The US is the only country in the world to elect its village idiot.
Or is that idiots?
Showing posts with label mobocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobocracy. Show all posts
21 July 2009
22 March 2008
Political Parties
I belong to the Constitutional Monarchist party even though I am registered as a Democrat. This is because being an independent in Philadelphia is like being an atheist in Northern Ireland: I.e. "Are you a Democrat Indpendent or a Republican Independent?" Anyway, being a Constitutional Monarchist is the best way to express my political philosophy, but unfortunately, I am probably the only Constitutional Monarchist in the United States.
Now the "Republican" party has truly fallen away from this, especially in terms of its attitude toward rule of law and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would make sense if there were still a strong institutional militia; however, most "republicans" aren't willing to accept that institution. Moreover, they are willing to destroy the rule of law for popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of how Adams defined a republic.
People in a republic are expected to participate and give their efforts to running the democracy. In early American times, I would have had some government job where I could have contributed my skills and knowledge. Nowadays, I am marginally employed. People seem to get government jobs by knowing somebody, not by ability.
Worse, the "Republicans" have taken to talking about democracy, which is a contradiction. Not to mention it leads to my next point.
Democracy:
Competitive elections! That doesn't really apply in the United States as I think that it is a system where loads of money is required to get anywhere in the political process.
Absolute democracy is mobocracy where the majority rule. Of course, this isn't really the case in the United States as the 2000 and 2004 elections have shown. Also, I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I support (e.g., Wesley Clark in the 2004 election). We are seeing a wonderful thwarting of democracy regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries and apportioning of delegates.
I find it interesting that both a Democracy and Republic demand rule of law, as does a Constitutional monarchy. However, we may be seeing the thwarting of the rule of law by the Second Amendment/Right to Keep and Bear Arms crowd. The Heller case is a wonderful example of how the rule of law works and how it may be thwarted. the principle of rule of law means that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule.
I keep rattling on about stare decisis which is part of procedural rules. A court must follow precedent unless there is a valid reason to overrule that precedent. In other words, judges should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Even more salient, judges should not be swayed by popular opinion or the law will change willy-nilly. Justice Breyer recently summarized this Court’s approach, “[T]he rule of law demands that adhering to . . . prior case law be the norm [and] [d]eparture from precedent is exceptional and requires ‘special justifications’ . . . . especially [where] the principle has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period of time.” Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 at 2489 (2006) (declining to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). Additionally, if our "leaders" aren't bold enough to show some backbone in time of crisis, then the courts should stand on precedent. I am not really going to go back into this since I have run on about how Heller could and should stick with precedent and just clarify the Miller decision in terms which even idiots can understand.
Anyway, with the exception of Constitutional Monarchy, these systems require some form of personal responsibility and civic mindedness. Constitutional Monarchy realises that the masses are peasants and do indeed need a nanny state. fortunately, Constitutional Monarchists practise noblesse oblige meaning we have a requirement for social responsibility. We can come up with elections, but there are institutions, such as the landed aristocracy which keeps some form of mob rule under wraps. Also, the landed aristocracy are able to keep land use issues under control, which is sort of sad given the interregnum we have had has led to urban sprawl.
Fortunately, we may have a individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and I can set up my private army and start my own duchy. I mean my Royal Pennsylvania militia will be very well trained if that is what "well regulated" means. And if Justice Scalia is correct that militias are outside of government control, then we are perfectly justified in setting up a Constitutional Monarchy.
I wonder if Prince Charles will accept our invitation to be King.
Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule of law, popular sovereignty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Or as John Adams put it, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption.
Now the "Republican" party has truly fallen away from this, especially in terms of its attitude toward rule of law and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would make sense if there were still a strong institutional militia; however, most "republicans" aren't willing to accept that institution. Moreover, they are willing to destroy the rule of law for popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of how Adams defined a republic.
People in a republic are expected to participate and give their efforts to running the democracy. In early American times, I would have had some government job where I could have contributed my skills and knowledge. Nowadays, I am marginally employed. People seem to get government jobs by knowing somebody, not by ability.
Worse, the "Republicans" have taken to talking about democracy, which is a contradiction. Not to mention it leads to my next point.
Democracy:
In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
Competitive elections! That doesn't really apply in the United States as I think that it is a system where loads of money is required to get anywhere in the political process.
Absolute democracy is mobocracy where the majority rule. Of course, this isn't really the case in the United States as the 2000 and 2004 elections have shown. Also, I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I support (e.g., Wesley Clark in the 2004 election). We are seeing a wonderful thwarting of democracy regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries and apportioning of delegates.
I find it interesting that both a Democracy and Republic demand rule of law, as does a Constitutional monarchy. However, we may be seeing the thwarting of the rule of law by the Second Amendment/Right to Keep and Bear Arms crowd. The Heller case is a wonderful example of how the rule of law works and how it may be thwarted. the principle of rule of law means that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule.
I keep rattling on about stare decisis which is part of procedural rules. A court must follow precedent unless there is a valid reason to overrule that precedent. In other words, judges should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Even more salient, judges should not be swayed by popular opinion or the law will change willy-nilly. Justice Breyer recently summarized this Court’s approach, “[T]he rule of law demands that adhering to . . . prior case law be the norm [and] [d]eparture from precedent is exceptional and requires ‘special justifications’ . . . . especially [where] the principle has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period of time.” Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 at 2489 (2006) (declining to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). Additionally, if our "leaders" aren't bold enough to show some backbone in time of crisis, then the courts should stand on precedent. I am not really going to go back into this since I have run on about how Heller could and should stick with precedent and just clarify the Miller decision in terms which even idiots can understand.
Anyway, with the exception of Constitutional Monarchy, these systems require some form of personal responsibility and civic mindedness. Constitutional Monarchy realises that the masses are peasants and do indeed need a nanny state. fortunately, Constitutional Monarchists practise noblesse oblige meaning we have a requirement for social responsibility. We can come up with elections, but there are institutions, such as the landed aristocracy which keeps some form of mob rule under wraps. Also, the landed aristocracy are able to keep land use issues under control, which is sort of sad given the interregnum we have had has led to urban sprawl.
Fortunately, we may have a individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and I can set up my private army and start my own duchy. I mean my Royal Pennsylvania militia will be very well trained if that is what "well regulated" means. And if Justice Scalia is correct that militias are outside of government control, then we are perfectly justified in setting up a Constitutional Monarchy.
I wonder if Prince Charles will accept our invitation to be King.
11 February 2008
Democratic?
Anyone familiar with my blog should notice the theme that the United States is far from being a democracy. The Constitution is written to thwart popular rule. Case in point is the electoral college. Dubious Bush did not win the 2000 election by a popular vote, he won it through the electoral college.
So, why do the politicians kiss the wrong asses?
Because there is money in the current system and it totally obfuscates the fact that there is really no popular representation of the people. And the government is in no way responsible to the people.
Yet, people wish to believe that an presidential election process which lasts four years is responsible to the people. What has me going on this rant is the comment from someone in Virginia on NPR's Morning Edition saying that he plans on voting for Mitt Romney. Now as someone who voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 PA primary and Kucinich in the 2004 primary that this is a great thought, but our friend's protest vote is the rough equivalent of abstaining. In fact, at this point, the candidates are pretty much decided. Hilary Obama/Barack Clinton for the Demicans and McCain for the Republicrats.
But, no matter who wins, it will be business as usual with the sideshow issues of abortion, gun control, and, the new one, Iraq/War on Terror. The whole time, the leaders are causing the united States to fall further and further behind the world.
Matt Miller wrote an article on why we need federal standards in Education in the atlantic and was on Today's "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane". See Also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education.
The problem is that the US is behind in health care, transportation, and education. Miller pointed out that third world countries are already passing us by. He predicts there will be another "Sputnik moment" during the Beijing Olympics when people see how far ahead they are as far as infrastructure.
Of course, the leaders don't want to take any leadership position and they are under no obligation to do so. This is because of the pretense of a democratic process, there is no real input from the people. The process takes so long that qualified candidates pull out.
The real winners are the party leaders and the lampreys who feed off the process. This won't change as long as there is money to be made.
So, why do the politicians kiss the wrong asses?
Because there is money in the current system and it totally obfuscates the fact that there is really no popular representation of the people. And the government is in no way responsible to the people.
Yet, people wish to believe that an presidential election process which lasts four years is responsible to the people. What has me going on this rant is the comment from someone in Virginia on NPR's Morning Edition saying that he plans on voting for Mitt Romney. Now as someone who voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 PA primary and Kucinich in the 2004 primary that this is a great thought, but our friend's protest vote is the rough equivalent of abstaining. In fact, at this point, the candidates are pretty much decided. Hilary Obama/Barack Clinton for the Demicans and McCain for the Republicrats.
But, no matter who wins, it will be business as usual with the sideshow issues of abortion, gun control, and, the new one, Iraq/War on Terror. The whole time, the leaders are causing the united States to fall further and further behind the world.
Matt Miller wrote an article on why we need federal standards in Education in the atlantic and was on Today's "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane". See Also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education.
The problem is that the US is behind in health care, transportation, and education. Miller pointed out that third world countries are already passing us by. He predicts there will be another "Sputnik moment" during the Beijing Olympics when people see how far ahead they are as far as infrastructure.
Of course, the leaders don't want to take any leadership position and they are under no obligation to do so. This is because of the pretense of a democratic process, there is no real input from the people. The process takes so long that qualified candidates pull out.
The real winners are the party leaders and the lampreys who feed off the process. This won't change as long as there is money to be made.
The Language of Liberty
Dr. Samuel Johnson Pointed out "that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes" at the time of the revolution. Thomas Jefferson stated that "all men were created equal", yet he had 187 slaves. Patrick Henry screamed "give me liberty or give me death", yet was also a slave owner. Was Mr. Henry as willing to give his slaves liberty?
Add in George Washington and most of the Southern rebels.
Another cry was "no taxation without representation" which came from Massachusetts. Rather humourous given that the colonies were taxed at a much lower rate than those back in Mother England. Even funnier that the places this cry was heard have high taxes post rebellion (mostly due to the debts incurred from said rebellion). They don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.
Self-representation and we tax you like the Beatles' song Taxman ("one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman,...Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all"). Of course, quite a bit of this money goes toward a standing army, from which the Second amendment is supposed to protect me. We should have a citizens' militia. Of course, it is better to pay high taxes than have to give up time for militia duties.
The "founding fathers" were also not fans of Democracy. Typical contemporary writings describe it as mob rule. The word had a similar connotation to how we use anarchy today. Our friends who were screaming for liberty while screwing their slaves (Old Tom and Sally Hemmings) were all for representation by property owning white males and sod the masses. Fortunately, property was so cheap in North America that most white males could fit into this category.
I draw your attention to the Impeachment of Samuel Chase for criticising voting reforms as "mobocracy". You might also do well to check out my previous post on this subject.
The basic gist of this is that the common man would be considered the mob, or rabble. No where in the Constitution is the word "democracy" used. This is a republic, a vastly different system. The reason Dubious Bush became president had nothing to do with popular vote, but the electoral college. Check out that institution.
Republics expect duties from their citizens which modern libertarians seem to miss.
So, don't let the language of liberty obfuscate the issue. As my dad loved to point out the Soviet Constitution sounded very egalitarian as well.
Add in George Washington and most of the Southern rebels.
Another cry was "no taxation without representation" which came from Massachusetts. Rather humourous given that the colonies were taxed at a much lower rate than those back in Mother England. Even funnier that the places this cry was heard have high taxes post rebellion (mostly due to the debts incurred from said rebellion). They don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.
Self-representation and we tax you like the Beatles' song Taxman ("one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman,...Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all"). Of course, quite a bit of this money goes toward a standing army, from which the Second amendment is supposed to protect me. We should have a citizens' militia. Of course, it is better to pay high taxes than have to give up time for militia duties.
The "founding fathers" were also not fans of Democracy. Typical contemporary writings describe it as mob rule. The word had a similar connotation to how we use anarchy today. Our friends who were screaming for liberty while screwing their slaves (Old Tom and Sally Hemmings) were all for representation by property owning white males and sod the masses. Fortunately, property was so cheap in North America that most white males could fit into this category.
I draw your attention to the Impeachment of Samuel Chase for criticising voting reforms as "mobocracy". You might also do well to check out my previous post on this subject.
The basic gist of this is that the common man would be considered the mob, or rabble. No where in the Constitution is the word "democracy" used. This is a republic, a vastly different system. The reason Dubious Bush became president had nothing to do with popular vote, but the electoral college. Check out that institution.
Republics expect duties from their citizens which modern libertarians seem to miss.
So, don't let the language of liberty obfuscate the issue. As my dad loved to point out the Soviet Constitution sounded very egalitarian as well.
12 January 2008
Perpetual elections
It seems as if the US presidential election has been going on since the end of the last election in 2004. Barely has it officially started and it has been going on far too long.
This whole thing reminds me of the African Politician, I think it was Jomo Kenyatta, talking about the one party versus multiple party systems who said soemthing along the lines of: "Does having one party make us less of a democracy than a two party system? Do two parties make you twice the democracy we are?"
That seems particularly appropriate in regard to the US elections. The whole thing goes on far too long, has far too few real leaders, and isn't really "democratic" anyway. The last one must seem pretty amusing given my comments on democracy. On the other hand, if a nation is going to go around boasting about how it is run by the people, the people should be allowed to properly participate. Instead, quite a few people are disenfranchised.
How? well, the whole process is really run by the parties, which are really Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. I see no real difference between the parties in practise with the exception of the fact that the "Republicans" tend to favour plutocracy over monarchy. Additionally, they come up with the most divisive and useless issues: "Gun Rights", "Pro-life" (yet support capital punishment), and religion. This pushes me closer to being a democrat than a republican, even though in English terms I come closer to being a Liberal-Democrat or Conservative!
The funny thing is that Richard Nixon would seem pretty liberal as well by today's standards for his promotion of such things as the Clean Air and Water Acts!
I would vote for Oliver Cromwell, who was a republican in the sense that the current republican party seems to be, if I wanted a theocracy.
Sorry for the digression, but in quite a few states independents are barred from voting in the primary election. One must declare party affiliation to vote here in Pennsylvania. Sort of like in Northern Ireland: Are you a republican independent or democratic independent? The whole primary system isn't really run to be fair for all the citizens, it is run to be fair to the parties.
In the 2004 election, I supported General Wes Clark. Yet due to the primary system, he was no longer a candidate when the Pennsylvania primary was run. In fact, it seemed as if the election had pretty much been decided for John Kerry. Now, I am hearing that the Democrats are refusing to seat the Michigan delegation since the State party decided to push its primary forward. Very democratic of them.
As I like to point out, one of the reasons for the American revolution was this desire to be run locally, not by a faceless and distant government. Yet, this is what really ends up happening in US politics. Originally, the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms, now we have this pretense that there is democratic input. On the other hand, it is the parties which prolong the primary process until we are numb that really controls the choice of candidates.
So, the people with the largest war chests actually go on to the finish and the voters are screwed as far as choices go. In fact, I hardly hear any substantive discussion of the issues in lieu of sound bites. The real winners are the people behind the scenes who collect all the money which is spent on this process. Indeed fortunes are made on this process; so why make it shorter?
In reality, it is the special interests who really run government in the United States, not the people.
The final insult is the electoral college, which can take a popularly elected Person (e.g., Al Gore) and give the crown to someone who didn't win, and in Gore's Opponent's case, shouldn't have won. So, it is very amusing to hear George Bush rant on about democracy when he was never really democratically elected!
So, to get back to the Kenyatta quote, having one party or two parties doesn't make a government "democratic" if the underlying system isn't really democratic. In fact, it is a sham to claim to be democratic if the real result is to thwart the will of the people. Ultimately, this is not beneficial in the long run.
People are denied leadership by this process. The US stagnates with a lack of serious gun regulation and health care, the economy run for the benefit of the very rich, not for the people. Or as Dubious (Bush) said, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."
This whole thing reminds me of the African Politician, I think it was Jomo Kenyatta, talking about the one party versus multiple party systems who said soemthing along the lines of: "Does having one party make us less of a democracy than a two party system? Do two parties make you twice the democracy we are?"
That seems particularly appropriate in regard to the US elections. The whole thing goes on far too long, has far too few real leaders, and isn't really "democratic" anyway. The last one must seem pretty amusing given my comments on democracy. On the other hand, if a nation is going to go around boasting about how it is run by the people, the people should be allowed to properly participate. Instead, quite a few people are disenfranchised.
How? well, the whole process is really run by the parties, which are really Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. I see no real difference between the parties in practise with the exception of the fact that the "Republicans" tend to favour plutocracy over monarchy. Additionally, they come up with the most divisive and useless issues: "Gun Rights", "Pro-life" (yet support capital punishment), and religion. This pushes me closer to being a democrat than a republican, even though in English terms I come closer to being a Liberal-Democrat or Conservative!
The funny thing is that Richard Nixon would seem pretty liberal as well by today's standards for his promotion of such things as the Clean Air and Water Acts!
I would vote for Oliver Cromwell, who was a republican in the sense that the current republican party seems to be, if I wanted a theocracy.
Sorry for the digression, but in quite a few states independents are barred from voting in the primary election. One must declare party affiliation to vote here in Pennsylvania. Sort of like in Northern Ireland: Are you a republican independent or democratic independent? The whole primary system isn't really run to be fair for all the citizens, it is run to be fair to the parties.
In the 2004 election, I supported General Wes Clark. Yet due to the primary system, he was no longer a candidate when the Pennsylvania primary was run. In fact, it seemed as if the election had pretty much been decided for John Kerry. Now, I am hearing that the Democrats are refusing to seat the Michigan delegation since the State party decided to push its primary forward. Very democratic of them.
As I like to point out, one of the reasons for the American revolution was this desire to be run locally, not by a faceless and distant government. Yet, this is what really ends up happening in US politics. Originally, the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms, now we have this pretense that there is democratic input. On the other hand, it is the parties which prolong the primary process until we are numb that really controls the choice of candidates.
So, the people with the largest war chests actually go on to the finish and the voters are screwed as far as choices go. In fact, I hardly hear any substantive discussion of the issues in lieu of sound bites. The real winners are the people behind the scenes who collect all the money which is spent on this process. Indeed fortunes are made on this process; so why make it shorter?
In reality, it is the special interests who really run government in the United States, not the people.
The final insult is the electoral college, which can take a popularly elected Person (e.g., Al Gore) and give the crown to someone who didn't win, and in Gore's Opponent's case, shouldn't have won. So, it is very amusing to hear George Bush rant on about democracy when he was never really democratically elected!
So, to get back to the Kenyatta quote, having one party or two parties doesn't make a government "democratic" if the underlying system isn't really democratic. In fact, it is a sham to claim to be democratic if the real result is to thwart the will of the people. Ultimately, this is not beneficial in the long run.
People are denied leadership by this process. The US stagnates with a lack of serious gun regulation and health care, the economy run for the benefit of the very rich, not for the people. Or as Dubious (Bush) said, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
