Who again wants ten percent less democracy?

The Prospect has identified 30 meaningful executive actions, all derived from authority in specific statutes, which could be implemented on Day One by a new president. These would not be executive orders, much less abuses of authority, but strategic exercise of legitimate presidential power.

Without signing a single new law, the next president can lower prescription drug prices, cancel student debt, break up the big banks, give everybody who wants one a bank account, counteract the dominance of monopoly power, protect farmers from price discrimination and unfair dealing, force divestment from fossil fuel projects, close a slew of tax loopholes, hold crooked CEOs accountable, mandate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, allow the effective legalization of marijuana, make it easier for 800,000 workers to join a union, and much, much more. We have compiled a series of essays to explain precisely how, and under what authority, the next president can accomplish all this.

Here is more from David Dayen.  Here is my previous post on the forthcoming Garett Jones book.

Comments

Such a person would be drunk on power. That this is Dayen isn't surprising at all.

“Without signing a single new law, the next president can lower prescription drug prices, cancel student debt, break up the big banks, give everybody who wants one a bank account, counteract the dominance of monopoly power, protect farmers from price discrimination and unfair dealing, force divestment from fossil fuel projects, close a slew of tax loopholes, hold crooked CEOs accountable, mandate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, allow the effective legalization of marijuana, make it easier for 800,000 workers to join a union, and much, much more. “

No thanks.

Too bad the deplorables derailed the march to our glorious, collectivist future.

Hail the Deplorables!

"Deplorables" should be capitalized.

Yeah, much better that we be ruled by unaccountable corporations.

True dat. There is literally no way I can avoid buying from Amazon. They are completely unaccountable to anyone! I mean, if the government lets me down, I can just stop paying my taxes, and you better believe they'll clean up their act real fast. But Amazon -- we have no power over them at all!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Someone thinks the US Constitution allows an elected dictatorship.

Six more years! Six more years!

Red herring, red herring.

Depends on how one evaluates what our president says, for example on April 27, 2019, as noted in the link below - 'President Trump promised supporters at a campaign rally on Saturday night that he would “be very happy” if he was able to serve six more years in the White House.

“I promise at the end of six years, I’ll be very happy,” Trump said, according to CNN. “But you’re going to be left with the strongest country you’ve ever had.”

Trump also mocked those he said have cast doubt about whether he would leave after two terms.

“They don’t believe I’m leaving in six years,” Trump said, while also mocking others saying things like “he wants to extend” and “he wants to have the presidency for life.”

Wow, he is rounding up 5 years and 9 months to 6 years. Impeach!

I am generally a believer in unmoderated comments sections, Prior, but you are the one argument for doing so. I don't think I have seen a single commenter who has done more the destroy a comments section than you have done here at this site. You might well be the single most destructive troll ever.

'You might well be the single most destructive troll ever.'

Even for the MR comments section, that is a truly hilarious and truly inaccurate observation.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Seriously, what was wrong about the "6 more years"? Is it that it is more than the 5 years 9 months that was legally possible, or was that you just didn't know how long he had been President in April 2019? I wouldn't normally think a person couldn't add and subtract, but who knows with you?

'Seriously, what was wrong about the "6 more years"'

Because it fits into this patten, as noted in early May 2019? 'President Donald Trump on Sunday night retweeted conservative religious leader Jerry Falwell Jr., who said the president should have two years added to his first term “as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup,” referencing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s lengthy investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

While the move would be an unconstitutional power grab, Falwell referred to the extension of the president’s term as a form of “reparations,” a troublesome nod to current ongoing discussions within the Democratic Party about whether the U.S. government should pay reparations to the descendants of formerly enslaved people.

Trump then went on a tweet storm of his own, arguing that “they have stolen two years of my (our) Presidency.” In a follow up tweet, the president added, “The Witch Hunt is over but we will never forget.”'https://fortune.com/2019/05/06/donald-trump-presidential-term-limit/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The America-hating crazies hindered President Trump's first two-and-a-half years. He should have that time added to his second term.

Right. Republican House and Republican Senate. The worlds greatest dealmaker in history couldn't make a deal with his own party. Sad.

Respond

Add Comment

Always enjoy quoting comments here - 'He should have that time added to his second term.' goes so amusingly with 'Someone thinks the US Constitution allows an elected dictatorship.'

Because what the Dems promise to do to us (take away our affordable gas cars and home heating oil, our jobs, our tax cuts, our health care, etc.) nearly is an elected dictatorship and too horrid to contemplate.

In your view, Trump should be on the UAW picket lines fighting for higher wages and benefits and more full time permanent workers because that will cut GM's costs?

After all, Trump is claiming that cutting costs will create more higher paying jobs by lowering energy costs,, by eliminating the need to pay workers to clean up coal power plant air and water emissions, ending the requirement coal mining companies pay workers to reclaim the land to productive forests and farm land, to end the paying of factory workers manufacturing and constructing gas, solar, and wind power generation that close coal plants built by workers now either dead of claiming Social Security annd Medicare.

Cost cutting is never accomplished in my experience by eliminating profits, but always by killing jobs and slashing pay and benefits.

The wind and solar industry has created jobs only by increasing their costs to consumers, by increasing their share of GDP and total labor costs in much higher construction and operating costs.

The cost has been to the rent seekers doing everything to keep old coal mining and coal burning capital operating, capital built by paying workers who are dead or retired, mostly paid before 1985 to build the coal capital.

You might be one of the retired workers who got rich compared to those born since 1990 who is now living on Social Security, Medicare, and union pension benefits, thinking, "I got mine, and I'll be damned if I'm a fool like my parents and grandparents who paid me to work. Paying my kids and grandkids to work costs too much!"

A number of places, notably Germany and South Australia, have gone all in for renewable energy. The result was very bad in Germany, and in South Australia catastrophic, with businesses fleeing South Australia in large numbers due to expensive energy and frequent brownouts and blackouts. The lengthy and frequent blackouts were intolerable for the public.

The problem is that large scale wind and solar projects are never built with any real intention to generate power from wind, but to generate holiness from wind, and money and power from holiness.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming is a religious scam, and never does it become more obvious it was always consciously intended as a scam than when we let you guys loose on the power grid.

The plan was always to destroy industrial civilization in order to shake few bucks out of the power grid, like Black Lives Matter burning down a supermarket to steal a case of beer.

Thank you! It's pretty strange how we allow Democrats to walk around free when all every one of them wants to do is destroy America.

I'm ready though. Plenty of ammo.

#MAGA2020

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Doesn't more democracy mean less presidential power? Or else Xi Jinping's lifetime appointment counts for democracy which it clearly does not. All those powers listed read as autocratic to me.

Tyler is using the term "democracy" more narrowly here. Clearly the extent of the executive branch's power says nothing about how representative it is of the will of its citizens.

No less an expert than Michael Bloomberg decreed Xi is not a dictator since he answers to a constituency.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I want 100% less democracy where I get to be God-Emperor for life. I also want 100% less Democrats!

Respond

Add Comment

And pigs might fly also...

Respond

Add Comment

The President also has the power to shut down the government as we saw earlier in the year.

Respond

Add Comment

Wow - talk about assembling in one place a list of all the worst ideas around at the moment.

Not all of them.

Six more years! Six more years!

Bring on the 21st Century Great Depression!

Totally unsustainable government, corporate, and individual debt, like during the 1920s. (Only the Federal government paid off debt, State and local governments ran up debt building public capital to boost their economy by creating jobs, which is NOT deficit spending. No one says a household buying a house with debt is spending wastefully and running a massive household deficit, even when they couldn't pay principle, or interest, back in the Bush years.)

Trump is determined to make China Great by ensuring it leads the world in the industries of the 21st century while Trump tries to bring back 19th century industries in the US. Coal's glory years were in the 19th century building the railroads, with the need for high grade steel rail paving the way for the metals era of the 20th century build on electric powered metal refining. It was hydropower that powered the booming aluminum industry that killed the future of the US steel industry based on 19th century technology. Modern steel refining using coke required building totally new steel mills, and the US steel industry was unwilling to sacrifice profits to pay workers to build new steel mills. Then competition forced down prices so they had no profits, and ended up cutting costs by first killing jobs, then going bankrupt. Profits were cut only by ceasing business.

Trump is trying to recreate the economy of his unaccompanied minor grandfather who criminally came to the US for economic reasons, never intending to stay, a man who never became an American, forced to live in the US because his native country forced him to leave for his crime of unpatriotic failure to serve his country. An era when immigrants were able to get land redistributed by government from the people descended from those born here a thousand years ago.

A big reason for the crisis was the government ran out of land to give away to boost the economy. Trump wants to have government land redistribution so people like his family can profit, keeping up the family business.

But who is going to support Trump land redistribution when GOP voters own so much of the land Trump wants to profit from?

The GOP in the 20s screwed GOP voters so bad they became Democratic voters. Those were Trump family glory years.

Trump is trying to repeat the 20s.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

How does the power of the executive tell you anything about democracy? Isn’t representative democracy supposed to be people voting for a representative who then makes decisions on their behalf? How is it more (or less) democratic for this power to be in the hands of one versus many elected officials?

'How does the power of the executive tell you anything about democracy?'

It doesn't, especially in a country with a written Constitution, whose system of checks and balances will soon be put on full display.

In sharp contrast to the UK, where there is speculation that the Prime Minister will simply declare himself emergency powers, and there is apparently little anyone can do to stop him.

However much I dislike him, I have to clarify that the emergency powers Johnson might exercise are laid out in statute. (Which is why it won't work. Unlike the American equivalent, the British Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is very strict about what is and isn't an emergency, and something you are planning for months in advance is not an emergency.)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Not exactly. Party democracy is about people voting for political parties, which form a government by commanding a majority of elected delegates and which then act for the public in general and their electors in specifics.

It's not, for ex, about electing some set of representatives who do as they please and broadly interpret their duties as acting in public interest, even forming a cross party government that goes around issuing legislation without any popular mandate or attempt to responsibility (which is what there currently is in the UK).

'Party democracy is about people voting for political parties'

And it is only one form of democracy, and in the UK version, the executive is not clearly defined - though Johnson seems poised to redefine the role of Parliament as subordinate to the will of the Prime Minister, even though he does not actually command a majority of elected delegates. Only a cynical person would suggest that it is the fact that Johnson lacks that majority which is causing him to act in such a fashion.

Johnson isn't seeking to gain dictatorial or parliament subordinating powers (where are you getting this idea from?). He's seeking to hold an election to boot the rebel Tories who've formed a govt with the opposition from their seats, and gain a Tory majority again.

As well ejected from their seats they ought to be, having betrayed profoundly their electors (who elected delegates from specific parties) and having lost their electoral mandate.

'where are you getting this idea from?'

The way he, and many around him, have been talking about ignoring the abject capitulation act.

'having betrayed profoundly their electors'

Hard as it might be imagine, many Tories remain opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Admittedly, fewer Tories than in the past, but that tends to be the result of kicking party members out in a purge, especially when those party members were actually elected to their seats by constituents fully supporting the position of the elected member. As can be seen in that case by Mid Sussex voting 53.1% Remain, while represented by the (former) Tory Sir Arthur Nicholas Winston Soames, MP. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results/local/m

Look, you can try as desperately as possible to argue that an elected member of Parliament is stabbing his nation in the back by following the will of the people that actually elected him, but really, isn't that idea just a bit too far fetched when looking at reality?

Prior, firstly the issue is whether the MP has kept their faith with the voters who elected them, not the majority opinion in their constituency which may not have (First Past The Post being what it is!).

The second is that you have cherry picked one constituency.

Finally "stabbed in the back" is fairly clearly an act of putting Nazi words into my mouth, a fairly transparent one, one I would not stoop for instance when encountering numerous left and center claims that leading Brexiteers were malign figures betraying their nation (with some dark talk about "disaster capitalism", usually or a "Singapore model").

Imagine the UK had a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn, and a cohort of Labour MPs, elected as labour parties, defected from his party to ally with a minority Tories on a key vote on which their party was almost unanimous, they were expelled from Labour, and this coalition took control of the parliamentary order and issued legislation along its preferred programme, with no mandate of having won an election as party, refusing to hold a general election. It would not be hard to see such a group as having betrayed and broken trust with the people who had elected them as Labour members, and certainly a betrayal of democracy.

And in this case, even more so this is backed by a popular referendum, confirmed by an election!

'Prior, firstly the issue is whether the MP has kept their faith with the voters who elected them'

Soames clearly did, as can be seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_Sussex_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29 - Nicholas Soames, 35,082 votes, 56.9% of the vote, an increase of 0.8% I honestly thought that was obvious, actually, as he is a current MP (not the increase, perhaps).

'The second is that you have cherry picked one constituency. '

No, I simply picked a prominent example of a Tory representing his district being thrown out of the Conservative Party for doing exactly the same thing did Boris Johnson did, when voting against the then government's withdrawal agreement. Almost as if the real cherry picking involved who gets thrown out or not of the Conservative Party when voting against its policies.

'Finally "stabbed in the back" is fairly clearly an act of putting Nazi words into my mouth'

I am not really sure how to put this to you, but many Germans believed that before the Nazis ever rose to even the most minor position of power. 'The stab-in-the-back myth, literally "dagger stab myth" was the notion, widely believed and promulgated in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19. Advocates denounced the German government leaders who signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, as the "November Criminals" (German: November­verbrecher).' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth The Nazis get far too much credit for originality - much the same way that the Nazis imported a lot of their eugenics framework from laws passed in my home state of Virginia in the 1920s (which for some reason, this web site does not like wikipedia links to). Further, the Nazis get far too much (convenient, a cynic might say) blame for the rhetoric and actions that were actually part of the German political mainstream before the Nazis gained even the smallest modicum of power. That such rhetoric and actions were necessary to the actual rise of the Nazis also seems (conveniently, a cynic might say) forgotten.

'and certainly a betrayal of democracy'

We completely disagree, but then I was taught that a nation actually represents higher ideals than any single political party can ever represent. And that at times, one must place the nation before political party.

'And in this case, even more so this is backed by a popular referendum, confirmed by an election!'

It is obvious that a majority of British voters did not , nor ever intended to, vote for a no deal Brexit. Which may explain why for some, it is necessary to shout ever more loudly about democracy being betrayed, even as they ignore its functioning.

Brexit can not come too soon - and at least Johnson is reaching out to EU member states to get a veto of an extension, assuming he finally capitulates abjectly to Parliament.

Prior, you've gone from "Soames constituency was 53% Remain" and "Soaked got 56% of the vote share in a General Election" without asking if that 56% GE share voted net Remain. They probably did not, and Soames will have quite broken his compact with his actual electors, and in a General Election would be duly "rewarded".

You can of course argue that loyalty to conscience and high ideals are higher than party, but that does not give anyone the right to continue in a job to which you were elected on party, without being tossed out by the people who elected you on party, much less to continue to use that position to form an unelected government that betrays that party. A man of conscience would resign and abstain, not continue to betray what people elected him to act as a delegate for.

There is no analogy between the very few MPs who have formed an alliance with the Labour Party to compel the government to a poor negotiating strategy (with the aim of killing the whole thing) and the very many who believed May's WA was badly negotiated.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

A bunch of executive orders issued at the behest of experts in their fields without public support, as this, is indeed 10% (or more) less democracy.

A bunch of executive orders issued at the behest of cuckservatives without public support, as this, is indeed 10% (or more) less democracy.

To pass Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

Now to impeach, we have to not officially vote to open the inquiry and go on vacation.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Asking whether one prefers democracy, defined in this case as majoritarianism, or limited government is like asking whether one prefers football or the Boston Red Sox. Would any of those 30 actions be better if done by an unelected monarch or politburo of elites? Plenty of unelected officials have abused their powers too.

Yes, government's powers should be properly limited and due process should be required to avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions. That's true whether policy is set by elected officials or unelected bureaucrats.

One can ask whether one prefers baseball over football or the Red Sox over the Yankees. Comparing football to the Red Sox? Not so meaningful. Similarly, one can debate the proper limits of government power. Having determined those powers, one can ask separately whether the powers should be exercised by elected or unelected officials.

Respond

Add Comment

Recall that conservatives promote the unitary executive theory. I suspect these "30 meaningful executive actions" are, well, executive. For example, the executive could negotiate drug prices paid by Medicare. Or break up big banks if they posed a serious threat to the nation's financial stability (although the required proof would likely be high). And so on. More concerning would be an executive who exercises the unitary executive authority selectively to punish political enemies and reward political friends. Political enemies like the entire state of California. Of course, no president would do that, and no political party would stand by and allow the president of the same party to do that.

Ross Douthat is suggesting in his column today that impeachment of the peach one (that's MoDo's description, not Ross's) provides an opportunity for Republicans to get rid of Trump and save the party (and the nation?) from the debacle that will likely follow Trump. One will recall that Democrats are often called upon to save Republicans (and the nation) from themselves, from mushrooming debt to financial and economic crises. Republicans behave like children because they can: like the spoiled child with the parent who always rescues the child from calamity. How many times did Trump's father rescue Trump from calamity.

MR is a funny place, where such discussions must always be held in the abstract.

At least until there is a Democratic administration (or candidate) to oppose in detail.

A large part of the Federalist society supports the theory of unitary executive, yes. But it doesn’t mean what you believe it to mean.

In fact they would support the opposite. Congress cannot cede its authority to the executive branch.

Chevron much?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Ross Douthat is suggesting in his column today that impeachment of the peach one (that's MoDo's description, not Ross's) provides an opportunity for Republicans to get rid of Trump and save the party (and the nation?) from the debacle that will likely follow Trump.

Douthat's entire work history since age 22 has consisted of (1) self-employment as a writer and (2) employment as the 'house conservative' working for liberal publications. He knows nothing of workaday political life. And he's not paid to make sense. He's paid to not irritate the publication's liberal readership, and to provide them with emotional validation now and again. (The more astute liberals recognize nonsense when they read it).

Respond

Add Comment

Projection has always been a democrat trait. BTW, Trump's father - was he ever worth more than 5% than his son is now?

'was he ever worth more than 5% than his son is now'

Absolutely, not even including inflation. Trump probably is worth somewhere between 3 to 4 billion dollars. His father's estate was estimated at around 250 to 300 million dollars at his death in 1999.

Admittedly, Fred Trump provided tens of millions of dollars to Donald Trump, so one should take that into account.

Nonetheless, 10% seems like a nice round figure, especially when taking into account that much of President Trump's initial wealth came directly from his father.

The real question is ceteris paribus.

If Trump’s KKK daddy had cloned himself instead of marrying an alcoholic bimbo, what would the family fortune be? I would venture to guess much higher.

They inherited the criminal aspect without any of the guile or business acumen. Obamas and Bidens have demonstrated infinitely more business acumen than the Trumps.

From zero to hundreds of millions of dollars, Obama and Biden families are the real American success story. Trump would have fared better with blindly investing in ETFs.

Hunter Biden has a dishonorable discharge from the military and yet is paid millions of dollars a year. Business smarts.

Respond

Add Comment

Trump is not worth $3-4 billion, that's what he would like us to think. He may not even be worth $1 billion. He puts a lot more value on his brand than is really there, especially now that he's ruined it (by taking it downscale from chintzy glitzy to NASCAR).

The main reason he doesn't want us to see his tax returns is precisely that, they will prove his smaller net worth.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

>Recall that conservatives promote the unitary executive theory.

Unitary executive theory not increase executive power. It's about who controls that power: the President vs. heads of 'independent agency.'

If anything, a unified executive would modestly decrease total executive power in that it would make all executive power subject to political controls.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Without signing a single new law, the next president can lower prescription drug prices, cancel student debt, break up the big banks, give everybody who wants one a bank account, counteract the dominance of monopoly power, protect farmers from price discrimination and unfair dealing, force divestment from fossil fuel projects, close a slew of tax loopholes, hold crooked CEOs accountable, mandate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, allow the effective legalization of marijuana, make it easier for 800,000 workers to join a union, and much, much more. We have compiled a series of essays to explain precisely how, and under what authority, the next president can accomplish all this.

I'd check his work on these assertions.

The real problem we have is that our elected legislatures tend to be set up to protect the turf of insiders rather than to ... enact legislation and appropriate public money. This is most grossly manifest in the U.S. Congress. Also, separations of powers, bicameralism, and judicial officiousness tends to empower obstructive veto groups. Local governments are bound like Gulliver by a complex of state law (legitimately), federal funding constraints (not legitimately) and court decrees (often illegitimately). The federal legislature persistently refuses to stay in its lane and the federal courts (who make all sorts of absurd decisions) refuse to enforce black-letter constitutional provisions which would require Congress respect its appointed jurisdiction. The federal executive is a disorganized mess and the number of federal appointments who have to be reviewed by the U.S. Senate is absurd.

Yawn. And yet California continues to provide an engine of opportunity and growth, with well funded public universities and efficient government services. And high speed rail.

The Trumpistas cry and panic about brown American citizens and undocumented brown citizens. California pulls up her sleeves and funds almost half the federal government apparatus while taking nothing in return. And creates the largest percentage of middle class population of any state.

When I was a Republican we used to admonish the defeatist attitude. That was left for the Dems. Here we have a state pulling itself up by its own bootstraps with the largest budget surplus of any state. And providing government services which are the envy of every other state.

And we have an Alabaman complaint here which amounts to : the Feds let blacks vote. States rights !

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

But notice that Cowen presents this as a question: Who again wants ten percent less democracy? Who, indeed. My impression is that Cowen isn't a big fan of democracy. The entire public choice project is because democracy. Populism derives from "the people", yet today's populism isn't. "The people" don't want more democracy (if they did Democrats would control all three branches of government), they want an authoritarian to stick it to the "elites" (the "elites" being whomever they dislike). I recall back in the final days of the GWB administration thinking that the American heartland would punish Republicans, young men and women from the heartland having suffered disproportionately because of the war and the financial crisis. Yea, one election cycle. Until Pearl Harbor, populism was represented by America First, which opposed American involvement in the fight against fascism; only 42% of Americans supported entry into the war before Pearl Harbor, even if presented as defeat of GB and France if we didn't. Democracy is great when people are motivated by the better angels of our nature; unfortunately, they are often motivated by demons.

Respond

Add Comment

Ah, but could he raise prescription drug prices, make student debt more onerous, encourage the merger of big banks, deny everybody who wants one a bank account, amplify dominance of monopoly power, subject farmers to price discrimination and unfair dealing, force investment in fossil fuel projects, widen a slew of tax loopholes, hold crooked ex-VPs accountable, mandate increases of greenhouse gas emissions, allow the effective legalization of heroin, make it harder for 800,000 workers to join a union, ...?

And would anybody notice?

Respond

Add Comment

The most generous reading of this link and excerpt is "you have made your imperial-presidential bed, now lie in it."

But that generous version is accepting a lot of defeat, for constitutional democracy in America.

For what it's worth, the darkest possible meaning is "sure it's bad to have a president compromised by a foreign power, but that's not as bad as free college!"

Respond

Add Comment

I read a headline this week: "Labour set to give all foreign nationals living in UK right to vote in general elections for first time."

Help me out, brainiacs and mathletes - I can't make out whether this amounts to wanting 10% more or 10% less democracy.

Excellent question to which I don't have an answer.

What I find interesting in all this is how far some people are willing to push constitutional government away from equilibrium to win a transient political battle.

There is wisdom in the old bromide "be careful what you wish for, you might get it".

My instinctive feeling is that enfranchising the world will be about as meaningful, in a positive direction, as sitting in a room with some people you don't know very well; and a whiteboard, and somebody armed with a whiteboard marker - who, it tediously becomes apparent, neither hears nor spells very well - asking for input from everyone as she wildly jots words in a word cloud, proclaiming "good!" after each, or periodically, "I think Mary already said that one? We've kind of got that one already, but that's a very good one."

But I may just have a bad attitude.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't really understand who the rhetorical question is aimed at either. My guess is that it's a swipe at hypocrites who would support a more powerful executive branch if they thought they were enabling a benevolent dictator instead of the guy we have.
I sympathize, but from a long game perspective don't we need to make it clear that the ends don't justify the means? The GOP policy gains of the past three years were achieved by contemptible and likely illegitimate means and if they are rewarded with President Warren and a Democratic congress, that is probably healthy for the country at this point.
Really, the hypocrites to watch out for are the ones who after years of clear-cutting norms in their own political interest are suddenly in favor of re-constraining the executive branch in 2020.

Again with the liberal projection. After 8 years of Obama we're the hypocrites? lol.

Agreed. N was onto something until he went full tribal in the second paragraph. We are all equal vulnerable to tribalism. We can see it clearly in others but not ourselves.

Criminals are not a tribe, and suggesting that they be punished is not tribalism.

And stating tribes are criminals that must be punished is.....

We are guilty, but we are a tribe.

Loophole!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Lots of rhetoric, no facts. Leftist comments are taken at face value. Conservative comments are assigned a cynical purpose, deconstructed and dis believed.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

No. I just want to tweak it a little, like term limits for Congress.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment