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.'"

Comments

Re:Utter Crap......

[dpilot]

I beg to differ, and I suspect many others will, too. I'll ignore Assault Weapons, and not compare that to other rights we're losing now. I'll ignore the Intelligence and military, and not compare that to the environment, and other issues.

I'll settle on fairness and contention.

For 6 of 8 years, we had a balanced Supreme Court, a President from one party, and the House from the other. I don't remember, but I believe the Senate might have been Democratic, but not strongly so. All in all, it was a balanced government. NOBODY played "winner take all!" Incidentally, the Republicans kept a tight rein on Clinton's Judicial appointments.

For nearly 4 years, we've had a balanced Supreme Court, and a President and both Chambers of Congress (aside from a few months, after Jeffords) from the same party. Many of us feel that the Right Wing has been playing "winner take all" these past years, acting like they have a popular mandate when they have a slim majority. The Democrats have kept some rein on Bush's Judicial appointments, though either 188 of 198, or 198 of 208 have been confirmed. Now we hear of the "nuke" option coming so they can confirm on simple majority, increasing the "winner take all" feeling. Then we're on the verge of several Supreme Court retirements, and it would seem that the Court will go Right Wing in the next 4 years, conceivably for most of the rest of my life.

Oh, and at the State legislatures BOTH parties are Gerrymandering, consolidating their Congressional districts and cementing the composition of Congress. At this point the Republicans are more successful at it, though both are guilty.

Given the Congress we have right now, and are likely to have after elections, a Republican President is the greater evil. That's not a comment on Bush or Kerry, that's a comment on the present and future composition on the Hill.

Going into the 2000 elections, any number of studies cropped up about how the country was best off when the President and Congress were of opposite parties. I tend to agree.