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.
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 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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
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.