“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
— George Orwell, 1984
“Blow me, assholes. You backed the wrong PRAGMATIC, REASONABLE horse and look where it’s gotten you.”
— Jeff Goldstein, everyday since.
You left out “ELECTABLE.”
Yeah, that has worked out well.
I think the major problem with their point of view is that they are looking to maximize their vote count by appealing to the voter. They SHOULD be luring the voter by doing their damned job, and assuming that the voters can keep up. (That’s why they have that Franking privilege, after all – to notify their constituents back home what they are accomplishing.)
Simply sitting in the office isn’t what gives them power. It’s the support of the public that gets them the power, since that is where political power derives. The problem isn’t the system, it’s the fact that People Are Sheep, and sheep only have two speeds: grazing and stampede. I can make an argument that it was the introduction of the movies as an entertainment and instructional tool that allowed the changing of the culture to the point where a massive power grab (the 16th, 17th, 18th & 19th Amendments) went almost unnoticed. People started looking to the government to fix problems that were (wait for it) actually caused by government interference, not to mention trying to use the Constitution to legislate morality. (Fortunately, the People realized that banning something that can be made in a bathtub, using stuff grown in a vegetable garden behind the garage and hardware that can be built by anyone who has ever welded a seam, was a bad idea, and returned the power back to the people ( “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” ). That sentence makes it clear that any State (down to a county-by-county breakdown*), Territory or possession of the US could pass a law to keep the prohibition not only active, but a Constitutional violation, too. Or they could ignore the problem, and figure ways to tax the new businesses that would crop up.
But the other stuff was more subtle. Taking away power from the States. Giving the national government the right to tax income “from whatever source derived”. Forcing through demographic social engineering, rather than letting the “Laboratories of Democracy” work out which ways work best.
I get the logic of allowing 18-year-olds to vote, since they were being packed up and sent to war without their consent, and had no say in the policies being advocated. But the policies of government these days define as a part of Federal Law, that they are to be considered “children” until the age of 26. Wouldn’t it make sense to then change the minimum age of voting to 26? Make it simple: keep it at 18, but only if the 18yo can prove that he/she is living on his/her own, with a separate address, utility bills, steady employment, etc, on approval of a judge. In short, the standard should be “Do you have Skin In The Game?”, then you can vote. If not, you don’t. Rules of Gondor is a good place to start.
* – There are some counties in Texas that are “dry”, right next to counties that offer drive-thru liquor stores just across the county line. And that was at just one wedding.
Ironic that within a few years after that amendment was ratified, the draft was ended. So we’re left paying the indulgence for a duty we’re no longer requiring and which no rational onlooker wants to reimpose.
If they’re so electable, how come they finish unelected?
My point being, you look at any number of things in the news these days, and you can’t help but think of Hans Christian Andersen. But then you realize, it’s no longer a fairy tale, it’s a satire. And once you realize that, you have to start wondering, how long before it becomes dystopian satire?
On the bright side* Jeff, certain folks have been bitten in the ass hard enough to start practicing the sincerest form of flattery,
not to mention great artistery.
Meant in the Pythonian sense, of course.
If they’re so electable, how come they finish unelected?
They won the Republican primary.
What else did you think they were talking about?
Dear Mr. Jeff:
I hope that last Friday you were able to partake of the ineffable joy that was #WrongSkin and #AskRachel, as well as Tweets related to the black white woman.
It may not have removed a single bucketful of water from the hull of the Titanic, but it was so funny that for a few hours I didn’t notice the cold water lapping around my waist.
Jeff, This may sound harsh, it isn’t meant to be. From the best intentions and as a long time supporter, let it go!
I get you felt black balled, but we’re in a whole new battle space now. The transformation is done and it’s made clearer to even the thickest of pragmatists what’s really going on. Humble yourself a little, take the flattery Ernst mentioned with grace, and move forward. The country needs you.
Campaign advisers are more interested in their job than winning.
I’m thinking along the lines of “An Armidillo in the White House” series.
Or maybe “conversations with Reagan”, including things like “why didn’t you apologize for the ‘begin bombing in five minutes’ statement?”
Like that…
I get you felt black balled
WAS blackballed. No perception bias required. It actually happened.
Cassandra is always fated to be bitter and frustrated when her prophecies go unheeded.
Jeff gets to until he’s damned good and ready to move on to whatever he moves on to.
Bitter is bad for the soul. I hate to see a guy I respect ruined by it.
He won’t be ruined.
He’ll be armed and ready when they come.
Jeff, the best friend the institutionalized left ever had was a century of GOP co-dependence. Here in the trenches, the best friend the leftists ever had were Republicans arguing them on their terms.
Topics du jour: Race, gender, class, wealth, power, and not one of them structural per: liberty.
100 year lost causes: The Good Socialisms like federal education, medicine, retirement, war industry, and even money. Countless others lie in between these pillars, all untouched.
There is no such thing as a conservative movement. It follows that whatever motive Conservatives™ have, it doesn’t allow for conservativism. It cannot for them to remain standing as such.
The next formative, foundational, structural, philosophically-serious problem said “conservatives” tackle next — in any serious sense whatsoever — will be their first.
So: Whatever you do next, don’t expect anything but resistance. Then, count any support a blessing. Rome didn’t recover either.
Mr Howard! Good to see you!
“He’ll be armed and ready when they come”
That’s always a good thing…
Four Weeks Later: Waco Police Narrative Unravels
A better solution would be to restrict voting for a particular office to those people who meet the age of candidacy for that office.
So, 18 year olds would be allowed to vote for selected local and state offices. 25 year olds can also vote for Representatives. 30 year olds can also vote for Senators. And 35 year olds can also vote for President.
That’s a good idea. I would make the voting requirements to match ALL requirements to run for that particular office. Local laws require that the mayor own property within the city limits? Nobody’s business but theirs, and will ensure that only those with SERIOUS skin in the game will have a say in who holds that authority. Minimum residency? Age? Professional licensing? If the office holder has to have it, so do those that have the authority to put him in that position.
Across the board. If that means that only 200 or so get to elect the State Chief Justice, so be it. Those 200 will be the ONLY people who know that person well enough to render intelligent judgment on him/her.
My take? Quit voting – it only encourages them.
Then, quit funding them. No justice, no taxes, bitchez!
Problem is, who’s interest is being served in such a case? Almost certainly not the general electorate…
>In end Progressivism eats it’s own. The SJWs devour everything in their lunacy. This happens over and over, Fundamental transformation after revolution starts with flowers and bright promise and end with terror, poverty and despair. With no laws and no social net, every Progressive society ends up the same way. You would think that people would learn. But know we keep having to keep letting the gods of the copybook heading have their way with us, to our sorrow.<
link
The law doesn’t belong to lawyers, Drumwaster.
>The law doesn’t belong to law makers
lawyers, Drumwaster.<I don’t know who JCCarlton is, nice guy, I’m sure. But he’s not saying anything in that quote you pulled that George Orwell didn’t already say in the quote at the top of the page.
The point being, of course social justice warriors eat their own. Because it’s not about justice, social or otherwise, but about power, just like it’s always been.
Problem is, who’s interest is being served in such a case?
Well, to 98% of the population, the Judges’ names on the election rolls are just a name, with no context, no way to evaluate their performances, because who keeps track of the ins-and-outs of a day in court, and not even a political affiliation to indicate which ways said judge is likely to vote on given issues? Yet the busy act of counting runny noses somehow grants a Vox Populi, Vox Dei imprimatur to override the wishes of that self-same electorate if his/her political ox has been gored.
That’s why I say that no matter the election, you need to have skin in the game. How can anyone judge a position that they would never be qualified to fill sufficiently enough to intelligently choose the person that should be put into that position?
That’s why the standards are so minimal for most elected positions – because literally anyone can fill in. It is only those rare positions where one must be in such a sensitive position that requires actual training and experience, such as State Attorneys General. If State Law requires that such a position be held by someone with a law degree, is a plumber likely to know whether they have been doing that job properly? Or a preacher?
Would a plumber or a preacher be arrogant enough to try to pull some of the dipshit moves pulled by some of those State Attorneys General offices have pulled?
The idea I’m trying to get at (admittedly poorly) is that if we extend your premise, then trial by a jury of your peers means that only people accused of murder can judge the guilt or innocent of someone accused of murder.
no, it is to be judged by people that are in the same condition and circumstances as you are, to be able to grasp your probable state of mind at the time of the events being investigated. But that is my point: who other than ones peers – professional, citizenship, etc. – would be able to tell whether a person is doing a good job.
Put in a safety catch – the general populace can vote for any position in the event of a recall election. But one does not need to be a practicing judge, merely an admitted member of the State Bar, in our current example.
It should be ones’ peers that evaluate the qualifications for any given officeholder. If States don’t want to go through the rigamarole, make the requirements for all State offices the same – 18 years of age, and 90 days residency. And I am not suggesting that any such thing go on for appointed positions, just elected.
“Blow me, assholes. You backed the wrong PRAGMATIC, REASONABLE horse and look where it’s gotten you.”
— Jeff Goldstein, everyday since.
This.