I've made my beliefs regarding the Trinity Administration widely known, so I won't comment on the comparison of the ascendency of the modern Republican party to the rise of the Third Reich. I think I already did :)
Tags:
About Me
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
American Politics: Fascism Vs. Marxism?
I watched John Dean talking to Jon Stewart about his new book (Dean is a former Nixon Administration guy, you know, like Chuck Colsen). Anyway, his point was regarding the Conservative Movement's swing toward fascism, and the danger that poses to our nation. It was mentioned how there is a root of fascism at the core of modern conservatism and one of marxism at the heart of liberalism. So, deep down, that means American politics is really Hitler vs. Stalin. That scares the shit out of me, mostly because there is an element of truth to it. We have so lost sight of the lessons of history that we seem doomed to repeat its mistakes. The demonization of corporate America by the left certainly has anti-capitalist sentiment at its core, and that is because our regulation mechanisms have so failed Americans, it appears to the average liberal that the free market is to blame when our markets are anything but. We live in the land of monopolies, and it's killing us.
I've made my beliefs regarding the Trinity Administration widely known, so I won't comment on the comparison of the ascendency of the modern Republican party to the rise of the Third Reich. I think I already did :)
I've made my beliefs regarding the Trinity Administration widely known, so I won't comment on the comparison of the ascendency of the modern Republican party to the rise of the Third Reich. I think I already did :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I appreciate your scrutiny, Jordan. It's true that I often make many assumptions that are perhaps not clearly stated. Allow me to break it down: of course America is a republic, and everyone should by now understand the electoral college system. I am attempting to expand the discussion past this anachronism. While direct democracy may be an outdated ideal, there is a difference between a fairly-constituted republic and one whose structure violates the most basic democratic principles. Total direct democracy may not work, but what we have in America is the majority being held hostage by the minority.
We'd be remiss to neglect the REAL reasons for the implementation of our electoral college system. Let's not forget that there was a battle over slavery and who would count as a voter. It's nice to speak about De Tocqueville and Locke and Rousseau, and it's true that our founders were conversant in all their main arguments, but the root of our system came from the reality of slavery. Southern states, with their fewer number of voting citizens, were purposely given equal footing with the more populous states for the purpose of maintaining the unity of the new nation. Fast forward to today, to the plight of the New York voter, whose vote does not carry the same weight as his North Dakotan counterpart. We can wax philosophic all we want about the meanings of Democracy, but surely you cannot advocate one person's vote being more powerful than another's, especially when the only good reason is a historical anachronism that was meant to justify human rights abuses for political purposes.
When I ask "This is Democracy?" after criticizing the election of a President who lost the popular vote, I am criticizing a system that gives some votes more weight than others. This is un-Democratic, under any definition you'd like to propose. Coupled with the jerry-mandering, and the blatant contempt the Trinity Administration shows for the rule of law, and expressly for the ultimate rule of law, our Constitution, it portends Very Bad Things.
As for this current post, you really have to had watched the show to get the context of the discussion, and I gave short shrift to qualifying my comments. The author was lamenting the slide towards fascism taking place in the modern conservative movement, and making the point that many of the hallmarks of a slide toward a Third Reich-ish regime are indeed in place. That's John Dean's analysis. My point was that with the continuing polarization of our political system, one can begin to feel that American politics are being driven by the ideologues on both sides. With the mainstream parties being controlled by their most extreme elements, that in essence boils down to a choice between Hitler and Stalin.
I was not trying to say that Howard Dean, the current DNC chairman, is Stalin. I'm referring more to the extreme grassroots movement that is in many ways making a positive impact on the Dems, but that in other ways has some troubling ideological positions (think Common Dreams).
I wasn't referring to the Civil War really, and I may again be being less than precise in my language. It may not be fair or accurate to say slavery was the primary issue in the small states vs. big states battle that took place over the way in which the issue of representation was handled and ultimately established.
My main point is that I do not think our Republic is being well-served by our current system. I think that each state should get only one elector as their Senatorial representative (in other words, each state would continue to have two actual senators, but they would only have one elector in place of the two they currently have in the Electoral College). This would go a long way towards balancing out the system, making it much more equitable.
My proposal for jerry-mandering is equally simple. All district borders must be made with right angles, with a limit of 5 corners. Period (obviously the natural contours of the state's own borders are excluded). As demographics change, the only thing that needs to be updated are the proportions between the districts, not their shapes.
And I hope I don't sound like I'm fighting :P
Post a Comment