- 14 Oct 2018 11:57
#14953417
A not particularly modest proposal
Just as ancient Gaul was divided into three parts, so the American voters are today divided into the Republicans, the Democrats and the undecided. In the following argument I intend to show that the undecided voters can, and should, play a remarkable and perhaps existential role in ensuring the continuation of a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' in these united states.
Many know the maxim, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' [John Dalberg, Lord Acton.(1834-1902).] The writers of the Constitution of the United States of America also held a similar belief. The understanding that power should be limited shaped certain stipulations in the remarkable document that they created.
The founding fathers, as they are known, were elitists. As such, they were not willing to entrust the power of the vote to the ordinary citizen without safeguards. It was to that end that they created the extraordinary institute, the Electoral College. They also stipulated that the members of the upper [elite] Federal legislative house, the United States Senate, were to be chosen by their fellow political elitists; the members of the legislatures of the several States. These are facts spelled out in the Constitution itself and, as such, are not subject to dispute.
The writers of the Constitution were also well aware of the personal failings of their peers. In a rare example of 'Physician, heal thyself'*, they attempted to forestall the taking over of the entire federal governmental machinery by a single group. The three sections of the Federal government they blueprinted -- the Administration, the Legislature and the Supreme Court -- are a rocks, scissors paper arrangement. Each can act as a restraint on the others through various means.
With the passage of time, political parties came to vie for more and more power. Little by little, they have chipped away at the restraints to the attainment of control of all three branches. The most recent examples are those involving the politicizing of the Supreme Court. It's now possible that a single party, given a charismatic President and the tools of control that have been honed for decades, can control the federal government. Once that has been achieved, there is little that can be done to avoid one party rule, with all it portends.
There are two ways in which such a conclusion to this American experiment in democracy can be avoided. Both entail the votes of the independents. While the two parties continue to cement their voting bases and insure the votes that the bases will deliver, the independents remain free to make a choice. That choice, though, must be informed by an understanding of what is at stake. It is not which party 'wins'. Rather, it is the continuation of our democracy as we know it.
The first and most obvious way for the independent voters to exercise their franchise in the nation's interest is to vote so that the President of the United States can act as an ideological balance. If the Supreme Court and the Legislature are firmly held by one party, the independents should place the Presidency of the United States of America in the hands of the opposing party.
The second, and less obvious, concerns the Legislature. The independent voters should vote so that the two Houses are not controlled by the same party. That, in and of itself, can prove to be a check of sufficient power to avoid a future of single party rule. At the present time, with an off-year federal election less than a month away, the value of such an action by the independent voters of the United States of America is great indeed. It is not known to this humble scribe whether a sufficient number of independent voters are privy to that knowledge.
* Luke 4:23
Just as ancient Gaul was divided into three parts, so the American voters are today divided into the Republicans, the Democrats and the undecided. In the following argument I intend to show that the undecided voters can, and should, play a remarkable and perhaps existential role in ensuring the continuation of a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' in these united states.
Many know the maxim, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' [John Dalberg, Lord Acton.(1834-1902).] The writers of the Constitution of the United States of America also held a similar belief. The understanding that power should be limited shaped certain stipulations in the remarkable document that they created.
The founding fathers, as they are known, were elitists. As such, they were not willing to entrust the power of the vote to the ordinary citizen without safeguards. It was to that end that they created the extraordinary institute, the Electoral College. They also stipulated that the members of the upper [elite] Federal legislative house, the United States Senate, were to be chosen by their fellow political elitists; the members of the legislatures of the several States. These are facts spelled out in the Constitution itself and, as such, are not subject to dispute.
The writers of the Constitution were also well aware of the personal failings of their peers. In a rare example of 'Physician, heal thyself'*, they attempted to forestall the taking over of the entire federal governmental machinery by a single group. The three sections of the Federal government they blueprinted -- the Administration, the Legislature and the Supreme Court -- are a rocks, scissors paper arrangement. Each can act as a restraint on the others through various means.
With the passage of time, political parties came to vie for more and more power. Little by little, they have chipped away at the restraints to the attainment of control of all three branches. The most recent examples are those involving the politicizing of the Supreme Court. It's now possible that a single party, given a charismatic President and the tools of control that have been honed for decades, can control the federal government. Once that has been achieved, there is little that can be done to avoid one party rule, with all it portends.
There are two ways in which such a conclusion to this American experiment in democracy can be avoided. Both entail the votes of the independents. While the two parties continue to cement their voting bases and insure the votes that the bases will deliver, the independents remain free to make a choice. That choice, though, must be informed by an understanding of what is at stake. It is not which party 'wins'. Rather, it is the continuation of our democracy as we know it.
The first and most obvious way for the independent voters to exercise their franchise in the nation's interest is to vote so that the President of the United States can act as an ideological balance. If the Supreme Court and the Legislature are firmly held by one party, the independents should place the Presidency of the United States of America in the hands of the opposing party.
The second, and less obvious, concerns the Legislature. The independent voters should vote so that the two Houses are not controlled by the same party. That, in and of itself, can prove to be a check of sufficient power to avoid a future of single party rule. At the present time, with an off-year federal election less than a month away, the value of such an action by the independent voters of the United States of America is great indeed. It is not known to this humble scribe whether a sufficient number of independent voters are privy to that knowledge.
* Luke 4:23
Last edited by Torus34 on 14 Oct 2018 16:47, edited 1 time in total.
"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer