Hm. It's well-written and contains several good points, but the main thrust of his argument seems to be that change - any change - is bad. Of course the United States Federal Government is more powerful today than it was in 1776. With the growing complexity of the world, an unevolving central government could in no way have begun to meet the needs of its citizens. Further, in every case he cited where 'things changed' they were for the better. The changes were effected to help American citizens, not hurt them, and any assertion to the contrary is dangerously unresponsible. And was it just me, or did Mr. Yates call Brown vs. Board of Education a poor excuse for a sociology experiment? That offhand comment right there caused me to immediately question everything else he said.
Comments?
aegisknight
on Dec 4, 2003
I pretty much agree with what you're saying. The way I feel about the Constitution is that it was designed by a set of very smart men who had a clear vision about what it should mean. But as time goes on, it seems more and more things are added by people with less than noble goals... and not much is taken away. So you end up with a big, boiling mess. ...
Hm. At some point, I learned to construct arguments on both sides of a given issue very well. The problem is, I tend to construct them at the same time. So I end up losing my original thrust in a wash of compromise and moderacy. And that's what just happened.
I'd just be happy if copyrights and patent law were made less strict and long-term.
hiretsukan
on Dec 5, 2003
Frogs will jump out if you heat up the water. It doesn't matter how slow you heat it, they'll jump out anyway. ;)
tadan
on Dec 5, 2003
Well, let's consider slowly shoving a forty megaton nuclear warhead up your ass--quite slowly.
aegisknight
on Dec 5, 2003
1) It's a common metaphor.
2) Do you know this from experience?
naruto_nerd
on Dec 5, 2003
I think (most) wild animals have a natural tendency to get as far away from humans as possible, so...I don't think live frogs will stay put in a pot.
On a related note, I once asked my dad why China didn't just change its communist government since it's pretty much capitalist over there right now (or whatever the right economic term is for "you get what you earn", it's just not Communist, it's Communist "in name"). He said probably they didn't want to change too fast and end up like Russia. My dad ain't no political scientist and he has strange ideas sometimes but eh...food for thought.
lordgalbalan
on Dec 5, 2003
...The Republican/Neo-conservative agenda incarnate. Chief Whitehouse political director Karl Rove is a master of systematic degredation, and he's coordinating these effects in the U.S. by strategically manipulating voting blocks in patterns that will ensure Republican victories. (and by the way, those of you considering support of Ralph Nader next year are figuring into his calculations)
This is what the federal court Senate debate is about. Because liberal judges hold a majority on the federal court circuit, nationwide law is interpreted in a liberal-democratic light. Now with the conservatives in power, ideologues are beginning to slip through the Senate confirmation process's cracks. It's actually a big problem, because there are enough people smart enough to notice these changes that overwhelming conservative success on the bench could destabilize the country.
Actually, this phenomenon manifested itself in the United States about 120 years ago. In the midst of rapid industrial progress, businesses made alliances with politicians to degrade the rights of private citizens in favor of industrialized companies that wanted cheap labor. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" tell the consequences of this imbalance well. The Progressive movement emerged as the observant realized what was happening, and after mobilizing (and a bit of luck embodied in the assasination of corporate sympathizer William McKinley) it emerged with a president only too willing to fight the corporate interests.
Republican Theordore Roosevelt busted up large companies and resisted sending in strike breaker patrols to dissolve labor disputes. Conservatives, traditionally split between the Dems and the Reps, invaded the Republican party in response and instituted a pro-business president in William Taft. The Progressive movement fractured into the Bull Moose Party under Roosevelt, and a displaced corp of Progressives that did not align with Roosevelt gathered around the political spectre of Democratic governor Woodrow Wilson. With their aid Woodrow Wilson evicted much of the Democratic Party's conservative core and made it into the liberal embodiment it is today. Wilson continued the reforms of Roosevelt so far as he was able, and further degraded corporate control over the country.
lordgalbalan
on Dec 5, 2003
Lasting change emerged when the courts sided with the Progressives. Courts threw many stumbling points into the paths of TR and Wilson in the beginning, but as the Progressives mobilized the worker vote liberal justices began emerging on the benches. The courts finally buckled in the mid 1930s, when FDR proposed a "court-packing" bill after the Supreme Court upheld several of his administration's New Deal reform programs. Since then the judicial system has avoided ruling in favor of companies over the rights of individuals. Just as individual freedoms were compromised by a systematic degredation effort once, just as slowly and effectively they crept back in. Now our president's allies are trying to revive the former effect, and if they succeed in stacking the courts with conservative judges then they will be successful.
I know some may point fingers at the Democrats just as I target the Republicans, but the Democrats have always been a party of sweeping change. Gradual degredation isn't the liberal style, and actually Sen. Ted Kennedy warned of social welfare degredation efforts just last week.
The Republicans are a god-awful political alignment. I mean, ideology just does not gel with practical matters like government, and there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating the fact.
The best way to defuse "gradual" systematic destruction efforts is by "vague confrontation": an extremely delicate, indirect witch-hunt directed not at specific groups but at patterns of political behavior. You hear the analogy "ice and fire", but it's not the ice that puts out the fire. The fire melts the ice, and the water droplets that emerge from the ice suffocate the flame. You can't bring a river to a fire without destroying whatever is in the river's path on the way to the fire. But fight fire with ice, and the water will get to the fire without the mess.
Now that I think of it, wouldn't that be a great way to fight real forest fires? Drop ice in front of the fires instead of water, and wind doesn't become a problem!
follow on Mastodon
follow with Feedly
RSS for the rest
Hm. It's well-written and contains several good points, but the main thrust of his argument seems to be that change - any change - is bad. Of course the United States Federal Government is more powerful today than it was in 1776. With the growing complexity of the world, an unevolving central government could in no way have begun to meet the needs of its citizens. Further, in every case he cited where 'things changed' they were for the better. The changes were effected to help American citizens, not hurt them, and any assertion to the contrary is dangerously unresponsible. And was it just me, or did Mr. Yates call Brown vs. Board of Education a poor excuse for a sociology experiment? That offhand comment right there caused me to immediately question everything else he said.
Comments?
I pretty much agree with what you're saying. The way I feel about the Constitution is that it was designed by a set of very smart men who had a clear vision about what it should mean. But as time goes on, it seems more and more things are added by people with less than noble goals... and not much is taken away. So you end up with a big, boiling mess. ...
Hm. At some point, I learned to construct arguments on both sides of a given issue very well. The problem is, I tend to construct them at the same time. So I end up losing my original thrust in a wash of compromise and moderacy. And that's what just happened.
I'd just be happy if copyrights and patent law were made less strict and long-term.
Frogs will jump out if you heat up the water. It doesn't matter how slow you heat it, they'll jump out anyway. ;)
Well, let's consider slowly shoving a forty megaton nuclear warhead up your ass--quite slowly.
1) It's a common metaphor. 2) Do you know this from experience?
I think (most) wild animals have a natural tendency to get as far away from humans as possible, so...I don't think live frogs will stay put in a pot.
On a related note, I once asked my dad why China didn't just change its communist government since it's pretty much capitalist over there right now (or whatever the right economic term is for "you get what you earn", it's just not Communist, it's Communist "in name"). He said probably they didn't want to change too fast and end up like Russia. My dad ain't no political scientist and he has strange ideas sometimes but eh...food for thought.
...The Republican/Neo-conservative agenda incarnate. Chief Whitehouse political director Karl Rove is a master of systematic degredation, and he's coordinating these effects in the U.S. by strategically manipulating voting blocks in patterns that will ensure Republican victories. (and by the way, those of you considering support of Ralph Nader next year are figuring into his calculations)
This is what the federal court Senate debate is about. Because liberal judges hold a majority on the federal court circuit, nationwide law is interpreted in a liberal-democratic light. Now with the conservatives in power, ideologues are beginning to slip through the Senate confirmation process's cracks. It's actually a big problem, because there are enough people smart enough to notice these changes that overwhelming conservative success on the bench could destabilize the country.
Actually, this phenomenon manifested itself in the United States about 120 years ago. In the midst of rapid industrial progress, businesses made alliances with politicians to degrade the rights of private citizens in favor of industrialized companies that wanted cheap labor. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" tell the consequences of this imbalance well. The Progressive movement emerged as the observant realized what was happening, and after mobilizing (and a bit of luck embodied in the assasination of corporate sympathizer William McKinley) it emerged with a president only too willing to fight the corporate interests.
Republican Theordore Roosevelt busted up large companies and resisted sending in strike breaker patrols to dissolve labor disputes. Conservatives, traditionally split between the Dems and the Reps, invaded the Republican party in response and instituted a pro-business president in William Taft. The Progressive movement fractured into the Bull Moose Party under Roosevelt, and a displaced corp of Progressives that did not align with Roosevelt gathered around the political spectre of Democratic governor Woodrow Wilson. With their aid Woodrow Wilson evicted much of the Democratic Party's conservative core and made it into the liberal embodiment it is today. Wilson continued the reforms of Roosevelt so far as he was able, and further degraded corporate control over the country.
Lasting change emerged when the courts sided with the Progressives. Courts threw many stumbling points into the paths of TR and Wilson in the beginning, but as the Progressives mobilized the worker vote liberal justices began emerging on the benches. The courts finally buckled in the mid 1930s, when FDR proposed a "court-packing" bill after the Supreme Court upheld several of his administration's New Deal reform programs. Since then the judicial system has avoided ruling in favor of companies over the rights of individuals. Just as individual freedoms were compromised by a systematic degredation effort once, just as slowly and effectively they crept back in. Now our president's allies are trying to revive the former effect, and if they succeed in stacking the courts with conservative judges then they will be successful.
I know some may point fingers at the Democrats just as I target the Republicans, but the Democrats have always been a party of sweeping change. Gradual degredation isn't the liberal style, and actually Sen. Ted Kennedy warned of social welfare degredation efforts just last week.
The Republicans are a god-awful political alignment. I mean, ideology just does not gel with practical matters like government, and there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating the fact.
The best way to defuse "gradual" systematic destruction efforts is by "vague confrontation": an extremely delicate, indirect witch-hunt directed not at specific groups but at patterns of political behavior. You hear the analogy "ice and fire", but it's not the ice that puts out the fire. The fire melts the ice, and the water droplets that emerge from the ice suffocate the flame. You can't bring a river to a fire without destroying whatever is in the river's path on the way to the fire. But fight fire with ice, and the water will get to the fire without the mess.
Now that I think of it, wouldn't that be a great way to fight real forest fires? Drop ice in front of the fires instead of water, and wind doesn't become a problem!