Slashdot Mirror
The Dangers of One Party Rule
Marxist Hacker 42 writes "Now that the Politics section is up and running, I can submit this story. Back in February, The American Prospect ran a speculative article on The Danger of NeoConservative One Party Rule. A quote: 'Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was asked by a bystander what kind of government the Founders had bestowed. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times.'"
Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration. Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry. This is serious.
I think they were edited out because this is Politics, not Ask Slashdot (and yes, I promise to pick my topics more carefully in the future).
Will this lead to a Stalin-like hard right rule in the United States, and the warned curtailing of rights that a single, right-wing party is feared to be? Or will it be neoconservative utopia, ushering in an era of low taxes, small government, trickle down economics, and an end to labor law disputes?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm not entirely sure if there was a Democratic Senate, House and President that they wouldn't do the same. The issue is not that the political authorities are asserting power, because yanno, it's politics. The problem is that the Republicans are more aggressively pushing their agenda [than normal] without much opposition.
Of all the political quotes I could use here, I'm going to use Dr. Ian Malcolm via Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way." What I mean is, if a majority of people in four years find their life is worse, they vote Bush out. They vote a Democratic congress. People have phenomenal capacity. If you think the people are voting for all the wrong reasons, go back to 11th grade: all men are created equal. People have the right to vote for Bush on an uneducated opinion just as much as people have the right to vote for Kerry.
(For the tin-foil crowd, no, I don't think elections will be made illegal or term limits extended in the next four years. Sorry.)
Often times in a democracy, other people win.
1 party rule, and it is happening as we speak, and has been happening for a while: The constitution is set up assuming that all 3 branches of the government would be constantly suspicious of what the other ones are doing. However, with the solidifcation of political parties, this isn't happening. Everyone is just toeing the party line, and that is dangerous. The supreme court justices aren't supposed to like the president, congress isn't supposed to depend on the president for inspiration for legislation. The president isn't supposed to just sign everything that his party passes. (I can't seem to think of one veto that George W. Bush has had overrided) That to me is dangerous, it signals that the checks and balances are erroding.
Monstar L
I was with for your first three sentences. The left often engages in hyperbole. No one rational here thinks Bush is in any substantial way like Hitler.
Then I get to sentence four. I am not giving my civil liberties up, even a little bit, not because of Al-Qaeda or for any other reason. I'm probably the nine-millionth person to quote Ben Franklin on this, but "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
And then I see sentence five: "The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France." And your credibility is shot.
a) Do you honestly think that?
b) If so, why?
c) What the hell?
spreer
I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I pine for the day... that /. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters."
True, but I think the editors have made a brilliant stroke by creating the "Politics" section. It's a heat sink.
The heat generated by a power transistor is an inevitable part of its operation. Unfortunately, it tends to degrade the component's operation, to the point where it's no more than a two-legged* blob of molten silicon. To prevent this, we use a Heat Sink. The transistor can then function normally, with the waste heat dissipated somewhere other than the silicon.
Slashdot generates heat, too, in the form of strong opinions that don't actually contribute to the discussion at hand. Post a story about the next release of Knoppix, and someone will say something about the government supporting/restraining Open Source, then someone will say something about the current administration, and pretty soon you're looking at a hole in the screen where a discussion used to be.
The Politics section is Slashdot's heat sink. People like me who have strong opinions can vent them here, where they don't affect the articles in the Games, Science, and Apple sections. The heat is inevitable, but you can at least make sure it doesn't interfere with your performance.
* I know transistors have three connections. I'm thinking of the power transistors where the body is the ground connector. And Bush sucks, by the way.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Please tell me where to find this "objective journalism". I haven't seen any in over a decade, if ever.
The rights it represents are God given, not changable as to the whims of men.
Actually, men had to fight for those rights. They weren't "given" to them by any one/thing.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I doubt you served at all, ever. You sound like an utterly typical chickenhawk conservative who thinks he knows everything about the military because he knows some guy who knows some guy who says ... etc., but who never had the guts to wear a uniform himself. You, and Dick Cheney, can go fuck yourselves.
sincerely,
Daniel Dvorkin
former SSgt, USAF
USAR infantryman 1987-1989
USAF medic 1989-1997
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction
In what direction would *that* be?
You imply that it is the left, but the US is and has been (for *at least* the past sixty years) one of the most right-winged first world nations around. The "Democrats" in the US would be what is considered very conservative in most of Europe and also in Canada and AU.
The Fine Article makes an assumption that may not be accurate. It assumes that the current minority party is unable to gain power because of political chicanery on the part of the majority party.
Ten years ago the current minority party held the Presidency, House and Senate. They had held the House and Senate for decades. It was just as hard to defeat an incumbent back then as it is now.
The danger to the USA is not a NeoConservative monoparty. That sounds like FUD to me. The danger to the USA is that we have learned to vote ourselves funds from the public checkbook.
sigs, as if you care.
...and Taco said the Politics section would be balanced.
No offense, but "the $GUYS_I_DONT_AGREE_WITH are going to outlaw elections" is not what I'd call balanced.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes?
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"? I get my money by selling my labor to an employer, who is not "society", but a specific group of individuals. Everyone else is free to market their skills and labor just like I am. Some do better, some do worse. But the fact that some individuals have more valuble skills or ideas than others doesn't mean they owe "society" the time of day. I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government. Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
$0 is still worth $0. So if there's a ever-widening disparity between $0 and max-dollars, that means that means more wealth is being created, and the potential for acquiring wealth is greater than ever. If people are able to earn ever greater sums of wealth relative to $0, that's a Good Thing!
You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
And slavery was outlawed a long time ago. If you don't like what you're getting paid, you're free to find an employer who is willing to pay you more. If you can't find an employer who will pay you more, that's a pretty good sign you're already earning what you're worth.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.