“…Equality For All…”

College Of Political Knowledge

Really?

Equality?

Take a good look around you….does anything look like equality to you?

Just what the Hell is meant by the term?

Equality means “the state of being equal.” It’s one of the ideals a democratic society, and so the fight to attain different kinds of equality, like racial equality, gender equality, or equality of opportunity between rich and poor, is often associated with progress toward that ideal of everyone being truly equal.

Now did our wise and noble Founders mean any of this when they used the term ‘equality’?

But what did the Founders mean by ‘equality’?
What the Founding Fathers meant by equality is this: All men share a common human nature. The assertion that all men are created equal means that all persons are the same in some respect; it does not mean that all men are identical, or equally talented, wise, prudent, intelligent, or virtuous; rather, it means that all persons possess the inherent capacity to reason.

In the early decades of the Republic, equality meant equality before God; liberty meant the liberty to shape one’s own life. The obvious conflict between the Declaration of Independence and the institution of slavery occupied the center of the stage. That conflict was finally resolved by the Civil War. The debate then moved to a different level. Equality came more and more to be interpreted as “equality of opportunity” in the sense that no one should be prevented by arbitrary obstacles from using his capacities to pursue his own objectives. That is still its dominant meaning to most citizens of the United States.

Neither equality before God nor equality of opportunity presented any conflict with liberty to shape one’s own life. Quite the opposite. Equality and liberty were two faces of the same basic value—that every individual should be regarded as an end in himself.

Apparently the word ‘equality’ does not meaning today what it was intended in the 18th century…..

Maybe a better term would be ‘fairness’.

Simply put fairness means equal treatment…..the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is right or reasonable

Fairness is concerned with actions, processes, and consequences, that are morally right honorable, and equitable. In essence, the virtue of fairness establishes moral standards for decisions that affect others.
Look at that definition……
Fairness is sadly absent in the American society……
Return a  moment to our Founders and their understanding of the term they pinned…..
What the Founding Fathers meant by equality is this: All men share a common human nature. The assertion that all men are created equal means that all persons are the same in some respect; it does not mean that all men are identical, or equally talented, wise, prudent, intelligent, or virtuous; rather, it means that all persons possess the inherent capacity to reason.
Reason?
The capacity for reason has left the room….and each passing year it gets further from returning to our political discourse.
What about logic?
That left the room in 1980 when Reagan was elected president.
And as you have seen it has pretty much never returned and probably will not as long as social media drives the debate.
It is a sad state for this country…..and the withering away6 of the republic will and is being televised.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”

Democracy Or A Republic?

College of Political Knowledge

This is the question whether it is noble to allow the people to rule or by opposing the idea end it.

And the debate rages.

To answer the question posed….the US is a republic….it was never intended to be a democracy.

The Founders made damn sure of this fact.

Few of the Founders had anything good to say about ‘democracy’….a few quotes to illustrate their distrust…..

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. ”  John Adams

“Were out State a pure democracy, in which all inhabitants should meet together to transact all their business, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations. 1. infants, until arrived at years of discretion. 2. Women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men. 3. Slaves, from whom the unfortunate state of things with us takes away the right of will and of property. T hose then who have no will could be permitted to exercise none in the popular assembly; and of course, could delegate none to an agent in a representative assembly. The business, in the first case, would be done by qualified citizens only.”  Thomas Jefferson

“One of the worst forms of government is a pure democracy, that is, one in which the citizens enact and administer the laws directly. Such a government is helpless against the mischiefs of faction.”  James Madison

I would say that their fears of democracy have been founded in their republic.

Those Founding Fathers were enamored with the idea of a ‘republic’…..

“There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; for the true idea of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.” That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.”  John Adams

“I trust that the proposed Constitution afford a genuine specimen of representative government and republican government; and that it will answer, in an eminent degree, all the beneficial purposes of society.”  Alexander Hamilton

In the end of the Founding Period the republic won out….but sadly these learned men did not foresee the rise of political parties……the bane of good government.

I asked the question:  Are we a democracy or a republic?

This article answers the question better than I…..

Despite clear historical evidence showing that the United States was established as a republic and not a democracy, there is still confusion regarding the difference between these two very different systems of government. Some confusion stems because the word “democracy” is used to describe both a “type” and a “form” of government. As a “type” of government, it means that generally free elections are held periodically, which America has. But, as a “form” of government, it means rule by the majority, which America does not have; America is a republic. Webster`s 1828 dictionary states that a Republic is: “A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person…” In a democratic form of government, the populace votes on all matters that affect them, and do not elect others to represent their interests. Therefore, a majority-rules direct democracy gives unlimited power to the majority with no protection of the individual`s God-given inalienable rights or the rights of minority groups. In contrast, in a Republic, the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike.  It is historically relevant to note that since the birth of our nation in 1776, no American president referred to America as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during World War I. Sadly, today, it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government, including in recent years by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

(Read On)

https://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22

These days this debate is a moot point.

Moot point because it is ll about the semantics

The experiment that the Founders put together is at a stressed point…..does it continue as envisioned or does it morph into something else?

I am old and I am worried but I believe the republic will endure….but at what cost?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Anatomy Of An Insurrection

First I would like to think the mindless horde for the insurrection of 06 January because it gave me the chance to use an under used diploma in Political History…..where I look at the history of this country the founding and the years forward onto the present.

Since the very beginning the fires of insurrection have been with us….first it was a slow simmer while the country came together politically but not physically and the flame of dissension was turned up to a boil that lead to the American Civil War….after the insurrectionists were beaten down the flame returned to a simmer….the reason for the insurrection was never extinguished and the simmer continued while the country slowly returned to some sort of political unity.

 In the 20th century the flames were once again raised and this time by Reagan…..his demonization of the poor with his tagline of ‘welfare queens’ started us down the path to 06 January.  (This is just my take on the situation I am sure that there will be those in opposition)

Then came the election of the black man as president and the birth of the Tea Party and the flames got higher…..and in 2016 and the election of Trump the stew of racism and hatred came to a full boil.

And that boil gave us the insurrection that breached the Capitol and caused the embarrassment of a sane country.

When I talk with people the most common sane question is….’how could this happen’?

This is an account of that day, 06 January, the events and the people that eventually breached the line and entered the Capitol building….

More than six months after the storming of the US Capitol, more than 550 people have been arrested, with an estimated 800 people surging into the building during the hours-long assault. Members of the Oath Keepers, a loosely organized right-wing paramilitary, and Proud Boys street fighters galvanized by then-President Trump’s call to “stand back and stand by” have been indicted on conspiracy to disrupt Congress, which delayed the certification of Joe Biden as president by almost six hours.

“Every single person charged, at the very least, contributed to the inability of Congress to carry out the certification of our presidential election,” prosecutors wrote in memorandum filed with the court on Tuesday.

The slow-moving tedium of prosecutorial legal machinery and the GOP campaign to deflect responsibility can make it easy to lose sight of the big picture of what transpired on Jan. 6. But based on an aggregate review of individuals cases, along with other sources, a Raw Story analysis of the critical events in the Jan. 6 siege reveals a striking degree of coordination, sustained and intentional violence, planning and preparation, and determined effort to disable the United States’ critical governance apparatus by participants, including many with recent military experience. Many of the rioters who played critical roles in breaching the Capitol came away from the experience vowing to wage war against the United States. Few among those who are being prosecuted have expressed any remorse for their actions.

….Read On….

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-insurrection-timeline/

The difference between this insurrection and the historic ones is easy…..the past was based on an ideal then present insurrection is based on a personality.

The flame has been turned down again but the stew is still at the boiling point and the cook of this fiasco is none other than the ex-president of the United States…..

A cocktail of propaganda, conspiracy theory and disinformation — of the kind intoxicating to the masses in the darkest turns of history — is fueling delusion over the agonies of Jan. 6.

Hate is “love.” Violence is “peace.” The pro-Donald Trump attackers are patriots.

Months after the then-president’s supporters stormed the Capitol that winter day, Trump and his acolytes are taking this revisionism to a new and dangerous place — one of martyrs and warlike heroes, and of revenge. It’s a place where cries of “blue lives matter” have transformed into shouts of “f— the blue.”

The fact inversion about the siege is the latest in Trump’s contorted oeuvre of the “big lie” compendium, the most specious of which is that the election was stolen from him, when it was not.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-trump-misinformation-aa051fa751d718407638dbe308647a7a

The slow simmer has returned and the stew awaits the next person to step up a turn the gas up for the next insurrection.

This is a nation divided unto itself….this chapter of American political life is far from over….and the division keep growing by the day…..

My final thought…..I believe if this had been black/brown insurrectionists the violence would have been greater….probably on both sides.

Image

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those Damn Socialist Democrats!

Warning:  This post contains strong words that some may find offensive!

I cannot believe that I need to have this conversation again. Let me say from the onset….if you think that Democrats are Socialists then you are a moron……yes, a MORON! Every time you write or speak that Dems are Socialist you prove just how f*cking ignorant you truly are. The closest one could say about Dems is that it could be construed as a bastardized form of Fabianism…. I can just imagine the looks of a deer in the headlights right about now……do not give yourself a headache….. The Fabian approach to political action by way of calm intellectual reflection and considered rational planning, and advocacy that social democracy be engineered by a meritocratic state elite, have appealed to successive generations of senior parliamentary Labor Party figures and to socialists overseas, such as Nehru. Fabianism has been criticized from the left for its rejection of notions of class struggle and its focus instead on creating social solidarity from above which underplays the problems of the working class. It is charged with being based on inherently elitist assumptions, born of its adherents’ generally relatively comfortable upbringings and university education. Equally, it has been criticized from the right for ignoring the role of markets, in which benevolent administrators have a smaller role than in planned societies. These mental midget will scare the people with other fearful terminology like Communist…and even to go so far as equate Dems with Nazism (that illustrates just how f*cking ignorant these fools truly are….and even more so for the people that embrace such manure) Then there is a military training guide that lumps socialists in with the Nazis…..do I need to help these total morons with the difference?

A new U.S. military training document obtained exclusively by The Intercept places socialists in the same “terrorist ideological category” as neo-nazis, worsening long-standing progressive fears that a federal crackdown on “domestic terrorism” would just as likely be used to target leftists who want a truly democratic society as to thwart far-right extremists who favor racist authoritarianism. Journalist Ken Klippenstein, the recipient of the leaked counterterrorism training material, reported Tuesday that the Navy’s new guide includes the following question: “Anarchists, socialists, and neo-nazis represent which terrorist ideological category?” “The correct answer is ‘political terrorists,'” according to Klippenstein, who was informed on the matter by an unnamed military source familiar with the training.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/23/disturbing-us-military-document-puts-socialists-same-category-neo-nazis All the slogans and vitriol from the aging Right…..somethings are not working anymore….

You would think by the news that most Americans are Centrists or socially conservative……that may not be entirely accurate…..

For the first time more Americans identify as “socially liberal” than conservative, revealing a huge double-digit swing over the past two decades. Gallup reveals 34% of Americans now say they are socially liberal, 30% conservative, and 35% identify as moderate.
But as the pollster notes, starting in 2001 “social conservatives had a clear advantage over social liberals — by 12 points, on average.” That started to change in 2013, and now socially liberal has pulled ahead, representing a huge 16 point swing from 2001 to 2021. Americans’ “self-described economic views,” Gallup finds, “have remained predominantly conservative over the past two decades.” In a separate report this month Gallup looked at views on sex and marriage, finding Americans increasingly “tolerant.”

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/social-liberalism/ But wait! The bad news just keeps getting worse for the in-bred knuckle-draggers……

While a majority of U.S. adults still have more positive than negative perceptions of capitalism, less than half of the country’s 18 to 34-year-olds view the profit-maximizing market system favorably, and the attractiveness of socialism continues to increase among people over 35, according to a new poll released Friday. The online survey, conducted June 11-25 by Momentive on behalf of Axios, found that 57% of U.S. adults view capitalism in a positive light, down from 61% in January 2019, when the news outlet first polled on these questions. Then and now, 36% are critical of the exploitation of the working class and the environment by the owning class.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/25/poll-finds-socialism-increasingly-seen-badge-pride-us It’s a tale as old as time. Or at least as old as the Cold War. Whenever Conservatives run out of material, whenever they find themselves going up against an idea only total assholes would oppose, they throw out the word SOCIALIST. That one word would cause whole lot of people who grew up during the Cold War and associated socialism exclusively with the USSR to reliably freak out, and turn to Republicans for comfort and the free market. It did not matter if the person or the idea was actually socialist, it did not matter that there were things conservatives liked (like police officers!) that were, in fact, socialist. And they weren’t the only ones. Republicans have long been able to exert a certain amount of control over the Democratic Party with the word, because it was always a looming threat. You’re not going to see Republicans policing themselves and their own ranks because of what Democrats could call them or say about them (or for any other reason, really), but “But Republicans will call us socialists!” has always been a reliable excuse not to do certain things and to perhaps be more circumspect than they might otherwise be.   (wonkette.com) It has been a slow trip to the light on the Left…but the trip has been steady and those young voters are coming of age. I do not trust polls but this has been a steady journey…I have seen it in the youngsters I talk with….. Like I said….Bad News indeed.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Politics Of Fear

And so it began!

politics of fear denotes when leaders (or candidates for leadership) use fear as a driving or motivating factor for the people, to get them to vote a particular way, allow excesses in spending, or accept policies they might otherwise abhor. The concept relies on the fact that presenting people with an alleged threat to their well-being will elicit a powerful emotional response that can override reason and prevent a critical assessment of these policies. The Cheney George W. Bush administration used this tactic after the events of September 11, 2001 to illegally invade liberate Iraq, erode civil liberties, and avoid Congressional oversight. This has been continued by the Obama administration, and doesn’t seem likely to end any time soon. It is, however, not really a modern phenomenon — access to modern media simply makes it much easier to fear-monger.

I bring this up as the 2022 election looms large….

Look at the GOP they have nothing but FEAR as a platform for the election…..

Republicans are planning to use crime—translation: racist dog whistles—as a major part of their message for the 2022 midterm elections, NBC News reports. “Democrats want to defund the police” is going to be a Republican rallying cry in far more races than there are Democratic politicians who actually want to defund the police. (And the goal of “defund the police” is of course going to be radically misrepresented.) Black Lives Matter is also going to be targeted as a source of violence, all facts to the contrary, because … well, you know.

“In some districts, we focused on ‘defund the police’ and the broader culture fight,” a Republican operative told NBC News of the 2020 effort to win the House. “The broader culture” fight equals overt racism, in case you were wondering. He continued, “But in many suburban districts, we took ‘defund the police’ and turned it into a public safety issue about whether there should be increased or decreased police in your neighborhood, and what public safety officials do to keep people safe.” In other words, in districts where overt racism would turn voters off, Republicans used more veiled racism.

As Republicans gear up to run on a crime-crime-crime-we-are-the-party-that-can-prevent-crime (psst, crime means Black people) platform, there were more than 400 shootings in the United States over the Fourth of July weekend, with at least 150 people killed. Republicans continue to fiercely oppose even the most minor tweaks to gun laws as part of reducing the crime they claim to think is such an enormous problem. Republicans want you to be afraid of a stereotypical racist dog whistle of a criminal, but they want to keep hands in the guns of men who stalk and abuse women they’re dating. The fear they want you to feel doesn’t extend to action on school shootings. Until recently, Republicans even blocked funding for research into gun violence to promote a better understanding of, and better solutions to, the problem. The Republican plan is all about supporting the same old police tactics and blaming the groups of people Republicans blame for everything, rather than considering what would actually work. They hope to ride that to victory in 2022.

(dailykos.com)

The GOP is so supportive of police that North Carolina passed a new bill…..

North Carolina Republicans, like their brethren across the country, love to frame themselves as protectors of law and order. They especially love to mischaracterize progressive attempts at policing reform as calamitous cuts to police departments.

But in our state, there’s one party that’s been dangerously shorting the criminal justice system over the past decade. Incredibly, that party appears ready to continue doing so despite North Carolina’s $6.5 billion surplus.

According to a Charlotte Observer report, the Republican-led Senate has passed a $26 billion spending plan that would cut one prosecutor from the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s office, reducing the roster of assistant district attorneys to 84. (The House will likely pass its budget later this month.) Republicans also want to transfer a District Court judge from Durham to Bladen County and move two assistant public defender positions from Wake County to Robeson County.

I am so glad that the GOP has our backs against crime (yes that is sarcasm)
 
Do not believe the lame ass slogans before you vote…..
 
Be Smart!
 
Learn Stuff!
 
I Read, I Write, You Know
 
“lego ergo scribo”

“They Fought To Establish A Country”

College of Political Knowledge

I recently audited a class on the Federalist Papers….and the professor kept saying that the conventioneers fought hard to establish this country……and that the fight brought about the establishing the United States of America to throw off the yoke of English dominance.

First of all I need a definition…his definition of the word fought.

For me the word “fought” means that they actually engaged in the battles that established this country…if that is the definition we use then there are only two…George Washington and Alexander Hamilton….and a lesser Founder, Aaron Burr.

But I will let a historian will in the blanks…..Zack Clary, B.A. History….College of William And Mary…..

To answer this question, I would have to know what distinction is being used to as to what constitutes being a Founding Father. The answer would be very different if you are referring to everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence as opposed to everyone who signed the U.S. Constitution, but neither of these distinctions is ideal, for the former excludes Alexander Hamilton among others and the latter excludes Thomas Jefferson among others. Richard B. Morris, a historian, designated Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington as Founding Fathers, but I do not agree fully with this rather limited distinction. I consider the Founding Fathers to be anyone who played a sizable role in the creation of the young nation, and while that list is expansive, it is not fair to undermine the accomplishments of some really important American historical figures. But for times sake, I will use Morris’s distinction, for by my distinction, every general that accomplished victories that led to winning the war against England deserves a place amongst the Founding Fathers. But, anyway, of the seven listed above only two actually fought in the Revolutionary War: George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. George Washington was the General and Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army or Continental Line during the Revolution. Alexander Hamilton was an aide-de-camp to General Washington, and he was given command of three battalions during the Battle of Yorktown. His troops did well and took Redoubt #9. Benjamin Franklin served as Minister to France for much of the war; he also would’ve been in his seventies for the majority of the war. Thomas Jefferson was at the Second Continental Congress where he penned the Declaration of Independence, and he spent much of the war as Governor of Virginia. John Jay was instrumental in negotiating the Treaty of Paris that ended the war. He was also at the Second Continental Congress, and he spent some times as Minister to Spain. James Madison was rather young when the war began; his major contribution came in penning the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that began the American system of government as we know it.

The darling of most Americans that know a very little history is Thomas Jefferson…..in 1781 as governor of Virginia when Arnold was marching on Richmond Jefferson fought so hard that he ran away and hid…..so much for fighting for principles.

As an former military man I want my leaders to actually stand and fight and defend their principles…it is easy to put words to paper…..it is another to look the enemy in the eye and actually kill to defend.

Back to the course……this was a good course but was too full of editorializing from the lecturer….

The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers are important to understand this country’s establishment and yet little is known about them outside Constitutional scholars and historians…..without knowing what is in these papers then one cannot understand the Constitution (a political prop at best these days).

As usual I will help (I just wish more readers cared enough to check out the links)…..

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/

For god’s sake…if you are going to use the Constitution to make a point at least know how and why it was enacted….without knowledge you are just showing your ignorance.

amicus populi

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

“The Senate Is There To Slow Things Down”

Mitch McConnell has used this lie over and over….followed by the GOP loyal…..they use this to try and explain why they cannot move bills forward…..

McConnell even went so far as to say the the Founders formed the senate to do this exact thing….to slow legislation down for calmer heads to prevail.

That is BS and illustrates how political idiots try to use the Constitution to explain their partisan attacks on our republic.  These people pretend to be all knowing and in reality they are a pack of self-serving individuals that care nothing for the plight of the nation.

In the formative years of our nation (1776-1787) the thought behind a ‘senate” was that it be……”… a natural social and intellectual elite…(that) would find their rightful place in the upper houses of the legislatures…..(that would) were to be the repositories of classical republican honor and wisdom, where superior talent and devotion to the common good would be recognized and rewarded…”

The Greek Thucydides observed….”to conduct the affairs of state in a safe and successful way, requires all the wisdom of the most talented and experienced members of the state, as well as vigilance and particular attention of the particular deputies of the whole people.”

Now look at the US Senate of today…..nothing about the worthless group looks like anything the Founders said it would.

A repository of honor and wisdom?  Really I have yet to see either in the Senate.

You?

There is a case for the abolition of the Senate…

The United States Senate exists today because the Constitution’s framers did not trust America to function without it. Unlike the House of Representatives, the “people’s House,” whose members were expected to be as prone to extremism and shortsightedness as the constituents they would represent, the plan was for the Senate to be the dignified, deliberative body that operated above the fray of politics. As Virginia delegate and noted optimist Edmund Randolph put it at the Constitutional Convention, a good Senate would “restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy.”

By this ambitious metric, the Senate is a failure.

https://www.gq.com/story/the-case-for-abolishing-the-senate

Even the longest serving member of Congress, John Dingell, also wants to see the Senate abolished…..

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

I as well have called for ending the Senate and going to a unicameral system…..in all locations state and national…..https://lobotero.com/2021/03/10/thoughts-on-unicameralism/

US Senators earn $174,000….the leader (Mitch) makes $193,400…..that is great pay for part-time workers (and yes they are workers) they work about 3-4 days a week and about 6 months a year and it is great pay for nothing but obstruction and partisan BS.

But what about the “outside income” that all Senators have….Permissible outside earned incomefor Representatives and Senators is limited to 15% of the
annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule. According to the House Ethics
Committee and Senate Ethics Committee, the 2016 limit is $27,495.

Does this explain how members when they leave the Senate are millionaires?

Think about it!

When has anything good come out of the Senate…that “repository of wisdom and honor”…(sorry I tear up from laughter every time type that)

This country does not need this useless appendage of government any longer.

The US Senate is similar to the human appendix….once served a purpose but now it is a useless party of the body…..now that it is cancerous it is time to surgically remove the diseased appendage of the body politic.

My distaste of the US Senate is not mine alone…..

Teddy had it right on target…..“When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not Guilty’.”
Theodore Roosevelt

And then there was yet another accurate observation…..“Do you pray for the senators, Dr. Hale?’ someone asked the chaplain. No, I look at the senators and I pray for the country.”
Edward Everett Hale

For those that are interested in seeing what the case was for adding the Senate to the government…..I suggest Federalist 62……https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp

Then there is AntiFederalist 62…in opposition……http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/62.htm

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The History Of American Federalism

College Of Political Knowledge

This is another in my series looking at our “federalism”.

Even the most ignorant among us (and there are many) have a small grasp of the word “Federalism”….

In case you are scratching your head…then a simple definition should save your scalp from ravishing.

A system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities govern the issues of local concern.

I have given my thoughts on federalism and the need……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/does-federalism-remain-a-good-idea/

But unlike the Constitution the idea of federalism has been changing throughout our history….thanx to peped.org….

In the beginning there was the idea of “Dual Federalism”….

When the Constitution was written, it was widely understood that the federal government and the states would exercise different separate powers. The federal government would be responsible for all foreign affair, national defence and all interstate matters (such as trade that crossed state boundaries); the states would be responsible for everything else, including any powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (known as ‘reserved powers’). For most Americans, this meant that the majority of decisions affecting would be made by their state government which, in principle, best understood them and had their interests at heart. This relationship between the states and the federal government is known as ‘dual federalism’.

In practice, the balance between the two tiers of government was never as neat as dual federalism suggests. During the First World War, for example, the government took direct control of industries that were essential to the war effort and states did not always look after the best interests of all their citizens, for example in the South where African-Americans looked to the federal courts to protect their interests from state governments that practised racial segregation.

Then came “Cooperative Federalism”……

When the Great Depression struck, in the 1930s, the balance between the states and the federal government was decisively altered. The states did not have the resources to help citizens who had lost their jobs and, often, their homes. The federal government did have the resources and it used them, in the New Deal, to help those who were suffering and to stimulate the economy. However, this meant federal government involvement in welfare matters that had previously been considered the exclusive responsibility of the states. This changed, overlapping relationship between the states and federal government is known as ‘cooperative federalism’.

Notwithstanding the clear need to help those who were in no position to help themselves, the New Deal was fiercely resisted by the conservatives in the 1930s as undermining the principle of federalism ad weakening the most important constitutional protection of liberty. Even in the 21st century, some conservatives regard the New Deal as the start of a slippery slope leading to ever greater government and, consequently, reduced freedom. Liberals, in contrast, greatly admire the way in which the Constitution allowed the federal government to step in at a time of crisis and make productive use of people who would otherwise have been idle as a result of mass unemployment. Cooperative federalism continued after the Great Depression had ended, as the federal government continued to play a major role through the Second World War and the Cold War.

Next was “Creative Federalism”……

In the 1960s, the relationship between the states and federal government changed again. President Lyndon B Johnson launched his Great Society programme, designed to end poverty in the USA. In his view, the states had never made a serious effort to tackle the concentrated pockets of poverty, often in the cities (such as Los Angeles South Central district), and could not be relied upon to do so. Therefore his programme often bypassed state governments and worked directly with city or local authorities to implement anti-poverty projects. This further advance of the federal government into matters traditionally seen as the responsibility of the states is known as ‘creative federalism’.

The Great Society Programme provoked a backlash, however. Americans of almost all political persuasions agreed that federalism was in danger of becoming meaningless, as policies concerning communities up to 3,000 miles away were being made up in Washington DC.

Then this country stepped into the recent phase of Federalism…..”New Federalism”…..

Since President Johnson left office in 1969, almost every president, both Republican and Democrat, has introduced programmes to re-empower the states and restore a balance closer to the original model of dual federalism. These programmes, although they vary quite significantly, are collectively known as ‘new federalism’. In brief, they have worked as follows;

  • President Nixon (Republican 1969-74)

Nixon’s programme, called General Revenue Sharing, allowed the states to spend a greater proportion of their federal grants as they chose.

  • President Carter (Democrat 1977-81)

Carter continued the General Revenue Sharing programme of his predecessor, but also cut the amount of federal grants available to the states so that they would have to become self-dependent.

  • President Reagan (Republican 1981-89)

Reagan made sharp cuts to funds available to the states, especially for welfare payments, as soon as he took office. He offered the states a new arrangement, reminiscent of dual federalism (called ‘swaps’), in which they would take full responsibility for some welfare programmes while the federal government would take over others in their entirety . The increased cost to the states of such an arrangement led them to reject the proposal.

  • President Clinton (Democrat 1993-2001)

Clinton oversaw an economic boom that led to the states building up surplus funds, in many cases, for the first time since the 1920s. These funds were then used to pioneer new policy ideas that suited the states’ needs and priorities, for example Wisconsin started a programme to extend school choice by issuing families with education vouchers that could be used in any school, whether state-run or private.

  • President George W Bush (Republican 2001-2009)

Although committed to new federalism in principle, President George W Bush responded to the attacks of 11 September 2001 by increasing government control over any policy that related to national security. Then, when the economy deteriorated sharply in 2008, he introduced an economic stimulus plan that included substantial payments to struggling state governments.

  • President Obama (Democrat 2009-)

The first action of President Obama, taking office in the midst of an economic crisis was an economic stimulus plan on an even greater scale than that of his predecessor.

Overall, new federalism has illustrated the difficulty of achieving a relationship between the states and federal government that resembles the balance expected by the Founding Fathers.

Then came Trump and  I am not sure that he even understood the concept of federalism…..

There is one thing that is obvious…..

The reason that federalism has taken so many forms is that none has worked effectively. The only time that the states have enjoyed a resurgence has been during an economic boom. Whenever there has been a national crisis, the federal government has either chosen to assert dominance over the states or has been required to do so, often with the full backing of states that have been powerless to cope with events.

Federalism was the dream that this would make the country more equitable and so far after all these years it has failed.

If it cannot be perfected then maybe it is time to move to something else….but some think the federalism will save this country…..https://www.city-journal.org/how-federalism-can-end-partisan-gridlock

I disagree….it looks to me that all these problems and antics and corruption were created by the federalism system….I do not think that it can be repaired….it is too late for that.

Any additions or thoughts?

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Bi-Partisanship–A Silly Notion

The US government has become weak and ineffective.

Part of the problem is what we like to called ‘bi-partisanship’.

The only purpose this term serves is an excuse by politicians who claim the ‘other side’ do not negotiate in good faith…..it is nothing but a pathetic excuse by political cowards.

This is a word that the MSM is in love with…..it gives them some vague idea that they can beat us with daily and continuously.

Personally I do not think the word has any meaning….other than a media talking point.

I have made thoughts known on this whimsical ideal…..https://lobotero.com/2009/02/17/bi-partisanship/ as you can see I have seldom thought that this was an idea that has any legs in our form of government…..in an ideal country this may work but not in ours.

The term “Center” is also an offshoot of the myth of bi-partisanship….as the political world of the country is today that center does not exist…..what small amount we find in government is usually not on some large scale program that benefits the entire nation but rather minute BS that serves NO purpose other than wasting time.

To illustrate this divide we need to look No further than the Obama years…..

What America considers a debate is pretty messed up. Apparently, the existence of climate change is a “debate.” Allowing 33,000 Americans to die every year because they can’t afford health care is a “debate.” Continuing to arm ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria is a “debate.”

And yet, there’s one singular issue that seems to read “case closed” in the minds of millions of Americans, both red and blue: bipartisanship. Somehow, we have wound up in a world where saying “we should stop literally arming terrorists” is an opinion, but lauding the glories of bipartisan politics is unbiased and impartial.

View at Medium.com

The whole silly idea of bi-partisanship is a seriously flawed belief……

The flaw in simply blaming hyperpartisanship is pretending we have two parties with similar structures or aims: on one side is a diverse, center-left technocratic coalition that mediates the interests of groups and puts pragmatic, evidence-based governance ahead of ideology; on the other side is a group of politicians, donors, and activists singularly focused on maximizing their ideological victories. This is not merely progressive hogwash, but rather is frequently accepted by a range of political scientists and scholars.

This point is missed by most elite political commentators, who have the frustrating habit of treating politics in the abstract, as a sort of game to occupy the time of the wealthy. Politics is seen as victimless, the product of white papers, bare-knuckle negotiations, and talking points. The right’s views on abortion are treated like a fashion statement—without meaning and impact—rather than a consequential form of gender oppression.

The Myth of Bipartisanship—It’s Time to Get Tough With the Right

I reiterate…..the idea of bi-partisanship in our political circus is fanciful and a purely unattainable ideal in the American political system we have today.

Please stop pretending that it is a good idea….maybe in the past but today it is only a pipe dream of Centrists.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Idea Of Self-Determination

College of Political Knowledge

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order.  Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties.  For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.” 

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century.  In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination.  This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s. 

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that “self-determination” exists on a spectrum.  Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given ‘people’ from the larger politico-legal state.

Now that the much used term has been defined….let’s look at what the UN has to say on this front…..

Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people’s choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of UNPO. For some of our members, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people’s traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination. Other members, such as Taiwan and Somaliland, have already achieved a high-level or full self-determination, but are yet to be recognized as independent states by the international community.

https://unpo.org/article/4957

I thought is that if a people in a majority vote want to determine their own future than they should be given the right….but sadly in this world the power does no longer belong to the people but rather to money and those that control it.

An interested look at Self-determination from a post-graduate student…..https://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/17/what-is-self-determination-using-history-to-understand-international-relations/

Now that we have looked at ‘the right of self-determination’ I would appreciate your thoughts on this….

amicus populi

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“Lego ergo scribo”