The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[AmericanPride]

IMO the whole purpose of the Federal Government was/is to create the greatest good for the greatest number NOT the chosen few as so often happens.

In your opinion, who are the "chosen few"?

As for the American score card. The Government should be reorganized into the 6 Departments from the Preamble and that is the only 6 Departments we need.

I'm assuming State, Defense, Justice... what are the other 3 you propose to keep?

IMO we are flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations. That flat out requires a longer term Vision and some type of long term Plan for the good of the country not just Republicans and/or Democrats. This something our elected officials are very poor at.

In what way are we "flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations"? I don't disagree with you in principle but I suspect I disagree in substance.

And finally political parties should be made illegal, they are far to destructive as George Washington said they would be. (At Least I think it was him)

No more political campaigns without your own money. Can't afford it ? Too bad, let someone else run with his/her own cash.

Wouldn't outlawing political parties result violate the Constitutional protection for the right to peaceably assemble? Political parties have their problems, granted, but they are also instrumental in mobilizing voters and building coalitions on issues. They are also a hedge against the radicalization of politics. As for campaigning with your own money, that's a guaranteed way to ensure that only the wealthy will be elected. And the wealthy will represent only the interests of the wealthy. The best solution for maximizing citizen participation is to ban using any campaign financing other than that provided by the government.

[Stan]

Wouldn't outlawing political parties result violate the Constitutional protection for the right to peaceably assemble? Political parties have their problems, granted, but they are also instrumental in mobilizing voters and building coalitions on issues. They are also a hedge against the radicalization of politics. As for campaigning with your own money, that's a guaranteed way to ensure that only the wealthy will be elected. And the wealthy will represent only the interests of the wealthy. The best solution for maximizing citizen participation is to ban using any campaign financing other than that provided by the government.

I might have this ass backwards, but Freedom of Assembly has jack to do with politicians. More like a right to protest ?

We've seen how lucky a wealthy Texas man did not make it to the primaries on his own dime. Not much of a guarantee in my book.

Citizens like me, constantly reminded to vote while abroad, find it increasingly difficult to vote for someone who is squandering my taxes to fly around and bark Bravo Sierra.

[slapout9]

In your opinion, who are the "chosen few"?



I'm assuming State, Defense, Justice... what are the other 3 you propose to keep?



In what way are we "flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations"? I don't disagree with you in principle but I suspect I disagree in substance.





Wouldn't outlawing political parties result violate the Constitutional protection for the right to peaceably assemble? Political parties have their problems, granted, but they are also instrumental in mobilizing voters and building coalitions on issues. They are also a hedge against the radicalization of politics. As for campaigning with your own money, that's a guaranteed way to ensure that only the wealthy will be elected. And the wealthy will represent only the interests of the wealthy. The best solution for maximizing citizen participation is to ban using any campaign financing other than that provided by the government.

AP,

#1-the chosen few could be identified by looking at the IRS code. It is nothing but a book of favors for the 1%.

#2-I would add a Department of Treasury, Department of Civil Engineering (we desperately need this) and finally I would literally have a Department of Future Prosperity. That plus your 3 would cover the designated mission areas of Government as defined in the Preamble.

#3-We are flat out failing because we have NO plan to secure our Future for the Future generations. All I see is an intentional plan to degrade the Future for Future Americans (NAFTA is a prime example).

#4-No it will not violate freedom to assemble in any way. Good policy for the country, is a good policy for the country and it shouldn't matter not one bit which party came up with it. And the only way to really ensure that this happens is by getting rid of the influence of "gang thinking" by the parties because so often that is what it ends up happening.

I think that covers everything.

[AmericanPride]

#1-the chosen few could be identified by looking at the IRS code. It is nothing but a book of favors for the 1%.

I agree. But the most visible and active supporters of the 1% are low-middle income, white, rural Americans who perceive government is transfering their wealth to urban minorities when, in reality, most of the wealth transfer is upwards to the "1%".

#2-I would add a Department of Treasury, Department of Civil Engineering (we desperately need this) and finally I would literally have a Department of Future Prosperity. That plus your 3 would cover the designated mission areas of Government as defined in the Preamble.

What about Veterans Affairs?

#3-We are flat out failing because we have NO plan to secure our Future for the Future generations. All I see is an intentional plan to degrade the Future for Future Americans (NAFTA is a prime example).

#4-No it will not violate freedom to assemble in any way. Good policy for the country, is a good policy for the country and it shouldn't matter not one bit which party came up with it. And the only way to really ensure that this happens is by getting rid of the influence of "gang thinking" by the parties because so often that is what it ends up happening.

I have serious reservations about the implications of these comments. What's "good policy for the county" is not always straightforward. I think wealth distribution to middle and low income Americans through social services (education, health-care, affordable housing, food security) is good policy and good for America. But it's not "good" in a narrow sense for those with their wealth being distributed. There are so many competing interests in the American polity that political parties are necessary to represent them all and build functional coalitions. I do have concerns about lobbying and campaign finance, but those are not strictly issues related to the existence of parties in the first place.

The real question is what makes political parties cooperate and what makes them fight? Part of it is the mechanisms through which power is exercised - in a parliamentary system, for example, a failure to pass the budget and threaten government shutdown would trigger new elections; in the US, in contrast, this can be used as a political tool because no one will be dismissed from office for using it. The other part is the winner-take-all method of voting and the nature of House representation, which gives disproportionate influence to rural communities.

[Dayuhan]

What's "good policy for the county" is not always straightforward.

This I think is one of the core truths that's so often lost in polarized political discourse. The guy who disagrees with you is not necessarily a shill for "the 1%", "the commies", "the immigrants", or anything else. He's probably just a guy who has the same basic goals you do, just a different idea of how to get there. What polarized political discourse loses is the reality that no faction has "right" or "truth" on their side: all of them have a piece of it, and a workable solution is best achieved by compromise. The more the discourse polarizes, the more we see people retreating into a shell of "I'm right, they're wrong", and reaching the conclusion that "they" are not just other Americans with different opinions, but representatives of some malign external force. That's when fear and hate come into it, and where fear and hate go, violence follows in short order.

I don't see any of this heading toward revolution or insurgency at this point, but individuals flying off the handle and making a mess... I'm guessing we'll see more of that.

[AmericanPride]

I don't see any of this heading toward revolution or insurgency at this point, but individuals flying off the handle and making a mess... I'm guessing we'll see more of that.

I wouldn't say the threat of "revolution" or "insurgency" is technically non-existent. The US has a far more diverse, active, and violent far-right movement than far-left; from the classical white supremacist organizations to the sovereign citizen and militia movements, and the more legitimatized Tea Party. All of them share strains of ideological thought about government, policy, race relations, and so forth. In addition, the rhetoric of mainstream media normalizes the language, symbols, and ideas of division and dehumanization of the metropolitan Other.

The crash of 2008 and the consequent devastation of local economies unleashed the intensity of the Tea Party which for several years has dominated the political space to the exclusion of functional governance. What kind of events can further drive the far-right into legitimate politics? This is a self-fulling prophecy; the more active these groups, the less functional government becomes, and the less functional government becomes, the more ideological frenzy intensifies.

The federal government is (1) not growing, (2) not incompetent, and (3) not repressive (in the American experience, it's typically the local government that most likely demonstrates these traits). Yet the government's actions are viewed within the narrow prism of reactionary populism. Barring another economic burst (the threat of which still exists in several sectors, including real estate), I suspect we will see a gradual return to stability.