evening and half a day at the weeked attending surgeries - such in a room in the centre of their constituency [district] seeing any voter or resident non-voter who wants to see them.

It's a kind of free social work. Poor Mrs X whose pension payments seem to have stopped for no good reason. Mrs Y who is having problems with anti-social neighbours.

It is amazing how the complexities of central and local government bureaucracy can melt away like freak snow in July with a friendly phone call to a government service, a letter to the Minister, or - in a hard case the nuclear weapon of a live question to the Minister televised on national TV, or worse, a 10 minute debate at the end of the day's session.

It makes for good government because the civil servant never knows when the tough decision which has been sitting on her desk is going to be called up by the Secretary of State himself because he's had a few day's warning that he may be asked about the case, why there has been a delay and what the decision has been on live TV.

You can watch the process on TV in the USA too and it is quite fun - until you realise that every political head of every department gets the treatment once or twice a week and the Prime Minister too.

Imagine that every US Cabinet Secretary or a Deputy (in rotation) had to go to the Congress 1 or 2 times a week to be questioned live on any subject within his department's remit during 10-20 minutes Something like this

Q With the Secretary give a statement on progress with refurbishing military housing ?
A Platitudes about how the programme is up to schedule.
Q Then can Mr Secretary please explain why 160 homes at Camp Placid in my district were scheduled to be completed 8 weeks ago, have not yet even started and repeated requests for information have been stonewalled ?
A Well, there have been....
Q Excuse me, Mr Secretary, does not that mean the information give to the House just moments ago was less than accurate, economical with the truth perhaps...
Another Questioner - and my constitutents in Camp Turbulent are having precisely the same problem, why sir ?
A Well...
Lady Questioner: Mr Secretary, don't you think these army wives have enough to cope with while their husbands are away in Iraq?
A. I will investigate urgently and give members a factual report within 48 hours.

I have watched Congressional Committees at work on C-Span. They would do a great job were each participant allowed more time to get into the subject. No opening statements, evidence read off line. Straight into question and answers on TV for an afternoon which is what our departmental committees do and very much on a bipartisan basis.

I think that both our legislatures have to learn one from the other particularly about bipartisan holding of the executive to account. Like in any business. legislators are like a board of trustees. They ought to call in the managers on a regular basis and grill them to ascertain that their clients' money is being well and efficiently spent.

A thought ? What about an annual performance report sent to the President annually to which he would be expected to respond in detail in the annual state of the union - and why not a quarterly State of the Union ?
 

Oh, 4Q and the horse you rode in on. That trope is getting real stale. Hate to say it, but opposition to the Likud party and the hard RW azos in Israel (and their buddies in the U.S.) is hardly "anti-Semitic". AMongst other things, many Jews are anti-Likud .... but then again you'll dismiss them as "self-hating Jews" (despite the fact that many n my acquaintance are far more intelligent ... and self-aware ... than you).

You completely miss the point I was making. Opposition to Likud is not in the least bit anti-semitic. Treating American Jews as acting on behalf of Likud is.
 

David Nieporent:

Treating American Jews as acting on behalf of Likud is.

You misspelled "AIPAC".

Cheers,
 

When I saw there were 97 comments on this post, I had a strong feeling that someone had gone way OT. How you got from John McCain's failure to denounce the Constitution to something related to AIPAC and the Jews, I have no idea. Must have been an interesting trip.
 

You misspelled "AIPAC".

I don't understand. AIPAC lobbies on behalf of Israel. It is neither neoconservative nor "Likud."
 

Must have been an interesting trip.

What a long strange trip it's been.
 

Sounds like Obama has picked Biden as VP.

If true, it appears that Obama is taking the "first, do no harm" advice in picking a VP. Biden would be a safe, non-controversial pick.

The only risk he is running with this pick is that Biden is far more qualified than the thin resumed Obama to be President.

I wonder if the Dem media will say repeatedly that Obama was seeking "gravitas" when choosing Biden as they parroted for a week when Bush chose Cheney. Somehow I doubt that the Dems will use that talking point with one of their own.
 

It's interesting to read this thread after having been away for 24 hours. Almost no one is still on topic and then you have Arne's continued attacks on Bart which lead one to surmise that BDR may really stand for Bart Derangement Syndrome. In fact, as someone who stops by this blog only occasionally, I'm beginning to wonder if Arne can argue other than from ad-hominem.

Anyway, on the original topic, I think Nerpzillicus has it right: to the extent that the government is not working at the federal level, it is largely due to hyper-partisanship, which I don't think would be solved by any of the changes that Sandy has proposed. Things have become very much us-vs-them and principle has gone out the window while every politician thinks they have to hew to the party line lest they lose their coveted chairmanship (e.g. Specter) or their party nomination itself (Lieberman).

I'm not sure what the fix is to that, but I don't think it has much to do with equal representation between Wyoming and California in the Senate. Nor do I think it has to do with the electoral college. Or the concept of enumerated powers which conceivably might restrict what Congress could do viz. the environment, abortion, SSM, etc. Or the gap between when the president gets elected and when he takes office. Etc.

Anyway, McCain has long decried the hyper-partisanship of Washington, participates in it less than most pols and has been instrumental in brokering deals that cut against the usual Dem-GOP splits in recent years. So it is highly ironic that this post would criticize him for his lack of maverickness (maverickocity?) when he is among the least-likely politicians in Washington to fall into the usual partisan trap. (BTW, I would put Lieberman in that bucket, as well, which is why he would make an intriguing choice for VP for McCain.)
 

Those of a philosophic bent have long decried the need for political parties and partisanship.

They yearn for a non-partisan politics in which a wise electorate would chose sage and non-political senators to deliberate in a mature and open manner and where the Chief Executive (be it President or Emperor) engage in a "senatus-consult" on all issues of importance. It's cloud-cuckoo land.

Both the Emperor Augustus and his emulator Napoleon had their senates where the "conscript fathers" were regularly consulted. But the debates were rigged and the legislation passed was always precisely what the Emperor wanted.

If one looks at Madison's notes of the Convention, one finds that many of the Delegates are "reluctant revolutionaries": they believed that the British model of limited monarchy was the best that had thus far been devised and they were seeking to arrive at as near an approximation to is as was possible. Thus on 31st May 1787, Mr Mason is recorded as saying:-

"Mr. Mason. argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people. It was to be the grand depository of the democratic principle of the Govt. It was, so to speak, to be our House of Commons — It ought to know & sympathise with every part of the community; and ought therefore to be taken not only from different parts of the whole republic, but also from different districts of the larger members of it, which had in several instances particularly in Virga., different interests and views arising from difference of produce, of habits &c &. He admitted that we had been too democratic but was afraid we sd. incautiously run into the opposite extreme. We ought to attend to the rights of every class of the people. He had often wondered at the indifference of the superior classes of society to this dictate of humanity & policy, considering that however affluent their circumstances, or elevated their situations, might be, the course of a few years, not only might but certainly would, distribute their posterity throughout the lowest classes of Society. Every selfish motive therefore, every family attachment, ought to recommend such a system of policy as would provide no less carefully for the rights — and happiness of the lowest than of the highest orders of Citizens.

Note the reference to the superior and lower classes of society. The lower chamber is to be "the peoples' house". And by analogy the Senate is to fulfill purposes similar to those of the House of Lords:

Madison's Notes 6th June 1787: "Mr. Dickinson considered it as essential that one branch of the Legislature shd. be drawn immediately from the people; and as expedient that the other shd. be chosen by the Legislatures of the States. This combination of the State Govts. with the National Govt. was as politic as it was unavoidable. In the formation of the Senate we ought to carry it through such a refining process as will assimilate it as near as may be to the House of Lords in England. He repeated his warm eulogiums on the British Constitution. He was for a strong National Govt. but for leaving the States a considerable agency in the System. The objection agst. making the former dependent on the latter might be obviated by giving to the Senate an authority permanent & irrevocable for three, five or seven years. Being thus independent they will speak & decide with becoming freedom."

Madison's Notes 12th June 1787: "Mr. Randolph was for the term of 7 years. The Democratic licentiousness of the State Legislatures proved the necessity of a firm Senate. The object of this 2d. branch is to controul the democratic branch of the Natl. Legislature. If it be not a firm body, the other branch being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it. The Senate of Maryland constituted on like principles had been scarcely able to stem the popular torrent. No mischief can be apprehended, as the concurrence of the other branch, and in some measure, of the Executive, will in all cases be necessary. A firmness & independence may be the more necessary also in this branch, as it ought to guard the Constitution agst. encroachments of the Executive who will be apt to form combinations with the demagogues of the popular branch.....Mr. Madison, considered 7 years as a term by no means too long. What we wished was to give to the Govt. that stability which was every where called for, and which the enemies of the Republican form alleged to be inconsistent with its nature. He was not afraid of giving too much stability by the term of seven years. His fear was that the popular branch would still be too great an overmatch for it. It was to be much lamented that we had so little direct experience to guide us....",

In the colonial period the Governors of the different colonies exercised executive power in the name of the Crown, but important acts were to be exercised by "the Governor-in-Council", the Govenor acting after consulting "the great and the good", "the wise men"" - a model taken from the English institution of the King in Council (which BTY still exists in England and in your neighbour, Canada). Many of the early republican constitutions of the states continued the practice and provided for the Governor to have a council. The issue whether the President should have a Council was raised at the conventions.

Madison's Notes: 4 June 1787: "Mr. Sherman. This matter is of great importance and ought to be well considered before it is determined. Mr. Wilson he said had observed that in each State a single magistrate was placed at the head of the Govt. It was so he admitted, and properly so, and he wished the same policy to prevail in the federal Govt. But then it should be also remarked that in a all the States there was a Council of advice, without which the first magistrate could not act. A Council he thought necessary to make the establishment acceptable to the people. Even in G. B. the King has a council; and though he appoints it himself, its advice has its weight with him, and attracts the Confidence of the people."

Benjamin Franklin also remarks that a council would act as a check on the executive.

On 18th June 1787, Hamilton makes a speech which is summarised in Madison's Notes -18 Jun 87. This is more than a speech, it is a tour de force. He derides confederacy as a solution by refers to the little difficulty the Amphyctionic Council had with the Pokians which enabled Philip II of Macedon to become the effective master of Greece [357 BC], the decline of the Holy Roman Empire [1300-1648]; is dismissive of the Swiss Confederation [Note - It is still going strong as it happens] and he adverts to the virtues of the British model in terms which make the point that these are indeed "reluctant revolutionaries":-

"In his private opinion he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he was by the opinions of so many of the wise & good, that the British Govt. was the best in the world: and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America. He hoped Gentlemen of different opinions would bear with him in this, and begged them to recollect the change of opinion on this subject which had taken place and was still going on. It was once thought that the power of Congs was amply sufficient to secure the end of their institution. The error was now seen by every one. The members most tenacious of republicanism, he observed, were as loud as any in declaiming agst. the vices of democracy. This progress of the public mind led him to anticipate the time, when others as well as himself would join in the praise bestowed by Mr. Neckar on the British Constitution, namely, that it is the only Govt. in the world “which unites public strength with individual security.” — In every community where industry is encouraged, there will be a division of it into the few & the many. Hence separate interests will arise. There will be debtors & Creditors &c. Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few they will oppress the many. Both therefore oughtto hav e power, that each may defend itself agst. the other. To the want of this check we owe our paper money — instalment laws &c To the proper adjustment of it the British owe the excellence of their Constitution. Their house of Lords is a most noble institution. Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest by means of their property, in being faithful to the National interest, they form a permanent barrier agst. every pernicious innovation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons. No temporary Senate will have firmness en’o’ to answer the purpose."

The resolutions adopted that day provided for the bicameral legislative model as close as practicable to the Commons and Lords, but the Senate is not just a legislative body - it also partakes of the executive in that it fulfills the functions of the King in Council. The President is to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate to certain acts taken as Head of State, a real senatus-consult.

US writers on the US constitution who do not have the origins of the constitution well in mind often forget the executive character of the senatus-consult. I suggest it was well understood at the time. I go further and suggest that it is a role which needs practical reinforcement.

As for the decrying of party, I suggest that the experience of legislatures is that once one gets above the level of the town meeting, as soon as there is representative government, parties are essential to the legislative process. If the rules of an assembly do not provide for party structures, they arise spontaneously in any event.

Where there is a need to put party considerations aside it is in the executive senatus-consult role and in the role both chambers in exercise of the power of the purse to hold the executive to account.
 

Zachary:

In fact, as someone who stops by this blog only occasionally, I'm beginning to wonder if Arne can argue other than from ad-hominem.

You need to pay more attention. The bulk of my commentary goes to the issues (or the "pseudo-issues", or the purported 'argument').

And I do comment directly on what the good perfessers write, and on what others say, as well. It's just that "Bart" is legend for putting eedjitcy here, and it bears pointing out ... or ridicule ... or both.

Cheers,
 

Some are turned off by the gloss of Arne's comments, which are substantive in nature. I do wonder if they would work just as well w/o the "Bart, you ignorant slut" component.

Anyways, the need for parties has been shown over time, it just is that the need for two parties as carried out today, especially the lockstep nature of one of them (the "they both do it" line some use to answer criticism is really lame if you look at the evidence, including the ways Dems split in many key cases while the Rs in Congress march in lockstep repeatedly).

This is why Mark Field's citation of F10 is off, since it spoke of "factions" that are more like interest groups, not two mega-parties that in effect harm the checks ever differently put together coalitions of factions could lead to, e.g., the strange bedfellow coalition against Bush et. al.

A word on the Senate. Citation was made to Madison opposing the equal membership rule on majoritian grounds. But, the Madisonian system would also in practice check majority will at times.

He in fact wanted a national body that could check state legislation on a regular basis, not just judicial review after the fact, in the days before the 14A.

Also, MF fears something that might ALWAYS overrule majority will as compared to litigation. But, e.g., the filibuster offered is not a total check. It by nature is a special weapon, and unlike in the days of Mr. Smith, could be overruled by a supermajority.

A body like the Senate, previously thought as Mourad references, in aristocratic in nature, seems to me legitimate.

Representing the people in states however does not necessarily warrant the current animal, including the power of small states over ANY type of legislation and WY/CA (or NY!) being equal.

The across the board nature of the veto is troublesome for similar reasons, if of a somewhat different caliber.
 

This is why Mark Field's citation of F10 is off, since it spoke of "factions" that are more like interest groups, not two mega-parties that in effect harm the checks ever differently put together coalitions of factions could lead to, e.g., the strange bedfellow coalition against Bush et. al.

I agree with this in part. Madison did expect the various factions to be more free-flowing, less permanent. I don't see how that affects the validity of his argument in general, though. What it does do is suggest the need for additional protections, such as controls on gerrymandering, as a check on parties.

As for the hyper-partisanship of today, it's deplorable but not unique to US history. Madison's own 1790s were awful in that respect, as were the 1850s. We tend to forget how bad other eras were.

But, the Madisonian system would also in practice check majority will at times.

He in fact wanted a national body that could check state legislation on a regular basis, not just judicial review after the fact, in the days before the 14A.

Madison wanted a check on majority rule at the state level. He gave the reason for that in Federalist 10 itself: the small population of the states (compared to the national government) meant that decisions by state legislatures would be less good than decisions by the national legislature. That was exactly the benefit of "expanding the sphere".

There were checks on majority rule at the national level, but they were built into the process: Presidential veto and bicameral legislature mostly, but judicial review also (depending on one's view of that).

These, though, don't reach the core of Madison's complaint regarding the Senate. The purpose of the legislature is to reflect the nation as a whole (see George Mason's language quoted by Mourad). The structure of the Senate prevents that from happening.

Also, MF fears something that might ALWAYS overrule majority will as compared to litigation. But, e.g., the filibuster offered is not a total check. It by nature is a special weapon, and unlike in the days of Mr. Smith, could be overruled by a supermajority.

My real complaint on this score is with the issue of representation. There are indeed checks on the use of the filibuster which help curb the harm.* But every single bill which goes through Congress gets passed by an unrepresentative majority created by the indefensible choice to give each state equal representation.

*I don't like the filibuster rule, but I wouldn't try to write a Constitution forbidding it. That's not because it's ok, that's because there's no way I can think of to enforce a prohibition.
 

FYI, when I said "a national body that could check state legislation on a regular basis," I was specifically concerned with Madison's desire for some sort of national body with power of review of state laws per se beyond after the fact judicial review in a relatively few cases.

He also wanted to apply certain key Bill of Rights provisions explicitly against the states, also upset when it failed.

Sure enough hyper-partisanship is a time old thing, the Jeffersonians belieing F10, ditto the soon use of winner take all rules in the Electoral College, for partisan effect.

As to the Senate, I'm somewhat unsure how it per se makes it impossible for the "legislature" to reflect that nation as a whole.

The House is 1/2 the legislature and senators are selected by the states by the people at large. Partisanship and special interests seem to do as much to lead to it not truly reflecting the nation, honestly.

I agree that the Senate as presently constituted probably is too "unrepresentative" and even if realistically states would still have some unbalanced vote (if not equal) in some reformed system, the power of Wyoming etc. over all things is too grand.

But, as applied to say senatorial courtesy (local federal judges etc.) and the like, I see some value in "undemocratic" power.
 

Assuming that McCain is a genuine "maverick," should we also assume that his VP selection Gov. Palin of Alaska is also a genuine "maverick"? That would be a start for a herd of "mavericks." Imagine, "mavericks" as running mates. Palin might be considered a "trophy maverick."