Comments on: Curtailing State Power(?)

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:48:57 +0000

Sorry-no slight intended-I used the wrong term obviously.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:22:07 +0000

I neglected to also note that while you may not have intended it as such in the technical sense, I would note that the US is not, and never has been, a “democracy” but is rather a republic. This is yet another reminder of the wisdom of our founders (again grounded in their Judeo-Christian appreciation of the “sin nature” of man) in the way they constructed the government to avoid the potential (and inevitable) tyranny of the majority in a pure democracy and to establish republican structures that are intentionally in constant “tension” as a buffer against the selfish usurpation of the system by any individual, group or even the majority.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:34:54 +0000

Just to point out, I am no adherent of Howard Zinn! Though I find it instructive to read such books since they (the better written, non-conspiracy theory ones) invariably pick out details that are skipped in standard historical discourse, even if I do disagree with the author’s analysis.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:18:39 +0000

Jack:

I suppose if you are a Zinn adherent we will have to agree to disagree. As for the US position on climate change (nee’ “global warming”), I think the US has actually gone too far in trying to accommodate what I and many of my countrymen believe is a rather hysterical and highly politicized movement that IMHO has far less to do with saving the planet from the evils of man than it does with increasing the control of globalization political elites. Indeed the migration since the fall (some would say rather “transformation”) of the Soviet Union of many progressives from their active roles in various internationalist organizations to those ostensibly concerned with climate and environmental issues is quite instructive in this respect.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:52:48 +0000

I suppose I have read a little too much Howard Zinn in my time to really embrace the American Constitution. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a solid framework, and one of the better political arrangements out there, but I don’t think any such political document can remain immutable or separated from the society that governs it. As a personal observation, a framework/arrangement for binding a collection of ex-colonies together in a pre-industrial isolationist enterprise, as effective as it is, might not be the best framework for the 21st century. Speaking as an outsider, it beggars belief that America has not taken a stronger role on climate change simply because your balance of power detracts from any one political figure having executive authority to do anything about it. Furthermore, I don’t think the founding fathers could possibly have conceived of the anti-democratic power of big business lobbying in modern America. Don’t get me wrong, I think democracy is the best political system yet invented, but at the same time, when Stalin wanted something done, it happened, regardless of how inefficient and pointless it actually was. That’s why I consider democracy to have inbuilt limitations: it’s a great system for people, freedom and enterprise etc etc, but the more you diffuse power in a political system, the less big decisions that need to be made actually get made. Conversely, Britain under Tony Blair had the opposite problem: he could make any decision he wanted and there was little to stop him, therefore he kept on tinkering with the NHS, schools etc etc and wasted billions in the process.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:39:09 +0000

Since it is the weekend I will refrain from any “deep” thoughts on this and simply note that in the US one does not need to go to the circus to find female companionship of suitable girth:

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/573.jpg

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:37:44 +0000

If this is so, why then are there super-added provisions in the Constitution regarding its amendment? I believe, and I will stand on a fair reading of the history of every other republic that supports my view, that when we devolve into the sort of retail shopping approach of picking and choosing to honor those bits of the Constitution that may fit our political flavor of the month as opposed to relying on the moderating effect of a more principled view of the Constitution, we are on a very slippery slope indeed. Of course, that we are where we are is not a real surprise since the latter view depends in large part on what I believe (and again is reflected in the sad history of other socio/political experiments across the spectrum from marxism to a benign-at least initially- dictatorship) is the nature of humankind to subvert any system of governance to selfish ends. Thus without sufficient structures to retard and restrict this (prevention is impossible given the reality that all such systems are fatally flawed in that they in the end rely on human constructs), the system inexorably slides toward some variant of totalitarian control by a given elite. That is why our Constitution is so important and at a minimum why we should require that the procedures specified for changing it be honored and not allow the elites to circumvent them.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:16:38 +0000

I suppose we do differ, since I don’t consider constitutional provisions to be immutable. I think constitutions and political orders are reflective of society, and therefore (though I was quite appalled at it myself) I understand the Patriot Act as a reflection of the majority of social will in America at the time (with considerable dissenting views). I find it quite interesting that America propagates “strong” government across the world as a means to an end (“stability”) while its own citizens decry centralised government from coast to coast. From a personal perspective, I think half the problems Europeans have in understanding America comes from the fact that we are only ever exposed to the east coast and hollywood (with the possible exception of Chicago). I understood the American “states’ rights” mentality a whole lot more once I had been through places like Cleveland, Detroit, Tulsa and the mid-west, which don’t fit into the progressive-north, backwards-south dichotomy that gets fed to us outside observers. In many ways, I think that similarities can be drawn between the isolationism inherent in some US anti-federal positions and the similar positions drawn up by European states that haven’t quite accepted their position as part of the EU. I suppose given that Europeans are so good at killing one another it’s quite lucky that we haven’t had the chance for a secessionist war yet.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:28:09 +0000

Fair point but I personally assign it more substantive value than “definitional” although I realize this is getting a bit circular! I think that is part of the larger problem presented by the rather jaundiced and anemic view of the Constitution among many post-modern/progressive observers, many of whom relegate it to a mere amorphous conglomeration of antiquated provisions that need to be continually redefined to suit the current political climate. It is becoming increasingly rare (largely due to the revisionist history being taught in US primary and secondary schools) for there to be even a discussion, much less understanding, of the reasons and context of the provisions of the Constitution that makes many of them immutable as the necessary hedge against the proven penchant of humankind to pervert social and governmental systems to their own selfish ends. Not surprisingly, we are now seeing the results in terms of a federal system that is being turned on its head with centralized power being the default position and increasing dependence of the citizenry on the (federal) state for all things. Mere definitions without context are the tools of despots as George Orwell poignantly showed us.

By: Jack McDonald

Jack McDonald — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:09:03 +0000

Personally, I’d file the constitution under “definitional limits” in my taxonomy. After all, it is rather difficult to have a constitutional democracy without one!