Skip to main content

View Diary: CO-Sen: Ken Buck decides he wants to be elected after all (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The 17th as a states' rights issue (0+ / 0-)
    You need to put the idea of repealing the 17th into its proper context within the wider set of ideas that make up the states' rights movement.

    The whole motivation for states' rights is the forum shift maneuver.  The right has given up on the idea of running the federal govt permanently, Rove's permanent majority notion, at least without further stacking the deck in their electoral favor.  So they want to shift the forum in which decisions are made towards entities that they can control more reliably and consistently than they can control the federal govt.  

    Shifting control of issues towards states may not at first seem to be an advantage for either side.  There are, after all, Blue states as well as Red states.  But our side is less organized (as Will Rogers observed), much less authoritarian, than the other side.  Their idea in pushing decisions to the states is that while their side will run the Red states with an iron hand, our side will predictably be fair and democratic, and give them openings for control, or at least allow their obstruction, even in the bluest states.

    In the Red states after the 17th is repealed, we will never again see a Democratic Senator.  The Red states will revert to picking Senators in the state legislatures, and their lock-step controlled state legislatures will unceremoniously oust folks like Tester and Baucus, and never again send another Dem to DC.  But they assume that the Blue states will continue with popular election of Senators, thus giving their side the opportunity to pick off the occasional Red seat even in the Bluest states.  Sure, these folks will usually be RINOs, but a vote to organize the Senate is a vote to organize the Senate.  When you consider that there are far more solid Red states, though most have small populations, than solid Blue states, even if there were no asymmetry in willingness to revert to choosing Senators by state legislatures, that systemic factor will give them a considerable built-in edge towards Seante control, or at least the 41 seat blocking minority.

    This is the same asymmetry they rely on in pushing every other aspect of states' rights.  Take state nullification, for example.  They assume that, if this were allowed, Red states would use it freely, aggressively, and in a coordinated manner, to opt out of the whole array of things the federal govt does that don't meet Red doctrinal or practical approval.  But they assume that Blue states would rarely if ever use nullification.  AL gets to opt out of Obamacare, but MA will never even try to opt out of paying for the occupation of Afghanistan.

    We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

    by gtomkins on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 06:16:02 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site