02-01-2021, 06:45 PM
What defines and who is in the majority/minority shifts over time. I can be geographical, philosophical, identitarian, etc. one era and something else the next. Each side will cast the narrative of past events in terms that depict their interpretation of them because we like our grand political narratives of 'right' vs. 'wrong' instead of what is typically just a case of people with competing interests trying to figure sh*t out. Your view of obstructionism and partisanship since GWB is as distorted and biased as the inverse from a Republican. Or, as Terry Pratchett put it, where the story starts depends on which arbitrary point in time you pick to begin. From my perspective, it is the role of the majority to advance their agenda and the role of the minority to advocate for their constituents to the best of the ability, not to simply put up their hands and say 'oh, well, I guess 2% more voters wanted you so do as you will.'
I don't want to live in a political system where 50.00001% of the population can impose an effective dictatorship on the other 49.99999% for however long until the next election. I live in a state with one party rule (thanks Sullivan decision) and we are definitely the worse off for it. Those who are disappointed conservatives still exist spend a lot of time complaining about 'structural imbalance' or 'obstructionism' but never put forth a reasonable alternative that doesn't fall into Churchill's 'mob rule' trap. I believe the Constitutional system that requires plurality as well as majority is about as fair as you can get when seeking balance, as are the historical conventions and standards that require general popular support to overcome.
Whinging about partisanship is just another way of saying the policies being proposed haven't been embraced. It is so much easier to blame your opponent for not joining the program than it is to look critically at the solution being offered. It is so much easier to blame 'reactionaries' than to consider that they may have a point about potential consequences. If the polices are right and what is best, they will triumph without coercion and authoritarianism.
Last point on this topic, I find it almost comical how those proposing to change the structure of American institutions in order to push through their favored agenda because they are unable to get enough pluralistic support for it, never stop to realize that it will be used against them. If not by the GOP (who spent the last 4 years thanking Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option) then certainly by the next group of Prophets who will seek to overthrow whatever 'utopia' is built. I guess that may be the one thing I can look forward to in the coming 2T - watching the yet unborn generation dance on the graves and tear down the statues of the current 'greatest generation.'
I don't want to live in a political system where 50.00001% of the population can impose an effective dictatorship on the other 49.99999% for however long until the next election. I live in a state with one party rule (thanks Sullivan decision) and we are definitely the worse off for it. Those who are disappointed conservatives still exist spend a lot of time complaining about 'structural imbalance' or 'obstructionism' but never put forth a reasonable alternative that doesn't fall into Churchill's 'mob rule' trap. I believe the Constitutional system that requires plurality as well as majority is about as fair as you can get when seeking balance, as are the historical conventions and standards that require general popular support to overcome.
Whinging about partisanship is just another way of saying the policies being proposed haven't been embraced. It is so much easier to blame your opponent for not joining the program than it is to look critically at the solution being offered. It is so much easier to blame 'reactionaries' than to consider that they may have a point about potential consequences. If the polices are right and what is best, they will triumph without coercion and authoritarianism.
Last point on this topic, I find it almost comical how those proposing to change the structure of American institutions in order to push through their favored agenda because they are unable to get enough pluralistic support for it, never stop to realize that it will be used against them. If not by the GOP (who spent the last 4 years thanking Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option) then certainly by the next group of Prophets who will seek to overthrow whatever 'utopia' is built. I guess that may be the one thing I can look forward to in the coming 2T - watching the yet unborn generation dance on the graves and tear down the statues of the current 'greatest generation.'