Posted on 04/17/2002 5:48:10 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
If my count is correct there were 66 unique respondents to the question, "Is the United States broken?" There were only 12 respondents who answered a clear "NO". There were 22 replies that I categorized as "equivocal". Most of these were cautiously guarded and expressed considerable concern or confusion either about the question or their answers. clearly they were trying to distinguish between the concepts of broken in the sense of "broken beyond repair" or "broken, but it is not too late to fix". Some of the best replies were in this group. Later in our discussion I will post some links to what I thought were either thought-provoking or illustrative replies.
By far the largest group of respondents were in the cateqory who do indeed think the United States is broken. Almost half, 32 of those who responded answered "YES" to this question.
While it clear the future thrusts of my posts are going to directed primarily at this group, I hope all those who have viewed these threads or responded will continue to follow these threads and contribute their thoughts along the way on every question. In fact, I am somewhat disappointed in the relatively small number of respondents. I believe the questions we are going to address are at the very heart and soul of the primary purpose of there even being a FreeRepublic web site. I recognize that there are countless issues that we all want to know or that could be of concern to our particular points of view. But freedom and self government are the foundation of the United States and I think freedom and limited government are severely endangered. I am gravely concerned that it could be too late or a lost cause to recover what we have lost.
In answering the questions already posed and perhaps in adding new questions, I hope that I personally, and FreeRepublic as a group can decide for ourselves where we can focus our energies toward what are hopefully common goals in securing the blessings of liberty through less and thereby, better government. With these stated goals, I post the next question:
If the United States is broken, can it be fixed?
Here are the links to some of the comments by other Freepers:
Here are a few links to pages that have some bearing on our discussions:
Is Bush ending the Era of Big Government?Remember April 15 in November
I hope you will recruit your fellow Freepers to our discussions. Thanks.
This should tell you something about your "survey". You started by pretty much declaring the US is broken, you loaded your questions in that direction, and your future posts will be directed to the group that agreed with you.
If you aim at the "unappeasables" and "naysayers" here at FR, you will have no problem finding them. Just don't be suprised when the rest of us stay away from the party.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
Dr. Keyes has great ideas. Unfortunately, he is blind. His cannot seem to understand that the GOP cannot be "fixed".
Conservatives have been trying to fix the GOP since AuH2O. Every election we hear, "Just a little more patience. The conservatives have almost managed to turn the GOP around. Just stick with us a little longer and we'll reform this party."
We've been hearing it for 40 years now. And the GOP keeps getting further and further to the left.
Keyes is smarter than the average Republican. But he still believes that the GOP can be fixed. So it is not surprising that many "conservatives" believe it too.
For a third party to succeed, it would have to get the support of these "conservatives". I don't think that will be possible. To them, the GOP is their "team". They support them no matter what. It's like being a Cubs fan. Cubs fans support the team even though they know that the team is going to disappoint them.
During the last election I talked up third parties. I backed the Libertarians, but their constant harping on drugs destroys any chance of people listening to their ideas. They have to face facts. Most people do not want drugs to be cheap and readily available. Plus the stupid lies they tell about drugs are so transparent that it destroys all their creditability. (Before the flames start, I am also against the War on Drugs because it is unconstitutional.)
I thought that it was possible to build a third party. After all, most people are so dissatisfied with the current parties, they don't even vote. In theory, it ought to be possible to energize these people.
But I think that most of them have become dissatisfied with the system. They believe that no matter who they put into office, it will be more of the same. Until we can convince them that we intend fundimental changes to the system, they are likely to stay on the sidelines. I think it will take something fairly dramatic to convince them.
I am working on something I call the Kansas Option.
During the period before Kansas became a state, people moved to Kansas for the sole purpose of influencing the question of whether Kansas would be "slave" or "free".
It seems to me that we might do the same thing to get a state or states that will try seccession. Or at least nullification.
I believe that seccession would work this time because the "international community" would be sure to protect any state that broke off from the US. After all, the US has been preaching "self-determination" since Wilson. The world would no doubt love to see the shoe on the other foot.
If we did this, we'd have to be ready. We'd have to have a Constitution already drafted and ready to adopt. I'm working on a draft.
One of the big features would be to do away with elections. Representatives and members of the Electorial College would be chosen by lot. State legislatures would choose Senators and nominate people for President and VP.
Federal Judges would serve for 9 years.
No one who was in office could ever hold another federal office.
I'll let you know when I finish.
------------------------------
I don't think he is that blind. I did an anlysis of this in an article elsewhere. It wouls cost a probable $80,000,000 and take four to six years to start a viable third party. Perot had the money, but he couldn't do it in a month and he was too serious a man politics as it was then constructed. He did bring in millions of new voters in a proportion of turnout that hasn't been cloe to being matched since. At one time he had 30% of the total vote and was still moving up in the polls. When he blew his top at that black leadership convention in Florida and quit in exasperation his candidacy was too scarred to resume.
It will require a Perot type backer and years to cull over the country for leadership to start a third party. Until then, the country is stuck with the Republicans and the Democrats.
--Boris
Plus, he was slightly less insane than Lyndon LaRouche.
--Boris
It may well be impossible to recover what we have lost and as long as Liberals have even a toehold on power; much less, real power. . .they will continue to chip away at the very fundamentals of what makes America great.
They start with the young; and through dumbed-down and degraded education they render them irrelevant; add Hollywood. . .the Lib media; and 'political correctness' and they slowly create a 'mindset'; a base. . .
Can think of no group who are more relentless; who honor no rules and have no creed, save their belief that 'their ends', justifies any means. Can think of no group who are more relentless as they endeavor to accomplish their goals. Cannot think of a major problem that America faces, that does not have 'liberalism' as an underlying root cause.
After the children are appropriately 'educated' and even more people are rendered mind-numbed if not brain-dead; they attack and undermine our Constitutional foundations; that which allows 'life' and liberty to all Americans and holds the promise for those who want to experience the same.
Our Constitution and our Judicial system are under constant attack. . .the 'checks and balances'of our Government constantly undermined. . .oh well, you get the picture.
I share your 'grave concerns' for our Country and wonder what kind of future our young are growing up and into. . . Always involved in politics in one way or another and yet never really daunted until Bill Clinton campaigned for our highest office and won.
I am thrilled that GW is President, but the reality is that the 'people of the lie' are not cowed or beaten; nor do they see the 'light'; and so they will 'keep on, keeping on' until they refashion a great country into their image; and they will destroy the best of it, if we continue to let them enjoy success.
. . .but hey, there is always hope; we are here today; preparing for tomorrow. . .
and we are a country of winners; but we cannot afford to 'rest' in our good; not for a moment.
Unfortunately, you summed up the problem right there. The US is violating their Constitution. It is a great framework. We just need to add a few things to make it harder to violate.
Good luck in your run for Governor. Look into nullification too.
A: The question is ill-posed. In order to make the judgement "broken" (or "working") we must first define the standard by which we make that judgement.
Several standards have been proposed. A few are:
1) Conformity to the written constitution.
Most who revere this standard claim (correctly IMO) that our government today bears little resemblance to the one described by our written constitution. By this standard, our government is broken.
2) Conformity to the constitution of the people Or, do the ruled find their government pleasing and fitting in general, if not in certain particulars. By this standard I think the government is not broken.
3) Attractiveness to the people of the world If the people of the world find the government attractive, it might be argued that the government appeals to some universal features of mankind. The standard makes no mention however of what those desires are, or their propriety. Are we appealing to universal ideals or the lowest common denominator? (If universal, why is this universality not confirmed by emulation, rather than migration?)
To these I would add:
4) Enforceable, and enforced rule.
A government that cannot enforce its rule is indeed broken, in the strict mechanical sense.
and my own
5) Friendliness to liberty
By this standard I judge it broken, and not likely fixable by peaceful means.
Is that why they don't vote?
I've always considered low voter turnout to be a sign of the health of the system.
After all, if you do not have very much interaction with the state, and there are no great questions facing the electorate, why vote?
Party loyalists often vote simply because they are very disaffected with, angry towards, or fearful of the opposition. It could be that many people do not vote because they are not disaffected, angry, or fearful of either party.
I think the constitution of the confederacy had some very desirable refinements
I've always thought it was because they figured their vote did not count. I think Florida proved this once again even though I heard many people say Florida proves your vote DOES count. I can't imagine how they could come to that conclusion when cats and dogs are voting, and every time they recount, they get a different number.
To say something is broken is to say it doesn't meet its design criteria -- in short, it doesn't work to specification. But such a judgment requires a specification of what the broken item is supposed to do, and within what tolerances, and sometimes how.
Most people on the Right, though they are familiar with the Constitution, seldom reflect on the fact that the Constitution is principally a "how" document. It's not about objectives, but about methods and constraints. The methods are the delegated powers and rules of operation of the three branches of government. The constraints are the prohibitions imbedded in the document and the rights it guarantees to respect.
If you were to ask the typical American -- considerably less engaged with politics than you or I -- whether the country "works" or is "broken," he'd base his decision on the specific things that please or trouble him most. Most of us are leading lives of satisfactory security and comfort, and are little disturbed by things we disapprove, so long as we can avoid colliding with them. By such highly provincial measures, the country "works," indeed very well. It would not greatly concern John Q. Public that the Constitutional plan for government has been abandoned, or that the rights of certain groups have been infringed. He would ask: What important matters have gone wrong because of this Constitutional abandonment you're telling me about? As long as things are chugging along more or less satisfactorily, why should I care?
In other words, to reach the "broken" judgment, you have to have a perspective that goes beyond personal measures of satisfaction and security. You have to be concerned that the "supreme law of the land" no longer seems to bind the government. You have to address macro-social phenomena that reveal disturbing trends. You have to be aware that whenever one man's rights are denied, lethal consequences are put in train for all of us. ("When you deny the rights of one man, you deny the rights of all men, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction." -- Ayn Rand)
You have to be politically engaged, which most Americans are not.
There are virtues to being disengaged, provided the State doesn't fix upon you and make you one of its victims. If you can stay under the State's radar, you can argue that disengagement from politics is and was the best thing you could have done for your personal well-being and peace of mind. Politics consumes time, passion, and money as do few other human activities.
We who involve ourselves in politics and political questions have to keep the perspective of the disengaged American in mind. To achieve any particular thing politically, we have to:
The above is but a high-level, partial list.
Most important of all the needs cited above is the one about resources. If all the resources come from us the already engaged, we'll burn ourselves out in about five seconds. We are not numerous enough, and our opponents are equally numerous or more so.
The key to achieving things politically is engaging the disengaged.
William Simon noted in A Time For Truth that the "policy wonk" doesn't bother to address the disengaged; he directs his streams of technical minutiae to the men in power. The typical disengaged American has no interest in hypertechnical policy proposals; his eyes glaze over after about thirty seconds' worth. He's interested first in his own well-being, and second in that of his family. His interest in politics is typically kindled by those first two questions. If we can't reach him that way, we have to do it by getting him interested in principles: overarching moral rules that separate right from wrong in an unambiguous fashion, and which resonate with his fundamental sympathies and revulsions.
Note that very few professional politicians or their policy-mongering hangers-on ever talk about principles. Principles are the enemy of power, since they delimit what power-wielders may and may not do. Yet principles are the specification for what a government -- the agency with the monopoly power to wield coercive force -- is supposed to do and not do. The upholding of those principles is the forgotten objective of American Constitutional government.
This indicates a clear direction. If you feel, as I do, that government in America has become the enemy of freedom and the common man, then I submit to you that the reintroduction of principle to the American political discourse is our highest priority. Short of a major economic or social collapse, only frank, honest discussion of principles can possibly awaken the political interest of the great majority of Americans. Without rousing that large, quiet body unpolitic, we will dissipate our slender resources and burn ourselves out without disturbing the power elite.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
IMHO, there are not enough voters of Keyes' caliber to support such a possibility!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.