Liberals need to start planning for a post-authoritarian future and rebuilding stronger institutions that a rogue president can’t so easily take over and weaponize again
If a peaceful protest of 7 million doesn’t get their attention, how about a one day national strike? Exclude hospitals and essential services, but a way to say to our House and Senate, “you work, or we don’t either.”
Andy, your plan is wise and welcome. Thank you Also, by envisioning the situation we strive to create, we already live in it psychologically, so this is helpful in multiple ways
Greetings from The Netherlands. I had a look at many photos and videos in the Dutch media, the NYT and The Atlantic from your No King's Day. What puzzles me is this: where are the young ones? It looks like mostly boomers and Vietnam-protesters are on the streets. And next it does not look very serious, rather "fun to be here, like the good old 70's". Am I right?
Hello from Nevada. I went to a Carson City protest. I saw people from all age groups, young to old and everything in between. Much of it was joyous to the point of silliness but not without reason. Mocking an authoritarian is a classic way of riling him. Also, the regime is trying to falsely portray the protest movement as dark and ominous, but really we are just everyday Americans, so smart people resisting the regime (with increased effect and decreased)risk) advised their fellow protestors to wear cheerful costumes, and we did.
Getting the younger generations engaged is something that needs to be worked on, for sure. They have become distrustful of government (with good reason). We absolutely need to get younger people in power to address the needs of them. The old cronies aren't hearing them.
Ah, that's a great picture: fools and jesters speaking truth to power! The angry and serious- meaning IMO anxious- men have always been afraid of a good laugh, of the sound of the Jester's little bells! It's a very powerful message to kings and caesars.
Any list of people you'd be smart not to disagree with includes Andy Craig. Bravo Andy! You are exactly right. The way forward is forward, not wistful looking back. That's how you turn into a pillar of salt.
I think a useful first step that doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment would be amending the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that capped the House of Representatives at 435 when our country had “only” 106 million people. Today we have 347 million. Having more representatives would bring them back to a much closer relationship to their constituents. It would also give more populated areas more voice than they currently have compared with the power of the rural vote, which is why I’m sure this will be controversial.
This comment is written from New Zealand, where we do not have a President and we have 5 main political parties - AND A DEMOCRACY THAT IS STILL AN UNDEMOCRATIC SHAMBLES. I recently wrote the following about the New Zealand political situation ...
As a young businessman, all the business books I read taught me that being competitive was the be-all and end-all of business success. Fifty years wiser, I now think that our culture’s emphasis on competing to win is wrong. I accept that friendly competition in an activity that could lead to an individual improving their fitness, skill or knowledge can be beneficial – subject to the caveat that “winning” is not rewarded. As I see things now, “winning” is the harmful part because for someone to win at least one person (and often many) have to lose. Often the winner also becomes a loser at a later time because the cost of “winning” was too high. As examples; the rugby player who gets concussed and becomes a mental zombie in their later years, or the businessperson who works too hard, habitually shortens sleep and ends up with insomnia and depression.
With the benefit of hindsight, I now believe that basing democratic governments on competing political parties is completely dumb. Such a system of government is inherently biased towards creating “winners” and “losers”. And, as happens in sports such as marathons, the end result is an awful lot more “losers” than “winners”. While some might assert that competition is necessary to spur innovation and improvements to living standards, my belief is that innovations and improvements mostly occur because an individual just happens to think a novel thought. As examples, I can’t imagine the concept of the wheel arising from a competitive endeavor, nor can I imagine a competition spurring Sir Ernest Rutherford to invent the nuclear model of the atom.
If other readers agree that basing our democratic government on competing political parties is illogical, what innovative improvements could be made? As thought starters, I suggest the following:
1) Limit donations to political parties to a small amount, while also creating a government funded website for every electorate to provide equal opportunity marketing for every candidate wishing to stand as an MP.
2) Implement elections that “roll” around the country every month by dividing the country into 72 electorates, with 2 geographically disparate electorates voting on a rotating basis every month of the year. In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term. (There would be no “Party votes” as under MMP.)
3) Support every MP by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from the MP’s electorate and allow the CAG to fire the MP if at least 80% of CAG members consider that the MP is not meeting the local community’s expectations.
4) Require a minimum consensus for the passing of votes in parliament to be 80% or more.
The end result should be a less competitive parliament more representative of the general population. More importantly, parliament would be subject to refreshment on a monthly basis. If some MPs are getting things wrong in the public’s view, parliament’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months (and as rogue MPs get fired by their electorate).
Can someone point out to me the passage in the Constitution that gives a single man the power to keep the people's House out of session indefinitely for his own political ends?
That's another thing we need to fix. And there needs to be rules that say the speaker can't refuse to swear in a duly elected house representative within a week of the election that they won. The fact that they refuse to is reprehensible.
If a peaceful protest of 7 million doesn’t get their attention, how about a one day national strike? Exclude hospitals and essential services, but a way to say to our House and Senate, “you work, or we don’t either.”
Andy, your plan is wise and welcome. Thank you Also, by envisioning the situation we strive to create, we already live in it psychologically, so this is helpful in multiple ways
Greetings from The Netherlands. I had a look at many photos and videos in the Dutch media, the NYT and The Atlantic from your No King's Day. What puzzles me is this: where are the young ones? It looks like mostly boomers and Vietnam-protesters are on the streets. And next it does not look very serious, rather "fun to be here, like the good old 70's". Am I right?
Hello from Nevada. I went to a Carson City protest. I saw people from all age groups, young to old and everything in between. Much of it was joyous to the point of silliness but not without reason. Mocking an authoritarian is a classic way of riling him. Also, the regime is trying to falsely portray the protest movement as dark and ominous, but really we are just everyday Americans, so smart people resisting the regime (with increased effect and decreased)risk) advised their fellow protestors to wear cheerful costumes, and we did.
Getting the younger generations engaged is something that needs to be worked on, for sure. They have become distrustful of government (with good reason). We absolutely need to get younger people in power to address the needs of them. The old cronies aren't hearing them.
Ah, that's a great picture: fools and jesters speaking truth to power! The angry and serious- meaning IMO anxious- men have always been afraid of a good laugh, of the sound of the Jester's little bells! It's a very powerful message to kings and caesars.
I like how you phrased that. Yes!
Any list of people you'd be smart not to disagree with includes Andy Craig. Bravo Andy! You are exactly right. The way forward is forward, not wistful looking back. That's how you turn into a pillar of salt.
Question. Agreeing we need reconstruction, do we also need a Nuremberg?
I think a useful first step that doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment would be amending the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that capped the House of Representatives at 435 when our country had “only” 106 million people. Today we have 347 million. Having more representatives would bring them back to a much closer relationship to their constituents. It would also give more populated areas more voice than they currently have compared with the power of the rural vote, which is why I’m sure this will be controversial.
This comment is written from New Zealand, where we do not have a President and we have 5 main political parties - AND A DEMOCRACY THAT IS STILL AN UNDEMOCRATIC SHAMBLES. I recently wrote the following about the New Zealand political situation ...
As a young businessman, all the business books I read taught me that being competitive was the be-all and end-all of business success. Fifty years wiser, I now think that our culture’s emphasis on competing to win is wrong. I accept that friendly competition in an activity that could lead to an individual improving their fitness, skill or knowledge can be beneficial – subject to the caveat that “winning” is not rewarded. As I see things now, “winning” is the harmful part because for someone to win at least one person (and often many) have to lose. Often the winner also becomes a loser at a later time because the cost of “winning” was too high. As examples; the rugby player who gets concussed and becomes a mental zombie in their later years, or the businessperson who works too hard, habitually shortens sleep and ends up with insomnia and depression.
With the benefit of hindsight, I now believe that basing democratic governments on competing political parties is completely dumb. Such a system of government is inherently biased towards creating “winners” and “losers”. And, as happens in sports such as marathons, the end result is an awful lot more “losers” than “winners”. While some might assert that competition is necessary to spur innovation and improvements to living standards, my belief is that innovations and improvements mostly occur because an individual just happens to think a novel thought. As examples, I can’t imagine the concept of the wheel arising from a competitive endeavor, nor can I imagine a competition spurring Sir Ernest Rutherford to invent the nuclear model of the atom.
If other readers agree that basing our democratic government on competing political parties is illogical, what innovative improvements could be made? As thought starters, I suggest the following:
1) Limit donations to political parties to a small amount, while also creating a government funded website for every electorate to provide equal opportunity marketing for every candidate wishing to stand as an MP.
2) Implement elections that “roll” around the country every month by dividing the country into 72 electorates, with 2 geographically disparate electorates voting on a rotating basis every month of the year. In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term. (There would be no “Party votes” as under MMP.)
3) Support every MP by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from the MP’s electorate and allow the CAG to fire the MP if at least 80% of CAG members consider that the MP is not meeting the local community’s expectations.
4) Require a minimum consensus for the passing of votes in parliament to be 80% or more.
The end result should be a less competitive parliament more representative of the general population. More importantly, parliament would be subject to refreshment on a monthly basis. If some MPs are getting things wrong in the public’s view, parliament’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months (and as rogue MPs get fired by their electorate).
Can someone point out to me the passage in the Constitution that gives a single man the power to keep the people's House out of session indefinitely for his own political ends?
That's another thing we need to fix. And there needs to be rules that say the speaker can't refuse to swear in a duly elected house representative within a week of the election that they won. The fact that they refuse to is reprehensible.
As someone who was sentient during Bush, Obama, and Biden, I would welcome a movement such as this. Assuming it’s sincere.