Life IS politics. It's kind of like saying, "Why can't we just have a nice, beautiful forest, without all these damned trees in the way?"
A better question might be: "Why can't we not insert wishful thinking into theories?"
Life IS politics. It's kind of like saying, "Why can't we just have a nice, beautiful forest, without all these damned trees in the way?"
A better question might be: "Why can't we not insert wishful thinking into theories?"
Some students of American national politics suspect that the Voting Rights Act had a major unintended consequence. The argument goes that the VRA vastly increased the scope for gerrymandering of congressional districts...the drafters of the Act, plus later judicial interpretation, were not able to limit the use of this scope to the originally intended purpose of the Act (increasing minority representation). And it has become one of those third rails of American politics, as you all may remember...it came up recently for regular review, and a few people wanted to tinker with it, but were nearly electrocuted by the political and media reaction to tinkering with that sacred cow.
The story goes that the VRA has had the unintended consequence of polarizing the representation of the American electorate because parties (by creating "safe party districts") move median voters within the resulting districts further from the center. In this story, this hollows out the representation of the political center, and causes the "tails" or "fringes" of political opinion to receive undue weight.
I find the story compelling as a theoretical matter, but I'm not immersed in the empirical research on the subject. My point in relating the story is that sometimes strictly optional structural features of democratic institutions can be pretty pernicious (at least in theory). In the case of the VRA, one could imagine tinkering with it to eliminate its (alleged) pernicious unintended consequences. One of the states (I think Iowa) has "tied its own hands" by relegating redistricting to an impartial commission. Bravo to them; but it takes an awful lot of public-spiritedness for either party in power in some statehouse to resist the tempation to "do unto the other party as they did unto them."
Originally posted by 120 MM:
Reminds me of a process flowchart I have seen, where the final Activity process on the chart was:A better question might be: "Why can't we not insert wishful thinking into theories?"
"And Then A Miracle Occurs..."
David H. "Cow" Gurney
Colonel, USMC (Ret.)
Senior Fellow, National Defense University
Editor, Joint Force Quarterly
Or maybe a touch of ju jitsu?
As expected, trending toward goofy by definition -- variations on governing = power, and politics = the distribution of power, therefore NO.
Clearly I am not talking about theoretical abstract politics, but rather the ugly manifestation of it. I just can't help but think this bipartisan bickering, money politics, and short short term mentality wasn't intended by the founding fathers. Many great checks and balances, but not against that, unless you're using the accountant's definitions.
Unfortunately, I am not a graduate of the madrasah of the Federalist Papers, or converstant in the many rules and regs behind the Constitution's implementation. I just see the core ideas taking a long view, that their manifestation in practice can never achieve.
Yes, I am tilting at windmills. Another cartoon that comes to mind is the Far Side one with the dog scientists striving to master the operation of the door knob, knowing what an impact it would have to the species.
FDR even faced criticism in WWII and right before the war as well. His domestic policies were not working well up to the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
Thomas Fleming's "The New Dealers War" is probably the best account I've read on opposition to FDR in this time period.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Bookmarks