The Significance of the Pickle

[Phi for All]

One of the reasons Bush & Co were able to fool their "audience" was secrecy. How can we have the kind of transparency we need to keep tabs and still allow the office some measure of security?

 

Fear has always been exploited and the spin-meisters are at the top of their game. Fear makes us follow a leader who says he can keep us safe, it makes us buy stuff to comfort ourselves and it keeps us from questioning the status quo. Nelson Rockefeller said, "Don't be afraid to give up the good to go for the great!" Nowadays we're so afraid, we won't even give up the lame to go for the somewhat better.

 

I'd like to make sure we don't ever have this combo of fear and secrecy again.

[ParanoiA]

Fear has always been exploited and the spin-meisters are at the top of their game. Fear makes us follow a leader who says he can keep us safe, it makes us buy stuff to comfort ourselves and it keeps us from questioning the status quo. Nelson Rockefeller said, "Don't be afraid to give up the good to go for the great!" Nowadays we're so afraid, we won't even give up the lame to go for the somewhat better.

 

I agree. The only exception I would make is to point out that it's just as possible the "spin meisters" are actually afraid and speaking from their heart. I don't think Bush qualifies so much as "speaking from his heart", but I do believe he is genuinely afraid, and believes his policies are good for security. Him and the neocons are certainly heavily invested in the whole "keep us safe" bit.

[Pangloss]

It wasn't invented by the Bush administration, Phi.

[iNow]

It wasn't invented by the Bush administration, Phi.

 

Where exactly do you think he said or implied that it was?

[Phi for All]

I agree. The only exception I would make is to point out that it's just as possible the "spin meisters" are actually afraid and speaking from their heart. I don't think Bush qualifies so much as "speaking from his heart", but I do believe he is genuinely afraid, and believes his policies are good for security. Him and the neocons are certainly heavily invested in the whole "keep us safe" bit.

I think he is genuinely afraid of disappointing his base. I think any belief in his policies stems from the fact that they're primarily good for the people who financed his two terms. I think a great deal of politics has become, "This is what we want to do, now let's figure out what else it will help us with, hopefully something that will help us sell it to the people."

 

Big corporations have always dealt with the government as either a regulatory body or as a client to sell goods and services to. The neocons and megacorps seem to have mastered a new way to involve the government, as a business partner. No-bid contracts to cut out the competition, shaping legislation to suit your industry, stonewalling in response to requests for information, playing the national security card to avoid scrutiny, passing bills to keep industries safe from prosecution, blocking Justice Department inquiries, tampering with scientific reports to bypass regulatory authority, the list goes on and on.

 

I see the need for security but the dangers from our own countrymen seem to outweigh the dangers from terrorists. The terrorists will just kill some people; the neocons look like they want to take over the world.

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky?

[Pangloss]

Where exactly do you think he said or implied that it was?

 

Ok, it wasn't invented by the Bush administration nor is it a unique facet of the Bush administration nor would it likely have been any different with any other administration from 2001 to 2009 and it is the logical and obvious (if awful) outgrowth of what's been happening in this country in recent decades and recent administrations.

 

Better?

[iNow]

Not really, no. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

[Phi for All]

Ok, it wasn't invented by the Bush administration nor is it a unique facet of the Bush administration nor would it likely have been any different with any other administration from 2001 to 2009 and it is the logical and obvious (if awful) outgrowth of what's been happening in this country in recent decades and recent administrations.

 

Better?

Well, no. Using fear is an old tactic but I don't think it would have been used by any other administration the way Bush & Co have used it. Remember, they were blocking access to documents that were ready for declassification *before* 9/11 (mostly about Bush's past). They entered the office in stealth mode. And no other administration would have had the unique reasons to continue the work Cheney started on no-bid contracts under Bush I. A former oilman and a former Halliburton exec use terrorism to go to war. Now oil profits are at a record high and Halliburton is the sole corporate beneficiary of the war funding?

 

Look how slick that works out, almost like they planned it. Almost. Or maybe it was just serendipitous that everything worked out that way. I really couldn't say, but I do know things kept bubbling to the surface that we should have known about, probably would have known about under a less secretive administration.

[ParanoiA]

I think he is genuinely afraid of disappointing his base. I think any belief in his policies stems from the fact that they're primarily good for the people who financed his two terms. I think a great deal of politics has become, "This is what we want to do, now let's figure out what else it will help us with, hopefully something that will help us sell it to the people."

 

I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but I'm never going to fall into the trap of one-way malicious inference. You're never as good as they say you're good, and you're never as bad as they say you're bad. It's a fact of life. Not everything Bush does is some greedy, nefarious business deal for the folks that bought him. I believe he genuinely believes in some of this stuff - particularly with security.

 

Instead, I'd rather deal with that reality. A large portion of the american public, like half of them, are completely into this "keep us safe" mentallity. Happily sacrificing liberty for "perceived" security. We need to deal with that. That's a dangerous pretense to govern from, particularly after Bush's precedents.

[iNow]

A large portion of the american public, like half of them, are completely into this "keep us safe" mentallity. Happily sacrificing liberty for "perceived" security. We need to deal with that.

Absolutely.

[Phi for All]

Not everything Bush does is some greedy, nefarious business deal for the folks that bought him. I believe he genuinely believes in some of this stuff - particularly with security.

It would take a truly evil man to work hard to gain the presidency only to serve himself and his cronies. I don't think Bush is evil, but I do think the teat that feeds him is never far from his thoughts. Again, it doesn't have to be malicious; it could simply be a case of, "Hey, since we have to do this anyway, why don't we also <fill in blank check>".

 

Instead, I'd rather deal with that reality. A large portion of the american public, like half of them, are completely into this "keep us safe" mentallity. Happily sacrificing liberty for "perceived" security. We need to deal with that. That's a dangerous pretense to govern from, particularly after Bush's precedents.

But would it still have been half the public if we'd known some of the things Bush & Co worked so hard to keep us from knowing? Would the media have made more of the Vietnam comparison to Iraq if Bush & Co hadn't blocked declassification of forty-year-old war documents?

 

Even smoking decreased in this country when it was brought to light that the addictiveness of cigarettes had been enhanced by the tobacco companies. I'd like to think the public would have been more skeptical if our leaders had been more transparent.

[Pangloss]

Regarding the closed-minded, loyalty-based administration of the country, I agree that the Bush administration has raised the bar in this area, I just feel that the correct assessment of that problem (and this is entirely my opinion here) is that we needed someone to step up to the plate and push the bar the other way, and for whatever reason that didn't happen. Instead the problem was allowed to grow worse. That IS an indictment of the Bush administration. It is NOT an indictment of Republicans, conservatism, neo-conservatism, intelligence, lack of intelligence, white men, southern drawls or the price of tea in China.

 

Failure to recognize these very same properties of he Clinton administration (albeit in smaller quantities) is exactly why the Bush administration was able to behave in this manner.

 

And guess what? We still need that problem fixed! Now, do you all think that problem will be fixed by declaring the Bush administration flawed and making sure a Democrat gets elected no matter what, or by instead recognizing that these people do not exist in a vacuum, and that the exact SAME pressures will be focused on the next administration, regardless of whom it may be, and then taking steps to change that?

 

Bear in mind that while we may not be responsible for it, we can very much facilitate it. When the press begins to characterize President Obama as "embattled" because his own party won't bring him the laws he asks for, will you respond to pollsters by repeating what the press tells you, or will you pay shaper attention than that, and empower him with the support he needs to affect real change in this country? Will you play political blame games like you're doing with Bush, becoming stalwart defenders of President Obama no matter what he says, even if it's something stupid that needs to not happen, or will you pay sharper attention than that and hold him to the change he has promised us?

[ParanoiA]

It would take a truly evil man to work hard to gain the presidency only to serve himself and his cronies. I don't think Bush is evil, but I do think the teat that feeds him is never far from his thoughts. Again, it doesn't have to be malicious; it could simply be a case of, "Hey, since we have to do this anyway, why don't we also <fill in blank check>".

 

Yeah, that certainly sounds about right to me.

 

But would it still have been half the public if we'd known some of the things Bush & Co worked so hard to keep us from knowing? Would the media have made more of the Vietnam comparison to Iraq if Bush & Co hadn't blocked declassification of forty-year-old war documents?

 

Probably not. I think it would have been a large chunk, like the base, but yeah, probably not half the population.

 

And guess what? We still need that problem fixed! Now, do you all think that problem will be fixed by declaring the Bush administration flawed and making sure a Democrat gets elected no matter what, or by instead recognizing that these people do not exist in a vacuum, and that the exact SAME pressures will be focused on the next administration, regardless of whom it may be, and then taking steps to change that?

 

I choose option two. I hope others do too. When Obama becomes president, and he will, I will criticize him as fairly as I have Bush, good or bad.

 

I try to separate my ideological differences from what I perceive as failure. Because I'll always have crap things to say about each candidate ideologically - there ain't many libertarian leaning fellas running for the office. But those, technically anyway, aren't failures, but rather philosophical differences. So, philosophically speaking, Bush and Obama both stink. Any of each lot stinks, except for my man Paul, whom I'm likely going to write in on election day.

[Phi for All]

Will you play political blame games like you're doing with Bush, becoming stalwart defenders of President Obama no matter what he says, even if it's something stupid that needs to not happen, or will you pay sharper attention than that and hold him to the change he has promised us?

I actually learned that lesson with Clinton. Bastard gave away more of the media than any Republican ever did. But we had our heads in the clouds counting all the money we were making in mutual funds, like he was responsible. Perhaps you should be saying that mistrust of Clinton is one reason people were so ready to bash Bush.

 

I guess I'll say it one more time, just for the record. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't give an anus rattus for either major party. If Jesse Ventura was a Rhodes scholar I'd vote for him, just to see him take Clinton and Bush both in a cage match to the death.

[JohnB]

Just so people don't think the spread of "secrecy" is only a US malady.

 

Down here papers "Tabled in Cabinet" are held secret for much longer than normal .gov documents. There has been an increasing tendency of late for any document that may prove "difficult" for the .gov to be so tabled and therefore avoid public scrutiny.

 

Reports concerning crime rates in different areas and hospital waiting lists are the sort of reports being withheld. BTW, Cabinet documents are not open to FOI requests.

 

Secrecy is the enemy of accountable government and should be fought at all times.

[Phi for All]

Down here papers "Tabled in Cabinet" are held secret for much longer than normal .gov documents. There has been an increasing tendency of late for any document that may prove "difficult" for the .gov to be so tabled and therefore avoid public scrutiny.

How long are your documents sequestered? Just long enough for people to lose interest?

 

Reports concerning crime rates in different areas and hospital waiting lists are the sort of reports being withheld. BTW, Cabinet documents are not open to FOI requests.

Ouch. Just the kind of thing you need to know when evaluating governmental effectiveness. How do the Cabinet docs avoid scrutiny, is it all National Security?

 

Secrecy is the enemy of accountable government and should be fought at all times.

Well said. But how do you avoid the terrorism vs security vs civil rights pitfall?

 

I just can't believe how unbelievably perfect terrorism is for governments that want to hide things from the people, arms dealers who need to unload massive high-tech inventories to combat zealous peasants with homemade bombs, and corporations that have bought their way into the inner workings of our national procurement systems.

 

Again, it's not necessarily malicious, it's probably a windfall reaction. After all, we pay the politicians to make lemonade out of lemons, so I guess it's natural to assume they would take every advantage handed to them. But at a certain point this kind of secrecy becomes very difficult to remove, especially when these guys are so very good at covering their butts.

[JohnB]

How long are your documents sequestered? Just long enough for people to lose interest?

Documents "Tabled in Parliment" are available pretty much straight away as they have become part of the Public Record. Of course you still have to fight your way through FOI, but I think that's roughly true everywhere. Bureaucrats all have an aversion to outside scrutiny. "Tabled in Cabinet" locks the records for 30 years at a state level and 50 years at the Federal level. This was originally so that the Feds could give reasons for their actions to the State .govs without those reasons becoming common knowledge. (National Security being one reason.) "Cabinet Secrecy" also prevents lobbyists from knowing the Cabinets agenda and applying pressure. Why these documents need to be sequestered for 30 years I have yet to work out.

 

Unfortunately the definition of "Cabinet Document" is very broad and includes:"Briefing papers prepared for use by Ministers or Chief Executive Officers in relation to matters submitted or proposed to be submitted to Cabinet." This is what is being abused.

 

For example. Someone dies while waiting for an ambulance. To show he is "Doing Something", the Health Minister demands a "Please Explain" from the ambos. The ambulance service prepares a report showing they have been grossly underfunded for years and their staff often work 70 hour weeks. The report is immediately tabled so that no more than the general gist gets out. No details, no detailed scrutiny of how well the .gov performs.

 

Another example. A new dam is being built and properties resumed in the valley. Joe Bloggs gets $450,000 for his 20 acre property but the Public Servant over the road gets $850,000 for his 15 acre property. The valuation records get wheeled through the Cabinet Office on a trolley and "Presto", noone can find out why for 30 years.

But how do you avoid the terrorism vs security vs civil rights pitfall?

Separation of Powers and Responsibility. Terrorism is viewed as a Federal responsibility, and a civillian matter. State Police Services are much more likely to hand matters over to the Federal Police and willingly act in a secondary role than would perhaps happen in the US.

 

Our .govs also have far greater constraints on their powers than yours. No law can come into effect here until it has been passed by "The Parliment", this is true at both State and Federal levels. We have no equivalent to your "Executive Order". Also, all laws require "Assent". This comes from the Governors (State) or Governor General (Federal). Theoretically they represent the Crown, but not really in practice. If a law is a) Unconstitutional or b) Goes against the Spirit of our "Ancient Laws", Assent is withheld and the law rewritten.

 

The Ancient Laws contain the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights (1689) amoung others. It is the job of the Governor to protect the people from overzealous .gov.

 

Our Judiciary is also extremely independent. While .govs appoint judges, they do so from a selection supplied by the legal fraternity. While the .gov could appoint from outside this group, to do so would result in a very hostile Judiciary, something no Parliment wants. Our courts have the power to override any "Practice" that the .gov may use. (Theoretically they could override even Cabinet Secrecy if someone wants to make the case. Although it would be on a case by case basis and bloody expensive.)

 

A Gitmo like affair can't happen here. ASIO (our CIA) can only hold someone without charge for 24 hours. They can apply to a court and hold without charge for 14 days if they can show good cause and get a warrant. This can be extended to 90 days maximum if they get a new warrant every 14 days. Habeus Corpus cannot be extinguished, period. Australian civillian law holds on all Australian military bases.

 

The limits placed on our .govs are in the various Constitutions and these cannot be changed without Referendum, a direct vote by the people. If our .gov wants more power, it has to ask our permission. And we don't generally trust .govs.

I just can't believe how unbelievably perfect terrorism is for governments that want to hide things from the people, arms dealers who need to unload massive high-tech inventories to combat zealous peasants with homemade bombs, and corporations that have bought their way into the inner workings of our national procurement systems.

 

Again, it's not necessarily malicious, it's probably a windfall reaction. After all, we pay the politicians to make lemonade out of lemons, so I guess it's natural to assume they would take every advantage handed to them. But at a certain point this kind of secrecy becomes very difficult to remove, especially when these guys are so very good at covering their butts.

With that sort of thinking, we'll make Aussie out of you yet.

 

Something has just occurred to me. The President is the "Leader" of the US, the top job. Under our system, the Prime Minister can be viewed as nothing more than the top "Public Servant". He is not my boss, he is my employee. You can think of him as a CEO who goes to the shareholders every 3 years to see if he keeps his job. This difference means that we view our respective .govs from totally different directions. We never "get behind" or "unite under" our PM, the best he can hope for is that we let him continue in his position.

[Skye]

Federal cabinet documents are not publically available for 30 years. Some states vary, eg. South Australia is 20 years.

 

Edit: 50 years John? Notebooks are 50, but I thought documents were 30.

[Pangloss]

A Gitmo like affair can't happen here. ASIO (our CIA) can only hold someone without charge for 24 hours. They can apply to a court and hold without charge for 14 days if they can show good cause and get a warrant. This can be extended to 90 days maximum if they get a new warrant every 14 days. Habeus Corpus cannot be extinguished, period. Australian civillian law holds on all Australian military bases.

 

The limits placed on our .govs are in the various Constitutions and these cannot be changed without Referendum, a direct vote by the people. If our .gov wants more power, it has to ask our permission. And we don't generally trust .govs.

 

I still think you're on the wrong page about the US government changing the constitution. The "Gitmo affair" didn't involve a change in the constitution, it involved the flexing of existing powers. I wouldn't presume to tell you how things work in Australia (though I think it interesting that everyone seems to be able to tell me how it works in the US, no matter where they happen to live), but in this case I just think you're completely off base with this.

 

I don't think you replied (unless I just missed it) to my earlier point that the constitution cannot be changed without state ratification, and never in the entire history of this country has an amendment passed that the people did not want, nor do I believe it CAN happen, regardless of what the technical reality may be. As I said before, it's not a question of whether a demagogue will flex that power at some point in the future, it's a question of whether such a thing is actually possible.

 

But maybe I'm just missing something, I don't know. By all means, tell me.

[Rev Blair]

Okay, without changing the subject, I just wanted to say that Obama should pick Steve Earle for his running mate. That way, even when they screw up I can listen to it really loud.

 

Now back to the various significances of the various pickles:

 

That had nothing to do with "the office". That has to do with exactly what they said - uniting under a leader. That leader could be a despot, a PM, or a president. Humans following humans by natural group behavior. Nothing specific about the office itself.

 

No. Bush is a lot of things, but he's not a natural leader...he's no Bill "The Spaceman" Lee, for instance.

 

If it wasn't for the undue respect that Americans have for the office of president, people would have crucified him for disappearing and running like a scared little girl of 9-11.

 

When he did that, and I criticized him for it, the Americans I converse with were quite indignant that I would attack their president for being a coward. The Republicans had a problem with me criticizing Bush, of course, but the non-Republicans were pissed off about me daring to go after the president.

 

That ours survived is a testament to the framers, not the founding fathers - two different sets of people. Perhaps the romance provided by the founding fathers helped with stabilizing the principles the framers used (of course, that's an example of holding offices in esteem, and seems to have worked nicely).

 

The offices created are a crucial piece of the constitution. You have not supported your point by logic or reason that these offices should NOT be held in the esteem afforded in that document, or how exactly you split hairs to hold the document in esteem yet not its contents.

 

I could understand issues with particulars, but not with something so central to our balance of powers. The office should be filled with good people, experts that deserve to be there, on merit, just like the guys that created them.

 

Ah, but I don't hold the document in esteem. I don't hold its framers in esteem either. It might because I'm a writer, or it might just be because I've met too many allegedly intelligent people who don't understand influence and soft power, but your constitution wouldn't have happened without your founding fathers.

 

You can try to separate the two, but there was a standard set and expectations built up, and the framers had to live up to them.

 

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't see how criticizing the office holder criticizes the office. I can insult president Bush all day long, and many of us do, but that doesn't insult the office in the least. This is about demanding the best to fill these offices that we acknowledge are important as they are the exercise of the republican government. That's where legislation begins. That's were legislation gets executed. That's where legislation is screened for its adherence to the constitution.

 

I don't think you and I disagree on this point, I think we disagree on the effect of this point. I don't think that criticizing the office-holder is the same as criticizing the office. I do think that many people refrain from criticizing the office-holder, or water down their criticism, because they are afraid it may have a negative connotation for the office.

 

I also think we need to criticize offices though...not the people in them, but what is done with them.

 

Your insistence on protecting the office amounts to nothing more than a larger scale partisanship. For example, and to take it away from your feelings about your country, a generation ago Pierre Trudeau worked very hard to centralize power in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and to take away power from what were known as the mandarins.

 

The mandarins were career civil servants who had so seniority that they couldn't be fired. They would stand up to politicians and tell them they couldn't do things.

 

Today, the reality is that our PMO has way too much power and we really need the mandarins back. The Prime Minister who undermined their power and our present PM would have hated each other...in fact they both mentioned that they hated each other...yet they both had/have too much power because of the power of their office.

 

I would suggest that the same thing happened in the US around the time of Lincoln. Your President has too much power, even if it isn't official.

 

And the point you keep missing, which explains much of the impotence of congress, is that he has flaunted domestic and international law with the blessing of the american people.

 

Perhaps you need to delve more deeply into the democratic tenet of the the need to protect against the tyranny of the majority. It's one of the reasons, a major one, why all those checks and balances were put into place in the first place.

 

It's generally presented as a way to protect minorities from persecution, which it does and which is important, but protection from the tyranny of the majority also protects democracy against the bad decisions that the mob makes in general.

 

I'm not missing anything. I am seeing a failure in your your political system.

 

It's almost comedic watching the left's manifestations in pop culture. You get musicians at rock concerts shouting out against Bush and the GOP. You see comedians investing in it. You get actors and actresses making their statements. You see the pop culture left lash out against Bush and "the republicans", with their snarl, as if no one in their audience supports Bush and the republicans.

 

Ah yes, the "Attack Hollywood" defense. You seem to forget the other side of that coin...NASCAR racing, the absolute embarrassment of what comes out of Nashville under the guise of music, Chuck Heston and his gaggle of gun freaks.

 

You want to see laughable ignorance, look at the pop culture of the right.

 

You seem to be making the same mistake. In your oversimplification charge, you failed to recognize the support for ALL of his decisions by the arguable majority of americans. Impeachment, domestic issues, international issues - our country is split on these ideas right now. Split - not "Bush forces his opinion on the american people, yet they re-elect him anyway...so he can force his stupidity on everyone".

 

Not at all. The arguable majority of Americans don't understand domestic or international law. They have been taught that experts are pointy-headed academics who live in ivory towers and don't understand real life.

 

If you celebrate ignorance, teach people that it's cool to be stupid, unthinking, and reactionary...that there's dignity in purposeful ignorance...then use that purposeful ignorance as proof that ignorance is good, you will end up losing your democracy.

 

Our country needs to find itself, and that's what its doing right now. We're re-learning, re-arguing age old dynamics of guns and butter. The two party seige doesn't help matters any because it exploits the Us vs. Them mentallity, which in turn does a disservice to honest discussion on where we want to go as a country. I know where I want us to go, but it has to start with good office holders that can measure up to the office.

 

I'll wait and see if your country is really finding itself. I honestly have little sense of that. I see the same old partisan fight.

 

On the bright side, at least you are arguing about something...up here we're fighting about who will be better at sucking up to whoever you elect next. If it wasn't for beer, I might lose my sense of humour about Canadian politics.

 

As you say, all of this just gets in the way or real problem-solving. Impeachment, for example, isn't an answer, it's a pointless political ploy. It was stupid when they did it to Clinton, and it's the one thing we've somehow managed to avoid transforming into a standard practice under Bush. We should be GLAD of that, not lamenting its absence.

 

It isn't always a pointless political ploy. They went after Clinton for getting a blow job, but they went after Nixon for substantive reasons. Clinton getting it on with a staffer is not a constitutional crisis, Bush trashing your constitutional rights and breaking international law is a constitutional crisis.

 

Just so people don't think the spread of "secrecy" is only a US malady.

 

Down here papers "Tabled in Cabinet" are held secret for much longer than normal .gov documents. There has been an increasing tendency of late for any document that may prove "difficult" for the .gov to be so tabled and therefore avoid public scrutiny.

 

Reports concerning crime rates in different areas and hospital waiting lists are the sort of reports being withheld. BTW, Cabinet documents are not open to FOI requests.

 

Secrecy is the enemy of accountable government and should be fought at all times.

 

Our government up here has been playing similar games. Everything is secret until somebody files an access of information request. Recently, Harper got rid of the registry that made it possible to find out what Access of Information requests had been filed.

 

To my mind, the biggest threat to our freedom is not terrorists, but governments that try to keep us in the dark about what they are up to.

[ParanoiA]

No. Bush is a lot of things' date=' but he's not a natural leader...he's no Bill "The Spaceman" Lee, for instance.

 

If it wasn't for the undue respect that Americans have for the office of president, people would have crucified him for disappearing and running like a scared little girl of 9-11.[/quote']

 

Actually, I've heard many people refer to him as a space cadet...

 

Running scared? Yeah, not real macho, but smart move in my opinion.

 

Ah' date=' but I don't hold the document in esteem. I don't hold its framers in esteem either. It might because I'm a writer, or it might just be because I've met too many allegedly intelligent people who don't understand influence and soft power, but your constitution wouldn't have happened without your founding fathers.

 

You can try to separate the two, but there was a standard set and expectations built up, and the framers had to live up to them.[/quote']

 

Not necessarily. History has a way of glossing and simplifying things romantically for posterity. I don't believe they lived up to them. I'm not sure why you do. The document was sweet, the message beautiful, but their actions were as often deplorable as they were noble, and fundamentally inconsistent with the very principles they instituted.

 

I also think we need to criticize offices though...not the people in them' date=' but what is done with them.

 

Your insistence on protecting the office amounts to nothing more than a larger scale partisanship. For example, and to take it away from your feelings about your country, a generation ago Pierre Trudeau worked very hard to centralize power in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and to take away power from what were known as the mandarins.

 

The mandarins were career civil servants who had so seniority that they couldn't be fired. They would stand up to politicians and tell them they couldn't do things.

 

Today, the reality is that our PMO has way too much power and we really need the mandarins back. The Prime Minister who undermined their power and our present PM would have hated each other...in fact they both mentioned that they hated each other...yet they both had/have too much power because of the power of their office.

 

I would suggest that the same thing happened in the US around the time of Lincoln. Your President has too much power, even if it isn't official.[/quote']

 

Yeah, we're talking about this kind of thing in another thread here. I have no issues criticizing an office at all. The offices are held to esteem, naturally, as they are instituted by the constitution which is held to esteem. Not worshiped. Not idolized. Not impervious to criticism. Just esteem. It's important, so choose wisely, kinda thing.

 

Perhaps you need to delve more deeply into the democratic tenet of the the need to protect against the tyranny of the majority. It's one of the reasons' date=' a major one, why all those checks and balances were put into place in the first place.

 

It's generally presented as a way to protect minorities from persecution, which it does and which is important, but protection from the tyranny of the majority also protects democracy against the bad decisions that the mob makes in general.

 

I'm not missing anything. I am seeing a failure in your your political system.[/quote']

 

No, I think you can't just cry "mob rule" everytime the majority makes a decision you don't like. In this particular cycle of change in our country, I'm not sure any political system is going to react without fractures. Naturally, I can't support that. But when the public is ready to wage war, and they rationalize themselves into action, with the help of media and willing leaders...well, yeah.

 

Ah yes' date=' the "Attack Hollywood" defense. You seem to forget the other side of that coin...NASCAR racing, the absolute embarrassment of what comes out of Nashville under the guise of music, Chuck Heston and his gaggle of gun freaks.

 

You want to see laughable ignorance, look at the pop culture of the right.[/quote']

 

Nah, I don't forget that at all, hell I think I even mentioned in a thread here once. Gosh I hate Nascar. But those particular activities in your list don't include any arrogant, presumptive, political preachers spouting teenage reason through their respective mediums.

 

Not at all. The arguable majority of Americans don't understand domestic or international law. They have been taught that experts are pointy-headed academics who live in ivory towers and don't understand real life.

 

If you celebrate ignorance' date=' teach people that it's cool to be stupid, unthinking, and reactionary...that there's dignity in purposeful ignorance...then use that purposeful ignorance as proof that ignorance is good, you will end up losing your democracy.[/quote']

 

If this is your view of our country, then you must certainly be celebrating ignorance yourself. I don't know a single person that doesn't believe they know that policy better than the president and his advisors. I'm not sure there's one on this forum that does either. Most people assume themselves equal to these decisions.

 

I'll wait and see if your country is really finding itself. I honestly have little sense of that. I see the same old partisan fight.

 

On the bright side' date=' at least you are arguing about something...up here we're fighting about who will be better at sucking up to whoever you elect next. If it wasn't for beer, I might lose my sense of humour about Canadian politics.[/quote']

 

Ah, but see our country was designed for arguing. Yes, the partisan fight will always carry on, but hopefully it will grow to more than just two.

[JohnB]

50 years John? Notebooks are 50, but I thought documents were 30.

My apologies, you are correct. You may note however that some WWII Federal documents are yet to be released. Personally I don't have too much of a problem with this. Difficult and terrible decisions must be made in wartime and it is perhaps better if the whys and wherefores are left until those involved are safely dead and the matter can be viewed through the lens of "history". I think many documents relating to the "Petrov Affair" have yet to be released as well.

I still think you're on the wrong page about the US government changing the constitution. The "Gitmo affair" didn't involve a change in the constitution, it involved the flexing of existing powers.

Very true. However our .gov does not have those powers, and they cannot get them without changing the Constitution. (Amoung other things)

I don't think you replied (unless I just missed it) to my earlier point that the constitution cannot be changed without state ratification, and never in the entire history of this country has an amendment passed that the people did not want, nor do I believe it CAN happen, regardless of what the technical reality may be.

This could be a source of confusion. How does a State ratify an ammendment? By vote in the House or by Referendum? When you say "the States ratify", I'm assuming you mean your Legistlature, not the people directly. Have I got that wrong? Put simply, "Can the Constitution of the US be changed without a direct vote of the people?" If the answer is yes, then you seem to have greater trust in your .govs than we do in ours.

 

If it is by the Legistlature (what do you actually call your State .govs?), then theoretically a change could be made and ratified that the people don't want. I think this would highly unlikely as this would mean collusion between the Federal and a large number of State .govs. This could be a hidden strength with your system as I suspect getting the Legistlatures in a majority of States to agree on anything would be a major accomplishment. The sheer number of State .govs prevents demagoggery.

 

We have only 7 States so collusion would be easier, perhaps that is why the Referendum clause was put in. We are at a unique point in our history, for the first time all State .govs and the Federal .gov are controlled by one political party. If we were using your system, we could be in trouble but ours has the Referendum clauses to balance. Horses for courses perhaps, but I am philosophically disposed towards "the people" having as much say as possible.

 

This is not to say that he Referendum system is infallible. My home, Queensland, is AFAIK the only British modelled Parliment that is unicameral. We originally had an Upper House, but in response to intense lobbying by the Australian Labour Party that controlled Parliment at the time (and a statewide bout of temporary insanity) it was abolished by Referendum in 1922. This didn't cause too much trouble at the time, but since the 1970s problems with accountability have been growing.

 

Pangloss, from what I understand from the "People's House" thread it might be fair to say that your Constitution is a contract between the Federal .gov and the States .govs as to the form of the Union. Would that be basially correct? Or am I still misunderstanding?

 

Our Constitution OTOH is a contract between the Federal .gov and the peoples of the various colonies at the time of Federation as to how the single Nation is to be run. At the time of Federation all current State .govs were colonial assemblies rather than Legistlatures in their own right.

 

When we each say "State" we are actually thinking about totally different things with wildly different histories with totally different relationships to their respective Federal counterparts.

 

For example, if a US State were to seceed from the Union (I don't know if that's possible, but allow it for the sake of argument) then the Union could go on quite happily without it. However, if the same were to happen here it would dissolve the Commonwealth. The nation known as "Australia" would cease to exist.

 

This difference must lead to us looking at things from very different perspectives. For all that you lot are our mates, sometimes your way of looking at things seems so alien. From the outside, it is sometimes hard to see and understand why you blokes think the way you do, as, I suspect, we present the same difficulties for you sometimes.

[Pangloss]

This could be a source of confusion. How does a State ratify an ammendment? By vote in the House or by Referendum? When you say "the States ratify", I'm assuming you mean your Legistlature, not the people directly. Have I got that wrong? Put simply, "Can the Constitution of the US be changed without a direct vote of the people?" If the answer is yes, then you seem to have greater trust in your .govs than we do in ours.

 

If it is by the Legistlature (what do you actually call your State .govs?), then theoretically a change could be made and ratified that the people don't want. I think this would highly unlikely as this would mean collusion between the Federal and a large number of State .govs. This could be a hidden strength with your system as I suspect getting the Legistlatures in a majority of States to agree on anything would be a major accomplishment. The sheer number of State .govs prevents demagoggery.

 

Well again, you do have a technical point that I am willing to concede (which maybe I didn't make clear in my last post), but what I'm trying to make clear is that it's not just a matter of it being "difficult" to amend the constitution, it really is a question of whether such a thing could actually happen. It's a question of practicalities. Demagogues and oligarchs simply have much easier ways to change society than that.

 

Consider what they would have to do:

 

For the federal constitution to be amended, the federal legislatures (both houses) must pass measures by 2/3rds. Then it goes to the states, 3/4ths of which must pass the amendment in order for it to be added to the list. The state legislatures decide the issue in exactly the same way as the federal, except that they're simple majorities (but both the proportional and non-proportional sides must both pass it, and the governor gets no say). (They're not required to ask the people for their opinions, but they've almost always done so through a referendum, which is where you're right. But stick with me a bit longer.)

 

Note that both the executive and the judicial branches are uninvolved in the process. They cannot become involved. The president doesn't sign a bill and can't veto anything. The Supreme Court can't reject it. Both branches are completely powerless in the matter. That removes a lot of the potential for demagoguery right there. But because the bar is so high, even a highly popular movement can't get one passed without a huge amount of persuasion. In essence, the entire country has to be behind the measure. The people absolutely have to be behind it, because it simply will not pass without overwhelming support.

 

This is why it's so difficult to conceive how an amendment could pass against the will of the people. It's just not the sort of mechanism that could be utilized in order to overrule habeus corpus, or trial by jury, or "the gitmo thing" (all of which have been happening either illegally or within parameters already existing, depending on whom you ask). It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of practicalities. Would it be better if it mandated that the people must be consulted through referendum? Perhaps, I could see the angle, sure. But is it necessary? It doesn't seem so, at least not for reasons of resisting demagoguery or even popular movements.

 

The proof is in the pudding. We're supposed to be a nation of christian consevatives, right? The crazy right that supposedly runs this country. That "80% christian" statistic you always hear batted around. Our steady stream of conservative Republican presidents. So then why is it that abortions are legal? A constitutional amendment would override Roe vs Wade without any input from the Supreme Court or the President of the United States. And yet there is no such amendment.

 

The reason is that (a) the country is not unitedly conservative enough for such an amendment to be proposed and passed, and (b) there is no way for conservative demagogues to ram such an amendment through over even minority objections. In short, it is exactly the situation you want -- the amendment cannot pass for exactly the reason you worry is missing from our system -- popular support. It isn't there, so the amendment doesn't exist. Make sense?

 

It's also worth keeping in mind that the constitution must also be protected FROM the will of the people. Just to give an example of how it can go badly the other way, my state (Florida) has a state constitution amendment process that is extremely easy. The people decide amendments, and thus virtually every time I go to the poll I'm being asked to vote on three or four amendments -- amendments to our constitution! It's insane. Half of the amendments are typically there to void or marginalize some previous constitutional amendment!

 

Anyway, the political split for our founding fathers was between those who wanted a strong federal government and those who were deathly afraid of that very same thing. The process reflects that fear, protecting the people against demagoguery while at the same time protecting the people against oligarchy and even each other. I could see giving the people a little bit more of a guarantee in the matter, but as a practical matter they already are part of the process, and we desperately have to avoid giving them too much authority.

 

 

 

We have only 7 States so collusion would be easier, perhaps that is why the Referendum clause was put in.

 

I see your point there, and like I said before I wouldn't presume to tell you what would be a better way to run Australia.

 

 

We are at a unique point in our history, for the first time all State .govs and the Federal .gov are controlled by one political party. If we were using your system, we could be in trouble but ours has the Referendum clauses to balance. Horses for courses perhaps, but I am philosophically disposed towards "the people" having as much say as possible.

 

Yes, I can see how that might be a problem, and the people might be needed to help with the balance.

 

 

For example, if a US State were to seceed from the Union (I don't know if that's possible, but allow it for the sake of argument) then the Union could go on quite happily without it. However, if the same were to happen here it would dissolve the Commonwealth. The nation known as "Australia" would cease to exist.

 

That's... interesting. Definitely an "alien" concept from where I sit.

 

 

This difference must lead to us looking at things from very different perspectives. For all that you lot are our mates, sometimes your way of looking at things seems so alien. From the outside, it is sometimes hard to see and understand why you blokes think the way you do, as, I suspect, we present the same difficulties for you sometimes.

 

That's certainly true. And I think that post gave me some interesting insight. I think there's a general perception over here is that parliamentary systems are antiquated and flawed, but I don't really think that's the case. All systems have flaws, and as a friend of mine used to say, all systems are vulnerable to demagoguery, but I can see where a parliamentary system can be just as effective at defending a state and its people as a... well I don't know what we call ours, but whatever that is.

[Rev Blair]

No, I think you can't just cry "mob rule" everytime the majority makes a decision you don't like. In this particular cycle of change in our country, I'm not sure any political system is going to react without fractures. Naturally, I can't support that. But when the public is ready to wage war, and they rationalize themselves into action, with the help of media and willing leaders...well, yeah.

 

It is not, as you try to characterize it, just decisions I don't like. It is things that are, at best, of questionable legality. Torture, wire taps, illegal renditions, Guantanamo Bay, an illegal war...that kind of thing.

 

You ignored the rule of law while your leaders broke the law.

 

Not necessarily. History has a way of glossing and simplifying things romantically for posterity. I don't believe they lived up to them. I'm not sure why you do. The document was sweet, the message beautiful, but their actions were as often deplorable as they were noble, and fundamentally inconsistent with the very principles they instituted.

 

Their aspirations were set high though. It's far from a perfect document...the Second Amendment alone demonstrates that by neither meaning what it says or saying what it means. The idea that African Americans aren't fully human was just as deplorable then as it is now. The separation of church and state was never defined as clearly as should have been.

 

Yeah, we're talking about this kind of thing in another thread here. I have no issues criticizing an office at all. The offices are held to esteem, naturally, as they are instituted by the constitution which is held to esteem. Not worshiped. Not idolized. Not impervious to criticism. Just esteem. It's important, so choose wisely, kinda thing.

 

When was the last time the people of the US chose wisely? Kennedy? Lincoln?

 

Nah, I don't forget that at all, hell I think I even mentioned in a thread here once. Gosh I hate Nascar. But those particular activities in your list don't include any arrogant, presumptive, political preachers spouting teenage reason through their respective mediums.

 

Sure they do. Consider talk radio or turn a country station on. NASCAR had Hagee doing the prayer at...I think it was Daytona...this year.

 

If this is your view of our country, then you must certainly be celebrating ignorance yourself. I don't know a single person that doesn't believe they know that policy better than the president and his advisors. I'm not sure there's one on this forum that does either. Most people assume themselves equal to these decisions.

 

It's my view of North American democracy in general. Of course people believe they know better than the experts and, whether in politics or home renovations, that can be a very dangerous thing.

 

It works just fine when the public is educated and engaged, but that education isn't happening and the engagement is dependent on eight second sound bites, not deep analysis.

 

Ah, but see our country was designed for arguing. Yes, the partisan fight will always carry on, but hopefully it will grow to more than just two.

 

I'm not really talking about realistic political partisanship though...that's built into every democracy on the planet and is based on policy. I'm talking about the almost complete lack of real political discourse.

 

Consider the discussion about Obama's running mate...almost nobody is talking about skills or complimentary experiences and policies, instead they are talking about who can bring which seats, appeal to which demographics and special interests, and so on.

[ParanoiA]

It is not' date=' as you try to characterize it, just decisions I don't like. It is things that are, at best, of questionable legality. Torture, wire taps, illegal renditions, Guantanamo Bay, an illegal war...that kind of thing.

 

You ignored the rule of law while your leaders broke the law. [/quote']

 

And that's questionable, as you agree in the same statement. That's the whole point of our government, to argue things out enough so that we don't react thoughtlessly (not that it doesn't happen regardless). All of the above, that you've presumed to be illegal, is still being argued by our countrymen. It's an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the country is split on. Our government is working to design.

 

My personal take is that the war is illegal, in that congress gave up a constitutional responsibility that they had no constitutional authority to give up in the first place. Torture and wire taps go directly against the principles of human decency that I thought we weren't willing to trade. Guantanamo Bay is therefore illegitimate by extension.

 

These are my opinions, however I don't presume to ignore my countrymen's arguments that aren't in line with mine. They have valid concerns, and if you continue to oversimplify things and ignore those concerns, covering yourself with this protective layer of rhetoric, you're going to continue to not understand it, and remain ignorant. And that doesn't help anything except the status quo. You would fit well within the two-party "duopoly", to borrow a phrase from JEQuidam.

 

Their aspirations were set high though. It's far from a perfect document...the Second Amendment alone demonstrates that by neither meaning what it says or saying what it means. The idea that African Americans aren't fully human was just as deplorable then as it is now. The separation of church and state was never defined as clearly as should have been.

 

Agreed, much agreed.

 

When was the last time the people of the US chose wisely? Kennedy? Lincoln?

 

Precisely. And I believe that has to do with not taking the office seriously enough, nor the constitution. Which is what you're actually advocating - to continue to hold the office to a gutter level reverence. That's why we get gutter level office holders. Just my opinion, of course.

 

Sure they do. Consider talk radio or turn a country station on. NASCAR had Hagee doing the prayer at...I think it was Daytona...this year.

 

A prayer is not a political statement, but the spirit of your point is noted. It does qualify as a presumption on their part to think everyone should be subject to a prayer. Remember, my point was about the pop culture left, in non-political formats, spouting out anti-republican rhetoric as if it's a foregone conclusion that they're wrong - arrogantly ignorant about half of their audience being republicans. Not saying it's wrong, I'm just pointing out their blissful ignorance. And talk radio is a political format, so I have no idea why you brought that one up.

 

It's my view of North American democracy in general. Of course people believe they know better than the experts and' date=' whether in politics or home renovations, that can be a very dangerous thing.

 

It works just fine when the public is educated and engaged, but that education isn't happening and the engagement is dependent on eight second sound bites, not deep analysis. [/quote']

 

I agree, but you're abandoning your point here. You said that we are "taught that experts are pointy-headed academics who live in ivory towers and don't understand real life" - I'm telling you you're wrong. We weren't taught that. Worse, we were taught that our opinions on those matters were equal to the pointy-headed academics - and they're not. Most of us don't have a college education, so most of us are basing domestic and international policy on high school intellect. That's the part you got right.

Edited June 5, 2008 by ParanoiA