Faking It

Fred on Everything ^ | 011904 | Fred Reed

[Archangelsk]

Fred's two-fisted style may not appeal to everyone, but he does have a way of cutting through the BS.

[TomServo]

Bump...

[Viking2002]

Yup. I get his columns every Monday. He may be a crank, but when you cut through all the fist-shaking and teeth-gnashing, he makes valid observations about the decline of our culture.

[jolie560]

Fred's a crank, alright--and has some good points.

Like those who are paid to write columns or like those of us who post posts--people will agree with some comments and disagree with others.

That is democracy.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I think it's rather remarkable that 280,000,000+ people live in as much peace and prosperity as citizens of the United States of America do.

When you have that many people, there is going to be absolute chaos no matter what the theoretical form of government, and the reality will bear very little resemblence to the theoretical.

We're blundering along fairly well, considering that human beings aren't really in control.

Chaos and entropy have the final say.

[o_zarkman44]

Interesting perspective. Unfortunately all too true.
Reversable???? Not without a major change that most people cannot stomach. Our nation has become a organized bunch of wussies, scared to stand up for real change and the sacrifices needed to make change. Political power is not in the elected, but the un-elected.

[Tuba-Dude]

At first I thought this article was going to be about something else... ;-)

All humor aside, truer words couldn't have been said. The piece is a (sadly) honest look at what we've come to.

[BenLurkin]

"(3) Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children’s schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn’t practical. " Truer words were never spoken.

"(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can’t say and about whom we can’t say it." Nonsense.

Otherwise: Fred needs to learn to keep his presentation down to five major points. Its easier to follow that way.<

[bigghurtt]

(2) A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

and we don't live in a democracy. we live in a republic. it's sad how few americans understand this.

[muawiyah]

"A ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian...."

Not a Dime's worth of difference among them either!

[sergeantdave]

and we don't live in a democracy. we live in a republic.

Not any more. We live in a criminal fascist syndicate.

[bigghurtt]

what a splendidly ignorant statement.

[sergeantdave]

What a densely moronic reply.

[bigghurtt]

I'm glad we see eye to eye.

Now if only we could close the gap between my realistic approach to life and your cynical paranoia.

[B4Ranch]

We're blundering along fairly well, considering that human beings aren't really in control.

The same was said on October 20, 1929. A week later, opinion changed.

[M1thumb]

We only have two parties because they both appeal to the middle non-political, non-informed, "can't we just get along," dolts that are far more numerous than we dare to think.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The same was said on October 20, 1929. A week later, opinion changed.

You make my point.

Human beings weren't in charge of the stock market crash, were they?

They were just along for the ride.

[Sabertooth]

We only have two parties because they both appeal to the middle non-political, non-informed, "can't we just get along," dolts that are far more numerous than we dare to think.

Nope.

We have two major parties because of certain peculiarities of our electoral laws.

Electoral laws determine party systems. This is an axiom of political science.

Parliamentary systems use slates of candidates, and foster multi-party systems.

Our systems of proportional representation, election by plurality, and the Electoral College all steer our system to two major parties. It's always been thus.

First we had the Federalists and Republicans (later the called Democratic Republicans, then Democrats); then we had the Democratic Republicans and the Whigs; then we had the Democrats and Republicans.

In our 216 years of democracy, we've only had four major parties, and never more than two at once, spread out over three separate two-party systems.

Only two things can change the status quo: completely impossible Constitutional Amendments (too many states of low populations would have to willingly give up power), or the death of one of the existing major parties. Otherwise it's Democrats and Republicans as far as the eye can see, other than the occasional, unsustainable fluke.

[nopardons]

Yes, that's the long and the short of it.

Only parlimenatry systems can sustain a multiparty system. The FFs were completely against a parlimentary sysytem, so we don't haved one.