printI have a secret hope that due to self-interest, the Republicans may just tackle the 17th amendment, a 1913 abomination that sundered the republican scheme of governance put in place by the Founding Fathers. Why the renewed hope? If senators were elected by the respective state legislatures, as was the original intent, I somehow doubt the Democrats would have retained control of the upper chamber.
Fox News: “Republican candidates in more than a half-dozen states have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913 and which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators. Prior to the amendment, senators were designated by state legislatures.”
“‘People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the states,’ Mike Lee, who supports repeal, told reporters recently. Mr. Lee is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate from Utah.”
“Proponents of repeal say the amendment wrecked the founding fathers’ balance between national and state governments, removing one of the last checks to unbridled power in Washington. Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.”
On the other hand, I think it’s plain that the newly elected Republican majority in the House will go ahead and raise the debt ceiling, even though they could take a stand and refuse to so do.
UPDATE: What else won’t the Republikeynsians do? “Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., likely the next chair of the House Education Committee, has already said that he’s not going to abolish the Department of Education.” John Stossel adds that the same people’s public “Pledge for America” “is modest. It promises no cuts in Medicare, Social Security or the military. That’s where most of the money is. Those programs account for 60 percent of the budget.”
“Divided government historically spends less than governments under one-party control,” observes Stossel, but in the absence of any “clear message on the biggest sources of government spending” from the Republicans, we’re going down.
Interesting how there is a world-wide move to the “right” (except in SA, if you thought the American electorate is stupid you aint’ seen nothing yet), although I believe the reason for this movement is different in the USA than in Europe.
This morning on my way to work I listened on the radio to one of our liberal “political analysts” (some professor or other) saying that he believed the Republicans may even have done better had they not associated with the Tea Party movement (in my opinion proving the point above, even our educated are ignorant).
In my view the Republicans did so well exactly because they associated with the Tea Party. It will stand them in good stead to keep this in mind and hopefully subscribe to the principles of the Tea Party.
I cannot help but think that had the Republicans been in power up to now, the Democrats would have hi-jacked the Tea Party movement (as the Republicans have done to their benefit). If this was the case would the media still have labeled the Tea Party movement as extreme and rightwing and racist?
Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.
Ah, Democracy. A modern-day holy ritual.
In 415 B.C. the city of Athens, under the influence of a charismatic (and in my opinion, evil) young general, voted to invade the island of Sicily. The result was the total destruction of the expedition, which included the cream of the Athenian infantry, and the execution of some of the city’s most talented commanders. Many a hoplite met his fate in Sicilian mines, working without food or water until he collapsed.
The end result was the defeat and subjugation of Athens at the hands of her hated enemy, Sparta, from which she would never fully recover.
Yes, Democracy is a panacea, worthy of worship. Vote and be cleansed.
In your post about the diminishing power of the vote I thought about how the founders had the state representatives elect the upper chamber. However I could not remember the number of the Constitutional Amemdment that allowed for direct election of Senators. It appears (I can’t say I’ve researched this!) that the Tea Party was much more successful in influencing the House of Representative elections than Senate outcomes. However, having said that I believe that the election of Rand Paul and Maco Rubio was heavily influenced by Tea Pary support. It is also interesting to note that both of these candidates ran on principles, issues, and ideas and NOT the cult of personality. Of those elected to the Senate I’m impressed with these two individuals the most.
About the closest a Republican came to admitting to wanting to actually cut some stuff came was Sharron Angle and she got her head handed to her on a silver platter. Rand Paul spent the entire summer as “I am not my nutcase dad” Paul and won.
The amendment that counts is the 10th, which (sadly) is completely ignored. The Senate was a whorehouse for special interests when they were chosen by the state legislators and still is a whorehouse when they were currently chosen by the people (who sheepishly follow TV ads and media incantations).
I have little hope for the 2010 Congressional version of deck chair changing on the American Titanic.