Here's one other thing. Suppose there had been a "red tsunami" then what? I think this election turned out the way it did for a reason. And that reason is if it had gone completely red, and nothing changed, well then it would be revealed that it all has been a smoke and mirrors game by the swamp that are unelected.
A lot of people have been disenfranchised by both dominant parties, I think for the reason you hint: Lack of faith in the GOP to be any different. It was this independent group abandoned by both parties that voted in Trump in 2016. After the actions of the GOP during the Trump term, they have even less reason to support the GOP, and since Jan 2021, even less reason to believe the GOP is anything other than the other half of The Party.
It's not really the parties themselves, but rather the state. The problem is, that no matter who is in power, the state seems to win. Maybe with conservatives, it is a Government Lite™, but still there is a belief that government, in the right hands, is the answer.
I personally think Texas knows better than I do what their border policy should be, same for the most northern states, or any state that receives immigration. Do we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?
“Do we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?” I actually learned this lesson - the one implied by your questions- in the corporate world. ‘Corporate office vs field offices’. This was a constant issue, decision-making 3000 miles away with nary a clue about how things really worked on the ground.
The structure of our representative republic is that of independent states participating in a limited federal government. We are a nation of multiple governments. The federal government has a purpose, things best done collectively by the states. Immigration and naturalization and the common defense are things specifically defined as roles of the federal government. Per our constitution, we need a federal government for these two things. This doesn't mean states can not provide for independent defense, in deed this is a tradition as old as our nations.
The independence of the states exists for a lot of very good reasons. There's significant differences between the several states, and representation of the people requires local control of representation by the people. National political parties have circumvented that concept. National parties enact, through control of the legislatures of the states, national policy, controlled by interests other than the people of the state. In recent decades, this has become overt: billions of dollars spent by the national party flood and dominate local elections. Money not from the people of that state. In many states, The Party has control of the courts, too. More recently we've seen The Party also in control of the electoral process in many states. And what we see is a national agenda being enacted without regard for the people of the individual states.
What we've been seeing for several decades (at least 4) is an attack on this independence of the several states, the very foundation of our republic. The outrage over USSC decisions that reject the role of the court to create national legislation from the bench, and restore the states' responsibilities to legislate per local and regional interests, is characterized as disaster. There is nothing intellectually honest in demanding the courts do what congress and the legislatures of the states refuse to do. But that's where we are: we ask the court to rule to amend the constitution, to enact national law, instead of look to the constitutionally defined process for achieving the desired outcome.
Yes, the courts are not supposed to legislate from the bench, but rather uphold the laws already written. But we have seen this also with Covid. People with no actual authority to enact restrictions and regulations took advantage of the concept of "emergency powers" and basically unilaterally made decisions about the population. We, the population, should have told them to go pound sand.
Yes. But fear and hate are powerful. Using fear and promoting hate are stock and trade of freedom deniers throughout history.
What's disturbing to me are the number of otherwise intelligent seeming people who will argue that the court MUST legislate, and must be stacked with judges and justices that apply their ideological goals over what is actually in law or the constitution. Calling a judge that rules based on the language actually in the law "conservative", or "constructionist". When we should calls such a judge "competent". These folks overlook the role of legislators, misstate the role of the constitution. They seek to circumvent, rather than acknowledge that there is a right way to achieve what they desire. Mostly because they know the majority would not be with them if they subjected their arguments to the light of day.
Here's one other thing. Suppose there had been a "red tsunami" then what? I think this election turned out the way it did for a reason. And that reason is if it had gone completely red, and nothing changed, well then it would be revealed that it all has been a smoke and mirrors game by the swamp that are unelected.
A lot of people have been disenfranchised by both dominant parties, I think for the reason you hint: Lack of faith in the GOP to be any different. It was this independent group abandoned by both parties that voted in Trump in 2016. After the actions of the GOP during the Trump term, they have even less reason to support the GOP, and since Jan 2021, even less reason to believe the GOP is anything other than the other half of The Party.
It's not really the parties themselves, but rather the state. The problem is, that no matter who is in power, the state seems to win. Maybe with conservatives, it is a Government Lite™, but still there is a belief that government, in the right hands, is the answer.
I personally think Texas knows better than I do what their border policy should be, same for the most northern states, or any state that receives immigration. Do we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?
“Do we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?” I actually learned this lesson - the one implied by your questions- in the corporate world. ‘Corporate office vs field offices’. This was a constant issue, decision-making 3000 miles away with nary a clue about how things really worked on the ground.
The structure of our representative republic is that of independent states participating in a limited federal government. We are a nation of multiple governments. The federal government has a purpose, things best done collectively by the states. Immigration and naturalization and the common defense are things specifically defined as roles of the federal government. Per our constitution, we need a federal government for these two things. This doesn't mean states can not provide for independent defense, in deed this is a tradition as old as our nations.
The independence of the states exists for a lot of very good reasons. There's significant differences between the several states, and representation of the people requires local control of representation by the people. National political parties have circumvented that concept. National parties enact, through control of the legislatures of the states, national policy, controlled by interests other than the people of the state. In recent decades, this has become overt: billions of dollars spent by the national party flood and dominate local elections. Money not from the people of that state. In many states, The Party has control of the courts, too. More recently we've seen The Party also in control of the electoral process in many states. And what we see is a national agenda being enacted without regard for the people of the individual states.
What we've been seeing for several decades (at least 4) is an attack on this independence of the several states, the very foundation of our republic. The outrage over USSC decisions that reject the role of the court to create national legislation from the bench, and restore the states' responsibilities to legislate per local and regional interests, is characterized as disaster. There is nothing intellectually honest in demanding the courts do what congress and the legislatures of the states refuse to do. But that's where we are: we ask the court to rule to amend the constitution, to enact national law, instead of look to the constitutionally defined process for achieving the desired outcome.
Yes, the courts are not supposed to legislate from the bench, but rather uphold the laws already written. But we have seen this also with Covid. People with no actual authority to enact restrictions and regulations took advantage of the concept of "emergency powers" and basically unilaterally made decisions about the population. We, the population, should have told them to go pound sand.
Yes. But fear and hate are powerful. Using fear and promoting hate are stock and trade of freedom deniers throughout history.
What's disturbing to me are the number of otherwise intelligent seeming people who will argue that the court MUST legislate, and must be stacked with judges and justices that apply their ideological goals over what is actually in law or the constitution. Calling a judge that rules based on the language actually in the law "conservative", or "constructionist". When we should calls such a judge "competent". These folks overlook the role of legislators, misstate the role of the constitution. They seek to circumvent, rather than acknowledge that there is a right way to achieve what they desire. Mostly because they know the majority would not be with them if they subjected their arguments to the light of day.