Divided Government

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mainly I believe that had more to do with distance than design.

You must be joking. The founders of the Republic had no interest in a democracy. Heck, white men who didn't own property weren't even allowed to vote in many states. They were all deathly afraid of radical democracy and those revolutionaries who wanted that (Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry) weren't consulted when it was time to do a Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aren't we confusing them with the Senate pre-17th Amendment here?

Nope.

[PLATO]

Another interesting question--for me, at least--is what will happen re: the GOP. Their "brand" isn't doing so hot, especially with younger folks (and by younger folks, I mean under forty, not just college kids). I assume they will eventually rework themselves to appeal to someone beyond the dwindling stodgy-white-dude demographic, but what form will their new coalition take? Sadly, someone has to stand up for the poor widdle Military Industrial Complex, since it has too much cash to go unrepresented...

I think it is just a cycle. The parties continue to reinvent themselves all the time. It wasn't all that long ago that the news was speculating on the death of the democratic party and both houses and the oval office were republican. People's priorities change, issues of the day change, parties change.

Personally, I think the country runs better when you have a Republican President and a Democratic House and Senate. I think those offices play to each party's core strengths. I also believe that things work better when the Congress is stronger than the Presidency...a rare event for the last few administrations.

To quote federalist 51 once again

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.

[PLATO]

You must be joking. The founders of the Republic had no interest in a democracy. Heck, white men who didn't own property weren't even allowed to vote. Representatives being at a remove was ideal. It took Andrew Jackson before white men who were un-propertied could vote and he was the chief political opponent of John Quincy Adams, who, for obvious reasons, was connected to the viewpoint the founders had when it came to what representatives of the people meant. They were all deathly afraid of radical democracy and those revolutionaries who wanted that (Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry) weren't consulted when it was time to do a Constitution.

Actually I wasn't joking. I do, however, stand corrected. Thank you sir.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was slightly wrong on Andrew Jackson though. Some states prior to Jackson had removed property requirements for voting. But it took until 1850 for all of them to do so. Jackson definitely used that, however. Liked to talk about how all those other aristocratic politicians were against the common man while he was one of them.

[Elok]

I think it is just a cycle. The parties continue to reinvent themselves all the time.

I know; Reagan was such a reinvention, no? The GOP is still basically surfing on Reagan's brand, IIUC:

Traditional religious types (waning)
Pro-business (less attractive due to recession and wave of '00s scandals)
Pro-gun (less attractive b/c of various shootings)
Militaristic (we've got some war fatigue here)
No taxes (still somewhat attractive, but the budget makes us queasy)
Etc.

The thing is, there's no reason why these interests should all side together; Christianity would seem to be not-too-compatible with Ayn Rand and the military, of all groups, but they got smushed together by political expedience. I'm curious as to what will be cobbled together next.

[MRT144]

Another interesting question--for me, at least--is what will happen re: the GOP. Their "brand" isn't doing so hot, especially with younger folks (and by younger folks, I mean under forty, not just college kids). I assume they will eventually rework themselves to appeal to someone beyond the dwindling stodgy-white-dude demographic, but what form will their new coalition take? Sadly, someone has to stand up for the poor widdle Military Industrial Complex, since it has too much cash to go unrepresented...

Imran actually reposted a great article on Facebook about this.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-fadingconservative-brand/

[MRT144]

I know; Reagan was such a reinvention, no? The GOP is still basically surfing on Reagan's brand, IIUC:

Traditional religious types (waning)
Pro-business (less attractive due to recession and wave of '00s scandals)
Pro-gun (less attractive b/c of various shootings)
Militaristic (we've got some war fatigue here)
No taxes (still somewhat attractive, but the budget makes us queasy)
Etc.

The thing is, there's no reason why these interests should all side together; Christianity would seem to be not-too-compatible with Ayn Rand and the military, of all groups, but they got smushed together by political expedience. I'm curious as to what will be cobbled together next.

I'd say the far greater issue isn't the positions they hold but the absurd fervor with which they hold it and the pursuit of orthodoxy on each issue outweighing the pragmatism of each issue.

[giblets]

The House of Representatives, by its very nature, is the voice of the people. If the people decide to bankrupt the state, then they are the ones that will reap the consequences. These are the people, after all, that the people themselves chose as their voice in government.

What qualities of the House of Representatives make it the "voice of the people" and why is it almost universally hated by the people it supposedly speaks for?

[Jon Miller]

Minorities lack the power to do that Jon. It's taken large majorities decades to get us to this point.

We are nowhere near bankruptcy unless representatives of a minority (Republicans) refuse to pay the bills.

JM

[PLATO]

What qualities of the House of Representatives make it the "voice of the people" and why is it almost universally hated by the people it supposedly speaks for?

1.) Voice of the people...Small districts for national office. Less people represented should make it more responsive to the individual. Local issues should dominate more of the conversation than with statewide office (Senate), national office (President), and appointments (SCOTUS).

2.) Why they are hated...One doesn't seem to be working. Primarily, imho, because of party loyalty and pressure, and Lobbyist $$$$$$$$$$$.

[DinoDoc]

We are nowhere near bankruptcy unless representatives of a minority (Republicans) refuse to pay the bills.

JM

16 trillion in debt with no end in sight and multiple debt downgrades by rating agencies say different.

[giblets]

1.) Voice of the people...Small districts for national office. Less people represented should make it more responsive to the individual. Local issues should dominate more of the conversation than with statewide office (Senate), national office (President), and appointments (SCOTUS).

2.) Why they are hated...One doesn't seem to be working. Primarily, imho, because of party loyalty and pressure, and Lobbyist $$$$$$$$$$$.

It sounds more like they're the voice of $$$$$$$, as well as extremists because with those small districts it's easy to carve out safe seats where the only serious challenge is a primary.

[PLATO]

16 trillion in debt with no end in sight and multiple debt downgrades by rating agencies say different.

Just think how the problem will be compounded if the fed stops keeping bond rates artificially low. If bond rates rose to 7% or 8% right now then we would have a serious issue with solvency very quickly.

This is not to mention the fact that the world will not keep throwing money into U.S. Bonds. With $16 trillion invested already, how much more can there be?

[Jon Miller]

multiple debt downgrades by rating agencies say different.

That was due to the Republicans refusing to agree to pay the governments bills (raise the debt ceiling). It was not due to the amount of debt, which is high but not dangerously high at the moment.

JM
(What is concerning is the future liabilities. However, refusing the pay the governments bills does nothing to improve the issue of future liabilities...)