The Republican reformation...

[Prime Junta]

First the Turks want to bring Islam into the 21st century, now the Republicans want to do the same to their religion. Are wonders ever going to cease?

[ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28jindal.html?pagewanted=1&hp ]

Seriously, though -- I've occasionally been mentioning hoping that the Republican party would get its act together. This is the kind of thing I had in mind. If Gov. Jindal is at all typical of the new generation of Republican politicians, the phoenix may already be stirring to rise from its ashes.

[dteowner]

I don't think he'll last. Remember Jesse Ventura? A bright flame in the darkness that went out within a year... That's got nothing to do with political affiliation- it's just an offshoot of the self-perpetuating system. Any time you've got people controlling the rules they have to play by, it's a short matter of time before the corruption leaks in. And that, my friends, is the fundamental flaw in our democracy. Checks and balances only work in certain situations. We've got professional politicians running the executive and legislative branches, and the judicial branch is beholdened to them both due to the appointee/approval process in place. They're all smart enough to realize that there's no reason to let silly things like party affiliation get in the way of good graft, so they quietly get in bed together to keep the machine running.

I'm not proposing that we burn the Constitution, but it's naive at best to think that our system would lead anywhere else. The framers were gentleman farmers and had no way of anticipating professional politicians and professional lobbyists. When people couldn't afford to serve their country for more than a term or two, it was much less likely that they'd have enough time to really get in bed together, not to mention that the constant turnover kept more fresh (and presumably uncorrupted) faces in the mix.

[Prime Junta]

A related problem is that organizational models rarely scale up well without re-engineering. In 1776, the total American population (not counting slaves or natives, which they didn't) was 2.5 million, half of whom were women and therefore also pretty much out of public life. Now it's 300 million. The organization has grown by over two orders of magnitude, but the basic blueprint is still the same. That's a tough call -- and a testament to the Founders' genius that the Constitution is still workable at all. Expecting it to work well would be rather a stretch!

Edit: However, I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are. Sure, power corrupts, yadda yadda, and I'm sure that if this guy is still in politics 20 years from now, he'll be a good deal more cynical. But, nevertheless, shifts in attitudes and cultures do happen. Without revolutionary events, it takes time -- but it's at least conceivable that this could signal something new. The thing is that the USA in general and the Republican party in particular are in crisis, and experiencing something a bit like existential angst -- with both becoming conscious of their loss of hegemony, they need to figure out what they're *for*, really, and that sort of thing can lead to constructive results.

Seriously -- for the first time since the very early days of the Clinton presidency, I'm cautiously optimistic about the future for America. You guys haven't hit bottom just yet, but once you do and start coming up, there is hope that the emerging system is a better one, for the world and for most Americans.

[magerette]

Well, Louisiana is certainly a good place to start. Like Chicago, its famed for a corrupt political machine and a blatant disregard for outside interference. (Oklahoma also has issues here, --Gene Stipe, (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/January/04_crm_060.htm) for example--as probably most states do, just not quite so extreme.)

The less educated the populace, the easier it is to foist these things off on the governed--this is one thing that I see changing. We've discussed before how self-education using the world-wide resources of the internet is becoming accessible to tons more people, and that allows those who formerly lived in a state of mis- or dis-information to look at how the rest of the world stacks up.

It's a truism that trials can strengthen if they don't totally destroy. In that sense, what's happening here now is very defining. When energy costs double and triple while oil companies post record profits, it's all too plain to even the dullest knife in the drawer that something isn't working right. When the rest of the world makes the case that our military intervention is foolish, we now know about it at the grass roots level, and when our own news media informs us that billions of dollars and thousands of lives have been lost to inefficiency and corruption, we all hear about it and have to react.

I agree that it hasn't hit bottom yet, but I think we are seeing some result of all this in the unprecedented interest shown in this presidential election, and in a much higher than usual voter turn-out across all demographics.

AFA the Republican party, it's floundering in a bottomless pit of its own making; nothing could better illustrate its disarray(well, besides the oblivion of GWB himself) than the fiasco of an unelectable Huckabee pandering to the far right while its own self-styled pundits scream at McCain. As noted elsewhere, while the two democratic frontrunners are almost twinned in their general philosophy, every single Republican aspirant has seemed to come from a different corner. I wish them luck at trying to figure things out.

[Eliaures]

We've got professional politicians running the executive and legislative branches, and the judicial branch is beholdened to them both due to the appointee/approval process in place. They're all smart enough to realize that there's no reason to let silly things like party affiliation get in the way of good graft, so they quietly get in bed together to keep the machine running.

Dte, we don't share political philosophies, but we sure share the same cynicism. :)

I agree with your post 100%. It seems that democracy is just the best of the worst. As long as you get a group of humans together, they eventually will try to game the system. I've seen politics involved in every job I've had, and that includes one with a seniority system. How you think you can game that I don't know, but that didn't keep the brown nosers from trying.

[dteowner]

Seriously -- for the first time since the very early days of the Clinton presidency, I'm cautiously optimistic about the future for America. You guys haven't hit bottom just yet, but once you do and start coming up, there is hope that the emerging system is a better one, for the world and for most Americans.I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Even putting all my cynicism to the side for a brief moment, we've got too many structural problems, many of which we've discussed elsewhere. The death of the middle class combined with the aging population is going to result in a serious crisis. I did a little digging since I was wondering where I truly do stack up. Per the Census Bureau in 2005, 40% of households earn less than $36k (the lower class). The next 40% runs from $36k to just under $92k. (the middle, obviously). The overall distribution is roughly a left-skewed bell curve. I'm really anticipating the US developing a bi-modal distribution over the next decade or so. That's actually going to cause problems for both political parties, albeit different problems. It's hard to advertise yourself as a "middle class" country with class mobility when there is no middle class to serve as the bridge between the haves and have-nots.

Edit- decided to break down the Census table a little bit. In round numbers...
By thirds: lower = <$30k, middle = $30k - $68k, upper = >$68k
Pentiles: lower = <$18k, 2nd = 18k-35k, middle = 35k-58k, 4th = 58k-95k, upper = >95k
I did deciles, too, but that might be belaboring the point, which is the increasing spreads as you move up, indicative of widening gaps. Better yet is the large variance between the median (~46k) and mean (66,570)
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm

[Prime Junta]

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. Even putting all my cynicism to the side for a brief moment, we've got too many structural problems, many of which we've discussed elsewhere. The death of the middle class combined with the aging population is going to result in a serious crisis. I did a little digging since I was wondering where I truly do stack up. Per the Census Bureau in 2005, 40% of households earn less than $36k (the lower class). The next 40% runs from $36k to just under $92k. (the middle, obviously). The overall distribution is roughly a left-skewed bell curve. I'm really anticipating the US developing a bi-modal distribution over the next decade or so. That's actually going to cause problems for both political parties, albeit different problems. It's hard to advertise yourself as a "middle class" country with class mobility when there is no middle class to serve as the bridge between the haves and have-nots.

Damn, dte -- you've really been surprising me lately. It's very, very unusual to hear an avowed Republican spontaneously bringing up something like this -- it's usually a bearded-lefty talking point that gets quickly shot down with something like "I didn't realize government was in the equity business." ;)

The thing is that bi-modal distributions aren't stable. Somebody is going to scream, and the US political system will be genuinely put to the test: either it will reform itself and there will be a rebirth of democracy as a counterweight to the market, or it will evolve into something resembling fascism. Until recently, I would have been betting heavily in favor of the latter outcome, but now... I dunno. Perhaps I've caught a whiff of Obamania, but somehow I can't feel completely cynical.

[JemyM]

You guys haven't hit bottom just yet, but once you do and start coming up, there is hope that the emerging system is a better one, for the world and for most Americans.

Maybe it's called Asia.

[dteowner]

Damn, dte -- you've really been surprising me lately. It's very, very unusual to hear an avowed Republican spontaneously bringing up something like this -- it's usually a bearded-lefty talking point that gets quickly shot down with something like "I didn't realize government was in the equity business." ;)

The thing is that bi-modal distributions aren't stable. Somebody is going to scream, and the US political system will be genuinely put to the test: either it will reform itself and there will be a rebirth of democracy as a counterweight to the market, or it will evolve into something resembling fascism. Until recently, I would have been betting heavily in favor of the latter outcome, but now... I dunno. Perhaps I've caught a whiff of Obamania, but somehow I can't feel completely cynical.I'm just such a complicated person... ;) Now, so as not to tilt your world too much, please note that I never said that I want the government to deal with the problem. I don't really know how to solve it, nor am I sure where it will lead, but agree that it's an unstable system. My current bettin' money would go on armed revolution (maybe blatantninja's right about an armed citizenry) ending in fascism.

[Jaz]

Remember Jesse Ventura? Sure. Loved him in Predator :biggrin:. I also owned three Jesse Ventura action figures... traded one for a rare WWII FJ and gave two to friends who are Jesse fans...

[chamr]

Don't be too surprised about dte, PJ. If I've read him right, he's one of the pre-NeoCon-insanity Republicans. It's hard for me too to not think that all Republicans are of the same stripe, but, of course, that would be falling into the same trap I've called people here out for. They're not all the same...

[dteowner]

I don't know that I really fit properly in any party these days. When it comes to social/morality type issues (as in abortion or stem cell research; not as in welfare or immigration), I'm decidedly liberal. Fiscally, I'm staunchly conservative. Overall, I probably have a fair bit in common with the Libertarians, but they're a little too "out there" and idealistic to really be a good fit either. I suppose I assume the Republicans are less likely to intrude in my life (I trust the Dems to keep the religious right in check) or my wallet, and more likely to take the steps necessary to minimize international meddling (terrorist or otherwise, plus an occasional pre-emptive pot stirring) in my country. As for the Neo-Cons, it's hard to build a global empire with a properly minimized government. I liked the Republicans much better in the Reagan years.

I guess (to bring this back to topic) I'm hoping for PJ's reformation as long as it doesn't give the religious zealots too much influence.

[zahratustra]

dteowner, I am desperately trying to reconcile this part of our post:
I did a little digging since I was wondering where I truly do stack up. Per the Census Bureau in 2005, 40% of households earn less than $36k (the lower class). The next 40% runs from $36k to just under $92k. (the middle, obviously). The overall distribution is roughly a left-skewed bell curve.

with this:
I'm really anticipating the US developing a bi-modal distribution over the next decade or so.

While there is no doubt that, in the US as well as in the UK, gap between rich and poor is widening but 40/40/20 distribution surely doesn't point to the death of middle class over such a short period as next 10 years? Or am I missing something?

[dteowner]

The 40/40/20 distribution doesn't tell the picture as well as the deeper breakdowns I editted on later. The way to look at those deeper numbers is to note that the ranges increase in the 3rd and 4th pentile. That says that those middle incomes are getting fewer. My 10 year prediction might be a bit alarmist, but the trend is already there and there's no reason I can see to expect the trend to change. If anything, I expect it to accelerate.

[zahratustra]

Oh, trend is indeed there. I am just hoping that it will happen after I am dead and not before :)

[mudsling3]

William Buckley, founder of new right Conservative and National Review magazine is dead. Here Lew Rockwell was talking about the resurgence of the old right - classic liberalism/Libertarianism. Almost an hour long audio giving you a different perspective.
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/02/27/lew-rockwell-2/