NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic became a sidebar in in another thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7157727&postcount=68), but I wanted to bring it up for discussion on it's own merits.

As I stated in that post, I believe that democracy in the US is beginning to fail. In my opinion, this failure became an eventuality when federalism prevailed over our previously constitutional republic in the civil war. In the two party system, we were essentially created as a government remarkable for it's ineffectiveness. This was intentional to keep one midset from prevailing over the other. It's also why the government is incapable of performing any task effectively. Everything was a compromise. Noone was every completely happy with any outcome.
Now we have "representatives" who refer to themselves as "lawmakers", and only pretend to be representatives again as elections near. We have gone from a government which was intended only to provide for the common defense and promote general welfare to one which certainly provides common defense (by federalizing state guards) and imposes a central ideal of welfare. The federal fingers are now in every pie, picking the plums for itself. Voters of a formerly sovereign states are now gainsaid by washington bureaucrats. This is all due to the framer's inability/unwillingness to address the issue of slavery in the initial formation of our government, culminating in a civil war which wiped state's rights from the slate.

My point is, that we formerly had a great nation of people who were happy to elect their own officials, make their own laws and let the other states do the same. Now, we have a nation of back-biters because all of their issues have been thrown into a single pot, and laws are applied universally irrespective of regional differences of opinion. We have essentially outlawed dissent in a nation known for it's many peoples and opinions. Is it nescessary for the defeat of slavery to become the justification for another kind of servitude? The events since 1865 to present, taken out to their logical conclusions seem to point us squarely in that direction. We are creeping toward mob-rules democracy with the political minority being crushed under the heels of the majority, a concept purportedly foreign to American Constitutional ideals. This may be well and good to some, but what if your opposition is in control when it happens? Is it really worth this risk in order to ensure that everyone, everywhere follows precisely the same law? Is there never to be any leeway for local government again? Is ruling over the lives of your fellow citizens 1000 miles away really that important?

[ps. Can we please have ONE STINKING THREAD here that doesn't get hijacked into a Bush/Kerry, capitalist/socialist, proUS/antiUS, flameMe/flameU, nutjob-fest and simply discuss the pros & cons of federalism versus republicanism?] Or is that too much to ask?

As a Cascadian and therefore an American myself, I would say that a two party federal system would be destined to lead to this kind of fake centralist dictatorship that we now have.

America was at first a union, a union of states that cooperated. Now it's a nation by itself. It's like if the EU suddenly became one nation, I mean that doesn't seem likely now does it? But it happened to America.

The idea of federalism I think is a very good idea. But unfortunately America is, to paraphrase a trotskyite term for the USSR, a "deformed federalist state."

What most certainly needs to happen is the decentralisation of the states. Delegate some tasks from Washington DC to the rest of the states. I mean there are very serious independence movements in Alaska, as well as in Hawaii. New England has one as well as the Pacific Northwest.

I think the two party federalist system, basically messed things up. We have the same two parties, in every state, holding power. Irrespective of the different state conditions. That's a big folly right there. Especially since in my opinion, the difference between Republican and Democrat is not so big. Not to mention also the disenfranchisement of the Latino and African communities in most states. Let's face it, there is something to it, when Malcolm X stated that their easily could be an African Nation inside of America.

As for Republicanism, are you referring to parliamentarism? Because I think that would be a horrible centralisation of power in Washington DC for a two party system. Even more so.

anyways that's my two cents, and I'm one of those socialist nutjobs you were referring to.

Well yes, America has become far too centralized for that big of a nation however....

What do you propose? How do you think this could be changed? Personally this is a problem that I see as inevitable in any large country...

Myself, I live in England, and we are moving in the opposite direction: in the devolution process, more power is passed to regions, while powerful laws and rulings eg Iraq are handled centrally at Westminster. If it works, this is a good idea, I think - it allows regions to do what it needs, not what the country needs. This allows a more stream-lined government, with the possibility of increased bureaucracy at the region/nation interface, which we have to try and avoid.

The only downside is this. For one instance, Scotland now has its own national assembly - great. They get to choose their own laws and so forth on a wide range of things, like university. However, Scottish MPs are still at Westminster, helping decide English things, like university. This seems unfair to me, especially as the government is currently truly fouling up the universities. Forgive me, but I go off to uni tomorrow, so it just gets my goat :mad:

LordaeronII is right.
No matter what form of government, there's going to be some kind of problem. The two-party system has been in place for a while, so why is it that suddenly now we are in trouble?

LordaeronII is right.
No matter what form of government, there's going to be some kind of problem. The two-party system has been in place for a while, so why is it that suddenly now we are in trouble?

Actually, it´s not suddenly, since the 50s your political system seemed like a failure, it just worked because the economy was at a great shape. Now that the economy is going down, the failures are becoming more visible...

As for Republicanism, are you referring to parliamentarism? Because I think that would be a horrible centralisation of power in Washington DC for a two party system. Even more so.


I refer to republicanism in the oldest sense, where it refers to a federation of sovereign states handling their own internal government and only relying on Washington for it's constitutionally allowed powers, common defense and refereeing of interstate commerce, among very few others (as before the corruption of the interstate commerce clause) With states collecting a majority of taxes and "kicking up" to the fed as nescessary, commensurate with their population.


What do you propose? How do you think this could be changed? Personally this is a problem that I see as inevitable in any large country...

Perhaps with America as large as it is now, every state being separate is untenable, but I don't really think so. A collection of state governments handling their own social programs, roads, taxes, etc. and sending true representatives to a part-time federal legislature (no need for full-time, since they'd be handling so much less if they stuck to their constitutional bounds) to handle things such as Defense, international commerce, foreign affairs and so on. This way, for instance, the need for condoms in schools in California (as an offhand example) wouldn't mandate that the Amish Schoolhouse in Pennsylvania also had to distribute them. It's just silly for a single view on the law to be applied universally across all political, religious, ethnic and racial lines in a country where we are guaranteed the right to hold our own views and elect a representative government. Representatives to the central government will never be able to satisfactorily secure the rights, freedoms and wishes of their local constituancy in the "big pot" of some 260 millions of Americans. It's unrealistic to believe that any law can be made that applies universally to that many people without treading on the rights of a large sector of the society. In America, the minority has a right not to be swept aside by a majority, and this right can never be attended to by universal centralized law. Only by removing the true representation to the state and local level and giving people back the right to enact law independent of the federal level is this right assured. There is nothing inherently wrong with one state having a law that differs from another if it is locally voted as being consistant with the beliefs of the free people who reside there.

This topic became a sidebar in in another thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7157727&postcount=68), but I wanted to bring it up for discussion on it's own merits.

As I stated in that post, I believe that democracy in the US is beginning to fail. In my opinion, this failure became an eventuality when federalism prevailed over our previously constitutional republic in the civil war. In the two party system, we were essentially created as a government remarkable for it's ineffectiveness. This was intentional to keep one midset from prevailing over the other. It's also why the government is incapable of performing any task effectively. Everything was a compromise. Noone was every completely happy with any outcome.
Now we have "representatives" who refer to themselves as "lawmakers", and only pretend to be representatives again as elections near. We have gone from a government which was intended only to provide for the common defense and promote general welfare to one which certainly provides common defense (by federalizing state guards) and imposes a central ideal of welfare. The federal fingers are now in every pie, picking the plums for itself. Voters of a formerly sovereign states are now gainsaid by washington bureaucrats. This is all due to the framer's inability/unwillingness to address the issue of slavery in the initial formation of our government, culminating in a civil war which wiped state's rights from the slate.

My point is, that we formerly had a great nation of people who were happy to elect their own officials, make their own laws and let the other states do the same. Now, we have a nation of back-biters because all of their issues have been thrown into a single pot, and laws are applied universally irrespective of regional differences of opinion. We have essentially outlawed dissent in a nation known for it's many peoples and opinions. Is it nescessary for the defeat of slavery to become the justification for another kind of servitude? The events since 1865 to present, taken out to their logical conclusions seem to point us squarely in that direction. We are creeping toward mob-rules democracy with the political minority being crushed under the heels of the majority, a concept purportedly foreign to American Constitutional ideals. This may be well and good to some, but what if your opposition is in control when it happens? Is it really worth this risk in order to ensure that everyone, everywhere follows precisely the same law? Is there never to be any leeway for local government again? Is ruling over the lives of your fellow citizens 1000 miles away really that important?

[ps. Can we please have ONE STINKING THREAD here that doesn't get hijacked into a Bush/Kerry, capitalist/socialist, proUS/antiUS, flameMe/flameU, nutjob-fest and simply discuss the pros & cons of federalism versus republicanism?] Or is that too much to ask?

How did you come up with such a jaundiced view of America? What I see is mostly very hopeful. We still have our Constitution intact and operational. Most people work and are realtively honest. Contrary to what a few would have you believe, the economy is strong.

I prefer to believe in my own Country and look for signs of optimism and hope. The "gloom and doom" approach has never appealed to me. Do we have problems? Of course. I don't know of ANY country without problems, not even the arrogant and ungrateful French. But the USA has systems in place to address problems and hopefully resolve them.

Is the 2-party political process a problem? Perhaps, but no viable third parties have surfaced so far. Until that happens, we will continue to use the 2-party approach.

Up until the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, I had serious reservations about the quality and judgement of our current crop of young people. After seeing the dedication and expertise of our military personnel, I no longer have reservations.

For some reason, this Forum seems to have more than its share of cynical, disaffected and reality-challenged posters. I suspect this is due at least in part to their being cloistered in the hothouse environments extant on certain anti-American campuses. I suggest they wait until they've had a few years of experience in the real world before making too many negative value judgements.

LordaeronII is right.
No matter what form of government, there's going to be some kind of problem. The two-party system has been in place for a while, so why is it that suddenly now we are in trouble?

The two party system is inherently troublesome, but not the problem per se.
(although it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the smaller parties make their 15% vote to recieve party status and matching funds, since those parties are actually representative of a minority view)
It's really that the legislature is no longer truly representative, and is in fact becoming less so under the increasingly centralized government. They can represent the big picture in general terms, but specific (and probably locally important) issues slip through the cracks or are bartered away in the federal congress.

Also, I believe that the Scottish MPs should have been removed to the scottish parliament upon Scotland's Independence. Their remaining in English parliament seems unfair to me, but i'm ignorant of the facts involved.

I really wish our country would stop being so anal on things like gay marriage and other social issues - lighten up people!

And I also want to reform our current party system - not so sure about multiple parties just so tho

This is all due to the framer's inability/unwillingness to address the issue of slavery in the initial formation of our government, culminating in a civil war which wiped state's rights from the slate.

Representatives from both North and South, in the Constitutional Convention, thought slavery was on its way out... at the end of the 18th century, it certainly looked that way. The REAL mistake was on the part of the South, when they insisted on allowing the slave trade for 20 years... and gave up a requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in Congress for matters of trade. The result was that the North could effectively determine the nation's economic destiny... and all to legalize a trade that could have just as well gone on illegally.

Incidentally, it was the invention of the cotton gin that revitalized slavery in the South. While planters had long since discovered that tobacco could be produced best on small farms, the cotton gin made large-scale plantation production viable, an enterprise that at the time -- despite the mechanization of labor -- required slave labor.

For some reason, this Forum seems to have more than its share of cynical, disaffected and reality-challenged posters. I suspect this is due at least in part to their being cloistered in the hothouse environments extant on certain anti-American campuses. I suggest they wait until they've had a few years of experience in the real world before making too many negative value judgements.

While that may be true, I for one am a 43 year old man who believes that the system given us by our founders is better than the one we labor under now. Some adjustments may be nescessary to bring the ideal into the 21st century, but I am tired of the "lawmakers" intermittantly waving the Constitution in my face and wiping their asses with it whenever my back is turned. I am a proud combat veteran and definately not Anti-American, but simply disappointed at what our government has become. Centralized social democracy cannot be reconciled with the founding documents, in my opinion. I've lived and been politically sentient long enough to see that this country is less free than it has been in my lifetime, and continues to decline in that regard.

1.How did you come up with such a jaundiced view of America? What I see is mostly very hopeful.2. We still have our Constitution intact and operational. Most people work and are realtively honest.3. Contrary to what a few would have you believe, the economy is strong.

4. I prefer to believe in my own Country and look for signs of optimism and hope. The "gloom and doom" approach has never appealed to me. Do we have problems? Of course. I don't know of ANY country without problems, 5. not even the arrogant and ungrateful French. But the USA has systems in place to address problems and hopefully resolve them.

6. Is the 2-party political process a problem? Perhaps, but no viable third parties have surfaced so far. Until that happens, we will continue to use the 2-party approach.

7. Up until the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, I had serious reservations about the quality and judgement of our current crop of young people. After seeing the dedication and expertise of our military personnel, I no longer have reservations.

8. For some reason, this Forum seems to have more than its share of cynical, disaffected and reality-challenged posters. I suspect this is due at least in part to their being cloistered in the hothouse environments extant on certain anti-American campuses. I suggest they wait until they've had a few years of experience in the real world before making too many negative value judgements.
1. Ah yes, the Candidian "Best of all possible worlds" philosophy.

2. Constitution in tact, I believe the Patriot Act did several things to harm our rights. However the constitution is intact, even if we made Bush president for life, would our constitution be intact. Even if we passed amendments saying that all races other than Aryan were to be slaves, it would still be intact, that's not a good argument.

3. Only a person who can't do math, would say such a large outstanding national debt that is growing, means a good economy. Especially when the private debt of the nation has increased greatly over the past few years as well.

4. Signs of hope, or consciously uncriticial?

5. Wow what a hardline approach to that. Now you are dooming an entire nation. A disgusting and xenophobic approach.

6. That makes little sense. Under the current system, the two largest parties are deemed as the only real parties to vote for. The Dems and Reps have both worked hard to undermine other parties. Legislation makes it very difficult for 3rd parties to compete, and of course, there are the huge economic differences that make a difference as well. Because let's face it, the corporations in America know who will keep their interests safe, and that's the Dems and Reps who will very seldomly create drastic social reform. What a better way to ensure that the system never changes?

7. Oh I'd agree, America's youth is definitely doing better than I thought they would. However I think the people who lead them have caused an unnecessary amount of deaths in our youth.

8. Wow, a personal attack now on the entire wing of people who chose to criticize the government. I don't even know where to begin. If you want to argue about patriotism, I would say Dissent is the most patriotic thing a person can do. Especially for people who love democracy. I personally think, that you should not blindly judge people so much. You have condemned the french nation, and now you've condenmed the entire wing of people who criticize the american government. I want you to sit back, and contemplate, "does my decision to tell people to stop being critical, further the democratic process?" "I have stated that I am proud of America's youth in the military, but when I tell them to be wholeheartedly supportive of the current government, is this a democratic thing?"

You can act all high and mighty you want, just because you are probably older. But age is not equal with intelligence and wisdom.