Balkinization: Why are we so docile as a polity? Reflections on David Super's post

Comments:

Sandy: So my question, which is entirely serious, is why the American public is so remarkably docile in the face of a legislative system that is, depending on one's own analysis, "broken," utterly "corrupt," "gridlocked," or otherwise incapable of responding to the challenges facing us as a republic, wherever one is on the ideological spectrum.

Our close and intense electoral division in a system designed for supermajority rule has ground our representative democracy to a halt.

The progressive state, with its "mandatory" spending and absolute bureaucracy, is largely self-sustaining; so our divided representative democracy is not forced to cooperate and operate out of necessity.

Finally, we are comfortable enough in our own lives not to wage a revolution to change a government the vast majority see as useless.

I have been part of too many conservative voter rebellions which broke apart on the rocks of the progressive state to believe there is a democratic way to restore the Republic.My last best hope is an Article V convention of states to re-leash the Capitol from the outside.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:28 PM

Simply put, the voters like it when Congress does the "right" thing in their opinions, but, not very strongly. The voters mildly dislike a failure to do the "right" thing. (Again, in their opinions.)

But Congress doing the wrong thing, (Need I say it again? In their opinions.) ignites white hot fury.

So, when faced with a divided public, the least unpopular thing Congress can do is... nothing.

You're the unusual person who's pissed off by a failure to act. But, not a general failure to act, a failure to act on your preferences. You'd be even more upset if Congress got off it's rear and started implementing my or Bart's agenda.

Let me put it bluntly: A Congress that was activist in implementing your preferences would be so unpopular a civil war would not be out of the question. You want an awful lot of things that would piss off a lot of people, in many cases a plurality or majority of the people.

# posted by

Brett : 3:39 PM

Is Brett in his closing paragraph at 3:39 PM bluntly making a threat of revolution/civil war in his 2nd A absolutism mode? Would Brett serve in that revolution/civil war? That type of intimidation is not called for here. Brett should be concerned with a whole lot of people ;missed off with Trump, in many cases a plurality or majority of the people.

For a record I am preserving Brett's closing paragraph:

"Let me put it bluntly: A Congress that was activist in implementing your preferences would be so unpopular a civil war would not be out of the question. You want an awful lot of things that would piss off a lot of people, in many cases a plurality or majority of the people.

3:39 PM"

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:15 PM

"experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"

Seems still applicable.

It is far from clear that a violent civil war was the best approach in 1775 and part of why it was successful (other than foreign assistance) was the ties to the national government was much weaker, the power and direct presence of said power far less dominant and various things that had to happen right (down to weather during the Battle of NYC) on each side. We also had a much smaller group of people with real practical agency, particularly blacks and women.

Some of these things especially the newness of the new nation without long establishment forms explains how the Constitution could be ratified, replacing the Articles.

Great changes have happened in the life times of those here in various ways. Incomplete as these changes were. See, e.g., GLBTQ and black voting. But, that opening quote still applies. Even given the wrongs of the people in power now -- there is not the multiple groups affected in the right environment to bring forth such changes. It after all took constant violent events for many things to occur -- labor history shows this as does civil rights. It's like moving a tanker around but many of them.

As to lack of popularity, SL and Brett both have some interesting views of what should be. What is in place is another matter.

# posted by

Joe : 4:31 PM

Perhaps Brett was bluntly inspired by what Trump said during the 2016 campaign if Hillary won described in a NYTimes report by Consanitini and Haberman with the title "Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton" I couldn't get the URL. A video is included.
Video

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:37 PM

Preserve it all you like, it's not like I say things on public websites in the expectation of their remaining secret.

Sandy is upset with Congress, because it doesn't do what HE wants it to do. It doesn't seem to play a part in his thinking that other people might not want those things done. Might affirmatively want them NOT done.

This strikes me as a serious blind spot. There are very few things *I* want Congress to do, but at least I'm not suffering under the delusion that my personal agenda would be popular. Under current conditions of division, there's no such thing as a popular agenda, and doing nothing is probably the least unpopular.

We have a government that was deliberately designed to be paralyzed when a consensus is lacking. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Let us achieve a consensus, and the deadlock will vanish.

Until then, the demand that Congress do one's bidding, even though it would be unpopular, is a desire for tyranny.

# posted by

Brett : 4:43 PM

Responding to MW on the previous thread, but I think it's relevant here too:

I think it's possible to identify the essential features of republican government and to enforce those features. The Framers (mostly) knew what those were, and political theory can fill in the rest. As a quick first approximation, I'd identify sovereignty of the people; representation; majority rule; free speech; equal protection; due process; and perhaps a few others.

To tie this more directly to the OP, any criticism of the current dysfunction in government needs to have a goal in mind for a functional one. Republican government in the US hasn't failed; it's never been tried.

# posted by

Mark Field : 4:55 PM

As to what "consensus" amounts to and how to express it, see the last thread.

SL does not want Congress to do his bidding. He speaks of what he feels is necessary action but the question is how to reach that point.

The final line in the post:

"Or should we be thinking more imaginatively of new means of protest and direct action with regard to those who purport to govern us?"

He earlier discusses the action or lack of action of "the American public."

And, so on.

# posted by

Joe : 4:58 PM

"I think it's possible to identify the essential features of republican government and to enforce those features. The Framers (mostly) knew what those were, and political theory can fill in the rest. As a quick first approximation, I'd identify sovereignty of the people; representation; majority rule; free speech; equal protection; due process; and perhaps a few others."

If you were to ask me, banning write in votes takes you over the line: The right to vote is the right to vote for the candidate YOU want, not a candidate the state deigns to permit you to vote for. Controlling who the voters are allowed to vote for renders the vote too easily controlled by those who it was supposed to control.

# posted by

Brett : 5:49 PM

"SL does not want Congress to do his bidding. He speaks of what he feels is necessary action but the question is how to reach that point."

Oh, come on, of course he wants Congress to do his bidding.

"Or should we be thinking more imaginatively of new means of protest and direct action with regard to those who purport to govern us?"

Indeed, if they don't do what HE wants them to do, they only purport to govern us. He seems to consider the measure of legitimacy whether the government is doing what HE wants. Doing what somebody else wants, (Perhaps inaction on his favorite causes?) doesn't cut it.

That's pretty hard core, not even being willing to admit the government is really legitimate unless it's doing what YOU think it ought to be.

# posted by

Brett : 5:56 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:21 PM

Joe: "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" Seems still applicable.

Historical truth.

It is far from clear that a violent civil war was the best approach in 1775 and part of why it was successful (other than foreign assistance) was the ties to the national government was much weaker, the power and direct presence of said power far less dominant and various things that had to happen right (down to weather during the Battle of NYC) on each side. We also had a much smaller group of people with real practical agency, particularly blacks and women.

I know this is contra popular wisdom, but the UK had no chance to win the Revolutionary War so long as the new United States did not surrender. While the patriots only made up maybe a third of the population and the British army enjoyed tactical superiority wherever they chose to deploy, they were like a whale attempting to control an ocean. Whenever the Redcoats left one area for another, control reverted back to the Americans like the water filing in behind the swimming whale.

This is a historical lesson today's totalitarians need to keep in mind. If a future socialist government attempts to take over our economy under a pretext like the "Green New Deal," the economy starts going the way of a Greece or Venezuela and the evils become insufferable, such a government would have no chance of surviving an armed revolution so long as the revolutionaries did not surrender. To the extent the soldiers chose to defend such a government, our superb military is too small to hold onto anything but a handful of major cities in the midst of an ocean of armed civilians, many with military training and experience. The military could move around the nation at will and would win nearly every head-to-head battle, but it couldn't hold anything for long.

Some of these things especially the newness of the new nation without long establishment forms explains how the Constitution could be ratified, replacing the Articles.

When the states called the constitutional convention, our new nation was literally on the knife's edge of becoming a failed state. State trade wars, refusal to pay their debts and production of fiat money created a raging stagflation and the economy shrank by something like a fifth. Armed rebellions by desperate farmers were breaking out. The prospect of complete collapse is what drove the states to reform our political economy.

I am afraid we will have to stare into the abyss again before we consider another such convention.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:23 PM

I forgot to include the right to vote in my 4:55 comment.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:00 PM

Brett knows his own agenda. But how does he know Sandy's. Brett, as a troll at this Blog, assumes whatever may be on Sandy's agenda, assuming Sandy has an agenda, would be bad for Brett. That's the Trumpian way. Brett has bought into the amorality that Trump has brought to government. Sandy's been focused on political dysfunction beginning a few years prior to Trump. As a scholar, Sandy is deeply concerned with the impacts of political dysfunction. Brett seems to thrive in it like slop. Perhaps Citizen Brett should forget his difficulties in pulling red radishes as a child. Brett hasn't answered if he would participate in that revolution/civi war. Perhaps, as I suspect, Brett is all talk and no jock. I imagine Citizen Brett's sled with these letters: R-E-D-R-A-D-I-S-H-E-S. Haunting but Brett cannot intimidate.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:09 PM

"It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust."

-- Federalist Papers

# posted by

Joe : 8:14 PM

Perhaps the House could play hardball on the debt ceiling. Democrats should not trust Mnuchen. Trump needs this. The House's hardball can include twisting Mitch.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:49 PM

Mark closed his 4:55 PM comment with this:

"Republican government in the US hasn't failed; it's never been tried."

Mark, do you mean at the federal level? The GC is aimed at states. There is no specific provision for requiring a republican government at the federal level. Was there an assumption that the Constitution spelled out a form of republican government with the three branches but it never worked out? Or did you mean this for the states?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:04 PM

The Constitution doesn't use the word "republic", but many of the provisions operate under the assumption that they were creating a republic; it was represented as one in the ratification debates; and most of the arguments about it involved what being a "republic" meant. For the time, it was republican enough (that is, for most white men). It has, of course, gotten closer to the republican ideal as time has passed, by including more people and by expanding the rights I mentioned.

As for the states, they've always been a mixed bag. Slavery was obviously unrepublican, and of course other rights were unprotected also. So again, progress slowly made. But as I view the GC, the assumption was that the federal government couldn't be republican if the states weren't. That means it's essential to fix the problems at the state level in order to improve the federal.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:26 PM

I think most Americans are rationally ignorant about politics.

# posted by

Dilan : 9:56 PM

I know this is contra popular wisdom, but the UK had no chance to win the Revolutionary War so long as the new United States did not surrender. While the patriots only made up maybe a third of the population and the British army enjoyed tactical superiority wherever they chose to deploy, they were like a whale attempting to control an ocean. Whenever the Redcoats left one area for another, control reverted back to the Americans like the water filing in behind the swimming whale.

Not apropos of anything, but the way Bart views the revolution is actually not that different from the way many liberals view the Viet Cong and the Vietnam War.

# posted by

Dilan : 9:58 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:33 PM

Not apropos of anything, but the way Bart views the revolution is actually not that different from the way many liberals view the Viet Cong and the Vietnam War.
# posted by Blogger Dilan : 9:58 PM

Not liberals, actually. Americans. That's why we got out. If it was just liberals we'd still be there.
# posted by Blogger Bartbuster : 10:33 PM

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:39 PM

Dilan: Not apropos of anything, but the way Bart views the revolution is actually not that different from the way many liberals view the Viet Cong and the Vietnam War.

Or any military man or woman with knowledge of guerrilla wars.

I paraphrased Mao with my ocean metaphor.

NVA general Vo Nguyen Giap was reportedly a student of our Revolution.

In Vietnam, our Army won every battle and lost because the NVA and VC would not surrender.

Now imagine an even smaller Army trying to control a continental nation with an armed citizenry well over 100 million strong.

This is precisely why our armed revolutionary founders wanted a small regular army and the Second Amendment guarantee of an armed citizenry/militia.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:30 PM

Now we just have lots of guns and no militia...

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:25 AM

By the way, I should note that I do agree with Sandy about the need for a constitutional convention. Not so much because I view the Constitution as badly flawed, (Though no constitution is perfect!) as because its flaws have all been uncovered and largely exploited, and that knowledge isn't going away.

Everybody now knows that constitutional protections don't mean squat if you get to pick the judges who interpret them. Everybody now knows that you can rig elections by rules about who can get on the ballot. All the little hacks and work-arounds for turning a constitutionally limited federation into an unlimited nation, a representative democracy into a functional oligarchy, are known.

Even if you could reboot things back to like new, our government would be subverted again in record time.

We need to patch all those security holes, identify the way things went wrong, and fix the flaws. And a constitutional convention is the only way to wrench the government away from the entrenched political class and lock them out.

It's a risky, last ditch effort, though. The sort of thing that will probably fail, but needs to be tried.

# posted by

Brett : 7:24 AM

So according to Brett America has been a failure since the ratification of the 1787 Constitution and that even with a reboot via a constitutional convention would probably fail.

Perhaps a recognition that Trump, the leader of the current Republican Party, is amoral by Trump's base of the forgotten and the Revengelicals could provide a start without the need for such a convention. Check out Michelle Goldberg's NYTimes OpEd yesterday enumerating the amorality surrounding Trump. Check out the NYTimes editorial yesterday on the changes in Trump's Cabinet and inner White House circle regarding Trump's claim "I know the best people." Sure, the Constitution is imperfect, as it relies upon humans to make it work. The Constitution has worked over America's history, not always perfectly, but America has survived. The political dysfunction of Congress is significantly due to the current Republican Party's swallowing the amoral Trump as its leader.

Perhaps Brett overnight has wrestled with his bluntness, his feeble attempt at intimidation, to pronounce in the Blogosphere his agreement with Sandy on a constitutional convention. Maybe Brett has reconsidered his thoughts of revolution/civil war. Maybe this is Brett's way of a mea culpa. Recall on past threads discussion on breaking up America by secessions. In fact Sandy raised such. But there has been less talk about secessions more recently. America must remain united for its national security. America must reassert its values as the leader of the free world. The times require more now than ever, what with serious foreign policy issues PLUS global warming. Congress should do its job for all in America. Congress is failing to do its job as Super points out.

In my lifetime, there have been many ups and downs, two steps forward, one step back, with some progress. Brett may have a different view. Which reminds me of Trump's[ "Make America Great Again." Brett with his mea cup[a seems to suggest that America was never great. Did Brett buy into Trump's MAGA and now backpedaling?

While America is a government of laws not of men (and now women), It is men and women in government that make decisions, and humans are fallible from time to time. The leader of the current Republican Party has been demonstrated to be fallible and amoral. America is not River City's TV reality show.

Brett's "mourning" [sic] thoughts at 7:24 AM may just be his reverting to his anarcho-libertarian mode.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 9:16 AM

I'd disagree with both Shag and Brett. As I see it, the US has never -- not at any moment in time -- actually lived up to its republican ideals (as expressed in the DoI and in my comments above). What we can see is progress -- it's more republican now than it's ever been. That's not good enough, in my view, to face the challenges of today. So I'm on the side of "we need some fundamental changes", changes to make the system more representative and more truly republican.

The risk now is that the Rs have committed themselves to reaction, not just anti-progress but regression to the worst features of our history. They oppose not just policy progress but progress towards the ideals of the DoI and republican government. They're trying to freeze in place minority rule for the benefit of white identity politics. In 2008 I was optimistic that their project would fail. The failure of the Dems at that time to recognize the scope of the problem, or address it in any way, combined with the decision by the Rs to double down on reactionary themes, leaves us now in a much worse situation. I'm not honestly sure it's retrievable. In the past I've questioned the need for some of the more radical proposals made here, but we need something and we need it very very soon.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:54 AM

The risk that concerns me, personally, is that the Ds are committed to an ever more Manichean view of America politics, where anyone who's not with them is irredeemably evil, and being "with them" requires an accelerating march leftwards. Positions that were, just a few years ago, virtually universal across both parties are now considered to be evidence of secretly being a White Supremacist.

They imagine themselves to be living in Germany, 1939, or something worse.

Why? I suspect it's because of the triumph of Rawls; Democrats now take some form of utilitarianism to be a given, reject even the possibility of people genuinely not reasoning in that manner.

And one of the (many) flaws of utilitarianism, is that the end justifies the means, and where the end is opposing some foe, the worse you imagine the foe to be, the worse means you can embrace and feel good about yourself.

I put it to you, Mark, that you're not warming to these radical proposals because the Republicans have become so horrific, but instead are committed to viewing the Republicans as horrific because it makes the radical proposals seem reasonable.

It's freeing to think your foe terrible, and who doesn't want to be free?

# posted by

Brett : 10:59 AM

Committing myself to the ideals of the DoI and of republican government sure does seem radical. I plead guilty.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:05 AM

Brett's closing claim and question at 10:59 AM suggests that he has found his freedom with the amoral Trump, the leader of the current Republican Party. So why does Brett need the constitutional convention he seeks in his 7:24 AM comment? To define the amoral Trump into a new constitution as freedom?

Brett's references to Manichean ..., Rawls, utilitarianism, Germany 1939, White Supremacy are efforts to distract without establishing relevance, plucking things from his derriere. Brett doesn't understand the meaning of radical.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:31 AM

It's freeing to think your foe terrible, and who doesn't want to be free?

You know what would be even more freeing? If we didn’t have a president playing nice with the KKK and Nazis. Good people on both sides, indeed.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:48 AM

Brett: By the way, I should note that I do agree with Sandy about the need for a constitutional convention. Not so much because I view the Constitution as badly flawed, (Though no constitution is perfect!) as because its flaws have all been uncovered and largely exploited, and that knowledge isn't going away.

The Founders could not anticipate the rise of totalitarianism and their Constitution did not place limits on all of that political economy's manifestations.

However, the vast majority of the progressive state violates the Constitution as written. Most of what a second constitutional convention needs to address are explicit repairs of the Constitution to reverse judicial erasures or revisions of the original limits on government, then place explicit limits and checks on judicial review to stop future revisions.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:13 PM

"where anyone who's not with them is irredeemably evil"

Yes, some Trump supporters are troubling sorts. Come on. It's too easy sometimes.

===

I understand the Vietnam reference. When Iraq 2 was up, I thought about the Reconstruction. How did many of the supporters of the war think about "outside" forces taking over then? But, think the situation was different in both cases. Still, good to have empathy.

===

I think Mark's earlier comment was a bit too extreme though understand the concern. Surely, we have a ways to go. As to 2008, I didn't expect it to be a revolutionary moment. One factor was that the stakes (e.g., with years of government controls of the economy to soften the blows) were lower.

Also, the people running repeatedly had a moderate outlook. Finally, great change tends to require an extended complete control of government. The Dems had a short-lived filibuster majority and in a few years lost the Senate (which has gone back/forth for decades though conservative Dems were the balance of power).

===

Quotes are of only so much value but think they have some. Plus, it's a pretty good one (In re Duncan [1891]):

By the Constitution, a republican form of government is guaranteed to every state in the union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue of the legislative power reposed in representative bodies, whose legitimate acts may be said to be those of the people themselves; but while the people are thus the source of political power, their governments, national and state, have been limited by written constitutions, and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power as against the sudden impulses of mere majorities.

It then talks about Daniel Webster's argument in Luther v. Borden:

Mr. Webster's argument in that case took a wider sweep, and contained a masterly statement of the American system of government as recognizing that the people are the source of all political power, but that, as the exercise of governmental powers immediately by the people themselves is impracticable, they must be exercised by representatives of the people; that the basis of representation is suffrage; that the right of suffrage must be protected and its exercise prescribed by previous law and the results ascertained by some certain rule; that through its regulated exercise, each man's power tells in the constitution of the government and in the enactment of laws; that the people limit themselves in regard to the qualifications of electors and the qualifications of the elected, and to certain forms of the conduct of elections; that our liberty is the liberty secured by the regular action of popular power, taking place and ascertained in accordance with legal and authentic modes, and that the Constitution and laws do not proceed on the ground of revolution, or any right of revolution, but on the idea of results achieved by orderly action under the authority of existing governments, proceedings outside of which are not contemplated by our institutions.

Anyway, as to the Guarantee Clause, if the U.S. shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, unclear how the federal government not being republican (small 'r') would allow that. Plus, "republican" as Mark noted factors in the constitutional structure as a whole, including the executive and legislature.

I think part of having a society that truly reflects republican principles is understanding them and having a spirit that honors them.

# posted by

Joe : 12:30 PM

Absolutely yes to Joe's last sentence. The Founders used the word "virtue" to express that thought, meaning the willingness to sacrifice one's personal, individual interests for the good of the whole ("the permanent and aggregate interests" in Madison's phrase).

But note that I haven't (yet) called for revolution. Not a big fan of it for the most part. What I do call for is determined action to democratize the US system, having the faith that the American people will end up making the right policy calls if the majority is allowed to govern.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:49 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:12 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:15 PM

Today is Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee. He was the founder of the KKK. Guess the political party of the governor who signed this law.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:27 PM

Might a "call" for revolution result in a number of revolutionary groups that might revolt for different reasons with the result that the groups might be revolting against each other? How might such a "call" be responded to in different sections of the nation? Might such a "call" bring out counter-revolutionaries? What might be the impact of such a "call" on national security? What impact might such a "call" have upon America's economy, especially for those who live from paycheck to paycheck? Is it time to watch "Mad Max" movies?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:52 PM

BB, Ted Cruz said the Governor was wrong.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:53 PM

I don't know what's the funniest/saddest thing Brett has said on this thread, so let me open it to a vote.

1. His equation of utilitarianism and *Rawls* for pete's sake.
2. His crocodile tears for the death of representative democracy just a day removed from essentially taking a dump on democracy and its fundamental principles.
3. His 'the problem with the D's is they see their foes as not just wrong but evil' (which party had 'lock her up' as their go to chant about their last political opponent?).
4. His idea that the problem we have today is with federal judges not beholden enough to the states (as he cheers federal judges striking down state/local gun laws, affirmative action policies, campaign finance rules, etc.,, etc.,).

Good lord.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:02 PM

"I haven't (yet) called for revolution. Not a big fan of it for the most part."

All one needs to know about where the two big ideologies are right now in this country can be encapsulated in this quote of one of our most dedicated liberal commenters and our 'conservative' commenters quoting Mao and calling for a revolution or re-do on our constitutional order.

Conservatives are the Jacobins of the day.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:04 PM

"the Constitution as written"

As we've seen especially of late, Bart has no actual regard for the 'Constitution as written.' Remember his comically a-textual argument for not counting migrants the other day, among other things.

Propagandists use slogans, backed by no principle.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:09 PM

Trump's "Cave-Man" move on the Census Con case has apparently disturbed libertarians and other conservatives. who can't understand why Trump caved. The Federalist Society presumably will let Trump know how they after all the Federalist Society has done for Trump.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:27 PM

1. I wouldn't characterize America as having Republican ideals. This country was founded to protect slavery (the one non-negotiable portion of the Constitution) and to protect wealthy white elites. There was a secondary ideal of Indian genocide as well. We later adopted the ideal of world domination by force as well.

Just like every other country, of course, our founding documents do not reflect those ideals but instead speak of equality and representative government.

The good in this country came from the British and their common law legal system, which allows for partial enforcement of what were originally intended to be the lies in the founding documents.

I do agree with Mark that the Republican Party turn towards white identity politics is very bad. I would add though that, although less bad than the Republicans, the Democrats' turn towards wealthy white elites in the cities is also dangerous.

But none of this is a betrayal of the framers. They would be extremely happy with white elite control of both major factions. They thought that was what the country was all about.

# posted by

Dilan : 2:45 PM

Briefly, "revolution" has various meanings (think "sexual revolution") so though violent revolutions have been referenced, my usage is also wider in nature.

# posted by

Joe : 2:48 PM

More generally, I don't think constitutional reform would be useful. Much of what is wrong with the Constitution is stuff that can't be fixed anyway, like the Senate and notions of state sovereignty. And most of the reason Americans have bad government is because we are a bad citizenry, full of bigots, jingoists, violent personalities, and worshippers of celebrity and privilege. You could argue the Constitution exacerbates some of these things, but any government formed on behalf of this populace is going to be by definition really crappy.

# posted by

Dilan : 2:58 PM

BB: Today is Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee. He was the founder of the KKK. Guess the political party of the governor who signed this law.

Lie.

An old state law requires the governor to proclaim multiple days after Confederate leaders.

One guess the political party of the general, the KKK and the folks who enacted the law.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:39 PM

On the question of a republican government, Boston Boy Ben Franklin came to mind and this story via Google:

***
There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

***

I used to frequent in my semi-retirement "Ben's Bar" in Boston's Old City Hall. I don't recall if this subject came up. Google noted that "democracy is not mentioned in the 1787 Constitution, nor apparently Republic, although reference is made to the GC clauses "republican government regarding states. So what, if anything, does textualism tell us of republican government at the federal level? Ben's Bar has been gone for some time, alas.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 3:46 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:59 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:02 PM

Dilan:

The GOP "turn toward white identity politics?" In what alternative universe?

The Democrats are the proud champions of identity politics. They used to reserve the race, gender and sexual preference cards for the GOP, but they are turning on one another with a vengeance right now.

Harris ambushed Biden with a carefully planned and misleading attack on busing.

Harris and Booker attacked Biden for working with segregationist Democrats, as if he had a choice.

AOC's posse is calling Pelosi and all the Democrats who voted to provide food and supplies to the border patrol racists.

The New Republic just published a screed calling Buttigieg an Uncle Tom gay man.

Biden and O'Rourke are constantly apologizing for being white males.

O'Rourke and Booker took turns speaking Spanish at the Democrat debate as if that gave them some sort of street cred in the hispanic community.

I really don't know what more the Democrats can do to chase whites in general and white men specifically out of the party and into the arms of the GOP.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:03 PM

Bart:

10 years ago, it was common wisdom in the GOP that the party should go after Latino voters with comprehensive immigration reform. 25 years ago, the party supported extending the Voting Rights Act.

Nowadays, the party is attempting a different strategy where they use various forms of disenfranchisement to lock in white conservative rule, and party leaders more and more often make explicitly racist sentiment.

It seems to me Mark's description of a GOP backslide is correct.

# posted by

Dilan : 4:32 PM

No, Blankshot, it's not a lie. Whether or not a law was passed long ago is irrelevant. The law could have been repealed. It wasn't. Tennessee is honoring the founder of the KKK. And the person bestowing the honor is a Rethuglican. That is an undeniable fact.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:33 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:19 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:20 PM

Dilan: 10 years ago, it was common wisdom in the GOP that the party should go after Latino voters with comprehensive immigration reform. 25 years ago...

Amnesty for illegal aliens was always limited to the GOP political class, who, as you noted, were seeking to buy votes. GOP and more than a few Dem voters opposed this lawlessness. This may be the primary reason Trump won the 2016 primaries and general election.

the party supported extending the Voting Rights Act.

The Dems started abusing the VRA pre-clearance provision to stop GOP districting, so the GOP reversed the abuse.

Nowadays, the party is attempting a different strategy where they use various forms of disenfranchisement to lock in white conservative rule, and party leaders more and more often make explicitly racist sentiment.

Nonsense.

Rather, the Democrats are dishonestly playing the race card to stop basic safeguards they supported in the past like voter ID and scrubbing voter rolls of illegal voters, the moved and the dead.

Deep blue CA has turned their elections system into a massive vote manufacturing scheme. Abuses like vote harvesting which are illegal voter fraud across the rest of the country manufacture hundreds of thousands of votes on the left coast. I would love to eVerify the CA voter rolls to see how many non-citzens are registered and voting. Of course, that would be "racist."

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:22 PM

"I really don't know what more the Democrats can do to chase whites in general and white men specifically out of the party and into the arms of the GOP."

Indeed, what white person can countenance criticizing reminisces of working with segregationists, opposition to busing and speaking Spanish?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:34 PM

"The law could have been repealed."

Indeed, the GOP has total control of KY and has for years. The state has been voting GOP for President (a better measure of conservative ideology) for decades. There is only one Party that currently and recently is in favor of public monuments for the white supremacist slavers of the Confederacy. It is the Grand Old one.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:39 PM

"lawlessness"

There's a pretty simple and obvious 'tell' about when conservatives insist that the fervor and importance they place on the issue of illegal immigration is based on their fealty to lawfulness and hatred of lawlessness: there are currently more US taxpayers in violation of current tax law than there are undocumented migrants in violation of immigration laws. Yet you don't see them rushing to 'crack down' on the former, to call them something like 'illegal taxpayers,' etc. As usual, their professed principles should not be believed.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:47 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:51 PM

BD: I really don't know what more the Democrats can do to chase whites in general and white men specifically out of the party and into the arms of the GOP.

Mr. W: Indeed, what white person can countenance criticizing reminisces of working with segregationists...

A guilt by association attack is used specifically to knock out the most popular white male Dem candidate for no wrong doing of his own does not not exactly sell the Democrats to white voters in general and white males in particular.

opposition to busing

Forced busing for racial engineering was and remains loathed by a heavy majority of voters.

...and speaking Spanish?

This and the video clip of every Dam candidate raising their hands for taxpayer financed health care for illegal aliens along with the same candidates saying enforcing immigration law is a plot to "make American white again" will appear in multiple ads next year. We'll see how pandering to illegal aliens and accusing those who take exception of being white supremicists sells to middle America.

You really don't see it, do you? I assure you, voters in places like MI, WI and PA do.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:52 PM

"This country was founded to protect slavery"

This is balderdash. Some states abolished slavery by the time of the Founding, so how can it be said the purpose of the founding was to protect slavery, a practice those states forbid and did not practice? Slavery was debated at the Convention and limitations were placed on it in the subsequent Constitution....Slavery is the 'original sin' and failing of our society and should always be remembered as such, but the main goal of the Founding was not 'let's create and maintain a slave holding society' it was 'let's create a limited non-aristocratic republican confederation which happens to allow slavery [and doesn't recognize the rights of women, etc.,] in it.'

A problem we have in this country re: slavery is the inability of conservatives to acknowledge it in any serious way and the inability of liberals to think it's anything other than the single and most important facet.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:58 PM

Mr. W: there are currently more US taxpayers in violation of current tax law than there are undocumented migrants in violation of immigration laws?"

There are something like 20 million taxpayers cheating on their taxes?

Yet you don't see them rushing to 'crack down' on the former"

Do you have a clue how many taxpayers the IRS is auditing and seizing their bank accounts and garnishing their wages without a judgment from a court of law.

Get a better analogy.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:58 PM

"A guilt by association attack "

It's laughable for modern conservatives to criticize a 'guilt by association attack' (remember the whole Obama did something in a former Weatherman's house! attack?).

"Forced busing for racial engineering"

Sure, there was no 'racial engineering' in the set ups that busing was meant to address!

"I assure you, voters in places like MI, WI and PA do."

Your track record re: what voters will do is laughable.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:02 PM

"
This is balderdash. Some states abolished slavery by the time of the Founding, so how can it be said the purpose of the founding was to protect slavery"

Because the entrenchment of slavery was literally non-negotiable. No protection of slavery, no founding.

And that isn't true about equality, free speech, democracy, or any of the other things people claim are the "real" values in this country. The framers passed two Constitutions that didn't contain ANY of those things, but which guaranteed slavery.

It was the founding principle of this country. The only reason people don't admit it is because they lack the strength of character to admit they live in a country founded on evil.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:10 PM

"There are something like 20 million taxpayers cheating on their taxes?"

The reliable estimates of those in violation of tax law is > than the reliable estimates of those in violation of immigration law, yes indeed.

"Do you have a clue how many taxpayers the IRS is auditing and seizing their bank accounts and garnishing their wages without a judgment from a court of law. "

About a million of the 141 million taxpayers are audited each year. About 250,000 deportations of the 10 million undocumented migrants occurred in 2018.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:11 PM

Is SPAM volunteering as the White Supremacy leader in his Purple state? Sounds like it. Even Ted Cruz said the teen. gov. was wrong honoring the deceased KKK founder.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:11 PM

Bart:

Quite simply, there are Republican vote suppression programs in numerous states. The most recent example involves the Florida voters, who passed a law requiring felon reenfranchisement, and Republicans basically thwarted it because they didn't want felons voting for Democrats.

That's recent vintage.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:12 PM

OOPS! at 7:11 PM correction: "Tenn. Gov."

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:17 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:18 PM

Dilan, I hate it when people ask me for identification (a drivers license for example) or identifying information (my SS or DOB). It reminds me of a 'papers please' surveillance society, one which wants to put me in their database and know as much as they can about me. Call it a personal quirk.

As a result, in the vast majority of my transactions in life, this is a non-negotiable feature. When I seek a gym membership, or get a 'bonus card' at a grocery chain, or even buy alcohol, if someone even asks me for this information I will terminate the transaction there and then. (It's one reason I laugh when conservatives argue strict voter ID laws are not important because everyone has to show ID all the time these days, I literally have not shown my ID to another human being in years). It's silly to argue that the *purpose* of each gym membership, bonus club membership, alcohol purchase, etc., was the protection of my ID information because it was a non-negotiable feature.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:20 PM

Yeah, Shag, Cruz said the TN governor was wrong. Then he backtracked later and said that monuments to people like Bedford were ok. Even when Cruz tries to do the right thing he screws it up.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 7:53 PM

Cruz is a man, and I use that term here lightly, that eventually capitulated and supported another man that attacked his wife and father. A better example of partisan sickness I can't think of.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:08 PM

I forgot for a moment who was at the helm at this Blog steering the 2016 Cruz Canadacy, who pegged Trump as a fascist over and over and then swallowed the leader hook , line and sinker. Turds of a feather stick together.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:21 PM

Mr. W:

There is no comparison between Obama striking up a friendship with a terrorist and Biden working with other Senators .

I agree that the Democrats are responsible for both Jim Crow and forced busing. Two wrongs do not make a right. Why do you vote for the party of racism again?

The IRS does not run a catch and release program. Get a better analogy.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:07 AM

Dilan:

I agree that both parties believe felons to be a core Democrat constituency and act accordingly. However, what does this have to do with your false assertion the GOP "turn[ed] toward white identity politics?"

BTW, the Dem initiative to extend the franchise to felons in FL was too cute by half. In order to win, they had to limit the franchise to felons who had completed their sentences and had presumably paid their debt to society. What these brainiacs did not realize is that most felons never successfully complete their sentences because they rarely pay the ordered restitution, fines and costs. Personally, I would forgive the fines and costs, but no felon has paid his debt to society without first paying restitution to his or her victim.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:15 AM

Bart, have you lost your fucking mind? The GOP is, at this very moment, defending monuments to traitors who fought against the United States to defend the institution of slavery. This isn't something that happened in the 20s or the 50s or the 60s. It's happening now. The fact that you pretend that this isn't happening says a lot about you.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:55 AM

Biden working with other Senators who advocated state sponsored terrorism. FTFY

The answer re: the IRS is essentially a capitulation. The IRS under enforces the law to a degree that would be unheard of to ICE. Conservative advocates of 'lawfulness' look the other way when the laws broken are tax laws but get extra hot and bothered when the law broken is the lack of documentation by mostly brown migrants.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:08 AM

"they had to limit the franchise to felons who had completed their sentences and had presumably paid their debt to society."

That wasn't in the language of the initiative voted on at all.

As noted, Bart does not and has never believed in the law-as-written. It's just a propaganda slogan.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:10 AM

Conservatives worried about lawfulness want e-verify for mostly brown migrants ineligible by law to employ but oppose background checks to prevent those ineligible by law to buy guns.

The analogies are numerous but the lesson is the same: don't believe the stated principle of conservative partisans, it doesn't exist.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:27 AM

"The GOP is, at this very moment, defending monuments to traitors who fought against the United States to defend the institution of slavery."

Indeed. When Memphis moved to remove a statue glorifying KKK founder Forrest the TN GOP legislature lept to punish them and defend the white supremacist. Their sympathies are clear.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-lawmakers-punish-memphis-removing-confederate-statues-n866961

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:10 AM

bb: The GOP is, at this very moment, defending monuments to traitors who fought against the United States to defend the institution of slavery.

I will take your deep concern with statutes of long dead Democrat secessionists and nullifiers when you condemn current Democrat secessionists and nullifiers.

Didn't Sandy comment favorably concerning secession?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:38 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:52 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:53 AM

Mr. W: Biden working with other Senators who advocated state sponsored terrorism.

If you are upset about the practitioners of government racism, I ask again why you vote for the party of government racism?

The IRS under enforces the law to a degree that would be unheard of to ICE. Conservative advocates of 'lawfulness' look the other way when the laws broken are tax laws but get extra hot and bothered when the law broken is the lack of documentation by mostly brown migrants.

My point exactly. You claimed conservatives were hypocrites for calling for enforcement of the immigration law, but not for the tax laws; when, in fact, "the IRS under enforces the law to a degree that would be unheard of to ICE."

HD: "they had to limit the franchise to felons who had completed their sentences and had presumably paid their debt to society."

Mr. W: That wasn't in the language of the initiative voted on at all.

You really should read your own authorities before I read them to you:

"A "yes" vote supported this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation."

Conservatives worried about lawfulness want e-verify for mostly brown migrants ineligible by law to employ but oppose background checks to prevent those ineligible by law to buy guns.

Conservatives generally have no problem with the government denying felons the rights to vote and to keep and bear arms. We also have no problem with the government providing instant background checks to businesses to screen employees and the customers for firearms. Get a better analogy.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:55 AM

Conservatives say they focus on illegal immigration because it's evidence of lawlessness unaddressed yet they don't call on the IRS to step up action against those breaking the tax laws (whom outnumber those in violation of immigration law). Not sure how you can't get that.

Conservatives want employers to go through everify for buying labor but not for requiring sellers do background checks on those buying guns.

As to the party of racism, which party is that falling over itself to protect monuments to white supremacist Cinfederates? Why yours.

And a sentence does not include court costs and feed.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:32 AM

Mr. W:

Just stop. You are making a complete fool of yourself.

I addressed all of this nonsense above apart from one item: A sentence most certainly includes fines, court costs, restitution, the costs of probation/parole and often a myriad of other charges legislatures pass to make the criminal pay for the criminal justice system.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:41 AM

I understand you're cornered with no answer as to conservatives rank hypocrisy and un seriousness when they complain of the lawlessness re immigration.

And sure court costs and fees are certainly part of a sentence, that's why the FL legislature had to pass a separate bill with that added language!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:47 AM

SPAM at 10:38 AM in responding to Mr. W says:

" ... when you condemn current Democrat secessionists and nullifiers. "

but fails to identify them. SPAM is obviously in a rant and rage mode as evidenced by his frantic removal of his comments.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Sandy had raised the issue of secession as a possible reaction to political dysfunction but not in the sense of favoring it. This goes back several years ago. SPAM has a fragile memory as he trolls along. Must be the recreational Ganja. The only redeeming feature of SPAM's vileness is that he will not be passing on those vile genes. Rant and rage on like the old days of his drumming Tom Tom Tancredo's racial policies. It is said that a neighbor of SPAM's in his rural mountain community once referred to SPAM as "Just another pisshole in the snow." But with climate change ....

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 12:08 PM

Shag: SPAM at 10:38 AM in responding to Mr. W says: " ... when you condemn current Democrat secessionists and nullifiers," but fails to identify them.

Start here:

(1) Any Democrat who advocates the secession of blue cities and states from the union.

(2) Any Democrat who supports nullifying national immigration law by setting up sanctuary states and cities and otherwise obstructs justice helping illegal immigrants evade national enforcement of the law. This includes Democrat judges rewriting the law to prevent its enforcement resulting in the current catch and release system.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:17 PM

The Tennessee law has been applied regarding Nathan Bedford Forrest by providing a proclamation noting he was military figure in state history or some such bland thing.

I find the day of prayer legislation passed by Congress dubious, particularly since selectively requires official support of religious exercise. But, there are various ways to do it. So, a presidential (Trumpian) proclamation can say any number of things, including honoring the broad religious beliefs of the population. In fact, "prayer" per one recent lower court of appeals ruling is not even necessarily related to a deity.

The recent proclamation included this bit:

I invite the citizens of our Nation to pray, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, in thanksgiving for the freedoms and blessings we have received, and for God’s guidance and continued protection as we meet the challenges before us.

The proclamation thus speaks of "their own faiths" but in this and other portions has a more sectarian character than necessary. Some political controversy arose in early presidential thanksgiving proclamations and so forth. John Adams even said he thought he lost re-election because people opposed his framing.

Note how the proclamation invites "citizens" to pray. Leaving out millions of non-citizens is not necessary under the law. Likewise, if the governor wished to use the law as an opening for reflection of the wrongs of Nathan Bedford Forrest in particular as well as the others who committed treason in defense of slavery, it seems to me (per the law) "appropriate."

# posted by

Joe : 12:30 PM

The last comment suggests how there is flexibility in the law, including the Constitution, but that the people in power and public opinion (the "virtue" Mark speaks of was an obligation for all citizens; in some fashion, all persons too, surely those guided by religious belief) affects how it is applied in various respects. As do other things.

I don't know what the future will bring, but within ten years, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. Over time, significant amendments were ratified, even when but a few decades before they might have been seen as but dreams. So, I will not leave anything out of the realm of possibility regarding various big constitutional questions.

For instance, at some point electing a president might not be tied to state residence. Puerto Rico even aside, it is unjust that hundreds of thousands of people cannot vote for POTUS, even under our flawed Electoral College system. The Natural Born Citizenship rule has also been flagged by people across ideological lines, various people foreign born appealing to different types of people there. Sen. Orinn Hatch, e.g., years back proposed an amendment. Yes, I think by various techniques the Senate can be addressed (I talked about this before.) I'm wary of an ERA (ditto) but a clear right to vote amendment or one that better addresses D.C. and the rights of other federal enclaves (the 23A a half-measure) are other possibilities.

Various other things might come to mind. I cited in the past one thing that I think might warrant an amendment to update the Constitution to address modern administrative agencies. The Constitution does allow them, but a lot is left to fill in details, which in the next few years will be reliant on conservative courts not to screw up. Like the income tax amendment (which I don't think was constitutionally necessary), an amendment might provide a clear statement. Such things like legislative vetoes and such can also be allowed per such an amendment.

Maybe none of this will be passed. But, who knows? Some things that occurred in the last few decades were rather surprising.

# posted by

Joe : 12:41 PM

SPAM does not identify any current Democrat that fits 12:17 PM non-response.

Back on threads several years ago, SPAM expressed his views on secession. Perhaps SPAM should recheck his views back then. Would SPAM bluntly condemn "current Republicans, conservatives, libertarians" on the same basis as he seeks for Democrats? I recall secession discussion for portions of a state, in CO.

Sandy had much earlier in discussion secession posited Texas seceding by agreement. I had some interesting comments on that back then on whether Texas would be prepared to give up nuclear facilities.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:20 PM

Out of curiosity, does SPAM still maintain his virtually trafficless blog?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:23 PM

Let's assume a state does not want a republican form of government and state X chooses an authoritarian form of government. The GC clause's first part makes a guarantee to every state. If state x does not call on the guarantee, might its voters/residents have standing as indirect beneficiaries to seek relief via the federal judiciary? Or might another state, Y, have access to the federal judiciary concerning the impact of state X's authoritarian form of government on state Y? Or would this be non-justiciable?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:51 PM