Now the Republicans have had to cope with one big problem: their policies are bad for America and bad for the American people.
The policies which got Americans where they are today are, most unfortunately, those long shared by both parties.
Sad but true.
The policies which got Americans where they are today are, most unfortunately, those long shared by both parties.
Sad but true.
I hate to be greedy on someone else's blog site, but re Justice Thomas' views, he scarcely ever saw an issue that did not, somehow, need 'closer judicial scrutiny'.
Some Americans may say that is a good thing; some of us lawyers may wonder.
All the best,
Some Americans may say that is a good thing; some of us lawyers may wonder.
All the best,
If I may be forgiven for writing too much,isn't it less a question of 'funds being progressively made more available to suggestible political parties', than of consequences of politically intended structural weaknesses of a long established liberal system of governance lacking sufficient internal integrity and focus to flourish in an adverse globalized political environment?
Those who long and valiantly clamored, in vain, for an industrial policy, witnin that weak system, are now seeing their warnings falling on largely uncomprehending ears.
Those who long and valiantly clamored, in vain, for an industrial policy, witnin that weak system, are now seeing their warnings falling on largely uncomprehending ears.
"Although the Republicans have frequently bent the law (most notably in 2000 and again this week), they have successfully undid the work of our parents and grandparents mainly through legal means."
Today, May 25, 2010, in the new York Times, an article re drastic state and local government reforms in several states; including elimination of counties, consolidation of local govs, etc. (Question: Why not fewer states? Say, 5?)
The motives and ends, of these often 'conservative', tea, or 'republican', political players can be questioned, in that they have little to put in its place, and think mainly of 'less is best', rather than a more qualitative idiom.
But, 'democrats' should also seriously consider whether they are not, also, at a point (geopolitically) where serious domestic political reform, consolidation at both state and local levels, would be in their best interests, too; a leaner, perhaps meaner, 'welfare' state, or a leaner and meaner fascist one, but leaner and meaner seems on the cards either way, and very, very long overdue, whether either likes it, or not.
Today, May 25, 2010, in the new York Times, an article re drastic state and local government reforms in several states; including elimination of counties, consolidation of local govs, etc. (Question: Why not fewer states? Say, 5?)
The motives and ends, of these often 'conservative', tea, or 'republican', political players can be questioned, in that they have little to put in its place, and think mainly of 'less is best', rather than a more qualitative idiom.
But, 'democrats' should also seriously consider whether they are not, also, at a point (geopolitically) where serious domestic political reform, consolidation at both state and local levels, would be in their best interests, too; a leaner, perhaps meaner, 'welfare' state, or a leaner and meaner fascist one, but leaner and meaner seems on the cards either way, and very, very long overdue, whether either likes it, or not.
Coincidentally,
Krugman's May 24 article, "the old enemies", points out who the most obvious adversaries of reforms/consolidations, even minor ones, would be: the big (largely foreign) interests now lying mostly behind the Republican party, large MNCs, and foreigners.
But, I would point out,also partially infesting the Democratic penthouse as well; (and not the grass roots red neck, tea drinkers, or union members, of either).
If some irascible 'conservatives' say 'eliminate governments', say, some state governments, say twenty of them or more, say forty, and many thousands of local ones, by referendum; I say, bring it on, long, long overdue; but not for the 'no government' reasons they espouse.
Krugman's May 24 article, "the old enemies", points out who the most obvious adversaries of reforms/consolidations, even minor ones, would be: the big (largely foreign) interests now lying mostly behind the Republican party, large MNCs, and foreigners.
But, I would point out,also partially infesting the Democratic penthouse as well; (and not the grass roots red neck, tea drinkers, or union members, of either).
If some irascible 'conservatives' say 'eliminate governments', say, some state governments, say twenty of them or more, say forty, and many thousands of local ones, by referendum; I say, bring it on, long, long overdue; but not for the 'no government' reasons they espouse.
I hate to put this in print, but it goes almost without saying that a first step, federally, in such directions, were the exec branch so inclined, would be 'repacking' somewhat (in Roosevelt's sense) the SC.
Still, such reforms would also have to start as so called 'grass roots' initiatives.
Further, what state political apparati would voluntarily decide to consolidate with 5 or 10 others?
Yet, those are the kind of changes needed, to begin to set right the stultifera navis.
Still, such reforms would also have to start as so called 'grass roots' initiatives.
Further, what state political apparati would voluntarily decide to consolidate with 5 or 10 others?
Yet, those are the kind of changes needed, to begin to set right the stultifera navis.
In case anyone wonders why I suggest such thoroughgoing reforms and consolidations, to state and local governments, among other things; either to head off or bring on another gilded age; I offer the late Robert S. Lorch's book State and Local Politics: The Great Entanglement, as some evidence of reasons why the USA needs state and local government reform.
I only have the first edition, where perhaps he candycoated less his later views. Although dated, few larger details of his account have changed much. It is a great introduction, probably even in later editions, to a very sorry situation.
Especially the gray panels at the beginnings of chapters are worth the price alone. 1 and 3 are perhaps my favorites, but all should be read.
8:31 PM
I only have the first edition, where perhaps he candycoated less his later views. Although dated, few larger details of his account have changed much. It is a great introduction, probably even in later editions, to a very sorry situation.
Especially the gray panels at the beginnings of chapters are worth the price alone. 1 and 3 are perhaps my favorites, but all should be read.
8:31 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment