“Voters need fact-based information to elect people who will enact the policies a majority of us want.
We need politicians to participate in the reality-based community.”
Suskind responded by talking about the principles of the Enlightenment—the principles on which the Founders based the Declaration of Independence—that put careful observation of reality at the center of human progress.
And where would be be if they hadn't? Reality always wins, period, but we can often surf reality when we know and respect her ways.
The problem is in the time scale. Reality wins in all probability but often only eventually after a sustained fight and at significant cost. Reality is the enemy to any budding dictator and the ability to discover and understand reality their first target: goodbye education, journalism and free speech.
Reality can play out many different ways, and often at the cost of of many innocent bystanders, sometimes millions. Some of that's "natural disaster" but I think most of it is set up or facilitated by humans. We are certainly fouling our own nest, and trashing societies for the sake scaled up road rage and vainglory. We are also doing some very cool and even beautiful things. We seem to be running out of time cut the craziness. So I hope that maybe we will?
And yes, where would tyranny be without people who are eager to believe a lie?
As far as natural disaster, Dr H pointed out in her 2-10-23 Letter that Erdogan's allowing shoddy construction of buildings contributed to the impact of the quake. Also Assad has prevented relief to contested areas of the country.
We can see this happening in Florida. The governor is beholden to developers and energy companies. They have almost no regulations. They hardly prepare for the next hurricane and thousands of those whose homes were destroyed in Ian are still homeless.
And now Erdogan is going after (or says he is) those contractors who built the shoddy buildings. Either Dr. H or somewhere else pointed out that many of the buildings that collapsed were relatively new, built after the 1999 earthquake and purportedly incorporating earthquake-safe construction.
I'm not sure it's hateful as much as psychologically less sophisticated. Many people turn their fear to hatred and attribute those things they're afraid of to others. When leaders encourage them to see people as the "other" it offers an explanation for their distress and fear. And, humans, being primates, are really wired to be both hierarchical and suspicious of unfamiliar members of their species. It takes a certain amount of development to overcome this impulse to see those who are different as threats. A lot of people never develop this capacity for self-reflection, not to mention the capacity for analysis and critical thinking.
As for people being wired to be hierarchical, I am not sure. But some people certainly believe in hierarchies much more than others. Authoritarian personality types, for example.
I read a study of a remote tribe of hunter-gatherers which described group meetings where everyone contributed to decisions, even teenagers. Everyone’s work was hunting and gathering, more or less equally important, and it was often done in groups rather than as individuals. There was no desire for a “strongman” to decide for them in that society.
Lots of people are really that hateful. That was my first thought the day after Election Day 2016. We really are a racist nation to have elected that hateful fool.
Maybe some people are just born hateful? I don't know, but I do know a lot of people who are hateful grew up experiencing pain and hate. And the hate "virus" seems to me to move around, infecting some societies more severely at some times and ebbing to a cooler state at others, also affecting different segments of society differently, and often continually persecuting an underclass in the background. It's the monster we somehow as a species can't seem to let go of.
Indeed! As we struggle to evolve beyond the base behavior of our Preditor- Prey animal Roots, we seem to be approching an important Epoc where we either evolve or . . .devolve. Preditors which prey on their own species will ultimately be the extinction of their entire species. A dog chasing it's own tail. A vision one does not want to consider. We are our own and the planets stewerds. We own the consequences of our behaviors.
I have so many questions. The culture of blaming others for being stuck in feeling miserable. Who teaches children to take responsibility for their own misery versus blaming it on others? There is currently an entire large demographic doing the latter. Is there a genetic component to culture? How do we apply what we have learned of epigenetics to culture wars? Why are Ukrainians so amazingly capable (Resilient)? How do we as a nation build our own resiliency?
“Well, I’ll end with this, then: Is there something unique about America that makes it especially prone to culture war, or is this kind of par for the course?
Part of what has made it especially acute in the United States is the proliferation of nonprofit special-interest groups. You don’t find that in Europe; you don’t find it in England or Germany. Those are more statist regimes, and have much greater control over the nonprofit space. [Whereas, in the U.S.] you have the proliferation of special-interest groups that take sides. And a lot of our charitable money—which is a massive amount compared to other countries—gets channeled through these charitable organizations that exist with a take-no-prisoners policy; that define the enemy, that define a devil, that define transgressions in certain ways.”
'Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.'
'Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies. History reveals that the more democratic a society, the more news and information it tends to have.'
“The purpose of journalism,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, “is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ.” Rather, “the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.”
'News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.'
'The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.' (AmericanPressInstitute) See link below.
Then, Fern, we are obliged in many countries to write the obituary of Journalism as those that now call themselves journalists are often driven by ideology and bend the news to what they consider more important....their personal opinion or a prevailing "newspeak" mantra. It used to be very clear in a newspaper that the editorials were clearly identified and could be found on a specific page.....the facts were to found on the other pages. The role of many of those who purport to be following such a trade are frequently either pen-pushing ideological hacks or animators of tv entertainment and chat shows. Not quite the same thing.
In France the issue of professional status cards are the prerogative of the central government and are provided....or withdrawn... by a government authority and following government determined criteria, favouritism or whims. The same government provides €700 million in subsidies to the print media and a very heathy tax-free leg-up to those who they employ.....media the countervailing power, no longer I fear!
Twice in the last week the Minister of Culture in Macron's squadra has threatened to remove the licence of 2 TV channels (one being 24hrs news) for daring to allow the expression of opinions that are different from that "required" by the authorities and deeming this biased rather than balanced as it would look to any reasonable viewer (they have, left, right and centrist commentators and guests). The Minister made the statement on a station that belongs to the State (paid by my taxes) and profers only extreme "progressive" (ultra left-wing) views and openly disdains anyone to the "right" of them and regarding those that allow such "enemies of the people" to express themselves as traitors. No wonder newspapers are going bust and nobody buys them.
The US is not alone in having problems with its journalists and media. To each their Fox!
I would not lump 'democratic' countries together with same degree of loss concerning 'freedom of the press'. You have not done that, Stuart, but, perhaps, to some readers you came close to doing so. Standards of journalism have ebbed and flowed over time, and I would not romanticize the past on that score. The failure of the newspaper business is primarily based on the costs of running such an enterprise. The loss of local journalism in America has had enormous consequences as have the disappearance of communities, unions and associations. The fabric of social relations among the people has been torn apart; we are much more isolated. The loss of widespread access to the news founded on journalism and the dominance of 'social media' indicates the seriousness of the challenges to Democracy. An excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville's description of the country in his book, 'Democracy in America' (1835) provides a broad sense of change in the USA.
'It is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.'
'Here it is a question only of the associations that are formed in civil life and which have an object that is in no way political.'
'The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.'
'Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.'
'In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.'
'I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.'
'It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.'
Yes, thank you, Fern!! I have that book and have not yet read the entire thing. It's full of wisdom and insight into us, as Americans, from the perspective of an interested and keenly observant European. He nailed it in 1835! And totally relevant now as then as far as i can tell. You do add much value and color to this group. Deep appreciation for all of your posts. They're often long and well worth the read because they're so thoughtful and supportive of what we're all sorting out. <3
No longer 'pen pushing' Stuart more like cursor moving, cut & pasters ... er I mean ... cut & posters or driven by algorithms that "like" input to digitally design bots after market share testing results. Not pen pushers more like Le Pen. Stuart can you give us some petit actual French words wnere appropriate especially on one-word charcterizations of complex French. political activity. Merci!
Bryan, i will try to oblige and agree with your description. Le Pen is not the problem as such but is benefiting from the causes. She indeed is saying in public what a large part of the people according to all surveys are saying in private. Unfortunately the difficulty comes from the centre who don't want to rock the boat and the left who still think that they can "deconstruct" man (visions of Sartre) and thereby impose on the French a "utopian" vision of interrelations and a different concept of society, nation and identity. It will explode shortly here in France.
And a very good morning to you, Lynell. I'm still here but more than preoccupied with our particular european problems. I'm also getting into my new role as a Mediator after completing my professionalizing diploma at France's top law school. New departure at 73§ why not?
Great to see you again Stuart! Kudos to you finding a new role. It's never too late. I try to keep abreast of 'affaires européennes' over here, but it isn't easy to sift through all our domestic news to get to international items. I use various European media outlets like the BBC, Deutsche Welle, several Dutch entities, etc., but it's always nice hearing from folks "on the ground", as it were, over there. I hadn't realised until I saw your post that we hadn't heard from you in a while. Do chime in every now and then and don't be a stranger! Cheers/Salut...
I try to keep abreast of what's going on in your "neck of the woods," but don't feel qualified to comment. Congratulations on your new Mediator role. Very impressive!
Congratulations, saying this even though I don't what a professionalizing diploma in mediation involves in France. Is this a certification beyond a law degree? A specialization the determines that you can mediate between nations or private parties? Or, serve as an Adjudicator? Curious as I've learned quite a bit from your posting.
Yes! Congratulations, Stuart!! Way cool and very impressive. Not to mention, much needed. Thanks for stepping up to bring your wisdom and humanity to the mediation table.
Only after all other opinions have been beaten into pulp through coarse discourse may reality win. Ignorance must first run it's course. Said this grumpy old man on a bright and sunny day.
Just saw poll on MSNBC that 58% of Democrats want someone other than Biden. NATO! Social Security! Medicare! Ignorance beyond comprehension. HL Mencken is still right about the intelligence of the American voter.
I think some of that 58% are genuinely concerned about his age. Right now, he seems fine, and is clearly mentally sharp. He proved that in SOTU! 🥰 But if his health declines, we will need to be prepared.
I am 75, reasonably lucid and in good heath so far as I know, but I know as I age that the odds are turning against me and friends younger than I who death I never expected are gone from disease. Age treats some far more kindly than others, but it is a issue, and one to make backup plans for.
Choose wisely the VP. Plan for the least desireable and for the continuity of policies through someone actually being tutored in the role and gets the leadershp competicies of the President. I'm not suggesting a monarchy, but there is something to say for being strategic about getting the job done, especially when the job will span the next three presidential terms. My take is that Ms Harris may not be being prepared to take over beyond an interim period if Mr Biden were to fall ill between now and 2024.
Other than creepy and corrupt Spiro Agnew and Dick Chaney, I cannot recall a VP playing much of a visible role until the president was assassinated or resigned, at least in my lifetime. I am sure that more goes on behind the scenes, but while the boss is always the boss, I am surprised that VPs, who may become president at any time, are not called upon to play more of a role in the team, if only for the sake of democratic transparency. Presidents are a little too close to a temporary monarch for my taste, and while there are in some cases very practical reasons for that, in some there are not, such as the autocratic, unaccountable, and all but unlimited power of pardon (I think the Nixon "pardon" was far more erosive of rule of law than is acknowledged, and set a terrible precedent). The former last president seemed to imagine himself a king, if not a god; "Let the documents I stole be declassified, without even recording it".
Anyway, the practice of tacking on an unsuitable VP just to please an uncooperative constituency (even McCain was embarrassed by the choice of Palin) is just plain negligent. VP's need to be every bit as suitable as the president, and Ms Harris may be so, but if so, she deserves are more visible and functional role than breaking ties and waiting in the wings.
I tend to agree with the concern, as the strategic option I suggest could certainly be subverted. One could never think a Trump would have someone in the wings to replace him. The possibility is of course ludicrous. You last sentence stresses my point. Most VPs have been chosen to balance the ticket, attract a particular demographic, or to offer someone sweet for the opposition to make nice with. I'll Leave others to fill in the names of VPs that fit. If we are unwilling to wrestle in the muck of hate and acrimony, we need to be strategic. The team going forward in 2024 has to be competent and worth the salaries both are being paid, beyond the ceremonial functions, I think you would agree. Time for politicians to aspire to the possibility of leadership and progressive goals, even if the sumultimate title is in the office next door. These are the people we should be supporting and getting on the ticket.
And so the Republicans are now scaring people that because of Biden’s age we might end up with Kamala Harris-this idea they’re pushing will definitely have traction-race baiting always wins-the fact that she’s a poc AND a woman will turn off many voters
Repubs will try to scare people no matter what. It's what they do. We could back Joe and still keep an eye out for another possibility. Could be Kamala. Could be someone else.
Was it this one? "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." There's so many quotes to pick from!
Was that HL Mencken? I remember more the spirit than the actual quote. It’s more pointed than I had realized (maybe in undergraduate school when I read it, or in TRB in the ‘60’s). Thanks so much.
Woe is me. Perhaps WE here on this substck can make a difference with our exposure of Truths and the Objective Verifiable evidence in support of such. we must keep on keeping on spreading the reality view.
Exposure to truths as best we can uncover and frame them, and also promotion of that world view. Social movements that have made a historical difference hake managed to keep truth that many people would rather ignore in the public's eye, just as MAGA tells the same big lies incessantly.
I also think we have really dropped the ball around the virtue of telling the truth, especially those told by "whistle blowers" such as Alexander Vindman, who tell the truth at their peril, and way too often suffer for it with little redress. In the end, society sufferers for this even more profoundly. There is a long, long tradition of the powerful and popular getting away with "murder" of equal justice under law, and escaping the full wrath of the court of public opinion, because we apply our own standards of judgement selectively. Provable, serious liars have no place being entrusted with grave public responsibilities.
I'm beginning to think that many polls are just nonsense. I want to know who did the polling and how. How the questions are framed and were they placed in context and what is the sample size. So many variables can be manipulated to offer up the answer that the polling purchaser wants...
But to elect politicians who participate in the reality-based community, we first need voters who do, too. Insuring that we maintain a high enough percentage of such voters ought to be Job 1 of the press, other media, and educators.
We also need the media to support fact based information! No more both sides are equal especially when one side is lying. Hold their feet to the fire. Email editorial boards, writers are on Twitter, let them now your feelings. Cancel subs and apps and let them know why. We might also have gotten the house in 2022 if it were not for all the negative poll reporting on the dems and the huge red wave co.ing to crush us. I haven't heard a peep out of them on how they could have gotten this so wrong!!!
Not certain I follow you. Each Congressional district consists of approximately 710,000 residents. The true inequality comes because each state gets two senators. Thus Wyoming's 580K residents have the same number of senators as California's 39M residents. Doesn't seem very democratic.
And DC, with its 700,000+ residents has the kickass Eleanor Holmes Norton sitting at the table, but she can't vote. DC residents literally have no representatives. No Senators. No ability to operate or call out a national guard even though many of our residents serve. We truly have no representation, but we pay taxes.
Sad... we have not progressed. *Note - Progressed is not in any way intended here to be mistaken as even near in anyway synonymous with the bastardized term Progressive wing politicians taken whole as a group.
Further, add a Supreme Court now bought and paid for, and acting on behalf of Koch money, and we are where we are with Citizens United, Voting Rights gutted, Roe overturned. Stay tuned. This group is just getting warmed up. We need to expand the court asap. Impeach Thomas, Cavanaugh and Barrett.
We can't get them kicked off the Supreme Court bench unless there is a super majority (and then some) of Dems in the Senate. It would be far easier to expand the court to match the number of Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
You are sadly, tragically spot on in those observations. Absent mass, continuous protests as a last ditch resort, more of us are sunk than even recognize or remotely aware of, as a reality - er, lets call that worst scenario nightmare.
Why not? Would you consider term limits for SCOTUS justices? If not, how do you suggest we get out of the mess we're in, where the revisionist version of the 2nd Amendment rules and the power of Big Money in politics is unchecked?
Seems to me a while back it was actually Heather who had responded to someone's question about expanding/packing the Court. Since she doesn't normally respond in writing to us here, it must've been one of her YT video chats?
Anyway, she said that packing SCOTUS, while it sounds tempting, would likely have an undesirable (maybe destabilizing?) effect. Don't remember the details (obviously). Whatever it was she said made sense to me. I hadn't thought of it that way before. When she didn't recommend it for the reasons she mentioned, I took that in and it changed my thoughts on it.
To me, the points you mention about the MESS we're in... is a lot bigger than just SCOTUS. And at least for now, SCOTUS (except for those three fabulous women sitting on the bench) is irrelevant. Proven itself to be so, at least to me.
We need a legislative branch that functions. Right now, SCOTUS seems to be where things go to be 'legislated' by the judicial branch because that (serious malfunction!) lets Congress off the hook. Citizens United, among other things, needs to be reversed. Yadda, yadda...
MisTBlu, That is the exact problem. We are not represented fairly by our Senate system. I won’t deep dive, but this issue has bugged me all my 73 years...or so. Thanks for bringing it up. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT Democratic. I am sure Heather could clearly explain why we have this stupid, unfair system.
Then you can add the Electoral Collage which gives the rural much less populated states as much power as those with the majority of the population in the country.
The founding fathers from the high population states Caved to their rural state colleagues demands. Both the composition of the Senate and the electoral college forever make a lie out of the concept of one person one vote! Add to the mess gerrymandering and the result is a collection of mongrels who aren’t fit to clean up the ‘road chips’ made by horses in a parade!
I would suggest Jill Lapore's These Truths, a fairly recent and excellent history of the US. She explains very well the elephant in the room, slavery, and the mind set of the people who wrote the Constitution. They needed to have it ratified. Otherwise, they believed the county would not survive. Personally, I would like to get rid of the electoral college and choose the president by direct vote.
These Truth's is an excellent history of 400 years of American history. It's a thick tome, but impeccably footnoted and researched. (The last one quarter of the book are footnotes.) My most memorable lines in the book have to do with the advent of campaign managers, well after the electoral collage and arguably more important than the electoral collage since it is possible to work around whatever voting structure is in place. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, are the following paragraphs about the first, highly successful political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy. "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify. "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated, he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades).'
'So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show.
Like Heather points out into days letter: when one party, campaign, or portion of the electorate just refuses to participate in reality-based behavior, any system in place will crumble.
Good grief, this "philosophy" infantilizes the 'average American' citizen to an extraordinary degree. Definitely pitching to the lowest common denominator...no wonder the R's "love" the uneducated; this makes their campaign strategies easy.
Thanks. This sounds like a great book. I read somewhere that at the time of our revolution, the Colonists were better read than their British compatriots. Best to fact check this one.
My opinion, we're not fairly represented in the house of representatives by numbers. It's too far outdated - from the '20's as I recall, wherein the number was capped under suspicious circumstances.
It's not only the Senate. The House used to be truly proportionate to population. In the 1920s, with white supremacists afraid of immigrant population growth in the cities, Congress capped the size of the House. That tilts the House toward rural areas. It's less egregious than the Senate, but it's also more easily fixed - change the law.
A Senate improvement that requires only a law, would be admission of Washington DC as a state.
The "empire creates it's own reality" attitude led to the invasion of Iraq. They thought they could reconfigure Iraq to be any form of government which they desired. They achieved misery and death more than anything except for perhaps grift.
Absolutely. As a native Californian I have played with a system of Senate representation that would aggregate adjacent and similarly underpopulated states into Senate regions: MT, WY, ND, and SD, with 3.3 million, would be entitled to 2 Senators, while CA, with 39.5 million, would be represented by 12 Senators. US territories, including Puerto Rico (!) could be easily brought into such a system.
Interesting conceptually Dave. Though, it does run counter to some of the original language of the Constitution, meaning it would take forever to amend - if even possible at all given the underlying financial strength of the 'movement conservative' - as it's also mislabeled.
Senators are not elected by population as everyone knows. The Senate has never been intended to be democratic and that isn't going to change. If I remember correctly in the beginning, senators were not elected, but chosen. I do wish people would put their energy into things we can change.
With all due respect Ally, I have to disagree. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years." I'm not sure that wasn't better than the current popularity contest, although the partisan control argument still applies.
We are not going to change, at this point, the set up for Congress. I would like to get rid of the Electoral College, but I am not sure how we do it since it's in the Constitution. What we can work on is voter registration, getting the vote out, trying to do something about gerrymandering, doing something about Citizen's United. The best we can do is to pay attention to every election even for school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and officials, and try to swing things to Ds.
And if you count state legislatures, the ratio of elected government officials to citizens goes way down -- and IMO that's the way it should be. In my state (MA), a state rep represents an average of 41K people and a state senator an average of 163.6K. The smaller the district, the better the chance a legislator has to really know their district and to respond to constituent concerns. (They aren't all that conscientous, needless to say, but many are, including mine.)
That is your fortunate position in MA currently. It ignores the plight of those in states that were and still are, horrendously gerrymandered. I have zero representation in Ohio - zero. I envy your fortune Susanna.
The good thing about this good fortune is that it frees us up to focus on other problems, like the fact that our state legislature is at the bottom of the pack when it comes to transparency, accountability, etc. I'm remembering the old meme (from before there were memes <g> ): "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
The Districts are artificially reduced, and don’t follow the original formula in the Constitution. The formula was changed to insure the number of House Representatives will physically fit into the Chamber inside the Capitol Building.
That’s why there are State gains and losses of District seats after each decade’s census.
It's more accurate to suggest that the number of Representatives hasn't changed because those that are in office don't want to risk diluting their power.
While it is true that a stable number of representatives simplifies managing office space, that was not the reason for the cap, and it is hardly justification for reducing populous states' fair proportionate representation as clearly intended by the Constitution.
There you have it Citizen ! Nice tool to use against the so called 'originalists' - their own false insistences. Now that's a useful constructive idea. Kudo's Citizen !
Depends on what a representative is expected to do -- and don't forget that they do have staff. My rep (Keating, MA-09) has an office in D.C. and three offices in the district. At least congressional districts are (relatively) consistent across the country. As others have pointed out, the discrepancy in senatorial representation is glaring.
The Senate wasn't intended to be broadly representative but was rather meant to be a brake on the potentially populist actions of the House. Before we set about changing it radically, we should consider who might be lost that is currently serving.
The primary focus of the House in terms of both legislation and committee activity has little or nothing to do with the concerns or desires of the majority of the people. That the reasons are based on an internally enforced partisan division is at the root of the inability of the House to even pass a budget which is their primary Constitutional responsibility.
"Family around the kitchen table' analogies are inappropriate to government. They are fallacious political rhetoric which obscure rather than enlighten reality - by making false equivalencies.
Our Constitutional democratic republic operates through an agreed framework of law. Which is legislated, adjudicated, and administered according to protocols and institutions. It renews itself through formal procedures of amendment and transfer of power.
Ahh . . . families. They work differently. And when they don't, the damage is limited to a relatively small group.
When government breaks down - particularly as through the Republican party's intentional gradual hollowing out of institutions and through violent insurrection - the roof caves in with wide spread to world wide damage. From the GOP Dobbs Decision to the GOP Debt Ceiling debacles.
Exactly. That comparison bugs me as well as the “Government should act like a business.” statement. No. No it shouldn’t, for a variety of reasons. But primarily businesses are intended to make a profit and are designed as such. If they don’t make a profit, they go out of business. Government should not be focused on making profits. It is certainly legitimate to expect Government to be good stewards of tax payers’ money. Corruption and wasteful spending must not be allowed. However government can and often does medical research in areas that are not expected to make a profit. If there is a rare disease that only affects 500 people world wide virtually no business would put money into finding a cure for it because even if they find a cure, they couldn’t get a return on their investment or make a profit by selling the cure to those 500 people. But the government can do that sort of research if they aren’t forced into a profit-making business model.
Carey I'm with you on that ridiculous notion that government should be run like a business. Furthermore the very people that spout that nonsense have no idea how a well-run business is run. In their ignorance they implement across-the-board cuts to government agencies and programs' budgets (sequestration. ) No competent business person would do that. They refuse to invest in upgraded computers and software, one huge problem at Social Security and Medicare. I've always had good interactions with employees at SS and MC and come away amazed that they work so hard to do a good job despite antiquated systems.
An add on to running government as a business, many business decisions are made behind closed doors. When government ran that way, laws were advanced to have open meetings and lots of transparency.
Here in Bar Harbor, the Town Council reviled criticism and rejected evidence about miscreant Town Manager Kevin Sutherland (even the evidence of Sutherland having signed a $92,000 settlement - for proven human rights violations arising from Sutherland's discriminatory firing of a Saco town employee. ) When the complaints in Bar Harbor mounted to a need to Do Something, the council went into 'private executive session to "talk with Kevin" about a personnel matter' - where they could be heard boisterously laughing it up -and since no action was taken, the content of the session was kept secret. Joke's on them. Several month's later in a back room deal they let Sutherland 'resign' overnight with a Release Agreement giving him an astounding severance package of 6 months full pay, health and retirement benefits, payment for accrued leave etc - amounting to around $90,000 after 13 months employment.
So what danger did their BFF Sutherland suddenly present and what leverage did he have? Well there's some evidence suggesting he violated laws with their knowledge or connivence. Possibly involving erroneous representations of laws to achieve shared goals. And ironically, publicly sharing privileged client-attorney information with litigants suing the town for an injunction and to overturn a Citizens Initiative cruise ship ordinance - which the council opposed and does not want to enact. To paraphrase the Washington Post 'Democracy rots in the darkness.'
There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity. You can smell it. It smells like death. —Big Daddy”. ― Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Yes. There are many, many, reasons why government should not be run like a business. I provided just one example, you’ve provided another - transparency. Although I might argue that many businesses could actually benefit and perhaps even profit from much more transparency that they allow now.
Runfastandwin. A corollary to the "run government like a business" notion: that for-profit businesses are efficiently run and have no problems with fraud and corruption. Nonsense. And when businesses fail they don't just impact their customers, employees, and stockholders, it also affects taxpayers.
Wow, what an inciteful post. Well thought and so painfully obvious. Thanks Lin and Carey for your observations. So obvious. We often seem to overlook this simple truth.
One of the best explanations. A similar one might be made for adage of running government like a business. Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure, whereas a government that goes belly up sticks everyone with the costs and losses.
"Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure..."
Actually, due to bankruptcy and other laws privileging monied interests - creditors and other small players pay the price of getting swindled. Often those unable to afford the additional costs of going to court to seek legal restitution. Or in danger of frivolous counter suits if they try.
Agreed. The laws that permit business to pass along losses are another example of why business model don't fit governance needs. Suspected you would raise this in light of my parallelism with family comparisons.
Maybe so many have politically checked out because we are addressing the problems incorrectly, and narrowly (black/white, red/blue). Editor-in-chief of Tablet magazine, Alana Newhouse spoke with Sean Illini on his The Gray Matter podcast about a new frame: “Everything is Broken.” And the questions we could be asking by identifying our worldviews to address this situations as either “Broke-ists “ or “Status-Quo-ists” ( or combo of the two depending on the institution/system we are talking about) opens up a more foreword thinking, constructive engagement. Many, like Rick Scott” plan for “burn-it-all-down”! Yet he is loath to outline the replacement system we surf as the rug is pulled out from under us. New questions like: Can we fix what we have already (like we are trying to do with the IRS)? Or do we eliminate an entire system, and replace it with (give example)? What problems do we incur with each approach? Etc. This conversation, Alana has found, inspires thoughtful, constructive engagement. And seems to be a way to get us to a space to constructively discuss the difficult issues we face.
The vast majority of citizens do not want to pay so much attention. Most Americans have other, more immediate concerns. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, the following paragraphs explain the rules constructed by the first, highly successful, political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy: "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify: "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated; he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades). "So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show. And Americans don't realize what's happening until after it has happened....like a coup.
Razzle dazzle bullshit. Faux news or fox entertainment, one or the other but certainly not fox news. This is nauseating, but thank you for the education. Republicans are just con men (and hysterical, entertaining women).
Equality almost plays out in the House except more populous states have fewer Representatives. Using 2016 population numbers, Wyoming as the measure for one representative, and reapportioning the House, the result would be the House having 551 Representatives.
Back then when I did the numbers 66% of the population lived in 15 states. The projection was 40% of the population in 15 states by 2040. I thought the 2040 was underestimated until recently.
In 2006 Joel Garreau wrote "300 Million and Counting" in which he discuses population growth. Back then we were replacing ourselves at 2.01 per couple or enough to maintain the present population. Most recently. the numeric is ~1.6. Immigration was less than 1 million and far less than previous numbers. Our population is also aging. It is possible to see a smaller population going forward. The foundation for such is there for such t occur if the US stifled all immigration.
The Senate is the Senate. The numbers of Senators was set by the Constitution, Article V: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
If we were to equalize the House using Wyoming's population, California would have 14 extra Representatives. Many other states would gain extra also. The Electoral College is set by the number of Senators and Representatives. The Electoral College is not the issue. The House is an issue and las been since 1910.
You can not gerrymander a state for Senatorial elections. You can for the House. Fix the issue of gerrymandering. I do not see a change to the Constitution to change the Senate. It is not going to happen.
“Voters need fact-based information to elect people who will enact the policies a majority of us want.
We need politicians to participate in the reality-based community.”
Truer words have yet to be uttered!!!
Suskind responded by talking about the principles of the Enlightenment—the principles on which the Founders based the Declaration of Independence—that put careful observation of reality at the center of human progress.
And where would be be if they hadn't? Reality always wins, period, but we can often surf reality when we know and respect her ways.
The problem is in the time scale. Reality wins in all probability but often only eventually after a sustained fight and at significant cost. Reality is the enemy to any budding dictator and the ability to discover and understand reality their first target: goodbye education, journalism and free speech.
Reality can play out many different ways, and often at the cost of of many innocent bystanders, sometimes millions. Some of that's "natural disaster" but I think most of it is set up or facilitated by humans. We are certainly fouling our own nest, and trashing societies for the sake scaled up road rage and vainglory. We are also doing some very cool and even beautiful things. We seem to be running out of time cut the craziness. So I hope that maybe we will?
And yes, where would tyranny be without people who are eager to believe a lie?
As far as natural disaster, Dr H pointed out in her 2-10-23 Letter that Erdogan's allowing shoddy construction of buildings contributed to the impact of the quake. Also Assad has prevented relief to contested areas of the country.
We can see this happening in Florida. The governor is beholden to developers and energy companies. They have almost no regulations. They hardly prepare for the next hurricane and thousands of those whose homes were destroyed in Ian are still homeless.
And now Erdogan is going after (or says he is) those contractors who built the shoddy buildings. Either Dr. H or somewhere else pointed out that many of the buildings that collapsed were relatively new, built after the 1999 earthquake and purportedly incorporating earthquake-safe construction.
THIS is what we are seeing with our own eyes. The question is, why? Does fox news brainwashing explain it all? Or are people really that hateful?
I'm not sure it's hateful as much as psychologically less sophisticated. Many people turn their fear to hatred and attribute those things they're afraid of to others. When leaders encourage them to see people as the "other" it offers an explanation for their distress and fear. And, humans, being primates, are really wired to be both hierarchical and suspicious of unfamiliar members of their species. It takes a certain amount of development to overcome this impulse to see those who are different as threats. A lot of people never develop this capacity for self-reflection, not to mention the capacity for analysis and critical thinking.
Like stuart said, goodbye education, journalism and free speech, hello dictatorship.
As for people being wired to be hierarchical, I am not sure. But some people certainly believe in hierarchies much more than others. Authoritarian personality types, for example.
I read a study of a remote tribe of hunter-gatherers which described group meetings where everyone contributed to decisions, even teenagers. Everyone’s work was hunting and gathering, more or less equally important, and it was often done in groups rather than as individuals. There was no desire for a “strongman” to decide for them in that society.
Yes, sadly.
Lots of people are really that hateful. That was my first thought the day after Election Day 2016. We really are a racist nation to have elected that hateful fool.
Which is why we really NEED to be WOKE! And why so many Republicans trash the idea.
Maybe some people are just born hateful? I don't know, but I do know a lot of people who are hateful grew up experiencing pain and hate. And the hate "virus" seems to me to move around, infecting some societies more severely at some times and ebbing to a cooler state at others, also affecting different segments of society differently, and often continually persecuting an underclass in the background. It's the monster we somehow as a species can't seem to let go of.
There has to be an “OTHER” to make some people feel better about themselves. Hate is the answer.
Hate is taught. Young children hate no one until they are taught to do so by adults.
Indeed! As we struggle to evolve beyond the base behavior of our Preditor- Prey animal Roots, we seem to be approching an important Epoc where we either evolve or . . .devolve. Preditors which prey on their own species will ultimately be the extinction of their entire species. A dog chasing it's own tail. A vision one does not want to consider. We are our own and the planets stewerds. We own the consequences of our behaviors.
I have so many questions. The culture of blaming others for being stuck in feeling miserable. Who teaches children to take responsibility for their own misery versus blaming it on others? There is currently an entire large demographic doing the latter. Is there a genetic component to culture? How do we apply what we have learned of epigenetics to culture wars? Why are Ukrainians so amazingly capable (Resilient)? How do we as a nation build our own resiliency?
On resiliency: https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience
On culture wars:
“Well, I’ll end with this, then: Is there something unique about America that makes it especially prone to culture war, or is this kind of par for the course?
Part of what has made it especially acute in the United States is the proliferation of nonprofit special-interest groups. You don’t find that in Europe; you don’t find it in England or Germany. Those are more statist regimes, and have much greater control over the nonprofit space. [Whereas, in the U.S.] you have the proliferation of special-interest groups that take sides. And a lot of our charitable money—which is a massive amount compared to other countries—gets channeled through these charitable organizations that exist with a take-no-prisoners policy; that define the enemy, that define a devil, that define transgressions in certain ways.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/20/culture-war-politics-2021-democracy-analysis-489900
Citizen’s United & vulnerable minds= fertile ground for autocracy.
“Sustained fight and at considerable cost.” How many time….and at what cost. Nature may win by default…
Yes, by ridding itself of its human "parasites" perhaps but untill then.........
'Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.'
'Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies. History reveals that the more democratic a society, the more news and information it tends to have.'
“The purpose of journalism,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, “is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ.” Rather, “the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.”
'News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.'
'The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.' (AmericanPressInstitute) See link below.
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/
Then, Fern, we are obliged in many countries to write the obituary of Journalism as those that now call themselves journalists are often driven by ideology and bend the news to what they consider more important....their personal opinion or a prevailing "newspeak" mantra. It used to be very clear in a newspaper that the editorials were clearly identified and could be found on a specific page.....the facts were to found on the other pages. The role of many of those who purport to be following such a trade are frequently either pen-pushing ideological hacks or animators of tv entertainment and chat shows. Not quite the same thing.
In France the issue of professional status cards are the prerogative of the central government and are provided....or withdrawn... by a government authority and following government determined criteria, favouritism or whims. The same government provides €700 million in subsidies to the print media and a very heathy tax-free leg-up to those who they employ.....media the countervailing power, no longer I fear!
Twice in the last week the Minister of Culture in Macron's squadra has threatened to remove the licence of 2 TV channels (one being 24hrs news) for daring to allow the expression of opinions that are different from that "required" by the authorities and deeming this biased rather than balanced as it would look to any reasonable viewer (they have, left, right and centrist commentators and guests). The Minister made the statement on a station that belongs to the State (paid by my taxes) and profers only extreme "progressive" (ultra left-wing) views and openly disdains anyone to the "right" of them and regarding those that allow such "enemies of the people" to express themselves as traitors. No wonder newspapers are going bust and nobody buys them.
The US is not alone in having problems with its journalists and media. To each their Fox!
I would not lump 'democratic' countries together with same degree of loss concerning 'freedom of the press'. You have not done that, Stuart, but, perhaps, to some readers you came close to doing so. Standards of journalism have ebbed and flowed over time, and I would not romanticize the past on that score. The failure of the newspaper business is primarily based on the costs of running such an enterprise. The loss of local journalism in America has had enormous consequences as have the disappearance of communities, unions and associations. The fabric of social relations among the people has been torn apart; we are much more isolated. The loss of widespread access to the news founded on journalism and the dominance of 'social media' indicates the seriousness of the challenges to Democracy. An excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville's description of the country in his book, 'Democracy in America' (1835) provides a broad sense of change in the USA.
'It is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.'
'Here it is a question only of the associations that are formed in civil life and which have an object that is in no way political.'
'The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.'
'Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.'
'In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.'
'I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.'
'It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.'
Fern, I do enjoy you participation here on heather's substack. Do you offer tutering by any chance? Even for an old gal with alseimers??
Yes, thank you, Fern!! I have that book and have not yet read the entire thing. It's full of wisdom and insight into us, as Americans, from the perspective of an interested and keenly observant European. He nailed it in 1835! And totally relevant now as then as far as i can tell. You do add much value and color to this group. Deep appreciation for all of your posts. They're often long and well worth the read because they're so thoughtful and supportive of what we're all sorting out. <3
No longer 'pen pushing' Stuart more like cursor moving, cut & pasters ... er I mean ... cut & posters or driven by algorithms that "like" input to digitally design bots after market share testing results. Not pen pushers more like Le Pen. Stuart can you give us some petit actual French words wnere appropriate especially on one-word charcterizations of complex French. political activity. Merci!
Bryan, i will try to oblige and agree with your description. Le Pen is not the problem as such but is benefiting from the causes. She indeed is saying in public what a large part of the people according to all surveys are saying in private. Unfortunately the difficulty comes from the centre who don't want to rock the boat and the left who still think that they can "deconstruct" man (visions of Sartre) and thereby impose on the French a "utopian" vision of interrelations and a different concept of society, nation and identity. It will explode shortly here in France.
un bon idee!!
Wow
Good to see you again, Stuart...Afternoon!
And a very good morning to you, Lynell. I'm still here but more than preoccupied with our particular european problems. I'm also getting into my new role as a Mediator after completing my professionalizing diploma at France's top law school. New departure at 73§ why not?
Great to see you again Stuart! Kudos to you finding a new role. It's never too late. I try to keep abreast of 'affaires européennes' over here, but it isn't easy to sift through all our domestic news to get to international items. I use various European media outlets like the BBC, Deutsche Welle, several Dutch entities, etc., but it's always nice hearing from folks "on the ground", as it were, over there. I hadn't realised until I saw your post that we hadn't heard from you in a while. Do chime in every now and then and don't be a stranger! Cheers/Salut...
I try to keep abreast of what's going on in your "neck of the woods," but don't feel qualified to comment. Congratulations on your new Mediator role. Very impressive!
Congratulations, saying this even though I don't what a professionalizing diploma in mediation involves in France. Is this a certification beyond a law degree? A specialization the determines that you can mediate between nations or private parties? Or, serve as an Adjudicator? Curious as I've learned quite a bit from your posting.
it allows all that as well as in the place of judges. Up to me to create the reputation that will give confidence in clients to ask me to intervene.
Yes! Congratulations, Stuart!! Way cool and very impressive. Not to mention, much needed. Thanks for stepping up to bring your wisdom and humanity to the mediation table.
Congrats, Stuart!
Only after all other opinions have been beaten into pulp through coarse discourse may reality win. Ignorance must first run it's course. Said this grumpy old man on a bright and sunny day.
Love it, Fred!! It does get old sometimes, right? The gift/curse of a long life. Cheers to you!
It has been a beautiful day. Warm enough to go for a walk.
And cheers to that!!!
'We need politicians to participate in the reality-based community.' Indeed!
Amen to that Rowshan. We could do with a great deal more of that over here too.
Just saw poll on MSNBC that 58% of Democrats want someone other than Biden. NATO! Social Security! Medicare! Ignorance beyond comprehension. HL Mencken is still right about the intelligence of the American voter.
I think some of that 58% are genuinely concerned about his age. Right now, he seems fine, and is clearly mentally sharp. He proved that in SOTU! 🥰 But if his health declines, we will need to be prepared.
I am 75, reasonably lucid and in good heath so far as I know, but I know as I age that the odds are turning against me and friends younger than I who death I never expected are gone from disease. Age treats some far more kindly than others, but it is a issue, and one to make backup plans for.
Choose wisely the VP. Plan for the least desireable and for the continuity of policies through someone actually being tutored in the role and gets the leadershp competicies of the President. I'm not suggesting a monarchy, but there is something to say for being strategic about getting the job done, especially when the job will span the next three presidential terms. My take is that Ms Harris may not be being prepared to take over beyond an interim period if Mr Biden were to fall ill between now and 2024.
Other than creepy and corrupt Spiro Agnew and Dick Chaney, I cannot recall a VP playing much of a visible role until the president was assassinated or resigned, at least in my lifetime. I am sure that more goes on behind the scenes, but while the boss is always the boss, I am surprised that VPs, who may become president at any time, are not called upon to play more of a role in the team, if only for the sake of democratic transparency. Presidents are a little too close to a temporary monarch for my taste, and while there are in some cases very practical reasons for that, in some there are not, such as the autocratic, unaccountable, and all but unlimited power of pardon (I think the Nixon "pardon" was far more erosive of rule of law than is acknowledged, and set a terrible precedent). The former last president seemed to imagine himself a king, if not a god; "Let the documents I stole be declassified, without even recording it".
Anyway, the practice of tacking on an unsuitable VP just to please an uncooperative constituency (even McCain was embarrassed by the choice of Palin) is just plain negligent. VP's need to be every bit as suitable as the president, and Ms Harris may be so, but if so, she deserves are more visible and functional role than breaking ties and waiting in the wings.
I tend to agree with the concern, as the strategic option I suggest could certainly be subverted. One could never think a Trump would have someone in the wings to replace him. The possibility is of course ludicrous. You last sentence stresses my point. Most VPs have been chosen to balance the ticket, attract a particular demographic, or to offer someone sweet for the opposition to make nice with. I'll Leave others to fill in the names of VPs that fit. If we are unwilling to wrestle in the muck of hate and acrimony, we need to be strategic. The team going forward in 2024 has to be competent and worth the salaries both are being paid, beyond the ceremonial functions, I think you would agree. Time for politicians to aspire to the possibility of leadership and progressive goals, even if the sumultimate title is in the office next door. These are the people we should be supporting and getting on the ticket.
And so the Republicans are now scaring people that because of Biden’s age we might end up with Kamala Harris-this idea they’re pushing will definitely have traction-race baiting always wins-the fact that she’s a poc AND a woman will turn off many voters
Repubs will try to scare people no matter what. It's what they do. We could back Joe and still keep an eye out for another possibility. Could be Kamala. Could be someone else.
Was it this one? "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." There's so many quotes to pick from!
Was that HL Mencken? I remember more the spirit than the actual quote. It’s more pointed than I had realized (maybe in undergraduate school when I read it, or in TRB in the ‘60’s). Thanks so much.
Woe is me. Perhaps WE here on this substck can make a difference with our exposure of Truths and the Objective Verifiable evidence in support of such. we must keep on keeping on spreading the reality view.
Exposure to truths as best we can uncover and frame them, and also promotion of that world view. Social movements that have made a historical difference hake managed to keep truth that many people would rather ignore in the public's eye, just as MAGA tells the same big lies incessantly.
I also think we have really dropped the ball around the virtue of telling the truth, especially those told by "whistle blowers" such as Alexander Vindman, who tell the truth at their peril, and way too often suffer for it with little redress. In the end, society sufferers for this even more profoundly. There is a long, long tradition of the powerful and popular getting away with "murder" of equal justice under law, and escaping the full wrath of the court of public opinion, because we apply our own standards of judgement selectively. Provable, serious liars have no place being entrusted with grave public responsibilities.
I'm beginning to think that many polls are just nonsense. I want to know who did the polling and how. How the questions are framed and were they placed in context and what is the sample size. So many variables can be manipulated to offer up the answer that the polling purchaser wants...
But to elect politicians who participate in the reality-based community, we first need voters who do, too. Insuring that we maintain a high enough percentage of such voters ought to be Job 1 of the press, other media, and educators.
We also need the media to support fact based information! No more both sides are equal especially when one side is lying. Hold their feet to the fire. Email editorial boards, writers are on Twitter, let them now your feelings. Cancel subs and apps and let them know why. We might also have gotten the house in 2022 if it were not for all the negative poll reporting on the dems and the huge red wave co.ing to crush us. I haven't heard a peep out of them on how they could have gotten this so wrong!!!
I also really love this. It needs to happen. We need to make it happen.
Not certain I follow you. Each Congressional district consists of approximately 710,000 residents. The true inequality comes because each state gets two senators. Thus Wyoming's 580K residents have the same number of senators as California's 39M residents. Doesn't seem very democratic.
And DC, with its 700,000+ residents has the kickass Eleanor Holmes Norton sitting at the table, but she can't vote. DC residents literally have no representatives. No Senators. No ability to operate or call out a national guard even though many of our residents serve. We truly have no representation, but we pay taxes.
We all pay taxes and we need to be represented fairly and intelligently. I bet you pay a lot more taxes than many states with more representation.
Sad... we have not progressed. *Note - Progressed is not in any way intended here to be mistaken as even near in anyway synonymous with the bastardized term Progressive wing politicians taken whole as a group.
Further, add a Supreme Court now bought and paid for, and acting on behalf of Koch money, and we are where we are with Citizens United, Voting Rights gutted, Roe overturned. Stay tuned. This group is just getting warmed up. We need to expand the court asap. Impeach Thomas, Cavanaugh and Barrett.
Expanding SCOTUS is absolutely necessary, but are there enough informed citizens (think how many never had a civics course) to help effect it?
Good question.
We can't get them kicked off the Supreme Court bench unless there is a super majority (and then some) of Dems in the Senate. It would be far easier to expand the court to match the number of Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.
https://alfranken.com/listen/senator-sheldon-whitehouse-on-the-rights-50-year-scheme-to-capture-scotus
I have no doubt that's a truth.
Expand the District Courts which are busy, and the number of seats on the SCOTUS increases. Biden is ignoring that recommendation
You are sadly, tragically spot on in those observations. Absent mass, continuous protests as a last ditch resort, more of us are sunk than even recognize or remotely aware of, as a reality - er, lets call that worst scenario nightmare.
Absolutely agree with everything except expanding SCOTUS.
Why not? Would you consider term limits for SCOTUS justices? If not, how do you suggest we get out of the mess we're in, where the revisionist version of the 2nd Amendment rules and the power of Big Money in politics is unchecked?
HI Susanna,
Seems to me a while back it was actually Heather who had responded to someone's question about expanding/packing the Court. Since she doesn't normally respond in writing to us here, it must've been one of her YT video chats?
Anyway, she said that packing SCOTUS, while it sounds tempting, would likely have an undesirable (maybe destabilizing?) effect. Don't remember the details (obviously). Whatever it was she said made sense to me. I hadn't thought of it that way before. When she didn't recommend it for the reasons she mentioned, I took that in and it changed my thoughts on it.
To me, the points you mention about the MESS we're in... is a lot bigger than just SCOTUS. And at least for now, SCOTUS (except for those three fabulous women sitting on the bench) is irrelevant. Proven itself to be so, at least to me.
We need a legislative branch that functions. Right now, SCOTUS seems to be where things go to be 'legislated' by the judicial branch because that (serious malfunction!) lets Congress off the hook. Citizens United, among other things, needs to be reversed. Yadda, yadda...
MisTBlu, That is the exact problem. We are not represented fairly by our Senate system. I won’t deep dive, but this issue has bugged me all my 73 years...or so. Thanks for bringing it up. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT Democratic. I am sure Heather could clearly explain why we have this stupid, unfair system.
Then you can add the Electoral Collage which gives the rural much less populated states as much power as those with the majority of the population in the country.
The founding fathers from the high population states Caved to their rural state colleagues demands. Both the composition of the Senate and the electoral college forever make a lie out of the concept of one person one vote! Add to the mess gerrymandering and the result is a collection of mongrels who aren’t fit to clean up the ‘road chips’ made by horses in a parade!
In this case, 'rural' = slave states
You got that right and they do not represent anything that I believe in. It’s beyond frustrating.
Not the first time, nor the last time legislators 'and' the founders caved to a very well funded minority.
I would suggest Jill Lapore's These Truths, a fairly recent and excellent history of the US. She explains very well the elephant in the room, slavery, and the mind set of the people who wrote the Constitution. They needed to have it ratified. Otherwise, they believed the county would not survive. Personally, I would like to get rid of the electoral college and choose the president by direct vote.
These Truth's is an excellent history of 400 years of American history. It's a thick tome, but impeccably footnoted and researched. (The last one quarter of the book are footnotes.) My most memorable lines in the book have to do with the advent of campaign managers, well after the electoral collage and arguably more important than the electoral collage since it is possible to work around whatever voting structure is in place. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, are the following paragraphs about the first, highly successful political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy. "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify. "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated, he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades).'
'So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show.
Like Heather points out into days letter: when one party, campaign, or portion of the electorate just refuses to participate in reality-based behavior, any system in place will crumble.
Good grief, this "philosophy" infantilizes the 'average American' citizen to an extraordinary degree. Definitely pitching to the lowest common denominator...no wonder the R's "love" the uneducated; this makes their campaign strategies easy.
👆👆👆 all of this!👆👆👆
Thanks. This sounds like a great book. I read somewhere that at the time of our revolution, the Colonists were better read than their British compatriots. Best to fact check this one.
Amen to that, Michele!
My opinion, we're not fairly represented in the house of representatives by numbers. It's too far outdated - from the '20's as I recall, wherein the number was capped under suspicious circumstances.
It's not only the Senate. The House used to be truly proportionate to population. In the 1920s, with white supremacists afraid of immigrant population growth in the cities, Congress capped the size of the House. That tilts the House toward rural areas. It's less egregious than the Senate, but it's also more easily fixed - change the law.
A Senate improvement that requires only a law, would be admission of Washington DC as a state.
Oh, I really love that thought Joan. I don't even think the gop influencers could overcome the certain majority in today's D.C. Kudo's sistuh !
And that is why the majority do not get what they want here in the world's oldest democracy.
The "empire creates it's own reality" attitude led to the invasion of Iraq. They thought they could reconfigure Iraq to be any form of government which they desired. They achieved misery and death more than anything except for perhaps grift.
The same applies to Iran.
Absolutely. As a native Californian I have played with a system of Senate representation that would aggregate adjacent and similarly underpopulated states into Senate regions: MT, WY, ND, and SD, with 3.3 million, would be entitled to 2 Senators, while CA, with 39.5 million, would be represented by 12 Senators. US territories, including Puerto Rico (!) could be easily brought into such a system.
I love your outlook Dave.
Interesting conceptually Dave. Though, it does run counter to some of the original language of the Constitution, meaning it would take forever to amend - if even possible at all given the underlying financial strength of the 'movement conservative' - as it's also mislabeled.
Quite right, Dan. When thinking about possibilities for a better world, I guess I like to go to the ideal extreme and work back. Thanks.
Senators are not elected by population as everyone knows. The Senate has never been intended to be democratic and that isn't going to change. If I remember correctly in the beginning, senators were not elected, but chosen. I do wish people would put their energy into things we can change.
You do remember; initially the governors of the state appointed the Senators. It was changed by the 17th amendment.
With all due respect Ally, I have to disagree. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years." I'm not sure that wasn't better than the current popularity contest, although the partisan control argument still applies.
You are correct, Dave. I should have also looked at Article 1, Section 3 before posting.
I thought it was the legislature, but couldn't remember.
Correct.
Thanks Ally. I couldn't remember who did the choosing.
what do you think is on the list of: "things we can change".
We are not going to change, at this point, the set up for Congress. I would like to get rid of the Electoral College, but I am not sure how we do it since it's in the Constitution. What we can work on is voter registration, getting the vote out, trying to do something about gerrymandering, doing something about Citizen's United. The best we can do is to pay attention to every election even for school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and officials, and try to swing things to Ds.
Even that ratio is too many for Representatives to make effective contact. We should have one for every 250,000 or so.
And if you count state legislatures, the ratio of elected government officials to citizens goes way down -- and IMO that's the way it should be. In my state (MA), a state rep represents an average of 41K people and a state senator an average of 163.6K. The smaller the district, the better the chance a legislator has to really know their district and to respond to constituent concerns. (They aren't all that conscientous, needless to say, but many are, including mine.)
You're extremely fortunate to have a good one.
That is your fortunate position in MA currently. It ignores the plight of those in states that were and still are, horrendously gerrymandered. I have zero representation in Ohio - zero. I envy your fortune Susanna.
The good thing about this good fortune is that it frees us up to focus on other problems, like the fact that our state legislature is at the bottom of the pack when it comes to transparency, accountability, etc. I'm remembering the old meme (from before there were memes <g> ): "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
The Districts are artificially reduced, and don’t follow the original formula in the Constitution. The formula was changed to insure the number of House Representatives will physically fit into the Chamber inside the Capitol Building.
That’s why there are State gains and losses of District seats after each decade’s census.
It's more accurate to suggest that the number of Representatives hasn't changed because those that are in office don't want to risk diluting their power.
Great thought, and likely accurate suspicion. I'd buy that and use it against any and all reps opposed - of any party.
Plausible, but have you got any sources indicating that this is actually the case?
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/55/why-435/
it's still a useful 'tool', supporting sources or not Susanna.
While it is true that a stable number of representatives simplifies managing office space, that was not the reason for the cap, and it is hardly justification for reducing populous states' fair proportionate representation as clearly intended by the Constitution.
It was the pretext
There you have it Citizen ! Nice tool to use against the so called 'originalists' - their own false insistences. Now that's a useful constructive idea. Kudo's Citizen !
I think the point is one person cannot possibly represent 710,00 people in the House.
Depends on what a representative is expected to do -- and don't forget that they do have staff. My rep (Keating, MA-09) has an office in D.C. and three offices in the district. At least congressional districts are (relatively) consistent across the country. As others have pointed out, the discrepancy in senatorial representation is glaring.
The Senate wasn't intended to be broadly representative but was rather meant to be a brake on the potentially populist actions of the House. Before we set about changing it radically, we should consider who might be lost that is currently serving.
Correct, and we're seeing the results of that almost daily.
Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you mean.
The primary focus of the House in terms of both legislation and committee activity has little or nothing to do with the concerns or desires of the majority of the people. That the reasons are based on an internally enforced partisan division is at the root of the inability of the House to even pass a budget which is their primary Constitutional responsibility.
"Family around the kitchen table' analogies are inappropriate to government. They are fallacious political rhetoric which obscure rather than enlighten reality - by making false equivalencies.
Our Constitutional democratic republic operates through an agreed framework of law. Which is legislated, adjudicated, and administered according to protocols and institutions. It renews itself through formal procedures of amendment and transfer of power.
Ahh . . . families. They work differently. And when they don't, the damage is limited to a relatively small group.
When government breaks down - particularly as through the Republican party's intentional gradual hollowing out of institutions and through violent insurrection - the roof caves in with wide spread to world wide damage. From the GOP Dobbs Decision to the GOP Debt Ceiling debacles.
Exactly. That comparison bugs me as well as the “Government should act like a business.” statement. No. No it shouldn’t, for a variety of reasons. But primarily businesses are intended to make a profit and are designed as such. If they don’t make a profit, they go out of business. Government should not be focused on making profits. It is certainly legitimate to expect Government to be good stewards of tax payers’ money. Corruption and wasteful spending must not be allowed. However government can and often does medical research in areas that are not expected to make a profit. If there is a rare disease that only affects 500 people world wide virtually no business would put money into finding a cure for it because even if they find a cure, they couldn’t get a return on their investment or make a profit by selling the cure to those 500 people. But the government can do that sort of research if they aren’t forced into a profit-making business model.
Carey I'm with you on that ridiculous notion that government should be run like a business. Furthermore the very people that spout that nonsense have no idea how a well-run business is run. In their ignorance they implement across-the-board cuts to government agencies and programs' budgets (sequestration. ) No competent business person would do that. They refuse to invest in upgraded computers and software, one huge problem at Social Security and Medicare. I've always had good interactions with employees at SS and MC and come away amazed that they work so hard to do a good job despite antiquated systems.
An add on to running government as a business, many business decisions are made behind closed doors. When government ran that way, laws were advanced to have open meetings and lots of transparency.
Here in Bar Harbor, the Town Council reviled criticism and rejected evidence about miscreant Town Manager Kevin Sutherland (even the evidence of Sutherland having signed a $92,000 settlement - for proven human rights violations arising from Sutherland's discriminatory firing of a Saco town employee. ) When the complaints in Bar Harbor mounted to a need to Do Something, the council went into 'private executive session to "talk with Kevin" about a personnel matter' - where they could be heard boisterously laughing it up -and since no action was taken, the content of the session was kept secret. Joke's on them. Several month's later in a back room deal they let Sutherland 'resign' overnight with a Release Agreement giving him an astounding severance package of 6 months full pay, health and retirement benefits, payment for accrued leave etc - amounting to around $90,000 after 13 months employment.
So what danger did their BFF Sutherland suddenly present and what leverage did he have? Well there's some evidence suggesting he violated laws with their knowledge or connivence. Possibly involving erroneous representations of laws to achieve shared goals. And ironically, publicly sharing privileged client-attorney information with litigants suing the town for an injunction and to overturn a Citizens Initiative cruise ship ordinance - which the council opposed and does not want to enact. To paraphrase the Washington Post 'Democracy rots in the darkness.'
There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity. You can smell it. It smells like death. —Big Daddy”. ― Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Yes. There are many, many, reasons why government should not be run like a business. I provided just one example, you’ve provided another - transparency. Although I might argue that many businesses could actually benefit and perhaps even profit from much more transparency that they allow now.
If our government could root out corruption and wasteful spending it would be the first time in history.
Runfastandwin. A corollary to the "run government like a business" notion: that for-profit businesses are efficiently run and have no problems with fraud and corruption. Nonsense. And when businesses fail they don't just impact their customers, employees, and stockholders, it also affects taxpayers.
Well that’s likely true. But at a minimum it would be nice if we’d stop encouraging it.
Wow, what an inciteful post. Well thought and so painfully obvious. Thanks Lin and Carey for your observations. So obvious. We often seem to overlook this simple truth.
Oh, but I do like 'inciteful.' Much better a comment incite others than be praised for insight ; )
Serendipitous neologism! ThankYou.
Insightful. Spell check strikes again. Inciteful comes from the verb to incite.
From the theater fo the acsurd . . you may have missed the point. Check with Lin for further insight into this little mind diddle.
One of the best explanations. A similar one might be made for adage of running government like a business. Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure, whereas a government that goes belly up sticks everyone with the costs and losses.
"Business has only owners or shareholders to report to and if goes bankrupt or swindles, the business is only entity on hook for failure..."
Actually, due to bankruptcy and other laws privileging monied interests - creditors and other small players pay the price of getting swindled. Often those unable to afford the additional costs of going to court to seek legal restitution. Or in danger of frivolous counter suits if they try.
Agreed. The laws that permit business to pass along losses are another example of why business model don't fit governance needs. Suspected you would raise this in light of my parallelism with family comparisons.
But out of those 2 and a half million people, how many pay attention and give a damn? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 10,000? 100,000?
Maybe so many have politically checked out because we are addressing the problems incorrectly, and narrowly (black/white, red/blue). Editor-in-chief of Tablet magazine, Alana Newhouse spoke with Sean Illini on his The Gray Matter podcast about a new frame: “Everything is Broken.” And the questions we could be asking by identifying our worldviews to address this situations as either “Broke-ists “ or “Status-Quo-ists” ( or combo of the two depending on the institution/system we are talking about) opens up a more foreword thinking, constructive engagement. Many, like Rick Scott” plan for “burn-it-all-down”! Yet he is loath to outline the replacement system we surf as the rug is pulled out from under us. New questions like: Can we fix what we have already (like we are trying to do with the IRS)? Or do we eliminate an entire system, and replace it with (give example)? What problems do we incur with each approach? Etc. This conversation, Alana has found, inspires thoughtful, constructive engagement. And seems to be a way to get us to a space to constructively discuss the difficult issues we face.
Scott’s replacement program is “ give ME all the money”
This assumes that your interlocutor is interested in solving the difficult issues that we face.
The vast majority of citizens do not want to pay so much attention. Most Americans have other, more immediate concerns. In the history book These Truths, by Jill Lepore, the following paragraphs explain the rules constructed by the first, highly successful, political campaign managers, Campaigns, Inc., aka The Lie Factory, founded in 1933. They never lost a campaign. Republicans have mastered their campaign strategy rules:
'Every campaign needs a theme. Keep it simple. Rhyming is good. Never explain anything. "The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support." Say the same thing over and over again. "We assume we have to get a voter's attention 7 times to make a sale". Subtlety is your enemy: "Words that lean on your mind are no good. They must dent it." Simplify, simplify, simplify: "A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. And Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think." Make it personal. Candidates are easier to sell than issues. If your position doesn't have an opponent, invent one. Pretend that you are the voice of the people. You can't wage a defensive campaign and win. Never shy from controversy; instead win the controversy. "The average American doesn't want to be educated; he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. But there are 2 ways you can interest him in a campaign, and only 2 that we have ever found successful." You can put on a fight ("He likes a good battle with no punches pulled"), or you can put on a show ("He likes the movies, he likes mysteries; he likes fireworks and parades). "So, if you can't fight, PUT ON A SHOW! If you put on a good show, Mr. And Mrs. America will turn out to see it.'
Democrats talk more about actual issues of governance by cooperation and compromise, and that simply doesn't make for a thrilling fight or show. And Americans don't realize what's happening until after it has happened....like a coup.
Razzle dazzle bullshit. Faux news or fox entertainment, one or the other but certainly not fox news. This is nauseating, but thank you for the education. Republicans are just con men (and hysterical, entertaining women).
Indeed! I like it!
Lovely rant and so so very "inciteful". you do "make me study of that."
Excellent point Lynn.
Lee:
Equality almost plays out in the House except more populous states have fewer Representatives. Using 2016 population numbers, Wyoming as the measure for one representative, and reapportioning the House, the result would be the House having 551 Representatives.
Back then when I did the numbers 66% of the population lived in 15 states. The projection was 40% of the population in 15 states by 2040. I thought the 2040 was underestimated until recently.
In 2006 Joel Garreau wrote "300 Million and Counting" in which he discuses population growth. Back then we were replacing ourselves at 2.01 per couple or enough to maintain the present population. Most recently. the numeric is ~1.6. Immigration was less than 1 million and far less than previous numbers. Our population is also aging. It is possible to see a smaller population going forward. The foundation for such is there for such t occur if the US stifled all immigration.
The Senate is the Senate. The numbers of Senators was set by the Constitution, Article V: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
If we were to equalize the House using Wyoming's population, California would have 14 extra Representatives. Many other states would gain extra also. The Electoral College is set by the number of Senators and Representatives. The Electoral College is not the issue. The House is an issue and las been since 1910.
You can not gerrymander a state for Senatorial elections. You can for the House. Fix the issue of gerrymandering. I do not see a change to the Constitution to change the Senate. It is not going to happen.
We need to shift our efforts to recognize what is driving many people to vote for those who do not give a d*mn about them. If you wish to see the Excel Spreadsheet, it is here: https://angrybearblog.com/2017/07/will-the-reign-of-witches-pass
"our present situation is not a natural one"