Let’s start here, understanding that fundamentally, we disagree on your view of the (admittedly imperfect) GOP:
It seems to me from what I have seen in years of national surveys, that what people are most concerned about are opportunity, economic security, health, and education.
With this we agree completely. The fundamental concerns which will drive individuals will always be the same. Boy meets girl, girl meets boy, they marry, they have kids, they get “mugged by reality”. From there, they start caring about how to insure prosperity for themselves and their children. (What’s in italics is often ignored by politicians as a motivation.)
So, what they need are jobs, the education required to obtain one of those jobs, the ability to progress towards economic goals (your economic security) and some protection from the things that could indemnify them from reaching those goals (insurance, with health insurance being the big bear in that room.
They are not at all concerned about making sure the very wealthy don’t have to pay taxes or that major corporations don’t have to pay taxes or worry about social and environmental maintenance.
I agree with this too, which is why “everyone else” isn’t overly concerned with the tax rates of the wealthy or the corporations. HOWEVER, those details, MAY OR MAY NOT affect the “opportunity, economic security, health insurance, and education of “everyone else”, which is why they are part of good governance.
The problem is that there is no one to turn to for the things that they are concerned about.
We disagree. Both parties attempt to address this in different ways, which is at the root of our political differences.
- The GOP wishes to address them through promoting a strong economy which produces good paying jobs, thus providing economic security; educational options which meet the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce; and health insurance options which affordably encourage the free market to mitigate costs and individuals to make wise choices regarding their health.
- The Dems wish to address them by increasing taxes on rich individuals and businesses, which would then be redistributed to other individuals, thus providing economic security; education through the public educational system; and blanket health insurance coverage which pays for health care at the point of taxation, not the point of service.
It’s always been pretty simple, in my view.
The simple reality is that radical and corporatist authoritarians are all that we get. I think the majority of the population are moderately libertarian and mildly communitarian.
We agree again.
But the new difference is size. In the old systems the only way you could do a large, tightly integrated state was as an authoritarian structure focused on active exploitation of the planet and people. In one sense our old style states own and control too much and the pretense of democracy is so thin that it disappears. That is the underlying failure that makes people not care.
Spent much time in China? The Chinese, contrary to common belief, talk about politics all the time; just not anti-government politics, if they know what’s good for them. At any rate, you’re making the same argument the Chinese government makes vis a vis socialism and democracy; what they openly say that democracy is great if you have a small country; but China’s NOT a small country, and democracy falls apart with large populations. So, they have to be authoritarians.
They may be right. :-(
I think we need smaller states (metropoles or city states) that do NOT control rights but do control and manage services. If you give these states control of rights centralized power leads to abuse. Rights cannot be political.
Agree again. We’d be much better off with the model we had BEFORE the Great Depression, and/or the Swiss model, where the seat of power is actually the state(s) government, and the Federal government acts to set standards for all, including the determination of rights.
I have argued many times to liberals who break out in a rash at the idea of a weak central government that this model is actually BETTER for 20th century liberalism than they think. Think for a moment; one is one of the constant gripes we hear from the left about state taxation and money? It’s that the industrialized states, most of which are blue, pay more money into federal coffers than they get back in benefit, while the rural states (which used to be mostly blue, but now are mostly red) like Mississippi pay less and gets back more in federal benefits.
If the federal government wasn’t involved in the distribution of taxes, but only in telling the states WHAT THEY MUST FUND (and how much per citizen), then states like New Jersey and New York would be able to LOWER their state tax rates relative to places like Mississippi, who would have to RAISE their tax rates relative to the industrialized states.
(In reality, everyone would be raising taxes. The idea would be that the Fed would get only the money they need to fund functions which can only be administered nationally, and the states would set their own rates to pay for everything else. So, Fed taxes drop substantially, and taxes would be raised by the local jurisdictions.)
This is, as far as I am aware, how it works in Switzerland. They have universal health care, but not because the government runs the system; the government tells the states (cantons) the minimum coverages they must provide, and the the states take it from there.
And that also limits authoritarianism that is the greater danger. To keep this focused, voting is a right. Destroying the value of a vote, logically, makes it worthless. People ignore worthless things.
Yep. This is the primary argument against mass, uncontrolled immigration policies, it should be said.
So that is why I think we have the power to handle direct democracy and must eliminate professional representatives because representatives were the only way to achieve some democracy in the past but is too easily corrupted.
Possibly doable. Lots of devils in those details, though. For some time, the primary reason for NOT doing this could be “the devil we know.”
What I’m really saying is the death of politics. But, when people do it, that is often the route to power of totalitarians who say they will eliminate governmental corruption but simply replace one type with another. People can’t stop playing politics and politics is about power and power must be used.
Well, this is what happened when the SEC was created. Prior to the SEC, the best place for a smart, educated crook to get rich was Wall Street. After the SEC forced a semblance of honesty onto the Street…….the crooks all moved to Washington. :-)