For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

...

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were given their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.

I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

Not entirely true this session. I believe the Dems have the state Senate. BTW this sort of thing is purely a product of partisan redistricting effort and you will therefore have the national party machine in the picture regardless of the changes you make.You're right the Dems did manage to slide a couple more seats in there.

There will always be the partisan redistricting going on. Overall the more things are localized, or in the case of term limits, power spread out over time with different people, it makes the national party machines/lobbyists/special interests jobs harder and requires them to burn up more resources....thereby weakening their influence. Once folks see the reduced power of the RNC/DNC, you'll also see their contribution levels drop, weakening them further.

He's half-white Ivy League educated black guy. What exactly did people expect him to do? Transform race relations in America? And if he isn't helping it how is he hurting it? Whatever you do someone is going to be upset. To tell you the truth when I think of Obama his race (if you can call mixed a race) is just another fact and nothing more.

And that's the way race should be treated across the board. Sadly, it's not that way and probably never will be.

I agree that he has been ill served by his inner circle, but I don't think I would have another group at my finger tips come 2012. David Plouffe is more or less running the re-election effort. So he's not involved in the day-to-day inner workings of the White House or advising on policy. Speaking of which, it takes somebody to beat somebody. And despite the hiccups we've had, Sarah Palin is still the front runner for the GOP 2012. That's great news. I've said it before, but there's no way she'll turn down the opportunity to bash and face Obama in 2012. She's just too in love with herself. On Obama's worst day, he'll beat her by a safe margin.

But my money isn't so much on Obama, as it is on David Plouffe. I've met him before, as all the others, been a few conference calls (national) with him, and I don't think there's a brighter mind out there when it comes to running a campaign.

My disenchantment is fairly specific, not across the board. In terms of policy and keeping campaign promises, he's doing pretty darn good. Although they're not getting enough credit.

I wouldn't be so sure about all that. His support amongst independents is plummeting. Last July, 52% would have supported him in 2012, that number has plummeted to 36% currently. In fact more independents (39%) would vote for an unnamed Republican than would vote for Obama. Those numbers have to concern Plouffe. The honeymoon has been over for a while.

You say it takes someone to beat someone. I wonder what would happen if Newt decides to run in 2012?

National (US) Poll * July 21, 2010 * Obama Approval Drops To Lowest - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1478)

I agree with both bolded statements.

Interestingly, according to the Wikipedia article on the 17th Amendment, one of the arguments being advanced for its repeal - Senators are captives to special interests - was one of the reasons it was enacted in the first place.

This makes sense. One point I think every person here (yes TTE and JTF also) will agree and concede. Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".

This is why I said a cyclical approach would be interesting. When you put a damn in the water, it takes time for the new pathways to be carved, by opening the flood gates on a cycle, you can prevent those pathways from becoming carved to deep. If you had an alternating approach to Senatorial appointments, perhaps the dang lobbyists would not get as much of a chance to take hold.

While typing I wondered: what about a system where the legislature votes in a senator for the first 6 year term (thus having some concept of bringing in locally concerned politicos) and then having a state referendum at the 5 1/2 year mark. If the public votes the senator down, the legislature would then be tasked with appointing a new one at the end of the term.

And that's the way race should be treated across the board. Sadly, it's not that way and probably never will be.

Whats just as sad is the media treatment...they love to fuel the fire. Like that edited tape...didnt anyone analyze it and check the actual facts before reporting it? The media in this country is out of f*ing control. (side note, sadder than this is the fact Obama admin wasnt able to figure it out before firing her)

I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really entitled to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead privileges granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

I agree, the thing is over time those peddlers develop ways to do it, so, if we changed it now, at some point in the future we would need it changed again...

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really entitled to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead privileges granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

Well said.