Two Threads: One Common Point...

[japantiger 4,051]

The Constitution is based on fear of government. It was created to specifically to limit the federal gov't from what it could do to the citizenry. It goes out of it's way to prevent bureaucrat loons and officials from being able to amass the power and without judicial process arrest, search, limit speech, take property, etc...all the things that the English authority did do....you have read it haven't you? From your commentary, I can only assume you were part of the education system after Civics was removed from the curriculum. If you find the constitution and the circumstances of its creation insane or irrational, that tells me all I need to know.

Your references to a book about the Khmer and Wrath of Khan are nonsensical.

I get it that you think US bureaucrats are somehow infused with a special sauce that makes them immune to human nature because, well, their American. I can assure you they are not.

I would not say the Constitution is "based on the fear of government". I would say it is based on, protecting the rights of the individual from the power of government and, the principle that the people are the government. They did not teach irrational fear as founding principle in any of schools I attended.

Of course it is nonsensical. That was exactly the point.

I have never said or thought anything of the sort. Not going to one extreme does not mean you embrace the other extreme. Nice try but, that is not much of a tactic.

I would recommend reading the record of the Constitutional delegate debates. Fear is the correct word. From the President of the Constitutional convention, GW:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The Constitution is based on fear of government. It was created to specifically to limit the federal gov't from what it could do to the citizenry. It goes out of it's way to prevent bureaucrat loons and officials from being able to amass the power and without judicial process arrest, search, limit speech, take property, etc...all the things that the English authority did do....you have read it haven't you? From your commentary, I can only assume you were part of the education system after Civics was removed from the curriculum. If you find the constitution and the circumstances of its creation insane or irrational, that tells me all I need to know.

Your references to a book about the Khmer and Wrath of Khan are nonsensical.

I get it that you think US bureaucrats are somehow infused with a special sauce that makes them immune to human nature because, well, their American. I can assure you they are not.

I would not say the Constitution is "based on the fear of government". I would say it is based on, protecting the rights of the individual from the power of government and, the principle that the people are the government. They did not teach irrational fear as founding principle in any of schools I attended.

Of course it is nonsensical. That was exactly the point.

I have never said or thought anything of the sort. Not going to one extreme does not mean you embrace the other extreme. Nice try but, that is not much of a tactic.

I would recommend reading the record of the Constitutional delegate debates. Fear is the correct word. From the President of the Constitutional convention, GW:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

I think you should read Washington's words again. Who is fearful?

There is no reason for people to fear the government IF, the people are the government. IMO, we should support individuals who are either, attacked by the government without just cause or, with unnecessary force. However, we should not simply declare government evil.

Again, you presented irrational fear and, by your own words with a "nonsensical" basis.

The real problem, and again IMO, is not inherent to our form of government but rather, that our form of government has been compromised by the power of our two political parties and, our willingness to support them unconditionally based on phony ideological lines.

[Grumps 3,704]

The Constitution is based on fear of government. It was created to specifically to limit the federal gov't from what it could do to the citizenry. It goes out of it's way to prevent bureaucrat loons and officials from being able to amass the power and without judicial process arrest, search, limit speech, take property, etc...all the things that the English authority did do....you have read it haven't you? From your commentary, I can only assume you were part of the education system after Civics was removed from the curriculum. If you find the constitution and the circumstances of its creation insane or irrational, that tells me all I need to know.

Your references to a book about the Khmer and Wrath of Khan are nonsensical.

I get it that you think US bureaucrats are somehow infused with a special sauce that makes them immune to human nature because, well, their American. I can assure you they are not.

I would not say the Constitution is "based on the fear of government". I would say it is based on, protecting the rights of the individual from the power of government and, the principle that the people are the government. They did not teach irrational fear as founding principle in any of schools I attended.

Of course it is nonsensical. That was exactly the point.

I have never said or thought anything of the sort. Not going to one extreme does not mean you embrace the other extreme. Nice try but, that is not much of a tactic.

I would recommend reading the record of the Constitutional delegate debates. Fear is the correct word. From the President of the Constitutional convention, GW:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

I think you should read Washington's words again. Who is fearful?

There is no reason for people to fear the government IF, the people are the government. IMO, we should support individuals who are either, attacked by the government without just cause or, with unnecessary force. However, we should not simply declare government evil.

Again, you presented irrational fear and, by your own words with a "nonsensical" basis.

The real problem, and again IMO, is not inherent to our form of government but rather, that our form of government has been compromised by the power of our two political parties and, our willingness to support them unconditionally based on phony ideological lines.

I think it is wise to fear the force of government. I think it is wise to fear the people. I think it is completely rational to fear the government even though it is not evil. I completely agree with you that our form of government has been compromised. Both parties are concerned with protecting the government and not the people. I don't agree that the people are supporting the parties unconditionally. Both parties are just selecting what they think is the lesser of two evils. As long as both parties refuse to serve the people then I don't see how it gets better. How do the people "demand" change? Many would argue that supporting non-politicians like Trump or Carson or Fiorina is the best they could do. How do you think that the people can be in control of the process?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The Constitution is based on fear of government. It was created to specifically to limit the federal gov't from what it could do to the citizenry. It goes out of it's way to prevent bureaucrat loons and officials from being able to amass the power and without judicial process arrest, search, limit speech, take property, etc...all the things that the English authority did do....you have read it haven't you? From your commentary, I can only assume you were part of the education system after Civics was removed from the curriculum. If you find the constitution and the circumstances of its creation insane or irrational, that tells me all I need to know.

Your references to a book about the Khmer and Wrath of Khan are nonsensical.

I get it that you think US bureaucrats are somehow infused with a special sauce that makes them immune to human nature because, well, their American. I can assure you they are not.

I would not say the Constitution is "based on the fear of government". I would say it is based on, protecting the rights of the individual from the power of government and, the principle that the people are the government. They did not teach irrational fear as founding principle in any of schools I attended.

Of course it is nonsensical. That was exactly the point.

I have never said or thought anything of the sort. Not going to one extreme does not mean you embrace the other extreme. Nice try but, that is not much of a tactic.

I would recommend reading the record of the Constitutional delegate debates. Fear is the correct word. From the President of the Constitutional convention, GW:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

I think you should read Washington's words again. Who is fearful?

There is no reason for people to fear the government IF, the people are the government. IMO, we should support individuals who are either, attacked by the government without just cause or, with unnecessary force. However, we should not simply declare government evil.

Again, you presented irrational fear and, by your own words with a "nonsensical" basis.

The real problem, and again IMO, is not inherent to our form of government but rather, that our form of government has been compromised by the power of our two political parties and, our willingness to support them unconditionally based on phony ideological lines.

I think it is wise to fear the force of government. I think it is wise to fear the people. I think it is completely rational to fear the government even though it is not evil. I completely agree with you that our form of government has been compromised. Both parties are concerned with protecting the government and not the people. I don't agree that the people are supporting the parties unconditionally. Both parties are just selecting what they think is the lesser of two evils. As long as both parties refuse to serve the people then I don't see how it gets better. How do the people "demand" change? Many would argue that supporting non-politicians like Trump or Carson or Fiorina is the best they could do. How do you think that the people can be in control of the process?

Sounds as though you understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying Japan is absolutely, completely wrong. I am saying that his view is extreme. His stated reasoning is illogical. We should not prevent government from creating policy that is beneficial for fear that it will evolve into something else.

IMO, the solution lies in restoring government to the people and, away from the parties and the money streams from special interests. I think we need to stop voting based on ideology and start voting for integrity. Without integrity and sincerity, no ideology is sound.

[homersapien 11,363]

The Constitution is based on fear of government. It was created to specifically to limit the federal gov't from what it could do to the citizenry. It goes out of it's way to prevent bureaucrat loons and officials from being able to amass the power and without judicial process arrest, search, limit speech, take property, etc...all the things that the English authority did do....you have read it haven't you? From your commentary, I can only assume you were part of the education system after Civics was removed from the curriculum. If you find the constitution and the circumstances of its creation insane or irrational, that tells me all I need to know.

Your references to a book about the Khmer and Wrath of Khan are nonsensical.

I get it that you think US bureaucrats are somehow infused with a special sauce that makes them immune to human nature because, well, their American. I can assure you they are not.

I would not say the Constitution is "based on the fear of government". I would say it is based on, protecting the rights of the individual from the power of government and, the principle that the people are the government. They did not teach irrational fear as founding principle in any of schools I attended.

Of course it is nonsensical. That was exactly the point.

I have never said or thought anything of the sort. Not going to one extreme does not mean you embrace the other extreme. Nice try but, that is not much of a tactic.

I would recommend reading the record of the Constitutional delegate debates. Fear is the correct word. From the President of the Constitutional convention, GW:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

I think you should read Washington's words again. Who is fearful?

There is no reason for people to fear the government IF, the people are the government. IMO, we should support individuals who are either, attacked by the government without just cause or, with unnecessary force. However, we should not simply declare government evil.

Again, you presented irrational fear and, by your own words with a "nonsensical" basis.

The real problem, and again IMO, is not inherent to our form of government but rather, that our form of government has been compromised by the power of our two political parties and, our willingness to support them unconditionally based on phony ideological lines.

Radical conservatism is fear-driven, so a perspective the constitution was "fear" driven is not surprising.

'Respect' (for the danger and potential of totalitarianism) would be a more appropriate word than fear. It's less reactionary and more thoughtful and deliberative.

[homersapien 11,363]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

[Grumps 3,704]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The Elitist Oilgarchy have ideas that they know what we as the unwashed middle class need to be "governed" because we are too stupid to be left to govern ourselves.

ichy joined the TEA Party? Wow. Mind is officially blown.

I will never support a party or, their ideology again. I will support sincere, honest individuals who express intelligent, logical ideas that translate to effective policy. I will only support those people, and their ideas, if they respect democracy. I will value them even more if their policies understand the world is not a static place, it is dynamic and, their policies are implemented and executed in a "conservative" manner. I will not be indoctrinated, or manipulated, or herded into believing that we must be liberal or conservative. I detest "group think".

Perhaps group think, and not government, is the "boogeyman" JapanTiger has identified (refer to post #5)?

[DKW 86 7,419]

The Elitist Oilgarchy have ideas that they know what we as the unwashed middle class need to be "governed" because we are too stupid to be left to govern ourselves.

ichy joined the TEA Party? Wow. Mind is officially blown.

I will never support a party or, their ideology again. I will support sincere, honest individuals who express intelligent, logical ideas that translate to effective policy. I will only support those people, and their ideas, if they respect democracy. I will value them even more if their policies understand the I world is Nottingham diffr a static place, it is dynamic and, their policies are implemented and executed in a "conservative" manner. I will not be indoctrinated, or manipulated, or herded into believing that we must be liberal or conservative. I detest "group think".n see

Perhaps group think, and not government, is the "boogeyman" JapanTiger has identified (refer to post #5)?

Sew, the Sewing Circle isn't a well defined group on this forum? Sew sorry. The rest of us see it differently.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The Elitist Oilgarchy have ideas that they know what we as the unwashed middle class need to be "governed" because we are too stupid to be left to govern ourselves.

ichy joined the TEA Party? Wow. Mind is officially blown.

I will never support a party or, their ideology again. I will support sincere, honest individuals who express intelligent, logical ideas that translate to effective policy. I will only support those people, and their ideas, if they respect democracy. I will value them even more if their policies understand the I world is Nottingham diffr a static place, it is dynamic and, their policies are implemented and executed in a "conservative" manner. I will not be indoctrinated, or manipulated, or herded into believing that we must be liberal or conservative. I detest "group think".n see

Perhaps group think, and not government, is the "boogeyman" JapanTiger has identified (refer to post #5)?

Sew, the Sewing Circle isn't a well defined group on this forum? Sew sorry. The rest of us see it differently.

I can understand why you would think so but, is that real? In reality, I think it is more about humor than anything else. The one time I can recall the Sewing Circle exercising group think, Homer shut it down. By in large, I consider the the Sewing Circle to have been formed by the US you acknowledged and, not by the we who embraced the label, being labeled.

[japantiger 4,051]

The Constitution is based on fear of government. It was created to specifically to limit the federal gov't from what it could do to the citizenry. It goes out of it's way to prevent bureaucrat loons and officials from being able to amass the power and without judicial process arrest, search, limit speech, take property, etc...all the things that the English authority did do....you have read it haven't you? From your commentary, I can only assume you were part of the education system after Civics was removed from the curriculum. If you find the constitution and the circumstances of its creation insane or irrational, that tells me all I need to know.

Your references to a book about the Khmer and Wrath of Khan are nonsensical.

I get it that you think US bureaucrats are somehow infused with a special sauce that makes them immune to human nature because, well, their American. I can assure you they are not.

I would not say the Constitution is "based on the fear of government". I would say it is based on, protecting the rights of the individual from the power of government and, the principle that the people are the government. They did not teach irrational fear as founding principle in any of schools I attended.

Of course it is nonsensical. That was exactly the point.

I have never said or thought anything of the sort. Not going to one extreme does not mean you embrace the other extreme. Nice try but, that is not much of a tactic.

I would recommend reading the record of the Constitutional delegate debates. Fear is the correct word. From the President of the Constitutional convention, GW:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

I think you should read Washington's words again. Who is fearful?

There is no reason for people to fear the government IF, the people are the government. IMO, we should support individuals who are either, attacked by the government without just cause or, with unnecessary force. However, we should not simply declare government evil.

Again, you presented irrational fear and, by your own words with a "nonsensical" basis.

The real problem, and again IMO, is not inherent to our form of government but rather, that our form of government has been compromised by the power of our two political parties and, our willingness to support them unconditionally based on phony ideological lines.

"Gov't" and the "people" are not abstract concepts divorced from each other. A gov't, any gov't, is the people. In some cases a monarch with a massive bureaucracy to support the monarch's wishes. The monarch does not commit every act of barbary against the people by himself....he.ultimately gets the people to commit acts of barbery against the people. A gov't conceived differently (a democracy or republic), is no less susceptible to falling prey to human nature. a troublesome servant and fearful master says all i need to know...like a hurricane or other force of nature, once unleashed, unshackled, that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. restrict and constrain it or face the inevitable. ichy, like in the princess bride, i do not think irrational means what you think it means...when every instance in the history of humankind results in the same outcome, expecting the same outcome again is not irrational...it is the essence of learning.

[japantiger 4,051]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

[japantiger 4,051]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

:Sing: :Sing: :Sing: :Sing:

Man, that is rich...good one Ichy...oh my, what a great laugh for a Monday morning.

[Grumps 3,704]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

By "tear down the government" I mean drastically reduce the size and scope of our government. We could eliminate 25% of the government and not miss ANYTHING. We could eliminate another 25% and not suffer much at all. Simpler tax codes means drastically reduced IRS. Do we need a Dept of Energy or Dept of Education. Nope. Tear them down.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

By "tear down the government" I mean drastically reduce the size and scope of our government. We could eliminate 25% of the government and not miss ANYTHING. We could eliminate another 25% and not suffer much at all. Simpler tax codes means drastically reduced IRS. Do we need a Dept of Energy or Dept of Education. Nope. Tear them down.

I agree. I think we need to improve efficiency and reduce corruption. I think we need to restore the concept that, "we are the government". I think we desperately need campaign finance reform and, to reform the tax code. However, I believe that is far different from "tearing down the government". These are not ideological concepts.

Does the partisan, ideological divide and, the current rhetoric keep these things from happening?

[homersapien 11,363]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

:Sing: :Sing: :Sing: :Sing:

Man, that is rich...good one Ichy...oh my, what a great laugh for a Monday morning.

Not to switch topics, but here's a good example of a party using government power to subvert majority opinion:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8237842.html

The Real Reason We Won't Get New Gun Laws

Some of my friends have wondered why I bothered to write and post an article in HuffPost this week about reforming Congress. It's because I look at the big picture, the structural problems, in our government right now. It's not sexy and it doesn't get a lot of attention. But my training as a political scientist made me aware that there are always two sets of problems in governance: the ones that are a result of an event or new development, and the ones that are structural. This week we got yet another lesson in why this shouldn't be an academic debate, why the structural flaws in our governance matter. The gun control debate runs up against the big structural flaws in our politics over and over again.

Why is it that all the calls for new gun laws do nothing? National polling says we want gun control, but national will doesn't mean anything in the House of Reps. Members of the House only care about what their voters want. Liberals are clustered in cities and other areas where they already have a member of Congress who supports gun control. All those organizations urging you to "call your member of Congress" run up against this: chances are, if you are for gun control, your member of Congress already is for it, too. National petitions don't do anything. The only way short of a Constitutional re-design of the House is a massive turn out by liberals and a massive lack of turn out by conservatives happening at the same time, leading to a change in the majority in the House. I can't imagine a scenario where that would take place, short of a massive imploding of the Republican party.

The Republican party has moved systematically to control the House of Representatives by a national strategy of taking over majorities in state legislatures, Every ten years, by constitutional design, state legislatures get to redraw the maps of House districts. Whoever controls the drawing, controls the likely outcome of congressional elections just by gerrymander. This is not a secret. It has worked spectacularly well. So even if voter turnout shifts toward the Democrats, most analysts agree Republicans will maintain their control over the House. There are a tiny number of House districts that are considered "swing districts", likely to be run by politicians from either party. The rest are locked down in their partisan configurations.

It doesn't matter who's President now. If Bernie Sanders won tomorrow, there would be no revolution. Laws have to pass through the House of Representatives, and unless the Republican party shatters into factions, with moderate Republicans joining Democrats in a Grand Coalition for the good of the nation, we are going to have national will stifled again and again and again.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

:Sing: :Sing: :Sing: :Sing:

Man, that is rich...good one Ichy...oh my, what a great laugh for a Monday morning.

Not to switch topics, but here's a good example of a party using government power to subvert majority opinion:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8237842.html

The Real Reason We Won't Get New Gun Laws

Some of my friends have wondered why I bothered to write and post an article in HuffPost this week about reforming Congress. It's because I look at the big picture, the structural problems, in our government right now. It's not sexy and it doesn't get a lot of attention. But my training as a political scientist made me aware that there are always two sets of problems in governance: the ones that are a result of an event or new development, and the ones that are structural. This week we got yet another lesson in why this shouldn't be an academic debate, why the structural flaws in our governance matter. The gun control debate runs up against the big structural flaws in our politics over and over again.

Why is it that all the calls for new gun laws do nothing? National polling says we want gun control, but national will doesn't mean anything in the House of Reps. Members of the House only care about what their voters want. Liberals are clustered in cities and other areas where they already have a member of Congress who supports gun control. All those organizations urging you to "call your member of Congress" run up against this: chances are, if you are for gun control, your member of Congress already is for it, too. National petitions don't do anything. The only way short of a Constitutional re-design of the House is a massive turn out by liberals and a massive lack of turn out by conservatives happening at the same time, leading to a change in the majority in the House. I can't imagine a scenario where that would take place, short of a massive imploding of the Republican party.

The Republican party has moved systematically to control the House of Representatives by a national strategy of taking over majorities in state legislatures, Every ten years, by constitutional design, state legislatures get to redraw the maps of House districts. Whoever controls the drawing, controls the likely outcome of congressional elections just by gerrymander. This is not a secret. It has worked spectacularly well. So even if voter turnout shifts toward the Democrats, most analysts agree Republicans will maintain their control over the House. There are a tiny number of House districts that are considered "swing districts", likely to be run by politicians from either party. The rest are locked down in their partisan configurations.

It doesn't matter who's President now. If Bernie Sanders won tomorrow, there would be no revolution. Laws have to pass through the House of Representatives, and unless the Republican party shatters into factions, with moderate Republicans joining Democrats in a Grand Coalition for the good of the nation, we are going to have national will stifled again and again and again.

Great example! But, it left out one key component. Is it more efficient for any group to utilize their resources in the effort to influence public opinion or, is it more efficient to buy the opinion of politicians? Is it even more appealing to the politicians when your supporters are a very, very active voting bloc? Is this how the parties effectively consolidate their power?

Can you blame anyone? The Republicans? The NRA? Or, that we have allowed money to become an accepted part of the process? Can you also blame the fact that we have a miserable rate of participation in democracy? Does the ideological divide come into play? Is it a sign that our democracy is broken because, the power of the people can be undermined by the power of a few people?

[DKW 86 7,419]

Actually, this isnt some grand tin foil hat conspiracy at all. When the Dems were in control of the statehouses they did this all the time. Basically, whomever is in control does this. It is as American as the Constitution itself. It was wrong before, it is wrong now. But, it is absolutely nothing new at all.

[japantiger 4,051]

I don't see the Republican party as interested in "protecting the government". Seems to me they are more interested in tearing it down.

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with reforming aspects of our government, but it helps to have a plan of what you want before you tear down what you've got.

Do you really think that the republicans are trying to keep the democrats from doing anything? What bills have the repubs passed that now that they control the house and senate? What have the repubs undone since they took control of both houses? BOTH parties want the government to be bigger and more powerful. So HOW do you think that the republicans are trying to tear down the government? For the record, I wish ANY party WOULD tear down the government. But it is not going to happen from the current republican party or from the current democrat party.

bingo

I wouldn't say "bingo". I do not wish to see anyone "tear down the government". I want to see the parties stop using the power of the government as one of the key components of their business model.

:Sing: :Sing: :Sing: :Sing:

Man, that is rich...good one Ichy...oh my, what a great laugh for a Monday morning.

Not to switch topics, but here's a good example of a party using government power to subvert majority opinion:

http://www.huffingto..._b_8237842.html

The Real Reason We Won't Get New Gun Laws

Some of my friends have wondered why I bothered to write and post an article in HuffPost this week about reforming Congress. It's because I look at the big picture, the structural problems, in our government right now. It's not sexy and it doesn't get a lot of attention. But my training as a political scientist made me aware that there are always two sets of problems in governance: the ones that are a result of an event or new development, and the ones that are structural. This week we got yet another lesson in why this shouldn't be an academic debate, why the structural flaws in our governance matter. The gun control debate runs up against the big structural flaws in our politics over and over again.

Why is it that all the calls for new gun laws do nothing? National polling says we want gun control, but national will doesn't mean anything in the House of Reps. Members of the House only care about what their voters want. Liberals are clustered in cities and other areas where they already have a member of Congress who supports gun control. All those organizations urging you to "call your member of Congress" run up against this: chances are, if you are for gun control, your member of Congress already is for it, too. National petitions don't do anything. The only way short of a Constitutional re-design of the House is a massive turn out by liberals and a massive lack of turn out by conservatives happening at the same time, leading to a change in the majority in the House. I can't imagine a scenario where that would take place, short of a massive imploding of the Republican party.

The Republican party has moved systematically to control the House of Representatives by a national strategy of taking over majorities in state legislatures, Every ten years, by constitutional design, state legislatures get to redraw the maps of House districts. Whoever controls the drawing, controls the likely outcome of congressional elections just by gerrymander. This is not a secret. It has worked spectacularly well. So even if voter turnout shifts toward the Democrats, most analysts agree Republicans will maintain their control over the House. There are a tiny number of House districts that are considered "swing districts", likely to be run by politicians from either party. The rest are locked down in their partisan configurations.

It doesn't matter who's President now. If Bernie Sanders won tomorrow, there would be no revolution. Laws have to pass through the House of Representatives, and unless the Republican party shatters into factions, with moderate Republicans joining Democrats in a Grand Coalition for the good of the nation, we are going to have national will stifled again and again and again.

Is your presumption that the US really wants the Fed to control guns? If so, your more full of s*** than I thought. The nation doesn't want more gun laws...seriously Homey, this is complete delusion. Longitudinal Gallop study below...overall, polls show 30 points less support for gun control since 1990.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[homersapien 11,363]

Is your presumption that the US really wants the Fed to control guns? If so, your more full of s*** than I thought. The nation doesn't want more gun laws...seriously Homey, this is complete delusion. Longitudinal Gallop study below...overall, polls show 30 points less support for gun control since 1990.

http://www.gallup.co.../1645/guns.aspx

Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

92% of gun owners support universal background checks:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

88% of Americans support background checks:

http://thehill.com/regulation/251037-poll-shows-bipartisan-support-for-expanding-background-checks

Many other sources cite 90%

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/majority-americans-support-background-checks-poll-says#50280

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/05/jeremy-bird/jeremy-bird-says-90-percent-americans-want-mandato/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-slam-dunk/

[japantiger 4,051]

Is your presumption that the US really wants the Fed to control guns? If so, your more full of s*** than I thought. The nation doesn't want more gun laws...seriously Homey, this is complete delusion. Longitudinal Gallop study below...overall, polls show 30 points less support for gun control since 1990.

http://www.gallup.co.../1645/guns.aspx

Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

92% of gun owners support universal background checks:

http://thehill.com/b...ckground-checks

88% of Americans support background checks:

http://thehill.com/r...ckground-checks

Many other sources cite 90%

http://www.msnbc.com...poll-says#50280

http://www.politifac...s-want-mandato/

http://www.washingto...ical-slam-dunk/

Hmmm, 90% support something we already have....well, you got me there...so what exactly is your point?

[DKW 86 7,419]

Is your presumption that the US really wants the Fed to control guns? If so, your more full of s*** than I thought. The nation doesn't want more gun laws...seriously Homey, this is complete delusion. Longitudinal Gallop study below...overall, polls show 30 points less support for gun control since 1990.

http://www.gallup.co.../1645/guns.aspx

Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

92% of gun owners support universal background checks:

http://thehill.com/b...ckground-checks

88% of Americans support background checks:

http://thehill.com/r...ckground-checks

Many other sources cite 90%

http://www.msnbc.com...poll-says#50280

http://www.politifac...s-want-mandato/

http://www.washingto...ical-slam-dunk/

Hmmm, 90% support something we already have....well, you got me there...so what exactly is your point?

I was going to point that out but...why waste the time?

[homersapien 11,363]

Is your presumption that the US really wants the Fed to control guns? If so, your more full of s*** than I thought. The nation doesn't want more gun laws...seriously Homey, this is complete delusion. Longitudinal Gallop study below...overall, polls show 30 points less support for gun control since 1990.

http://www.gallup.co.../1645/guns.aspx

Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

92% of gun owners support universal background checks:

http://thehill.com/b...ckground-checks

88% of Americans support background checks:

http://thehill.com/r...ckground-checks

Many other sources cite 90%

http://www.msnbc.com...poll-says#50280

http://www.politifac...s-want-mandato/

http://www.washingto...ical-slam-dunk/

Hmmm, 90% support something we already have....well, you got me there...so what exactly is your point?

I was going to point that out but...why waste the time?

My point is we need an effective background check system that applies to everyone including gun shows.

What we have now is a total joke. I am surprised ya'll didn't already know that. :-\