We talk a good game when we rhetorically bow to "democracy", "justice", "checks and balances", etc., but living with all three is a challenge for individuals, since it means honoring certain limits on our own behavior, like stopping at a stop sign, when we are so, so, late. If you of a mind to be a bully, civil conduct is even more incon…
We talk a good game when we rhetorically bow to "democracy", "justice", "checks and balances", etc., but living with all three is a challenge for individuals, since it means honoring certain limits on our own behavior, like stopping at a stop sign, when we are so, so, late. If you of a mind to be a bully, civil conduct is even more inconvenient, and often with enough pricey lawyers, you can bend the rules. We wink or shrug when rule after rule is bent out of shape. If we were to do a big triage of common political acts, how many would pass the "of, by and for the people" test? And how many fail completely? Due process of law? It's so confining. John Adams advised to never trust power without a check, but do we, when we like what power is saying? When we might have to compromise?
And do we become inured to corruption in plain sight? Many who grumble would put "Reducing Corruption" and "Getting excessive money spent to influence outcomes out of politics" in the back seat to more particular concerns. Bernie was lampooned by many Democrats for banging on about this, but what is a more encompassing barrier to progress, including social justice, including the climate crisis?
As for Socialism? The devil is in the details. I see a role for both private enterprise and a robust public sector in an optimal society, but in a democratic republic it is the people the people who make the rules for commerce, not vice versa. I would not exactly call Lincoln a socialist in the strict economic sense, but he was clear who should rule the roost.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
We talk a good game when we rhetorically bow to "democracy", "justice", "checks and balances", etc., but living with all three is a challenge for individuals, since it means honoring certain limits on our own behavior, like stopping at a stop sign, when we are so, so, late. If you of a mind to be a bully, civil conduct is even more inconvenient, and often with enough pricey lawyers, you can bend the rules. We wink or shrug when rule after rule is bent out of shape. If we were to do a big triage of common political acts, how many would pass the "of, by and for the people" test? And how many fail completely? Due process of law? It's so confining. John Adams advised to never trust power without a check, but do we, when we like what power is saying? When we might have to compromise?
And do we become inured to corruption in plain sight? Many who grumble would put "Reducing Corruption" and "Getting excessive money spent to influence outcomes out of politics" in the back seat to more particular concerns. Bernie was lampooned by many Democrats for banging on about this, but what is a more encompassing barrier to progress, including social justice, including the climate crisis?
As for Socialism? The devil is in the details. I see a role for both private enterprise and a robust public sector in an optimal society, but in a democratic republic it is the people the people who make the rules for commerce, not vice versa. I would not exactly call Lincoln a socialist in the strict economic sense, but he was clear who should rule the roost.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”