Skip to main content

View Diary: ALEC "Limited Representative Government" About to Be Launched (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, that helps to make sense of it. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MNDem999, tikkun, elwior, eztempo

    Or at least of the lizard-brain hot-button tactics that they'll use to market it.

    The diversification of the American population, and thus, by extension, of its electorate, has not yet kept pace with the actual balance of power in Congress -- where even those Congresscritters and Senators that serve demographically diverse populations are still in thrall to the much less diverse constituencies of their donors.

    But there is always a "danger" that such politicians might begin serving their diverse constituencies, as they come to realize what butters their bread politically.

    So the public, universal franchise, which is the lone remaining site of leverage that the public continue to have on their ostensible representatives, must (by this logic) be taken away.

    Of course, the real motivation here is to make life easier for politicians' real constituencies, their business supporters. But the way it will be sold to America's mouth-breathers is as a last-ditch fight against demographic change, and as a defense of traditional values.

    Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

    by Dale on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:19:47 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's also to gum up Federal action (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoreLies

      The dysfunction of Congress and the abuse of the filibuster is part & parcel to a simple strategy to freeze up the Federal government, thereby limiting its growth and power. ...It's a strategy o kind of fossilize a status quo ante in the Right's conception of "worst case," where to utterly block any growth of social programs, stymie regulation across the board, and to stack the judiciary with right wing judges while they incrementally dismantle the social safety net and equal rights legislation over years of effort at the Federal level and, maybe more importantly, at the State level is the "best case" long term goal.

      In order to do that, the Senate (at least) would be put in the hands of the business-friendly establishment if direct election was eliminated and Legislatures were put in control of who was seated in the Senate.  Statehouses can be bought much more cheaply.  That done, any popular initiative can and will be put through the ALEC/Business Roundtable filter before seeing the light of day.

      The "repeal the 17th" is a movement on the fringe right, and has been for a while.  There's a full-throated justification at NRO that posits the anti-Federal government argument with an originalist slant:

      "To ensure that they had a working mechanism by which to resist the expansion of federal power, the architects of our Constitution hard-wired the state legislatures into its structure; with the 17th Amendment, progressives pulled out that wiring like punch-drunk Jacobins."
      Thankfully, it's hard to amend the Constitution, but watch for a growing debate over the wisdom of direct election of Senators.  It's coming.
      •  They don't have to amend the Constitution or (0+ / 0-)

        state law to achieve timocracy. They're building a timocratic regime already, by making it harder for poor people to vote, by not counting their votes, and by flooding elections with corporate PAC money.

        US politics has been following the trajectory to timocracy for the last fifty years!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site