The Town Hall Archives

Rick_Hardslab · Junior Member Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 124

maybe we should have a politics 102 thread since this is completly dead.

An good topic that comes to mind is non religious issue of money. Taxes, tarifs, individuals, businesses, coorperations, handouts, payments, taxes, spending, campaigns, national debt, taxes, GDP, standard backing, inflation, interst, taxes, stocks, subsidies, the constitution, and of corse taxes (did I mention that yet?).

Jared · Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:17 pm Post subject:

Actually, I was just thinking that it's time to revive this thread, albiet with a somewhat new purpose: as a launching ground for discussions and a place to discuss political events that may not warrant their own threads.

As in, when one of us sees an interesting article, has some political thought they want to share, notes an interesting piece of news, etc., it goes here. If it turns into a real discussion, I'll move it to its own thread.

To get us started off, I'll note a few things going on today politically:

In some good news for Republican chances in the Senate come 2004, Florida senator Bob Graham, a Democrat who until recently was running for president, decided today that he will not seek senate reelection. Graham received very high support in Florida and would never have lost had he decided to run for a fourth term, but now that he's out of the running, it could be quite a contest.

For the first time in recent memory, there are about as many registered Republicans in Florida as Democrats and Florida's GOP governor, Jeb Bush, is receiving very high marks. The prospect of Jeb standing alongside a solid candidate -- say Rep. Bill McCollum -- is exciting more than a few Republicans.

Add that to the announced retirement of other southern Democratic senators at the end of this term -- Zell Miller of Georgia, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina and John Edwards of North Carolina, all states trending Republican in recent years and all carried by Bush in 2000 -- and there's reason for some considerable excitement.

There is, however, the fact that the Republicans will probably lose a Senate seat in Illinois and it will be a close race to hold onto a seat in Alaska, but nevertheless, 2004 is looking like a year for respectable, if not exactly large, GOP gains. Today's news strengthens that belief.

Speaking of Democratic Senator Zell Miller, he has reinforced his status as my favorite Democrat with the release of his new book, "A National Party No More." (Yep, he's referring to his own party.) A long exerpt from the book can be found in today's Washington Times -- read it. And rejoice!

Then we get to tomorrow's elections. (By the way, if you live in a state holding elections tomorrow and you're a registered voter, GO VOTE! And if you're 18+ and not a registered voter -- and registered Republican, of course, well, what's wrong with you?)

Two gubernatorial elections will be held tomorrow, one in Kentucky and another in Mississippi. Both states have a Democratic incumbent and in both states, the Republicans are mounting a serious challenge.

In Kentucky, Rep. Ernie Fletcher, the Republican challenger, has, depending on the poll, a one or nine point lead over the Democrat in the race, Attorney General Ben Chandler (grandson of the late "Happy" Chandler, if anyone knows any KY political history...). The current governor, a Democrat, is both term-limited and scandal-plagued and a lot of Frankfurt's current problems are being successfully attributed to an AG lax in the fulfillment of his duties. Forget the widely varying nature of the polls... In my opinion, this is a nice Republican pick-up.

Then there's Mississippi, where Democratic incumbent governor Ronnie Musgrove is trying to fend of a challenge from former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour. Current polls show Barbour ahead by three to five points, which would normally be good, but there's a wildcard: in many of the polls, neither candidate makes it over 50% due to various third party candidates with a bit of a following.

Now, many states just go with the plurality winner. Others call for a runoff. But not Mississippi. No, that just wouldn't do. In MS, if no candidate makes it over the halfway mark, the state legislature chooses the next governor. It should be noted that the legislature has something like 82 Democrats and 33 Republicans. (Hmm, I wonder how that vote might turn out.)

Thus, while Haley will probably win the popular vote, the big question here is whether or not he breaks the 50% plane. This one could go down to the wire.

If the Republicans pull off two victories here, the GOP would then control 29 governorships compared to 21 for the Democrats, at least pending the November 15th election in Louisiana where the Republican Party will be trying to hold on to the office being vacated by term-limited governor Mike Foster.

And speaking of that Louisiana race, the GOP candidate, Piyush Robert Jindal (he goes by Bobby), who was about 14 points behind in the polls only two or three weeks ago, has now taken a respectable lead in numerous polls showing him 6, 8 and even 12 points ahead of his Democratic opponent, Kathleen Blanco. Those numbers will probably fall, but things are looking up for the prospects of the Republican Party holding on to the governor's mansion.

(And it helps that the popular Democratic mayor of New Orleans is supposedly getting ready to endorse Jindal, as has been the subject of widespread speculation for the last week or so.)

Meanwhile, the economy is looking up, is it not? No one honestly believes that we'll sustain a 7.2 percent GPD growth rate, but we don't have to. Just continued growth at 4 or 5 percent will suffice. A lot of the leading indicators are up (as is the stock market, although that's admittedly a lesser indication of economic upturn than productivity rates and employment).

Somewhat ironically, the fact that our workforce has become so more efficient could make this somewhat of a jobless recovery, though. As machines do more and/or allow a single person to get more work done, less individuals are needed to complete a job. Thus, less employment. The hope, of course, is that as these companies make the higher profits associated with higher productivity, those there will make more and thus buy more, opening up new avenues of work as they have more money with which to infiltrate the market. This, however, takes time. Three million new jobs won't be created overnight.

Nevertheless, all this good news has to be a little disconcerting to the Democrats who hoped to campaign on "the Bush recession," no?

Well, I'll wrap this up for now. Remember, anyone who so desires may use this thread to post a bit of news, a political comment, a quote, a question, ANYTHING. If a topic becomes popular, we'll spin it off into a new thread.

Coralfish · Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:43 am Post subject:

Pardon me whilst I stare in astonishment at the computer screen for a few minutes....

The Politics 101 thread has been....updated? I know not what to say! Wink

That said, I have a few articles to share, that shall be compiled within a short while. It is good to see this thread FINALLY back.

mak1457 · Seasoned Veteran Member Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 503

While I don't agree with George W. on everything, I relish the fact that he's not afraid to talk about his faith. I was watching an interview several nights ago with him and he mentions that everybody sins. Wow! Sounds just like a preacher.

Gus · Guest

What type of democracy is your prefured system ? / Which country do you think happens to have the best form of government.

For me, Germany has the system I would push for..

Rick_Hardslab · Junior Member Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 124

Gus · Guest

I understand your point, however, I would say from my own perspective while yes, dictatorship if it could work, would work best - however due to sin, We all know it would not work.. Oh, and by the way, the system in Germany is one of the most intelligent forms of democracy on the plannet - think about Germany 50 years ago.. LOOK AT IT NOW.. that is RAPID.. RAPID growth... from population, to economy, to services..

A very famous person once said...

"Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others."

If your any bit a history / poly-sci mobo .. you might remember who said it... But, if not... It was of course said by Winston Churchill, perhaps one of the greatist polititians in history...

He demonstrates the fact that Democracy may not work for everyone, but , however, it is the only system that works most of the time, and works the best in our cultures...
Pure democracy was only considered evil back when your forfathers founded your constitution because the popular belief was that the masses were stupid.. ( allthough, it hasn't improved much.. lol) So, its not that pure democracy is evil.. so much as.. Giving Idiots power is...

Im in no way a poly sci buff - I mean, I've only taken 3 courses in the feild, but I know enough history to point out that democracy seems to be one of the only ways to ensure that a country keeps rolling.. [Especially given the circumstances of the countries that have it currently -intelligent lower classes-

Yeah.. so, more ideas .. that was a good post..

Jared · Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:20 am Post subject:

Simply speaking, the form of government we have -- a democratic republic -- is unparalleled in the annals of history. True democracy has existed only briefly in world history and met with only limited success. It has been said that "democracy is the tyranny of the majority" (Lord Acton, to cite another Briton), and that statement has a great deal of truth to it. In a pure democracy, or even in some other form of government that allows the people to overrule its edicts and laws, a mere fifty percent plus one can exercise unlimited power, often to the detriment of the forty-nine and change percent.

Just looking at what the various interest groups demand in America today is proof of this. Those whose incomes are small enough to pay no or limited taxes demand higher taxes on the wealthy in order that they might receive extra benefits through the government. This is natural enough. Wanting something and wanting someone else to pay for it is a very human thing. But in a democracy, the lowest fifty percent of wage earners (and non-wage earners) could band together to force the "wealthy" (defined as anyone outside of their voting bloc) to give up what they had to pay the lower half. To put it as another British lord once did, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

Similarly, people could band together based on race, religion or other issues and crack down on those who are at all different from them. They could make unreasonable demands. In fact, many of them already do. But in a democracy, they could codify them.

Thus, pure democracy, or any reasonable facsimile thereof, is destined for failure. That is why our system is not a democracy, but rather a republic. We the people do indeed participate in the political process as a counterweight to a tyranny of the few, while a limited number of elected officials serve as protection from the tyranny of the masses.

As Samuel Adams wrote, "Democracy never lasts long, it soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton exclaimed that "the ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

By electing people to represent our views in a moderated, public forum such as our houses of Congress serves to protect us from rash decisions that are bad for the country and its people. That is not to say that Congress is unable to make poor decisions nor her congressmen pure and driven by ideology and conscience, not personal gain and re-election hopes, but by adding a buffer, a barrier, we add one more level of protection against mob rule.

Furthermore, a true democracy is untenable because the electorate is, to be quite frank, too stupid to participate in the process to that great of a degree. The average voter does not understand the intricacies of the issues and would, if actually voting issue by issue, fall far more sway to hearsay, rumor-mongering, television ads and such than a representative or senator, who will be briefed upon a wide range of options and be expected to (although this does not always happen) be quite familiar with the bill before voting for or against passage.

John Marshall, former chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, once noted the shortcomings of true democracy thusly: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

Additionally, no one can expect the people to participate to the degree necessary for a government to run, which necessitates our representative system. We often think of our Senators always debating the defining issues of our times. The things issues papers are made of, that attack ads focus on, that campaigns hinge upon. The things that excite, that stir up emotion. Abortion, affirmative action, cloning, defense, drugs, education, finance reform, guns, immigration, national security, prayer in schools, taxes and so on, just to briefly mention a few that came to mind (placed alphabetically for no good reason). These things are indeed infinitely important and I believe that voters should be issues voters. These things matter. But the vast majority of bills in congress barely touch upon such issues. There's the dry procedural stuff, the allocations, the spending bills, the approval of a hundred different things. Keeping up on these things is a full-time job for our congressmen and their staffs; a citizen cannot conceivably work a job and still be up on all these issues and available to vote upon them whenever they arise. That is why we need a form of representative government.

Of course, the idea of legislative bodies is hardly new or original. America's system succeeds where so many others have failed, however, because the people are involved. Our system is safeguarded against the problems that have plagued so many other governments because of the balance of power and because the people serve to insure that our government officials, for lack of a better term, don't get out of line.

To be sure, many governments have adopted some sort of democratic republic, in which the people choose those who shall legislate on their behalf, but it is my belief that the founders of this nation, some two hundred sixteen years ago, struck upon the greatest balance for such a system that has even been found. And as changes have been made to our constitutional outline of the elective and governmental processes, from extending voting rights and lowering the voting age to establishing term limits for the presidency and granting the people the right to choose their own senators -- some changes undeniably good and right, others more subject to debate -- the basic structure of our system is unchanged and still works admirably today.

Others have emulated it, but have not duplicated its success. While our system remains far from perfect and has many a flaw, it is, in my estimation, the best form of government and the best practical example of government that the world has ever seen.

I realize my bias on this matter as an American who is proud to live in this country, but as someone familiar with many forms of government, I am simply convinced that there have been none better than what we have. We have a constitution that has survived while other countries rose and fell, a form of government that stood firm while revolution, civil war and crisis split and rent other governments, a system that has weathered the storms while countless other nations collapsed. It may not be perfect -- it is not -- but it's hard to argue against the fact that it's amazingly good.

Gus · Guest

Im not American.. Im Canadian, We use this funny system called Constitutional Monarchy. It's a very goofy system, We all agree that it "sucks" but noone knows how to make it work, and as a result the party that is allways in power doesn't rock the boat.. Which is where Direct democracy might be better, however I would state, and would expect that it would agree with your concept is that it is a balance between direct democracy.. and republican forms ..

Rick_Hardslab · Junior Member Joined: 23 May 2003 Posts: 124

Canada has already gone socialist, the progression of a pure democracy. (the people voteing themselves money from the treasury as Jefferson put it) The socialist health care system is already gone bad.

I dont know much of the canadian goverment system, but it wouldn't suprise me to learn the people had a little too much untempered dirrect voting power. Ether that or the politicians were less as good of stweards as the US had. (HAD beeing the operative word, as in not anymore)