╌>

In the 2020 election, democracy is on the ballot — not just Trump and Biden

  
Via:  Bob Nelson  •  4 years ago  •  37 comments

By:   Ezra Klein (Vox)

In the 2020 election, democracy is on the ballot — not just Trump and Biden



The stakes of this election are so high because the system itself is at stake.

Leave a comment to auto-join group The Beacon

The Beacon


America is at a fork in the road.

original


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


original President Trump disembarks from Air Force One on October 21.      Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

I recently asked Melissa Schwartzberg, a professor of politics at NYU who specializes in democratic theory, why democracy survives in some countries and crumbles in others.

Why was I thinking about it? Oh, no reason. But her answer has been ringing in my head since. It explains much of what makes this moment in politics so distinct, so desperate.

"The really important question is when do electoral losers think that it's in their interest to go along with their defeat, and when do they think they're better off resisting and revolting?" Schwartzberg replied. "It has to be that they think they have some better chance of obtaining power in the long run by continuing to abide by the rules of the game."

In American politics in 2020, both sides doubt that abiding by loss is the surest path back to power. This is an election — and more than an election, it is a politics — increasingly defined by a fight over what the rules of the game should be.

Democrats see a political system increasingly rigged against them and the voters they represent, and they are right. They are facing an Electoral College where a 2- to 3-point win in the popular vote still means Republicans are favored to take the presidency. They are vying to win back control of a Senate where Republicans have a 6- to 7-point advantage. The simple truth of American politics right now is this: Republicans can lose voters, sometimes badly, and still win power. Democrats need landslides to win power.

It gets worse. Democrats fear a doom loop. They are faced with the reality that when they lose power, Republicans will draw districts and change rules and hand down Supreme Court decisions that further weaken their voters, that pull America further from anything resembling democracy. Democrats have watched it happen in recent years again and again, as I document below. Losing begets losing, because in the American political system, electoral winners have the power to rewrite electoral rules.

But Republicans also see their position as desperate. They know their coalition is shrinking. They know that they are winning power but losing voters. They see a younger, more diverse, and more liberal generation building against them. They fear that Democratic efforts to expand the franchise and make voting an easily exercised right rather than a politically metered privilege will spell their long-term demise.They believe that mass democracy is inimical to their interests, and they state that fact baldly.

In March, when House Democrats proposed vote-by-mail options, same-day registration, and expanded early voting — a package Republicans blocked — President Donald Trump told the Fox & Friends hosts, "They had things, levels of voting, that if you'd ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."

original President Trump holds a campaign rally in Muskegon, Michigan, on October 17.      Rey Del Rio/Getty Images

In recent months, Trump has made clear that he intends to contest the results of the election if he loses, even musing about delaying the election entirely. During the presidential debates, neither Trump nor Vice President Mike Pence would commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the event of a loss. "I'm urging my supporters to go in to the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen," Trump said darkly.

But Democrats, too, are preparing for a legitimacy crisis: What if Trump wins, but only because shocking numbers of mail-in ballots sent by Democratic voters were thrown out? What if Joe Biden wins the popular vote by 5 points but the election comes down to a 2000-style recount in Florida? What if the final vote on the Supreme Court is cast in Trump's favor by newly seated Justice Amy Coney Barrett?

Of every election I have covered, this is the one where electoral losers seem least likely to automatically respect the results of the count. I am not saying crisis is inevitable. The likeliest outcome, judging from the polls, is that Biden wins by an indisputable margin and that outcome is respected. But the possibility of crisis is real, and if we have learned anything in recent years, it is to cease pretending that unlikely is a synonym for impossible.

The stakes are so high because the system itself is at stake — both sides are losing faith in the electoral system, and they doubt they can win power in the future if they lose many more elections now. And perhaps they are right.

This is the fight behind the fight, the battle that will decide all the others. America is not a democracy, and Republicans want to keep it that way. America is not a democracy, and Democrats want to make it one, or at least more of one.

Republicans against democracy


"We're not a democracy," Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) tweeted during the vice presidential debate. As the backlash mounted, Lee poured cement around his position. "Democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity [sic] are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that."

Rank democracy. There is no subtext in this election, only text; no dog whistles, only foghorns. Lee, a former Supreme Court clerk and one of the GOP's brighter intellectual lights, is stating his party's position simply: Democracy is the enemy, the specter stalking Republican power.

A party that wins power even as it fails to win over voters will quickly turn against democracy itself. And when that happens, it will use the power it has to make it yet easier to win power without winning voters. And so the Republican Party is. A full accounting of the GOP's recent assays against democracy would require a book, but a few examples:

  • In North Carolina in 2016 and Michigan and Wisconsin in 2018, Republican legislatures responded to electoral defeat by using lame-duck legislative sessions to entrench their own power and strip incoming Democratic governors and officeholders of key powers and privileges.
  • Republicans at the state level have consistently pushed policies — from voter ID laws to voter roll purges to shutting down polling locations in low-income communities — that disproportionately disenfranchise low-income minorities and Democrats more broadly.
  • The Supreme Court's conservative bloc has handed down decision after decision undermining voting rights — including gutting the Voting Rights Act — while permitting money to flood politics. And it's not just the Supreme Court that holds sway here. A recent study tracked 309 votes by judges in 175 election-related decisions and found that "Republican appointees interpreted the law in a way that impeded ballot access 80 percent of the time, versus 37 percent for Democratic ones."
  • The Trump administration tried to add a citizenship question to the census, with the explicit intention of scaring off Hispanic respondents so the population counts would give Republicans a bigger electoral advantage. The Supreme Court narrowly rejected their machinations, but only because they had been so obvious about the political aims motivating the change.
  • A number of conservative pundits and Republican politicians — including Mike Lee — have called for repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of US senators. The alternative would be state legislatures choosing senators, which would maximize the GOP's geographic advantages.
  • In 2020, Republicans, including the Trump campaign, filed lawsuits to prevent states from making it easier for Americans to vote, and have their vote counted, amid the Covid-19 pandemic. When groups like the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund have tried to get judges to change or invalidateexisting laws that make it difficult for Americans to vote and have their vote counted during the pandemic, Republicans — including the Trump campaign — have actively fought against them.

All of these efforts continue, with examples piling up even as I write these words. On Monday, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 over a request by Pennsylvania's Republicans to overturn a court ruling allowing election officials to count ballots received for up to three days after Election Day, due to restrictions and delays imposed by the coronavirus.

The 4-4 deadlock means the Pennsylvania court ruling will stand, and ballots will be that much likelier to be counted. But if Barrett had already made it to the Court, she might have joined the conservatives and provided the crucial fifth vote to grant a stay, leading more ballots to be trashed. And on Wednesday, the Court's five conservatives joined together to block Alabama from allowing drive-up voting.

Nor is the turn against democracy just a Trumpist obsession, or just an Election Day question. More genteel conservatives, even those who loathe Trump, are casting their ideas in more boldly anti-democratic terms. In his book The Conservative Sensibility , George Will places James Madison's "catechism of popular government" at the core of the conservative project. "What is the worst result of politics? Tyranny," Will writes. "To what form of tyranny is democracy prey? Tyranny of the majority."

To this tyranny — otherwise known as democracy — Will proposes that conservatives embrace a more profound form of judicial check, one that would render not just elections, but legislators, toothless. "Conservatives' indiscriminate denunciations of 'judicial activism' serve progressivism," he writes. "The protection of rights, those constitutionally enumerated and others, requires a judiciary actively engaged in enforcing what the Constitution actually is 'basically about,' which is compelling majority power to respect individuals' rights."

Will is clear as to the radicalism of intentions here. Lochner v. New York , the infamous — and later overturned — case in which the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for New York to limit bakers' workweek to 60 hours, and which set off a period in which the Court ruled vast swaths of social and economic policymaking unconstitutional, "richly repays reconsideration." If a 6-3 conservative Court did as Will counsels, even winning elections wouldn't lead to progressive governance, because the Supreme Court would wipe out progressive legislation.

Democrats for democracy


Over the past decade, the right has understood that democracy is its enemy with far more clarity than the left has realized that democracy is its answer. But that is, perhaps, changing. In 2018, after Democrats took back the House, the first bill they considered was the "For the People Act," which knit together a smorgasbord of proposals securing voting rights, curbing government corruption, and empowering small donors. But that bill is a dead letter in the Senate, where anything that isn't purely budgetary in nature will fall to the filibuster.

But in the aftermath of Mitch McConnell's obstructionist innovations and Supreme Court hardball, Senate Democrats are beginning to consider ridding the institution of the filibuster and taking democratization seriously. And they are being pushed in that direction by the most senior members of their own party.

Speaking at Rep. John Lewis's memorial, former President Barack Obama exhorted Democrats, "If politicians want to honor John — and I'm so grateful for the legacy of work of all the Congressional leaders who are here — but there's a better way than a statement calling him a hero. You want to honor John? Let's honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for. And by the way, naming it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that is a fine tribute."

Then Obama lowered the hammer: "And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that's what we should do."

original President Barack Obama addresses Joe Biden supporters during a drive-in rally in Philadelphia on October 21.
Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images

Just as surprising has been Biden's refusal to take expansion of the Supreme Court off the table, a notable position given the enthusiasm with which Biden disavows progressive policies he does intend to reject. And it's not just Biden. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), who holds Biden's former seat in the Senate, and is a leader among the Democrats' more cautious, institutionalist, wing, has also signaled openness to Supreme Court reform.


This strikes me as a really big deal.
Chris Coons is someone I'm keeping a close eye on as a bellwether senator. He's not a conservadem like Manchin or Sinema, but his procedural instincts are conservative and he's a leader among moderate Dems.https://t.co/MfciIA4djs
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) October 18, 2020

The fight to define the next era in American politics


In his book The Great Democracy , Vanderbilt law professor and former top Elizabeth Warren adviser Ganesh Sitaraman writes:


Many centrists, liberals, and even some moderate conservatives worry about tactics like these, but they also worry about fighting hardball with hardball. They are concerned, for example, about proposals to reform the Supreme Court, change filibuster rules, or regulate money in politics. ... They fear that more hardball will simply unleash a never-ending tit-for-tat process—an era of permanent escalation in which politics spins out of control. Although we cannot rule that possibility out, this view assumes that neither side can win outright. But this assumption might be wrong. Shortly after Lincoln declared that a "house divided against itself cannot stand," he added, "It will become all one thing or all the other."

Sitaraman's argument is that we are in a time of transition, an unstable space between potential equilibriums. If Democrats win the fight to make America a democracy, the Republican Party will have to transform itself into a party capable of winning majorities in a country that is becoming more diverse and more secular. That will force the GOP to become a different type of party, with a different animating coalition, and a more broadly appealing policy agenda, if it wants to avoid irrelevancy.

But if Democrats lose the next few elections, they may lose democracy itself to a conservative Supreme Court and an anti-democratic Republican Party. In that world, the Democratic Party will have to become a different party than it is, and a different party than its voters want it to be, as it tries desperately to win over the older, whiter, more religious places that retain disproportionate political power, and to satisfy the demands of a conservative Supreme Court that Republicans control.

That is the political system Republicans explicitly intend to build, and that they will use their power to create if they win in 2020. (I recently had Sitaraman on my podcast to discuss his arguments. You can listen to that interview here.)

Right now, in other words, both sides fear that if they lose, the other side will change the political system such that they cannot win again. This is, to some degree, hyperbole: Victories are never permanent, and losses are rarely irrecoverable. But it is not entirely alarmism, either. This is a fight to decide the rules of American politics going forward, and those rules will decide the kinds of parties, agendas, and political competition we have.

"In moments of extraordinary politics, in moments of transition between eras, the struggle is not to save the old regime, and political hardball is not a permanent status," writes Sitaraman. "The struggle is to achieve a new equilibrium."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    4 years ago
Right now, in other words, both sides fear that if they lose, the other side will change the political system such that they cannot win again. This is, to some degree, hyperbole: Victories are never permanent, and losses are rarely irrecoverable. But it is not entirely alarmism, either. This is a fight to decide the rules of American politics going forward, and those rules will decide the kinds of parties, agendas, and political competition we have.

Spain overthrew its fascist dictator... ... ... fifty years later.

I wouldn't bet that America's capitalist/fascist/patriarchal coalition could ever be overthrown.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2  seeder  Bob Nelson    4 years ago

In basketball, we say, "No blood, no foul!" The Republican Party plays hardball... and changes the rules as it goes along. If the Democratic Party accepts to play by the GOP's rules, it's kinda probably gonna lose...

It's time the Dems played hardball, too. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 years ago
It's time the Dems played hardball, too. 

They've been doing that for four years now...and none of it has worked

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    4 years ago

Be constructive, please, Greg. All you're doing here is to start a "he-said, she-said".

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
3  The Magic 8 Ball    4 years ago

President Barack Obama addresses about a dozen Joe Biden supporters during a drive-in rally in Philadelphia on October 21

LOL

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @3    4 years ago

This is a serious subject. If you have nothing to contribute, please go away. That was your only warning.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
3.1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    4 years ago

I was being serious...   

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @3.1.1    4 years ago

Then you would know that the intent was to do a televised event for a small group of invited participants,

not a super spreader Trump style rally.

The rally took place outside Citizens Bank Park in the early evening. The Philadelphia Inquirer referred to the rally as being attended by hundreds of drivers. Attendance was limited to people who registered on Biden’s website. Alexandra Jaffe of The Associated Press reported that there were more than 300 cars at the drive-in rally.

Most of the cars were full, so between 600to 1200 people,

not your imaginary dozen people.

Shit, the drum line had more than a dozen people.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4  Drakkonis    4 years ago
America is at a fork in the road. To one side a particular American fascism: Capitalism, racism, misogyny. To the other side, democracy, hope. 

This is, in a nutshell, why I have voted against Biden. Only a complete idiot would believe a statement such as quoted here. Only a complete moron would not see through the manipulation evident in such a statement. The one thing I've learned above all others about the Democratic position is this: Whatever they say they are for, they are actually for the opposite. Whatever they accuse their opponents of doing, it's the Dems who are actually doing it. They proclaim lies as truth and tell people that if they don't believe the lie, then they are bad people. To put it more simply, the real name of the Democratic Party is the Socialist Party. Socialists have a long history of appealing to emotion rather than reason. 

Now, I suppose, you're going to say that I support Trump. Not really. I actually think of it as having voted against Biden, not for Trump. Trump has his faults but in spite of them, he's light years better than the Socialist Party. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.1  Split Personality  replied to  Drakkonis @4    4 years ago
To put it more simply, the real name of the Democratic Party is the Socialist Party.

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
4.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drakkonis @4    4 years ago
This is, in a nutshell, why I have voted against Biden. Only a complete idiot would believe a statement such as quoted here. 

Two responses:

1) Have you no substantive Reply to my proposition? Your Reply doesn't even mention it. 

2) If "only a complete idiot would believe", why do you bother to Reply? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2    4 years ago
1) Have you no substantive Reply to my proposition? Your Reply doesn't even mention it. 

Your proposition is manipulative propaganda fed to the masses you know don't understand the issue in the first place. You present a system outside your idea of democracy as fascism, which only an idiot would believe. Someone who can't be bothered to think beyond their emotions. What your side wants to do is eliminate the republic we are and replace it with a democracy. I could almost wish it happens so that the people who supported it can get exactly what they deserve. Disaster. 

2) If "only a complete idiot would believe", why do you bother to Reply? 

Because there are a lot of idiots out there who need to understand what you are pushing. That anyone who doesn't share your political views necessarily support fascism, racism and misogyny. That's just a plainly stupid assertion. Being for a republic style of government does not translate to supporting those things. That is just a socialist propaganda ploy. 

I stand against the Democratic party because they stand for the rule of the majority rather than the rule of law. Sort of. What they really do is pretend to be about the rule of the majority but, really, just use that as a vehicle to power and, once having attained it, tend towards dictatorship. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
4.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.1    4 years ago
1) Have you no substantive Reply to my proposition? Your Reply doesn't even mention it. 
Your proposition is manipulative propaganda fed to the masses you know don't understand the issue in the first place. You present a system outside your idea of democracy as fascism, which only an idiot would believe. Someone who can't be bothered to think beyond their emotions. What your side wants to do is eliminate the republic we are and replace it with a democracy. I could almost wish it happens so that the people who supported it can get exactly what they deserve. Disaster. 

That's word salad, Drak.

And it's wrong: "You present a system outside your idea of democracy as fascism, which only an idiot would believe." Nope. Never said that. I said that fascism is hostile to democracy. That's only five words - you should be able to parse that many and Reply with pertinence, either agreeing or disagreeing.

"Someone who can't be bothered to think beyond their emotions." WTF?? Where did that come from?

"What your side wants to do..." This phrase is always followed (as here) by fantastical nonsense, and is never supported by any citation.

...

2) If "only a complete idiot would believe", why do you bother to Reply? 
Because there are a lot of idiots out there who need to understand what you are pushing.

Do you ever parse the words that you post? Here you are saying, directly and literally, that the persons whom you are addressing are idiots. I'm sure they appreciate your words at the level they deserve.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.3  Drakkonis  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.2    4 years ago
That's word salad, Drak.

Translation. You don't understand what I said. 

And it's wrong:

How can you claim it is word salad and then say it's wrong? Word salad by definition is a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, In order to state that it is wrong it has to have some coherent meaning from which you make your argument. 

Nope. Never said that. I said that fascism is hostile to democracy.

(sigh) Here is the quote to which I addressed.

America is at a fork in the road. To one side a particular American fascism: Capitalism, racism, misogyny. To the other side, democracy, hope. 

Where do your five words appear in that quote? 

"Someone who can't be bothered to think beyond their emotions." WTF?? Where did that come from?

It comes from being able to take in reality as a whole. What actually is rather than the BS the left wants us to believe. Take "misogyny", for instance. You mention it as one of the forks in the crossroads we are supposedly at. As if it were that, should America vote against what you support, we will enact laws that put women back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, subservient to and dependent on the whims of men. 

In actuality, what the left is doing is putting the idea of misogyny out there, using a convoluted definition for an audience that can't, or doesn't want to, see the reality. They just like  the feeling of being against something they think is wrong, whether it is reality or not. What the left does is manufacture untrue examples of what constitutes misogyny in order to give such people justification for their indignance. 

Example. Women in the military having access to combat arms. The Army has recently revamped its physical fitness test and women are failing it more than ever before. It is being said that this is unfair. That this is misogyny. In other words, for the sake of "equality" we need to ignore that, generally, women are less suited to the demands of combat than men because "equality" is more important than fielding a combat arms force that can actually do the job. 

"What your side wants to do..." This phrase is always followed (as here) by fantastical nonsense, and is never supported by any citation.

Okay. Where's your "citation" that what I said is "fantastical nonsense"? I mean, if you're going to state this as fact, doesn't your own statement require you to provide a "citation"?

Do you ever parse the words that you post? Here you are saying, directly and literally, that the persons whom you are addressing are idiots.

Why, yes, I do. That's why I stated that there are a lot of idiots out there who need to understand what you are pushing. Capitalism equates with fascism? That if you do not stand for popular democracy you are a misogynist? That those who are for a republican form of government endorse racism? Complete crap. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
4.2.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.3    4 years ago

Pointless to continue. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.1    4 years ago
What your side wants to do is eliminate the republic we are and replace it with a democracy.

I presume by 'democracy' you mean 'direct democracy' where the people vote for everything.   This is a theoretical extreme that even ancient Athens never achieved.   If, in contrast, you mean 'indirect democracy' aka 'representative democracy' then that is what has been in place since our founding.   Most likely you are saying that Bob's system has 'more' democracy and you deem that bad.    Why?   For example, if an organization wishes to operate as a workplace democracy ('employee owned and operated, etc.') is that bad?   

You seem to have some system in mind that you think Bob is proposing and you deem the system bad due to it falling under the category of 'democracy'.   What do you think Bob is proposing?

Being for a republic style of government does not translate to supporting those things.

Another question.   Do you hold that supporting the R party is support for a Republic whereas supporting the D party is support for Democracy?   I do not see either party varying from our federated constitutional Republic.   But I see both parties continue to do whatever they can to manipulate / stifle democratic processes —which were designed to properly represent the people— in their unending question for political power.

That is just a socialist propaganda ploy. 

Don't get me started with the replete confusion over this term.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.7  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.6    4 years ago

Hey, TiG. Sup?

I think we basically had this discussion just recently, so for the most part, I'm not keen on rehashing those aspects over again. Instead, I will attempt to more precisely define what I have said.

I presume by ' democracy ' you mean ' direct democracy ' where the people vote for everything.   This is a theoretical extreme that even ancient Athens never achieved. 

I do not necessarily mean a direct democracy, although that is what I believe democratic socialists attempt to sell the populace in the beginning. 

If, in contrast, you mean ' indirect democracy' aka ' representative democracy ' then that is what has been in place since our founding.

It isn't the the representative democracy that distinguishes democratic socialism, (which the left increasingly is heading toward), from republicanism. It is where the power for each comes from. Please note that when I say "republicanism" I don't mean the republican party. In an actual, non-republican form of democracy, power rests with the people as a whole. That is, laws are made by majority rule of the population. In a republic, power rests in a constitution, not the majority. Upholding the laws of the constitution prevents majorities from oppressing minorities.

Perhaps the best example between the two concerns Constitutional Originalists and Living Constitutionalists. To my mind, unless one takes an Originalist view of the Constitution, there is little point to the document. A proponent of a Living Constitution is simply for making the Constitution say whatever they want it to say in order to enact popular will. 

You seem to have some system in mind that you think Bob is proposing and you deem the system bad due to it falling under the category of ' democracy '.   What do you think Bob is proposing?

Hopefully you will accept that I have just answered this in my previous comment above. 

Do you hold that supporting the R party is support for a Republic whereas supporting the D party is support for Democracy?

That's complicated. I can't say for sure about the R party because I suspect they and the D's are actually working together in some Hegelian plot. However, I think the average Joe Republican is for a Republic form of government in general, even if they might not be able to articulate it. I definitely think the D's are increasingly supporting social democracy, which I think is giving us plenty of evidence what the tyranny of the masses will look like going forward. 

I do not see either party varying from our federated constitutional Republic.

I do. Nancy Pelosi is a pretty good example of what I mean. Check out this article . This is democracy as she sees it and damn the rule of law. 

But I see both parties continue to do whatever they can to manipulate / stifle democratic processes —which were designed to properly represent the people— in their unending question for political power.

I somewhat agree, although I think the R's try to stick to the Constitution better. Where they fail, in my opinion, is use the Constitution as freedom to do something that benefits a few financially and harms a lot of others through a lack of concern for the consequences of their actions. Fracking would be an example of this, I think. 

Don't get me started with the replete confusion over this term.

Believe me, I do not want you to get started on that. We already agree there's never been a true socialistic government. When I make statements like that, you should read them as "the inevitable result of trying or claiming socialist ideals", not that it represents actual socialism. In other words, the practical results of attempting socialism, not what constitutes ideological socialism on paper. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2.8  Split Personality  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.1    4 years ago
I stand against the Democratic party because they stand for the rule of the majority rather than the rule of law. Sort of. What they really do is pretend to be about the rule of the majority but, really, just use that as a vehicle to power and, once having attained it, tend towards dictatorship. 

Very disappointed in that crock of shit.

Better get back to a religious article to argue endlessly on and on about the existence of a Supreme Christian Being.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.7    4 years ago
I do not necessarily mean a direct democracy, although that is what I believe democratic socialists attempt to sell the populace in the beginning. 

Even in the workplace, direct democracy is not practical.   For example, the most democratic systems proposed (that I have seen) include voting on members of committees (councils) who then elect their own leader.   It is representative democracy but it does have elements (much like referendums) where direct democracy is applied.   The idea of Democratic Socialism (not the stuff being politicized by the way) is to give workers more economic control;  it is not seeking direct democracy for the sake of being more democratic.

I definitely think the D's are increasingly supporting social democracy, which I think is giving us plenty of evidence what the tyranny of the masses will look like going forward. 

Without a doubt.

This is democracy as she sees it and damn the rule of law. 

This is Pelosi playing politics.    It is yet another example of non-statesmanlike individuals in charge.   Partisan politics rules.   Surely you can point to a contemporary example on the R side to match that of Pelosi's.    Like McConnell?

I somewhat agree, although I think the R's try to stick to the Constitution better.

Liberals, almost by definition, seek a more fluid interpretation of the CotUS and also seek it to be modernized.   Conservatives, by definition, want the CotUS to be held almost sacred and static.   The liberals are typically Ds while the conservatives are typically Rs.   So, yes, I think you are correct.

In other words, the practical results of attempting socialism, not what constitutes ideological socialism on paper. 

There is a profound difference between actually attempting socialism versus using socialist propaganda to provide a smoke screen for establishing a dictatorship.   For a local and small example, how many politicians have promised to 'save Social Security' and what have they done once elected?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.10  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.9    4 years ago
Liberals, almost by definition, seek a more fluid interpretation of the CotUS and also seek it to be modernized.   Conservatives, by definition, want the CotUS to be held almost sacred and static.   The liberals are typically Ds while the conservatives are typically Rs.

Depends on how deeply one looks at terms like these, I think. There's no conflict between being both conservative and liberal. After all, that's pretty much what the founding fathers were. Liberty was the reason they wanted a small government limited by the powers given it in the Constitution and why so many conservatives advocate for smaller government today. 

From my perspective, what we call liberals today are anything but. It seems to me the reason they want a more fluid interpretation of the Constitution is not liberty at all but, rather, to impose their view of society and morality on everyone. Rather than a Constitution that means what it actually says and doesn't allow the government to go beyond the boundaries it sets, they want to call it a Living document in order to "interpret" a meaning that allows them to impose their views of the moment on everyone. 

Take the case of preferred pronouns in Canada, for instance. It would not surprise me in the least to see that happen here as well, should the Dem's get all three branches. Conservatives are more liberal than this in that they do not want government involved in such things, while what we call liberals today can hardly be liberal in fact when they compel behavior from others in this manner. That is not the definition of liberal. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.10    4 years ago
There's no conflict between being both conservative and liberal.

Sure there is.   There are factors of conservatism and liberalism that are contradictory.   The most obvious is one I just mentioned.   Conservatives favor tradition and resist change whereas liberals do not revere tradition and embrace change that they consider to be an improvement (and appropriate) for modern society.

One can support a mix of conservative and liberal principles, but cannot be both a conservative and a liberal.   For example, I am neither conservative nor liberal.   I am in favor of smaller, limited government where the states are more in control (and hierarchically downward) and am all for human beings having the freedom to be themselves as long as they do not pose a threat to society.   Thus bring on fiscal responsibility and downsizing the federal government and keep government from restricting people from marriage and imposing medical decisions that are appropriate only for the patient and doctor.

Rather than a Constitution that means what it actually says and doesn't allow the government to go beyond the boundaries it sets, they want to call it a Living document in order to "interpret" a meaning that allows them to impose their views of the moment on everyone. 

Liberals want society to evolve and they are against tradition holding back progress.   And I wish it were true that the CotUS restricted government as you describe.   Unfortunately politicians have devolved from statespersons to partisan power hounds and have grown into experts at working around the CotUS to serve their needs at the expense of their constituents.

Conservatives are more liberal than this in that they do not want government involved in such things, while what we call liberals today can hardly be liberal in fact when they compel behavior from others in this manner.

Both conservatives and liberals seek to have their way through government action and seek to impose both restrictions and freedoms on society.   It is just that they differ in the restrictions and the freedoms.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.12  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.11    4 years ago
The most obvious is one I just mentioned.   Conservatives favor tradition and resist change whereas liberals do not revere tradition and embrace change that they consider to be an improvement (and appropriate) for modern society.

I don't think putting it in terms of resisting or favoring change quite gets at what the issue really is about. The actual difference between what are called liberals and conservatives is that liberals tend look at truth and morality as relative while conservatives do not. 

Liberals want society to evolve and they are against tradition holding back progress. 

Again, not really addressing the actual issue. The problem with this statement is, who says it's actually progress? From the conservative's perspective, they aren't evolving at all. Liberals are seen as simply redefining truth and morality in order to fit their nature. Conservatives see progress as the effort to change their nature in order to adhere to unchanging truth and morality. 

Both conservatives and liberals seek to have their way through government action and seek to impose both restrictions and freedoms on society.

Yes, but the actual battle is over what constitutes reality. Is truth and morality objective or subjective? That question is the impetus behind such efforts. That is, it would be if so much of government wasn't simply self serving and corrupt. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.12    4 years ago
unchanging truth

You define unchanging truth as adherence to the Bible , do you not? 

As we all know, it is very easy to dispute there is any truth at all in the Bible. Belief in the Bible as truth is almost entirely a matter of faith.  Which means it cannot claim any objective truth. 

So what the heck are you talking about, unchanging truth? 

I would say it is a truth that all people deserve health care and if they can't pay for it in a capitalist (exploitative) society then the biggest beneficiaries of that capitalist system should be forced to pay for it through taxes.  How do you like that truth?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.12    4 years ago
The actual difference between what are called liberals and conservatives is that liberals tend look at truth and morality as relative while conservatives do not. 

That is more appropriately the difference between the religion and the irreligious.

From the conservative's perspective, they aren't evolving at all. Liberals are seen as simply redefining truth and morality in order to fit their nature.

Of course not, conservatives do not approve of the liberal changes.   Conservatives revere tradition while liberals embrace change.   The value judgment of whether or not the change is good does not factor into the equation.

Yes, but the actual battle is over what constitutes reality.

I think you could make that statement regarding any two groups.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.7    4 years ago
A proponent of a Living Constitution is simply for making the Constitution say whatever they want it to say in order to enact popular will. 

Nonsense. Every Supreme Court decision , ever, that was a creation of the "living constitution" proponents has explained in full detail how the decision is in accord with the original constitution. 

Yesterday Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion about mail in voting in Wisconsin that did not cite any precedent in the text of the Constitution. He simply wrote an opinion based on what he believes is right and wrong. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.15    4 years ago
sion , ever, that was a creation of the "living constitution" proponents has explained in full detail how the decision is in accord with the original constitution. 

That makes no sense. If it was in accord with the original Constitution , it wouldn't be a creation  of the "living Constitution"

voting in Wisconsin that did not cite any precedent in the text of the Constitution

First, you understand most cases are not decided on the basis of the Constitution, right?  Second Kavanaugh cited the relevant  Supreme Court precedent.  See:

First, the District Court changed Wisconsin’s election rules too close to the election, in contravention of this
Court’s precedents. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election
laws in the period close to an election—a principle often referred to as the Purcell principle. See Purcell v. Gonzalez,
549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam)

Second, even apart from the late timing, the District Court misapprehended the limited role of the federal courts
in COVID–19 cases. This Court has consistently stated that the Constitution principally entrusts politically accountable state legislatures, not unelected federal judges,
with the responsibility to address the health and safety of the people during the COVID–19 pandemic. 

Third, the District Court did not sufficiently appreciate the significance of election deadlines. This Court has long recognized that a State’s reasonable deadlines for registering to vote, requesting absentee ballots, submitting absentee ballots, and voting in person generally raise no federal constitutional issues under the traditional Anderson-Burdick balancing test. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S.
780 (1983); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428 (1992). To state the obvious, a State cannot conduct an election without deadlines. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.16    4 years ago
First, you understand most cases are not decided on the basis of the Constitution, right? 

Then why do we have "originalists"?  According to originalists, Supreme Court decisions must bear on the original text or what the founders were thinking AT THE TIME. 

So you are telling us now that originalism is disregarded when it suits the conservative justices position on an issue to do so. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.17    4 years ago
en why do we have "originalists"? 

Because some cases involve the Constitution . Most  don't.  They involve US statutory law in which the Constitutionality  of the provision at issue isn't in dispute.  

 are telling us now that originalism is disregarded when it suits the conservative justices position an an issue.

No, I'm telling you most cases don't involve a dispute over the actual text of the Constitution.   Most cases are disputes over statutes or regulations. 

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.18    4 years ago

Supreme Court justices decide the case on what they consider to be right or wrong and by what their political affiliation may require. Once they have decided which outcome they like they send their law clerks to work to find a justification in the law or the constitution for what they have already decided .

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.19    4 years ago
by what their political affiliation may require.

If that's the case, none of them belong in the court. the law is clear in most cases and needs only objective observation of the applicable laws. Period

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.21  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.13    4 years ago
You define unchanging truth as adherence to the Bible , do you not? 

Why? What difference does it make to what is being discussed? Which is, if you don't know, what differentiates a liberal from a conservative. Your questions and opinions only have relevance if we were discussing who was right rather than what makes them different. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.22  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.14    4 years ago
That is more appropriately the difference between the religion and the irreligious.

No, I don't think so. Individuals are the sum of their beliefs and assumptions. Can't really separate it like that. 

Of course not, conservatives do not approve of the liberal changes.   Conservatives revere tradition while liberals embrace change.   The value judgment of whether or not the change is good does not factor into the equation.

Are you suggesting that all conservatism consists of is simple, unthinking resistance to change? That they simply prefer the known to the new? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.22    4 years ago
No, I don't think so. Individuals are the sum of their beliefs and assumptions. Can't really separate it like that. 

A bit vague.   All this communicates is that you disagree.  You were speaking of conservatives and liberals in terms of truth and morality and I noted that your distinction is more that of religious vs. irreligious.   Your sum of the beliefs argument applies to your comparison (liberal vs. conservative) as well as mine (religious vs. irreligious) so it does not offer any justification for deeming mine wrong.

Are you suggesting that all conservatism consists of is simple, unthinking resistance to change?

No, I was emphasizing the critical difference between conservatism and liberalism.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.24  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.23    4 years ago
A bit vague.

My point was that, since a person's views concerning religion are inextricably intertwined with whether or not they are conservative or liberal and in what manner, it isn't realistic to treat it as a somehow different category. 

No, I was emphasizing the critical difference between conservatism and liberalism.

Then this just brings us back to the beginning, in my opinion. While your definition is a difference, I do not think it is the critical difference. I believe the critical difference is as I said. Conservatives tend to see truth and morality as objective whereas liberals do not. This not only points out the difference you describe but gives the underlying reason for the difference in behavior. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.2.24    4 years ago
My point was that, since a person's views concerning religion are inextricably intertwined with whether or not they are conservative or liberal and in what manner, it isn't realistic to treat it as a somehow different category. 

I do not see it that way.   There is no reason why an irreligious person would not have a conservative ideology nor is there a reason why a devout Christian could not favor liberal ideology.

We have examples of both here on NT.

Conservatives tend to see truth and morality as objective whereas liberals do not.

I do not see this coming from conservative ideology but rather from religion.   We simply disagree.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
4.2.26  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.25    4 years ago
There is no reason why an irreligious person would not have a conservative ideology nor is there a reason why a devout Christian could not favor liberal ideology.

Agreed, and why I don't agree that my argument is better suited to a religious discussion. 

I do not see this coming from conservative ideology but rather from religion.

Ultimately, it does, whether people recognize it or not. I think we agree on that, at least. However, any individual can believe there is objective truth and morality without having a religious foundation for it. 

We simply disagree.

Yes. 

 
 

Who is online

Trout Giggles
devangelical
JohnRussell


57 visitors