Search Form
Search Results
Thursday, August 28, 2003
My Mind at Work: Creating A New Party System
What creates a political party? Is it a single set of coherent beliefs? Or is Jane Galt right and for the Republicans it's a set of ideas and Democrats it's a set of groups? Even looking at the supposedly ideologically consistent Republican Party, it's not hard to tilt the axis a little and see how a great deal of it is circumstancial.
I once took a Constitutional Design class by Dr. Donald Lutz at the University of Houston, where we learned quite a bit about constitutional design, political parties, and how people generally align.
On the first or second class, he asked "There is only one function of a political party. What is it?"
Some people suggested to advance ideas, but they were shot down. Others suggested to provide a platform for candidates, and Dr. Lutz said that they were closer. The answer, he explained, was simply to win elections.
In systems with a large number of parties, you often see groups that represent a narrow political interest. In the United States, such a system would likely include a Feminist Party, a Fundamentalist Party, a Libertarian Party (that actually matters), an Environmentalist Party, a Black Caucus Party, and so on.
That gave me an idea.
I was working on a story at the time which involved two parties that I did not feel comfortable making Republican and Democratic parties because of the unique circumstances of the world they're living in (see questions 6-8 of the quiz).
At the same time, I didn't know what these parties stood for, precisely, and that always bothered me, even though it was a relatively minor thing until Election 2000 (which in my world was even MORE debated than our own, and determined such before the Florida Fiasco). I'd named the parties the Federalist Party and the National Party.
President Maxwell Knight was a Federalist serving out the remainder of his second term. He followed the more controversial Federalist President Clifford Ellington. The 2000 election revolved around a National Party Senator Franklin R. Cale of Oklahoma and Federalist Secretary of State Ken Patterson.
Beyond that, I had no idea what the party's were for except that the Federalist Party was more pro-military, anti-hypersapien, and the demeanors of Knight and Ellington were largely conservative and establishmentarian.
I considered making the Federalist Party a rip-off of the Republicans and the Nationals the Democrats, but I decided to have a little more fun with it. I later considered making the Nationals de-facto libertarians, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they'd never win elections that way.
So when Dr. Lutz taught me about the interest-group parties, I felt that interest groups were probably the best way to form new parties. If I could switch enough of them around, it might seem more random, but perhaps I can figure out unifying ideals around each party.
So I made a list of the interest groups in the existing parties and then put them in a pool to figure out how to divide them.
There were a number of routes I could have gone, but many of them seemed slight variations of the Christian/Business vs. Minority/Women breakup we have now.
I looked at other paradigms. Could the US be seperated into Social Democrat and Christian Democrat? Given the history of central Europe compared to our own, it seems unlikely two parties would spring up in the US that late. I also considered a variation of England and Australia's Labor Party for us. What if in the late 19th century, the unions had been more successful and able to overthrow one of the existing parties?
Eventually, I looked at the America's early Federalist party and did some reading up on why they won and why they dissipated. There I found what I was looking for (which was perfect since I'd already named one of my party's Federalists). The Federalists were in many ways the bridge between British Aristocracy and American Democracy.
What if we'd never entirely crossed that bridge? What if, during the Adams/Jackson years, something happened? So I changed up history and Adams became the last Democratic-Republican president. Jackson, in his anger at being denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote, was successfully recruited by a (non-existent) historical figure named Edmund Fox to join the Federalists.
The Federalist Party was revived and the Democratic-Republicans were decimated. The Whigs originally gathered in opposition to Andrew Jackson, though I eventually took the name National Republicans (used by John Quincy Adams in the real world in his race against Andrew Jackson) and they became stand-ins for the Whigs.
Flash forward roughly 100 years and the National Republican Party was perpetually in the outs against Federalist President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eventually, a new progressive party called the Alliance Party formed, hindering the NRP further by splitting the FDR vote until eventually they both merged into the National Alliance Party shortly before FDR's death.
They were referred derisively as the Whigs. The original British Whigs were those protesting against the crown and the American Whigs were named such because of their view of Andrew Jackson as a proto-king. Eventually, not sure what to call themselves, they decided Whigs was somewhat better than Allianceers or Nationalists and ran with it.
The first National Alliance President was Columbia University president and former military commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected in 1952.
Okay, so now that I knew the history of how the Federalist and Whig Parties became the dominant two, what would this history suggest that they stood for? In a roughly similar timeline, the Whigs would be the Republicans and Federalists the Democrats.
So I looked over my list of interest groups and realized that a number of them hinged on the protests of the 60's. I also realized that the next three post-Eisenhower presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) were all definitely Federalists and decided that the 60's protests would be aimed at them, and NAP would be taken over by protesters. the only difference would be that the Federalists would neutralize the racial protests pretty quickly, alienating the South and solidifying the black vote.
So I looked at the 60's protesters: feminists, anti-war, and later environmentalists and homosexuals, and put them in the Whig camp. If the Federalists are American proto-aristocrats, then immigrants would largely also fall with the Whigs.
Pro-war folks and big government folks were natural Federalists. As were those uncomfortable with the sexual revolution. So Federalists included New Dealers, unionists, and Catholics. Their actions during the civil rights struggle solidified them the black and Jewish votes as well.
So the ball ricochets back to the Whigs, and since big government people are Federalists, small government people are Whigs, which makes sense because this is the party of Senator Taft and the anti-New Dealers of yesterday.
To make a long story a little less long, the system was largely left with a consolidated, pro-America, pro-government party in the Federalists and the Whigs, who were in many ways merely a reaction to it. As such, and much like today's Democratic Party, they are often a disparate combination between free marketers and former hippies.
I also had to figure out regional strengths and weaknesses. The aristocratic Federalists are strongest in the East and the Rust Belt (Michigan and Illinois through New Jersey). The Whigs are strongest off the Pacific Coast (California being a stronghold) and do well generally in the west and mid-west. That said, the Federalists are the dominant party and it's generally quite tough for the Whigs to take a presidential election.
When choosing mascots for each party (since the elephant and donkey need not apply), I chose the beaver for the Federalists and more fittingly the platypus for the Whigs.
The party divisions in the world are somewhat messy. They're also exacerbated by the "hyper sapiens" which have a definite effect on the political climate and help meld disparate parts of the Whigs together.
This is all a relatively minor part of the story - a story I'll likely never actually get to write - but it has a profound effect on how I view contemporary American politics in this world. I'll post on that part next.
I once took a Constitutional Design class by Dr. Donald Lutz at the University of Houston, where we learned quite a bit about constitutional design, political parties, and how people generally align.
On the first or second class, he asked "There is only one function of a political party. What is it?"
Some people suggested to advance ideas, but they were shot down. Others suggested to provide a platform for candidates, and Dr. Lutz said that they were closer. The answer, he explained, was simply to win elections.
In systems with a large number of parties, you often see groups that represent a narrow political interest. In the United States, such a system would likely include a Feminist Party, a Fundamentalist Party, a Libertarian Party (that actually matters), an Environmentalist Party, a Black Caucus Party, and so on.
That gave me an idea.
I was working on a story at the time which involved two parties that I did not feel comfortable making Republican and Democratic parties because of the unique circumstances of the world they're living in (see questions 6-8 of the quiz).
At the same time, I didn't know what these parties stood for, precisely, and that always bothered me, even though it was a relatively minor thing until Election 2000 (which in my world was even MORE debated than our own, and determined such before the Florida Fiasco). I'd named the parties the Federalist Party and the National Party.
President Maxwell Knight was a Federalist serving out the remainder of his second term. He followed the more controversial Federalist President Clifford Ellington. The 2000 election revolved around a National Party Senator Franklin R. Cale of Oklahoma and Federalist Secretary of State Ken Patterson.
Beyond that, I had no idea what the party's were for except that the Federalist Party was more pro-military, anti-hypersapien, and the demeanors of Knight and Ellington were largely conservative and establishmentarian.
I considered making the Federalist Party a rip-off of the Republicans and the Nationals the Democrats, but I decided to have a little more fun with it. I later considered making the Nationals de-facto libertarians, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they'd never win elections that way.
So when Dr. Lutz taught me about the interest-group parties, I felt that interest groups were probably the best way to form new parties. If I could switch enough of them around, it might seem more random, but perhaps I can figure out unifying ideals around each party.
So I made a list of the interest groups in the existing parties and then put them in a pool to figure out how to divide them.
There were a number of routes I could have gone, but many of them seemed slight variations of the Christian/Business vs. Minority/Women breakup we have now.
I looked at other paradigms. Could the US be seperated into Social Democrat and Christian Democrat? Given the history of central Europe compared to our own, it seems unlikely two parties would spring up in the US that late. I also considered a variation of England and Australia's Labor Party for us. What if in the late 19th century, the unions had been more successful and able to overthrow one of the existing parties?
Eventually, I looked at the America's early Federalist party and did some reading up on why they won and why they dissipated. There I found what I was looking for (which was perfect since I'd already named one of my party's Federalists). The Federalists were in many ways the bridge between British Aristocracy and American Democracy.
What if we'd never entirely crossed that bridge? What if, during the Adams/Jackson years, something happened? So I changed up history and Adams became the last Democratic-Republican president. Jackson, in his anger at being denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote, was successfully recruited by a (non-existent) historical figure named Edmund Fox to join the Federalists.
The Federalist Party was revived and the Democratic-Republicans were decimated. The Whigs originally gathered in opposition to Andrew Jackson, though I eventually took the name National Republicans (used by John Quincy Adams in the real world in his race against Andrew Jackson) and they became stand-ins for the Whigs.
Flash forward roughly 100 years and the National Republican Party was perpetually in the outs against Federalist President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eventually, a new progressive party called the Alliance Party formed, hindering the NRP further by splitting the FDR vote until eventually they both merged into the National Alliance Party shortly before FDR's death.
They were referred derisively as the Whigs. The original British Whigs were those protesting against the crown and the American Whigs were named such because of their view of Andrew Jackson as a proto-king. Eventually, not sure what to call themselves, they decided Whigs was somewhat better than Allianceers or Nationalists and ran with it.
The first National Alliance President was Columbia University president and former military commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected in 1952.
Okay, so now that I knew the history of how the Federalist and Whig Parties became the dominant two, what would this history suggest that they stood for? In a roughly similar timeline, the Whigs would be the Republicans and Federalists the Democrats.
So I looked over my list of interest groups and realized that a number of them hinged on the protests of the 60's. I also realized that the next three post-Eisenhower presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) were all definitely Federalists and decided that the 60's protests would be aimed at them, and NAP would be taken over by protesters. the only difference would be that the Federalists would neutralize the racial protests pretty quickly, alienating the South and solidifying the black vote.
So I looked at the 60's protesters: feminists, anti-war, and later environmentalists and homosexuals, and put them in the Whig camp. If the Federalists are American proto-aristocrats, then immigrants would largely also fall with the Whigs.
Pro-war folks and big government folks were natural Federalists. As were those uncomfortable with the sexual revolution. So Federalists included New Dealers, unionists, and Catholics. Their actions during the civil rights struggle solidified them the black and Jewish votes as well.
So the ball ricochets back to the Whigs, and since big government people are Federalists, small government people are Whigs, which makes sense because this is the party of Senator Taft and the anti-New Dealers of yesterday.
To make a long story a little less long, the system was largely left with a consolidated, pro-America, pro-government party in the Federalists and the Whigs, who were in many ways merely a reaction to it. As such, and much like today's Democratic Party, they are often a disparate combination between free marketers and former hippies.
I also had to figure out regional strengths and weaknesses. The aristocratic Federalists are strongest in the East and the Rust Belt (Michigan and Illinois through New Jersey). The Whigs are strongest off the Pacific Coast (California being a stronghold) and do well generally in the west and mid-west. That said, the Federalists are the dominant party and it's generally quite tough for the Whigs to take a presidential election.
When choosing mascots for each party (since the elephant and donkey need not apply), I chose the beaver for the Federalists and more fittingly the platypus for the Whigs.
The party divisions in the world are somewhat messy. They're also exacerbated by the "hyper sapiens" which have a definite effect on the political climate and help meld disparate parts of the Whigs together.
This is all a relatively minor part of the story - a story I'll likely never actually get to write - but it has a profound effect on how I view contemporary American politics in this world. I'll post on that part next.
Friday, August 29, 2003
What The Whigs and Federalists Stand For
Full Name: American Federalist Party
Shorthand: Federalists, AFP
Mascot: Beaver
Direction: "Right"
Regional Base: New England, Rust Belt
Presidents since World War II:
Earl Warren (1945-52)
James F. Knight (1965-66)
William B. Keller (1967-72, 1977-80)
Clifford Ellington (1985-92)
Maxwell Knight (1993-2000)
David Hockley (2000-01)
Quote:
"As the nations original party, the Federalist Party stands for America against all of its threats at home and abroad. We believe in a vigorous national defense. We believe in pro-actively handling foreign threats before they reach our shores.
It's become chic to argue that the United States needs to be more humble and tread more carefully. We reject that notion and believe that we have been blessed by God with the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We will never apologize for that.
"Despite our prosperity, there is still much work to do at home. A truly free people cannot exist side-by-side poverty and want. As such, we believe in worker's rights, the rights to collectively bargain, and a livable minimum wage so that our children can afford clothes and school supplies.
"None of this should come at the expense of business, however. We believe that corporations make the backbone of our success and we would never want to do them harm. As such, we support reforming our legal system to a business-friendly, or as we say 'innovation-friendly', environment. For too long we've blamed problems the problems in this country on those that have made it most successful.
"There are those that say the reward for our success is to stop doing those things that have made us successful. That sounds to me the path to ruin. Our debt to ourselves and, more importantly, or children, is not to cash in our chips, but rather to continue our prosperity.
"The chief reason to the success of our nation is the moral righteousness of our cause. We spread our ideals of democracy and freedom abroad and at home we prove that liberty is not license. We reject the notion that liberty is the right to be a danger either to our safety or our moral climate. Therefore we support an aggressive criminal justice system there to assure that we remain a moral people, worthy of the prosperity and freedom that has been bestowed upon us."
-President James Maxwell Knight, January 20, 1997.
Positions:
In favor of a balanced budget
Against legal abortion
In favor of gun control
In favor of robust, or even nationalized, health care system.
In favor of tort reform
In favor of tight smoking restrictions
Ambivalent to the "seperation of church and state"
Against an unfettered free market
Against environmental regulations
In favor of a strong, security-based national defense
Against disarmament
In favor of tough drug laws
In favor of tough immigration laws
Strongly supported by:
Unions
Catholics
Military personnel
Married women
Jews
Media
African Americans
Large corporations
Strongly opposed by:
Hollywood
Feminists
Environmentalists
Homosexual groups
Small businesses
Hyper-sapiens
NRA
Immigrants
Full Name: National Alliance Party
Shorthand: Whig, Alliance, NAP
Mascot: Platypus
Direction: "Left"
Regional Base: Pacific Coast, Southwest
Presidents since WWII:
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-60)
Albert Gore (1961-65)
Peter Mitchem (1973-77)
Martin Holt (1981-85)
Franklin R. Cale (2001- )
Quote:
"America is about more than a flag or invading a foreign land. The Constitution is more than simply something locked away under protective glass, frozen from time.
"Freedom is about more than the freedom to live a moral life. It's about determining for yourself what actually is a moral life.
"They call us Whigs. I, for once, accept that label proudly. In England the Whigs were known for standing up against the crowd. Centuries later, our party finds itself standing up against a new crown - a triumvirate of government, corporations, and the military industrial complex.
"I submit to you that the conglomeration of these three forces is the true threat to our way of life. It isn't United South America or hyper-sapiens, it is those that would tell us how we must live.
"We support a woman's right to choose, an immigrant's right to make a new life, a homosexual's right to follow his or her own destiny, and a hyper-sapien's right to simply exist. Freely.
"We support freedom of commerce. That means the consumer's right to choose - a right denied by monopolistic corporations everywhere.
"The Federalists argue that they stand for America and Freedom. Yet they support those that dirty our air and water. Yet they support a draft for their questionable wars abroad and high taxation at home - yet another choice freedom they are denying the American people.
"They say they stand for America and freedom, yet they sell it away dollar by dollar. America is about freedom and freedom is about the ability to choose and, most of all, to live freely."
-Senator Evan Edward Dobbs (NA-IL), August 10, 1996
Positions:
In favor of lower taxes
Pro-choice
Against the death penalty
Against gun control
Against affirmative action
Against tort reform
Against restrictions on smoking
In favor of environmental regulation
In favor of market competition
In favor of the League of Nations
In favor of disarmament
In favor of the "seperation of church and state"
Strongly supported by:
Hollywood
NRA
Small businesses
Trial lawyers
Immigrants
Feminists
Environmentalists
Homosexual groups
Hyper-sapiens
Strongly opposed by:
Military personnel
Married women
Jews
Media
Unions
Catholics
African Americans
Large corporations
Oil industry
So, to those of you that took the quiz, how did it do? Where did it put you and where do you think you ought to be?
Sunday, August 31, 2003
Why The Whigs & Federalists Matter To Me
This is the last in the Whigs and Federalist series of posts, though I'll make reference to this all off and on because of the ways that these two parties in this fictional world where super powers exist and we're at war against South America matter to me in the world of Republicans and Democrats.
The little quiz I wrote says that I'm a Moderate Whig. The way I wrote it made it have to say I was something (I didn't have an "independent" option). The truth is that I am actually neither. In the world that I wrote, I am absolutely, 100%, in between.
This provides me a great deal of insight to real political issues (or at least I'd like to think I have the insight that I believe this mental trick provides me). It allows me a greater degree of objectivity because if I find myself in a purely partisan dispute, I can usually transfer the argument to Whigs and Federalists and get a whole new look on things.
Lex Alexander sometimes refers to The Hillary Test, in which you take an action of President Bush's and apply it to President Hillary Clinton and see if you approve of it or not.
In one sense, such tests are helpful. If you don't support a member of the opposite party having a particular power, then you shouldn't support a member of your own having it. There are, in my experience, two problems with this method:
1) Antagonism towards the opposition: Republicans often shriek at the thought of Hillary Clinton having any power. It is in some ways not rational. The Republican view of Hillary is in itself not rational. I know because I harbor a deep dislike for the woman, but I'll be damned if I can give a good reason for feeling the way that I do. That's just it, it's a feeling, not an objective analysis. As such, I would not be willing to give her powers that she needs to carry her office effectively.
The same applies with Democrats towards Bush. The belief that Bush is a moron is belied by his MBA. Yet they believe it anyway. It's more than just that Bush disagrees with them, but it's a feeling that they have towards the person. The same goes for various postings I've seen by liberals where Bush is an evil entity or, as I've seen in a couple places, a psychopath.
Being a Republican, I am not in any position to make an objective analysis of either President Bush or Senator Clinton. Because Bush supports most of the views that I do, I am naturally inclined to look at him more favorably not only from a political standpoint (I agree with him on the issues) but from a personal one, too (I believe that he is a good person). Because Clinton opposes most of the views that I do, I view her unfavorably professional (she supports things I don't) but personally as well (she's opportunistic and shallow).
None of this is to say that my views are inherently invalid and when I take knocks at a Democrat you should just shrug it off. There are liberals that I admire (I like Russ Feingold) despite our disagreements.
But often the personal creeps in to the political. It's difficult for anyone, no matter how well-intentioned, to completely seperate the two.
So, for me, the Hillary test would likely result in my not giving any president any power. Libertarians would undoubtedly view that as a good thing, and as a libertarian-minded Republican I'm sympathetic to it, but sometimes powers must be given to protect the state from enemies outside and in.
2) Some views are not transferrable. If someone is afraid of John Ashcroft using powers for nefarious ends, it does not necessarily follow that they should fear Janet Reno using powers for similarly nefarious ends. Ashcroft is a social conservative with antipathy towards moral licenciousness, homosexuality, abortion, and a host of other topics.
If there are laws in place making homosexuality and abortion legal, which there are, there is somewhat less reason to fear Ashcroft than if the law was ambiguous or against such things.
A similar argument could be made in regards to Janet Reno and guns. If there are numerous laws in place restricting gun ownership rights, and Reno is very much a gun opponent, there is more reason to fear a certain right that she could use against the private ownership of guns than there would be by John Ashcroft, who is in favor of private gun ownership.
Both of these apply to broader principles as well. It's not a very easy thing to do to say "What if the situation in Florida in 2000 had been reversed? What if it was Bush that had the voters that had voted wrongly and thus costed him the election? What if it were Gore that was saying that the election is over and therefore we should accept him as the winner?"
It's a difficult scenario for a couple of reasons. First of all, while it could happen, an aspect that would be newsworthy would be how the two sides were reversed. Instead of the stereotypical conservative disinfranchising the minority, it would be the liberals doing it. Take it a step further, and it's less likely that Republicans would vote technically improperly to begin with.
Elderly voters are, in general, Democratic. So are first-time voters. So are uneducated voters. Republican voters, in general, are wealthier (more educated) and in rural areas (where there are less voters and they can get more attention if they are confused). So the question of "what if the roles had been reversed" is a difficult one to imagine.
As it was, it was an easy conclusion for both sides to come to. The Republicans, being less tolerant of error and more skeptical of "pro-democratic" laws (such as instant voter registration) that allow a greater chance of abuse or mischief, quite easily came to the conclusion that if you undervoted or overvoted, you should pay more attention next time.
The Democrats, believing that democracy is only democracy if everyone participates, quite easily came to the opposite conclusion: Every vote should count.
I'm oversimplifying it in a number of areas, including the overseas ballots, but in some ways that underscores my point. That was struck as odd by me and a number of other people because not only were both sides arguing against what they were saying a day earlier, but they seemed to be running contrary to their philosophical instincts.
Incoincidentally, throughout all this, there is the matter that low turnout (ie ones where we make sure everyone votes properly, registered six months in advance, etc.) helps Republicans and high turnout (ie ones with spontenous or inspired voters) helps Democrats. This dovetails nicely with each of their position.
Many of the very same issues were at work in the last New Jersey senatorial election, where Democrats felt that the laws are there to provide a choice and if the laws don't account for a choice, democracy trumps legalism and the Republicans felt that no, no do-overs here.
In many ways, it all folds in together. We view politics in general as a left-right continuoum with the well-to-do (and all that entails) voting Republican and the poor voting Democratic. Therefore, on any given issue, you're going to run in to the party that supports second chances, safety nets, and so on and the party of strict rules.
Both sides run contrary to this on occasion on issues (the vouchers issue, for instance) and specific cases (a Republican governor's kid caught using drugs), but these issues and the invariable shouts of "hypocrisy" make them the exceptions that proves the rule.
So if the personal and the political fold together, and if expediency and ideology fold together, it's often very difficult to seperate your personal views and partisan expediency from political ideas.
That's where the Whigs and Federalists come in.
Just about any issue I can imagine that exists between Republicans and Democrats can also exist between Federalists and Whigs. The educated generally vote Whig and the uneducated Federalist. The wealthy splits their vote, allowing me even more flexibility.
So take the New Jersey 2002 senatorial election situation and put it in W/F terms. It is likely that the "everybody-should-participate" Whigs would be of the mind that democracy trumps law while the "democracy-doesn't-exist-without-law" Federalists would say that's not the case.
So I can then look at the 2002 election with Torricelli, Lautenberg, and Forrester without looking at the people involved and without looking at the parties involved.
In the case between Whigs and Federalists, where I don't have a dog in the hunt, I can say that I agree completely with the Federalists. In turn, my agreement with the Republicans in NJ'02 was not a partisan issue.
To take it to Florida is a more complicated issue. In a similar situation between the Whigs and the Federalists, my view was that the race for Florida is indeterminantly close and within the margin of error. I could see both sides of the issue and I'll be darned if I couldn't decide which one was right.
Thus, in the real world, I was relatively neutral during the recount. I obviously wanted Bush to win, but I was hard-pressed to be too critical of Gore. On the other hand, once the Florida State Supreme Court made what I considered a liberal partisan decision, I became fiercely partisan and supporting a Supreme Court ruling I otherwise wouldn't have, viewing that two wrongs in that case do make a right.
In other words, there came a point where, for both sides, partisanship was all that matters. Since (with the help of the W/F continuoum!) I had initially tried to approach the situation fairly, I hold no regrets for believing what I did and do.
(Note: This post is not a platform to rehash the 2000 elections. I chose it as an example of a highly partisan dispute. Any comments that focus solely on this tangental issue will be ignored.)
The other great advantage of the W/F continuoum for me is the ability to see how provisional politics really is. We have in this country what we view as conservative and liberal. In some ways, they make a lot of sense, and in others they make little.
Neither is pro-government or anti-government in any consistent way. Both support using government in ways that advance their agenda and oppose it in ways that set their agenda back. Republicans wear the banner of federalism except when it comes to drug policy, partial-birth abortions, gay marriage, and so on. Democrats are establishmentarian as long as that establishment is the government and not corporations or a church.
The long and short of it is that they stand for what they need to stand for in order to satisfy their bases. As Dr. Lutz said, the purpose of a political party is to get elected.
Some of their base is demographic. Democrats have to satisfy the black community and Republicans their religious one. A lot of it is ideological with socialist Democrats and puritanical Republicans.
What I found most interesting was when I was trying to put real life politicians in the W/F continuoum. One would expect most of them come into the center, as the Republicans and Democrats distribute relatively equally among the Whigs and Federalists.
The more I looked at it, the more I realized that's not necessarily the case. A lot of what our politicians purport to believe they do so out of expediency. That's one reason why so many of their views change with their demographics. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt used to be pro-life and then, magically, as the Democratic Party became nigh prohibitively pro-choice, they had changes of hearts.
I do not believe that means that Gore and Gephardt are without beliefs anymore than formerly pro-choice George H. Bush is by becoming pro-life. There has been a lot of talk of Condaleeza Rice running for the presidency and in Republican circles such as The Corner a debate (that I'd find if I had time) occured on whether or not they would accept her "becoming" pro-life (at the moment she was not on the record on that issue, whether she is now I do not know).
The argument broke down between those that felt if she took it opportunistically and those that felt as long as she took it and remained steadfast, it didn't matter as much.
The latter happens a lot more than we recognize, I believe.
While running through the politicians and their views, I stumbled on the realization that most of us have a core set of beliefs. We believe in an economically aggressive government or we oppose it. Perhaps we're somewhere in between viewing aggressive as being good as long as it is incentive-based or socially egalitarian-based, but not simply the redistribution of wealth.
We also have certain social beliefs. We are pro-life or pro-choice, we view abortion as good, neutral, or bad. We view homosexuality as something to be prohibited, tolerated, or embraced.
The more I thought about it, the less confident I was that politicians had any more than a small number of broad strokes in their personal platform and the rest of the positions they take, they often do out of expediency or, more likely, clustering.
Take "New York Governor" Jack Kemp. The real Jack Kemp is a supply-side capitalist. It's my personal belief that the rest of Kemp's beliefs spring from that. Holding the economic position that he does, I suspect that he "goes along" with Republicans a great deal because they support his supply-side agenda. More than that, I believe he takes a lot of these positions because if they're smart enough to take the right position on supply-side economics, they're probably right on drug policy, foreign policy, and so on.
The left-right continuoum has a tendency to pull everyone in. The libertarians like their four-dimensional map, but from a practical standpoint it isn't particularly useful. It's only the X-axis that matters. Once it's flattened into two dimensions, it is somewhat difficult for a person to remain out of the fray when neither party is talking to them or speaking their language with any consistency.
That's how I moved from staid libertarianism to being a Republican. My views have changed, though not so much in a specific direction. What's changed is my understanding that I was not "in between" and that for all of my views, one party represented them more than the other.
Once I accepted that I was a Republican, I noticed that my approach to new issues tended to be the Republican one. That's not to say I reflexively agree with Republicans on every issue that comes down the pike, but rather I find myself with a more open ear towards a Republican's argument than a Democrat's.
If I am ambivalent or seriously conflicted about an issue, I will more often than not (at least tentatively) side with the party that sides with me on all of these other issues. I don't do it consciously, but I look at my rightward shift on affirmative action, for instance, and I can see that it's there.
I believe that most of us do this to an extent or another and that's why even self-professed independents will, if pushed against a wall, lean one way or the other. Even if they don't particularly care for the party that better represents their beliefs, you'll hear it in their hostility towards the other party.
There's a reason that 57/43 is considered a landslide in a country where a third of the electorate professes to be moderate or independent.
Which brings me back to Whigs and Federalists. Most likely, if I existed in their world, I'd lean in one direction or another. Since I don't, however, I can have the objectivity that I lack in the here and now and allow the partisan drift to become minimized.
The little quiz I wrote says that I'm a Moderate Whig. The way I wrote it made it have to say I was something (I didn't have an "independent" option). The truth is that I am actually neither. In the world that I wrote, I am absolutely, 100%, in between.
This provides me a great deal of insight to real political issues (or at least I'd like to think I have the insight that I believe this mental trick provides me). It allows me a greater degree of objectivity because if I find myself in a purely partisan dispute, I can usually transfer the argument to Whigs and Federalists and get a whole new look on things.
Lex Alexander sometimes refers to The Hillary Test, in which you take an action of President Bush's and apply it to President Hillary Clinton and see if you approve of it or not.
In one sense, such tests are helpful. If you don't support a member of the opposite party having a particular power, then you shouldn't support a member of your own having it. There are, in my experience, two problems with this method:
1) Antagonism towards the opposition: Republicans often shriek at the thought of Hillary Clinton having any power. It is in some ways not rational. The Republican view of Hillary is in itself not rational. I know because I harbor a deep dislike for the woman, but I'll be damned if I can give a good reason for feeling the way that I do. That's just it, it's a feeling, not an objective analysis. As such, I would not be willing to give her powers that she needs to carry her office effectively.
The same applies with Democrats towards Bush. The belief that Bush is a moron is belied by his MBA. Yet they believe it anyway. It's more than just that Bush disagrees with them, but it's a feeling that they have towards the person. The same goes for various postings I've seen by liberals where Bush is an evil entity or, as I've seen in a couple places, a psychopath.
Being a Republican, I am not in any position to make an objective analysis of either President Bush or Senator Clinton. Because Bush supports most of the views that I do, I am naturally inclined to look at him more favorably not only from a political standpoint (I agree with him on the issues) but from a personal one, too (I believe that he is a good person). Because Clinton opposes most of the views that I do, I view her unfavorably professional (she supports things I don't) but personally as well (she's opportunistic and shallow).
None of this is to say that my views are inherently invalid and when I take knocks at a Democrat you should just shrug it off. There are liberals that I admire (I like Russ Feingold) despite our disagreements.
But often the personal creeps in to the political. It's difficult for anyone, no matter how well-intentioned, to completely seperate the two.
So, for me, the Hillary test would likely result in my not giving any president any power. Libertarians would undoubtedly view that as a good thing, and as a libertarian-minded Republican I'm sympathetic to it, but sometimes powers must be given to protect the state from enemies outside and in.
2) Some views are not transferrable. If someone is afraid of John Ashcroft using powers for nefarious ends, it does not necessarily follow that they should fear Janet Reno using powers for similarly nefarious ends. Ashcroft is a social conservative with antipathy towards moral licenciousness, homosexuality, abortion, and a host of other topics.
If there are laws in place making homosexuality and abortion legal, which there are, there is somewhat less reason to fear Ashcroft than if the law was ambiguous or against such things.
A similar argument could be made in regards to Janet Reno and guns. If there are numerous laws in place restricting gun ownership rights, and Reno is very much a gun opponent, there is more reason to fear a certain right that she could use against the private ownership of guns than there would be by John Ashcroft, who is in favor of private gun ownership.
Both of these apply to broader principles as well. It's not a very easy thing to do to say "What if the situation in Florida in 2000 had been reversed? What if it was Bush that had the voters that had voted wrongly and thus costed him the election? What if it were Gore that was saying that the election is over and therefore we should accept him as the winner?"
It's a difficult scenario for a couple of reasons. First of all, while it could happen, an aspect that would be newsworthy would be how the two sides were reversed. Instead of the stereotypical conservative disinfranchising the minority, it would be the liberals doing it. Take it a step further, and it's less likely that Republicans would vote technically improperly to begin with.
Elderly voters are, in general, Democratic. So are first-time voters. So are uneducated voters. Republican voters, in general, are wealthier (more educated) and in rural areas (where there are less voters and they can get more attention if they are confused). So the question of "what if the roles had been reversed" is a difficult one to imagine.
As it was, it was an easy conclusion for both sides to come to. The Republicans, being less tolerant of error and more skeptical of "pro-democratic" laws (such as instant voter registration) that allow a greater chance of abuse or mischief, quite easily came to the conclusion that if you undervoted or overvoted, you should pay more attention next time.
The Democrats, believing that democracy is only democracy if everyone participates, quite easily came to the opposite conclusion: Every vote should count.
I'm oversimplifying it in a number of areas, including the overseas ballots, but in some ways that underscores my point. That was struck as odd by me and a number of other people because not only were both sides arguing against what they were saying a day earlier, but they seemed to be running contrary to their philosophical instincts.
Incoincidentally, throughout all this, there is the matter that low turnout (ie ones where we make sure everyone votes properly, registered six months in advance, etc.) helps Republicans and high turnout (ie ones with spontenous or inspired voters) helps Democrats. This dovetails nicely with each of their position.
Many of the very same issues were at work in the last New Jersey senatorial election, where Democrats felt that the laws are there to provide a choice and if the laws don't account for a choice, democracy trumps legalism and the Republicans felt that no, no do-overs here.
In many ways, it all folds in together. We view politics in general as a left-right continuoum with the well-to-do (and all that entails) voting Republican and the poor voting Democratic. Therefore, on any given issue, you're going to run in to the party that supports second chances, safety nets, and so on and the party of strict rules.
Both sides run contrary to this on occasion on issues (the vouchers issue, for instance) and specific cases (a Republican governor's kid caught using drugs), but these issues and the invariable shouts of "hypocrisy" make them the exceptions that proves the rule.
So if the personal and the political fold together, and if expediency and ideology fold together, it's often very difficult to seperate your personal views and partisan expediency from political ideas.
That's where the Whigs and Federalists come in.
Just about any issue I can imagine that exists between Republicans and Democrats can also exist between Federalists and Whigs. The educated generally vote Whig and the uneducated Federalist. The wealthy splits their vote, allowing me even more flexibility.
So take the New Jersey 2002 senatorial election situation and put it in W/F terms. It is likely that the "everybody-should-participate" Whigs would be of the mind that democracy trumps law while the "democracy-doesn't-exist-without-law" Federalists would say that's not the case.
So I can then look at the 2002 election with Torricelli, Lautenberg, and Forrester without looking at the people involved and without looking at the parties involved.
In the case between Whigs and Federalists, where I don't have a dog in the hunt, I can say that I agree completely with the Federalists. In turn, my agreement with the Republicans in NJ'02 was not a partisan issue.
To take it to Florida is a more complicated issue. In a similar situation between the Whigs and the Federalists, my view was that the race for Florida is indeterminantly close and within the margin of error. I could see both sides of the issue and I'll be darned if I couldn't decide which one was right.
Thus, in the real world, I was relatively neutral during the recount. I obviously wanted Bush to win, but I was hard-pressed to be too critical of Gore. On the other hand, once the Florida State Supreme Court made what I considered a liberal partisan decision, I became fiercely partisan and supporting a Supreme Court ruling I otherwise wouldn't have, viewing that two wrongs in that case do make a right.
In other words, there came a point where, for both sides, partisanship was all that matters. Since (with the help of the W/F continuoum!) I had initially tried to approach the situation fairly, I hold no regrets for believing what I did and do.
(Note: This post is not a platform to rehash the 2000 elections. I chose it as an example of a highly partisan dispute. Any comments that focus solely on this tangental issue will be ignored.)
The other great advantage of the W/F continuoum for me is the ability to see how provisional politics really is. We have in this country what we view as conservative and liberal. In some ways, they make a lot of sense, and in others they make little.
Neither is pro-government or anti-government in any consistent way. Both support using government in ways that advance their agenda and oppose it in ways that set their agenda back. Republicans wear the banner of federalism except when it comes to drug policy, partial-birth abortions, gay marriage, and so on. Democrats are establishmentarian as long as that establishment is the government and not corporations or a church.
The long and short of it is that they stand for what they need to stand for in order to satisfy their bases. As Dr. Lutz said, the purpose of a political party is to get elected.
Some of their base is demographic. Democrats have to satisfy the black community and Republicans their religious one. A lot of it is ideological with socialist Democrats and puritanical Republicans.
What I found most interesting was when I was trying to put real life politicians in the W/F continuoum. One would expect most of them come into the center, as the Republicans and Democrats distribute relatively equally among the Whigs and Federalists.
The more I looked at it, the more I realized that's not necessarily the case. A lot of what our politicians purport to believe they do so out of expediency. That's one reason why so many of their views change with their demographics. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt used to be pro-life and then, magically, as the Democratic Party became nigh prohibitively pro-choice, they had changes of hearts.
I do not believe that means that Gore and Gephardt are without beliefs anymore than formerly pro-choice George H. Bush is by becoming pro-life. There has been a lot of talk of Condaleeza Rice running for the presidency and in Republican circles such as The Corner a debate (that I'd find if I had time) occured on whether or not they would accept her "becoming" pro-life (at the moment she was not on the record on that issue, whether she is now I do not know).
The argument broke down between those that felt if she took it opportunistically and those that felt as long as she took it and remained steadfast, it didn't matter as much.
The latter happens a lot more than we recognize, I believe.
While running through the politicians and their views, I stumbled on the realization that most of us have a core set of beliefs. We believe in an economically aggressive government or we oppose it. Perhaps we're somewhere in between viewing aggressive as being good as long as it is incentive-based or socially egalitarian-based, but not simply the redistribution of wealth.
We also have certain social beliefs. We are pro-life or pro-choice, we view abortion as good, neutral, or bad. We view homosexuality as something to be prohibited, tolerated, or embraced.
The more I thought about it, the less confident I was that politicians had any more than a small number of broad strokes in their personal platform and the rest of the positions they take, they often do out of expediency or, more likely, clustering.
Take "New York Governor" Jack Kemp. The real Jack Kemp is a supply-side capitalist. It's my personal belief that the rest of Kemp's beliefs spring from that. Holding the economic position that he does, I suspect that he "goes along" with Republicans a great deal because they support his supply-side agenda. More than that, I believe he takes a lot of these positions because if they're smart enough to take the right position on supply-side economics, they're probably right on drug policy, foreign policy, and so on.
The left-right continuoum has a tendency to pull everyone in. The libertarians like their four-dimensional map, but from a practical standpoint it isn't particularly useful. It's only the X-axis that matters. Once it's flattened into two dimensions, it is somewhat difficult for a person to remain out of the fray when neither party is talking to them or speaking their language with any consistency.
That's how I moved from staid libertarianism to being a Republican. My views have changed, though not so much in a specific direction. What's changed is my understanding that I was not "in between" and that for all of my views, one party represented them more than the other.
Once I accepted that I was a Republican, I noticed that my approach to new issues tended to be the Republican one. That's not to say I reflexively agree with Republicans on every issue that comes down the pike, but rather I find myself with a more open ear towards a Republican's argument than a Democrat's.
If I am ambivalent or seriously conflicted about an issue, I will more often than not (at least tentatively) side with the party that sides with me on all of these other issues. I don't do it consciously, but I look at my rightward shift on affirmative action, for instance, and I can see that it's there.
I believe that most of us do this to an extent or another and that's why even self-professed independents will, if pushed against a wall, lean one way or the other. Even if they don't particularly care for the party that better represents their beliefs, you'll hear it in their hostility towards the other party.
There's a reason that 57/43 is considered a landslide in a country where a third of the electorate professes to be moderate or independent.
Which brings me back to Whigs and Federalists. Most likely, if I existed in their world, I'd lean in one direction or another. Since I don't, however, I can have the objectivity that I lack in the here and now and allow the partisan drift to become minimized.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Addled Filibuster Thoughts
Now that the filibuster situation has come to a temporary halt and it's being pushed off the front page, it's time for me to follow my time-honored tradition of talking about issues people care about after they care about them.
The issue can be broken down into two sides of the same question: Is the unprecedented planned filibustering of over half a dozen judges egregious enough to justify doing away with the rules that have been in place for a few decades now?
There are two ways that I can approach this issue. I can approach it as an ideological partisan that does not want to see any more "compromises" like Justice Souter, or I can approach it as a political philosopher considering my fictional parties, the modern Federalists and Whigs. Since most of my current readers weren't around for the whole Feddies/Whigs thing, the basic premise is that I created two political parties and belief systems between which I am completely divided. Sometimes I can look at it through the lens of the politics that fictional superhero world with a sort of detachment that I cannot when I see an (R) or (D) by a particular politician's name.
From an ideological standpoint, I am very disappointed to see the Democrats in a position to tell Bush who he can and cannot appoint to the federal judiciary. I am disappointed that the Republicans have allowed the Democrats to frame the issue as though the filibustering of judges is the norm and changing senate rules is not (senate rules change all the time, only one judge who never enjoyed majority support has ever been filibustered). And I have lost a good deal of faith in Senate Majority Leader Frist, who has managed to become the second most powerful person in the Senate, if that.
To be frank, there are a number of issues that I disagree with the President's nominees on. Some of them appear to be well to my right politically and therefore, theoretically, I ought to support Bush's hand being tipped towards more moderate nominees. Here's my general problem with that: Judges move to the left after appointment. As the New York Times loves to put it, they "grow in to office." To take an example, take a look at the Supreme Court. There are four liberals, three conservatives, and two pro-Roe and pro-campaign finance, and pro-affirmative action moderates. Here's the rub: all but two of the justices of this court were appointed by Republicans. The two Democratic nominees, Breyer and Ginsburg, are, to say the least, not moderate. And with time, as I said a couple sentences ago, judges seem to move to the left.
As such, I'm not just worried about Justice Owen being the next Reinquist (especially if she is taking his spot), but I'm also quite worried about Justice Alberto Gonzalez being the next David Souter. I'm content to take a chance on Gonzalez to keep Reinquist's spot conservative, but I am extremely wary of replacing a conservative with a "moderate." The temptation to try to make history behind the robe is great for liberals and conservatives alike. To give you an indication of how strongly I feel about this, I am worried that a compromise pick like Orrin Hatch could turn a 180. And I don't trust the Democrats for one minute to decide who is in the mainstream and who is wacko-conservative (to be fair, if I was a liberal I wouldn't trust the Republicans. It's an ideological issue more than a moral/ethical one).
So with all the above in mind, part of me really wants to stick with Bush and whomever he nominates unless his position and name have the initials A.G.
But I'm not so short-sighted as to believe there aren't consequences to quashing the filibuster. Republicans won't have the senate forever (though, to look at the map, they do have a pretty natural advantage for a while at least). Maybe I don't trust the Democrats not to turn a 180 on nixing the filibuster when the positions are at their worst, but to the extent you assume it to be so it will become so.
There are larger issues at hand right now than who Bush picks for the court. And I am generally pretty good (better than I let on, actually) about seeing both sides of the issue. So out with Democrats and Republicans and in with the Majority and Minority Parties.
The Majority Party believes, not incorrectly, that the Constitution does not require a 3/5 majority for "advise and consent" in the Constitution. It says that nowhere in the Constitution and it has generally been so by tradition rather than Constitutional Mandate. So the Majority Party is quite angry that the Minority Party can talk all day about tradition when it comes to uphold the filibuster but ignore the tradition (with one exception many decades ago) of not filibustering the President's picks. Particularly when they know that the pick has a majority of votes (whereas above counterexample did not). The Majority Party also sees more and more vacant seats and they know that if those seats are not filled while their president is in office, they will be filled while the other president is in office. They know this because the judges they held back prior to their president's election have spots that they are now seeking to fill with their guys (and gals). But there are legitimate concerns here that the Minority Party has a vested interest in finding any and all of the president's picks unacceptable. Time is, after all, on their side. If not in four years than in eight or twelve.
The Minority Party, on the other hand, believes that without requiring more than a majority the President can appoint very radical nominees. If the Majority Party can control their own, and most of the members of the Majority Party have constituents that are well to one side or the other of the rest of the nation (as is true with both parties), there are little safeguards to prevent a complete lunatic from getting a judgeship beyond trusting the opposing party (which neither side does - and for good reason!). The Senate has traditionally been the "more deliberative" body where most of the compromise gets done. I'm personally not sure about the compromises, but I the thought of requiring more votes to get laws passed does warm my anti-government heart. Except that somewhere along the lines my side wants to change more things and the other side wants more things to say the same. That might have something to do with which party is the Majority Party and which direction those changes are more likely to go. But regardless, on the whole I do prefer gummed up works rather than a parliamentary system where a slim majority passes whatever it wants.
And the scary part is that these appointments, lunatic or no, last forever! (or until death or resignation of said justice, whichever comes first. It'd probably be death or resignation, but even if so that could well be forty years down the line.
And, of course, throughout all of this the partisans on both sides are making their case that the very Constitution is at stake. Members of the Minority Party who thought getting rid of the filibuster when they were in the majority was a good idea suddenly reconsider because of the extremism of the President that was elected by the majority of the public. Members of the Majority Party who had no problem letting the other team's president's picks die in committee without a complete up-and-down vote are considering it completely outrageous that their guy's picks might not get a full vote.
And somewhere along the way, people like me start paying more attention to Blockbuster Online, cable TV, and CDR Indexing.
But now that my position is irrelevent (as though it were ever relevent!), I can give my thoughts. Here they are:
The issue can be broken down into two sides of the same question: Is the unprecedented planned filibustering of over half a dozen judges egregious enough to justify doing away with the rules that have been in place for a few decades now?
There are two ways that I can approach this issue. I can approach it as an ideological partisan that does not want to see any more "compromises" like Justice Souter, or I can approach it as a political philosopher considering my fictional parties, the modern Federalists and Whigs. Since most of my current readers weren't around for the whole Feddies/Whigs thing, the basic premise is that I created two political parties and belief systems between which I am completely divided. Sometimes I can look at it through the lens of the politics that fictional superhero world with a sort of detachment that I cannot when I see an (R) or (D) by a particular politician's name.
From an ideological standpoint, I am very disappointed to see the Democrats in a position to tell Bush who he can and cannot appoint to the federal judiciary. I am disappointed that the Republicans have allowed the Democrats to frame the issue as though the filibustering of judges is the norm and changing senate rules is not (senate rules change all the time, only one judge who never enjoyed majority support has ever been filibustered). And I have lost a good deal of faith in Senate Majority Leader Frist, who has managed to become the second most powerful person in the Senate, if that.
To be frank, there are a number of issues that I disagree with the President's nominees on. Some of them appear to be well to my right politically and therefore, theoretically, I ought to support Bush's hand being tipped towards more moderate nominees. Here's my general problem with that: Judges move to the left after appointment. As the New York Times loves to put it, they "grow in to office." To take an example, take a look at the Supreme Court. There are four liberals, three conservatives, and two pro-Roe and pro-campaign finance, and pro-affirmative action moderates. Here's the rub: all but two of the justices of this court were appointed by Republicans. The two Democratic nominees, Breyer and Ginsburg, are, to say the least, not moderate. And with time, as I said a couple sentences ago, judges seem to move to the left.
As such, I'm not just worried about Justice Owen being the next Reinquist (especially if she is taking his spot), but I'm also quite worried about Justice Alberto Gonzalez being the next David Souter. I'm content to take a chance on Gonzalez to keep Reinquist's spot conservative, but I am extremely wary of replacing a conservative with a "moderate." The temptation to try to make history behind the robe is great for liberals and conservatives alike. To give you an indication of how strongly I feel about this, I am worried that a compromise pick like Orrin Hatch could turn a 180. And I don't trust the Democrats for one minute to decide who is in the mainstream and who is wacko-conservative (to be fair, if I was a liberal I wouldn't trust the Republicans. It's an ideological issue more than a moral/ethical one).
So with all the above in mind, part of me really wants to stick with Bush and whomever he nominates unless his position and name have the initials A.G.
But I'm not so short-sighted as to believe there aren't consequences to quashing the filibuster. Republicans won't have the senate forever (though, to look at the map, they do have a pretty natural advantage for a while at least). Maybe I don't trust the Democrats not to turn a 180 on nixing the filibuster when the positions are at their worst, but to the extent you assume it to be so it will become so.
There are larger issues at hand right now than who Bush picks for the court. And I am generally pretty good (better than I let on, actually) about seeing both sides of the issue. So out with Democrats and Republicans and in with the Majority and Minority Parties.
The Majority Party believes, not incorrectly, that the Constitution does not require a 3/5 majority for "advise and consent" in the Constitution. It says that nowhere in the Constitution and it has generally been so by tradition rather than Constitutional Mandate. So the Majority Party is quite angry that the Minority Party can talk all day about tradition when it comes to uphold the filibuster but ignore the tradition (with one exception many decades ago) of not filibustering the President's picks. Particularly when they know that the pick has a majority of votes (whereas above counterexample did not). The Majority Party also sees more and more vacant seats and they know that if those seats are not filled while their president is in office, they will be filled while the other president is in office. They know this because the judges they held back prior to their president's election have spots that they are now seeking to fill with their guys (and gals). But there are legitimate concerns here that the Minority Party has a vested interest in finding any and all of the president's picks unacceptable. Time is, after all, on their side. If not in four years than in eight or twelve.
The Minority Party, on the other hand, believes that without requiring more than a majority the President can appoint very radical nominees. If the Majority Party can control their own, and most of the members of the Majority Party have constituents that are well to one side or the other of the rest of the nation (as is true with both parties), there are little safeguards to prevent a complete lunatic from getting a judgeship beyond trusting the opposing party (which neither side does - and for good reason!). The Senate has traditionally been the "more deliberative" body where most of the compromise gets done. I'm personally not sure about the compromises, but I the thought of requiring more votes to get laws passed does warm my anti-government heart. Except that somewhere along the lines my side wants to change more things and the other side wants more things to say the same. That might have something to do with which party is the Majority Party and which direction those changes are more likely to go. But regardless, on the whole I do prefer gummed up works rather than a parliamentary system where a slim majority passes whatever it wants.
And the scary part is that these appointments, lunatic or no, last forever! (or until death or resignation of said justice, whichever comes first. It'd probably be death or resignation, but even if so that could well be forty years down the line.
And, of course, throughout all of this the partisans on both sides are making their case that the very Constitution is at stake. Members of the Minority Party who thought getting rid of the filibuster when they were in the majority was a good idea suddenly reconsider because of the extremism of the President that was elected by the majority of the public. Members of the Majority Party who had no problem letting the other team's president's picks die in committee without a complete up-and-down vote are considering it completely outrageous that their guy's picks might not get a full vote.
And somewhere along the way, people like me start paying more attention to Blockbuster Online, cable TV, and CDR Indexing.
But now that my position is irrelevent (as though it were ever relevent!), I can give my thoughts. Here they are:
- I think that every justice should be voted on by the entire Senate. No dying in committee, dying by filibuster, or dying by blue slip.
- And I think that it's generally a good to require more votes to get things done.
- And try as I might, I cannot honestly reconcile the two. And frankly, I'm a bit suspicious of anyone that does not believe there are competing ideals at stake here or believes that only one of the ideals really matters.
- And I wish that I could trust the Democrats a lot more when it came to reasonable nominations.
- And I'm sure they wish they could do the same for Republicans.
- And I'm gonna go sit somewhere else and think/do something else instead of sitting here thinking about this.
