Competitive voter districts
We don’t need more competitive districts, we need fewer. This concept is another progressive notion that continues to erode the basic American concept of representative government.
The ultimate representative is the individual who came to a New England Town Meeting to represent himself. As communities grew, this became more difficult, but the structure worked well within the concept. Boston had a City Council of 100 members until 1899 when the progressives convinced enough folks that the size made things “unmanageable.” Really? Besides, too many folks with “Mc” in their name were getting elected. Made the Brahmins nervous.
Think about that concept. The Progressive doctrine wants elected officials to be potted plants while the real decisions are made by technocrats. Check your average school board for how successful they’ve been.
The progressives have also sold the false notion about some magic nirvana somewhere in the moderate center and that partisanship is evil. You don’t get anything near real consensus by burying the debate. The more extreme the participants, the better.
That flows into today’s phony meetings about “conflict resolution” with “facilitators” who bring the results with them and then convince the various players that they bought into it. See “Common Core” and “Agenda 21” for how this works right now.
All kinds of political subdivisions should spread real representation as much as possible. We used to elect a variety of public officials we’ve been conned into abolishing from city attorneys and city assessors to the state auditor and state tax commission, not to mention judges.
Want more folks to vote? How about giving them more people to vote for and doing it more often.
Constitutionalists please note: We had them once – three years for members of Congress in the Articles of Confederation. James Madison dumped them. That a hint?
The real issue isn’t term limits, but term lengths. Pre-progressive influence, most city and town council members, mayors, county officers, state legislators and governors served for one year. They also served much smaller constituencies.
The biggest argument used for lengthening terms is disingenuous “they’d just spend all their time getting re-elected.”
You usually get re-elected by doing what those you represent want. Something wrong with that?
Want genuine representative government again? Dump the double district house membership here in Arizona and expand the lower chamber to 200. Works in states like New Hampshire and Vermont who avoided the rape of the progressives.
Three other obvious advantages: larger the body, the better the chance of getting some real leaders; any stray sociopaths can’t cause that much trouble; cost of elections would decrease remarkably by eliminating the need for special interest money.
Religion in politics
Secularists and their apologists who preach against faith-based citizens and particularly preachers being involved in government with claims of “separation” being what the Founders wanted fail to grasp American history.
We have three great movements from three centuries to give us real pride in American exceptionalism. In the 18th century, the fight for independence; in the 19th century, the abolitionist movement; in the 20th century, civil rights. All three were based in America’s churches and led by religious leaders.
If I follow their arguments, certain loud-mouthed atheists would have yanked Martin Luther King’s tax status for preaching from the pulpit. Others currently claim in their lawsuit against displaying the cross from the 9-11 ruins that the sight of it on public land actually makes some of them physically ill.
I actually believe the latter. I saw that flick about the effect crosses have on some people. Have any of them barfed green yet? Suggest they find a priest skilled in exorcism.
The flow of history
There is none. History will be the story of what people make of the present. Nothing is pre-ordained. I am not a Marxist, a Buddhist, or a Calvinist. Trends can be reversed or even reverse themselves. Mostly they can be misread by those with a pre-conceived agenda.
The argument is over
That’s when you know it ain’t. This case is always presented by those who are losing the argument and are afraid to continue it because their facts have been effectively challenged. See: Al Gore.
There’s more. We’ll do this again.
Listen to Emil Franzi’s “Inside Track” Saturdays from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.