tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post115283614097796855..comments2023-10-26T01:59:40.483-07:00Comments on The Dividist Papers: The unexamined meme is not worth propagating.mwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1153870310832110252006-07-25T16:31:00.000-07:002006-07-25T16:31:00.000-07:00I'm with you. I have always been a loyal Republica...I'm with you. I have always been a loyal Republican, but not anymore. Divided govt. worked in the 90's and we need it now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1153155939858429122006-07-17T10:05:00.000-07:002006-07-17T10:05:00.000-07:00You can't out wordify me on my own blog moon. Moon...You can't out wordify me on my own blog moon. <BR/><BR/>Moon comments:<I>"there is no relationship between "all politics is local" and having a divided government. None."</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say there was. I <I>did</I> say that I would like there to be. The link is purely aspirational. The notion (hope), is that the concept of Divided Government becomes popularized enough, that voters consciously decide that Divided Government is more important that local issues or their preference for an individual candidate. It's a way to "give permission" for fiscally conservative voters to vote for a Democrat in '06. And yes, I know it's a longshot. I was going to write an entire post on this subject, but it looks like I covered it here. Now I guess I'll have to write on something else. <BR/><BR/>Moon comments:<I>"Although some people like to assert the Republicans have complete control right now ... the bottom line is the structure of our government makes it extremely difficult for one party to have absolute control."</I><BR/><BR/>True, with your inclusion of the words "complete" and "absolute". However, my observation is that a simple majority in both houses with a president of the same party is sufficient to create the kind of single party control problems outlined here. Complete or absolute control is not needed. This is documented historically in the Niskanen article linked in the sidebar. BTW - The benefit of Divided Government is only documented (and advocated here) in the context of the Federal Government. I have found no similar support for divided government at the state level. Might be true, might not, just don't know. <BR/><BR/>Moon comments:<I>"It's that simple. Then you'll have start telling people to vote Republican to keep the government divided."</I><BR/><BR/>Of course. <A HREF="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/06/06-06-06-08-stack-ranking-contenders.html " REL="nofollow">That is exactly what I've said in this blog.</A> To summarize here:<BR/><BR/>If the Republicans retain control of both houses, I will vote Dem for President in '08.<BR/>If the Democrats take both houses, I will vote Republican for President in '08. <BR/>If the Democrats take one house, and look like they will keep, there is no "Divided Government" vote, and I'll vote for Best Man/Woman for President in '08.<BR/><BR/>Moon comments:<I>"We'll address the other stuff later I suppose :)"</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1153142102826335392006-07-17T06:15:00.000-07:002006-07-17T06:15:00.000-07:00So much to chew on, so little room to reply. With...So much to chew on, so little room to reply. Without going into a TON of detail, there is no relationship between "all politics is local" and having a divided government. None. Although some people like to assert the Republicans have complete control right now ( "vote Democrat or don't vote" ), in reality they don't ( see the numerous filibuster threats and failed legislation ). So, the bottom line is the structure of our government makes it extremely difficult for one party to have absolute control. It's only happened one time in my lifetime, and that was with Jimmy Carter. I think the people that do vote remember that situation and have kept things sort of in check since. Case in point, Kentucky has a huge Democrat voter advantage, about 2 to 1. Yet, they are outnumbered 7 to 1 in representatives. Although people elect Democrats locally in HUGE numbers here, on the federal level they have gone Republican. They have somehow statewide divided their government. Now think about things here for one second. On the local level, the person they expect to bring home the bacon from the state capitol, they elect Democrats. On the national level, the people they expect to bring the bacon to Kentucky, ergo their home town, they elect "big spending Republicans". It's all local, and it's split the government here. The two issues are unrelated. My point on "all politics is local" was only that running a campaign purely on national issues will not generate the interest needed to beat an incumbant. That's all. It killed the Dems in 2004 when they SHOULD have taken control, and, we'll see what happens in 2006 soon enough.<BR/><BR/>And, as soon as the Dems do regain the House and Senate, I do expect all of the blogs bitching about the current situation to continue that course. History has proven an ebb and flow of political control in the US, the Dems will get it back at some point once they quit shooting themselves in the foot and the majority Democrat voters don't feel compelled to vote for any party but their own. I'm just pointing the way for them. Quit harping on contrived and hard to understand national issues and address local issues and they'll win.<BR/><BR/>It's that simple. Then you'll have start telling people to vote Republican to keep the government divided.<BR/><BR/>We'll address the other stuff later I suppose :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1153054504435641512006-07-16T05:55:00.000-07:002006-07-16T05:55:00.000-07:00Theoretical Friend,I'll get right on it. Send Scar...Theoretical Friend,<BR/>I'll get right on it. Send Scarlett's phone number asap. - mwmwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1153014441831760812006-07-15T18:47:00.000-07:002006-07-15T18:47:00.000-07:00I have a suggestion for you to increase traffic.ME...I have a suggestion for you to increase traffic.<BR/><BR/>MERCHANDISE !<BR/><BR/>It is time to start offering hats, t-shirts, jogging pants, coffee mugs, etc. with your blog name and logo on it.Then, Have someone like Scarlett Johansen wear your t-shirt on the Daily show.<BR/><BR/>No charge for the advice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1152970685313899392006-07-15T06:38:00.000-07:002006-07-15T06:38:00.000-07:00Thanks for stopping by my blog, MW. Your comments...Thanks for stopping by my blog, MW. Your comments are appreciated! :)Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04657173781097082528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1152903624101782962006-07-14T12:00:00.000-07:002006-07-14T12:00:00.000-07:00Anon,Hope you don't mind that I don't "read and de...Anon,<BR/>Hope you don't mind that I don't "read and delete" your comment. Good stuff. I do occaisionally post excerpts from here into my kos "diary". In fact, my first post there outlined the same themes as this post. The flip side of the traffic, is the mountain of content. It's too easy to get washed away in the diary flow. But I have noticed some traffic from kos here, and I'm having some fun commenting over there. <BR/><BR/>I also think it is important to have these ideas framed outside of the kos context, as everything there is painted purely left of center. In fact, just using the term "fiscal conservative" in my kos profile provoked some interesting (and negative) reaction.<BR/><BR/>I agree completely with your comments about politicians. I express a similar sentiment in my Post:<BR/><A HREF=" " REL="nofollow">Disgruntled Republicans.</A> <BR/><BR/><I>"The problem is bigger than the Republicans and focusing exclusively on the GOP will not solve it. The problem is inherent in the nature of the political process in Washington. Simply put, the seduction of power and its inevitable consequence of an overriding imperative to be reelected ultimately swamps all other considerations for the falible humans holding public office. The perception of incumbents is that: Reelection requires money that only special interests can provide; Reelection requires pandering to polls over principle; Reelection requires cultivating local loyalty by bringing home the pork. I am sure most politicians rationalize the dirty job of securing the money, populist pandering and pork-barrel rolling as a necessary pre-conditon ultimately getting around to doing what is right for the country. The obvious problem is that the continuous reelection inspired compromises do far more damage than whatever good comes later."</I><BR/><BR/>finally, regarding the <I>too-radical-for-you</I> idea - Yup, It is. Thanks for the comment. - mwmwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1152897899074335452006-07-14T10:24:00.000-07:002006-07-14T10:24:00.000-07:00''All comments must be approved by the blog author...''All comments must be approved by the blog author.''<BR/><BR/><B>Read and delete.</B><BR/><BR/>I got here by following up your post on dailykos. What you have to say here may be less important that what you say there because kos has more traffic.<BR/><BR/>'Fiscal conservative.' Government has been a WTF? problem for true conservatives for some time. If one believes, as apparently we both do, that one should *pay* for the things one wants, for whom does one vote? Lieberman as the man who brings home the pork is not the kind of politician that CT Democrats will support. I live in CT. I know lots of Democrats who dislike Joe Lieberman and that's not a new feeling.<BR/><BR/>What I see in generic politicians the world over is the tendency to view government as a job rather than a call to service. They'll do anything a) to get elected, and b) to keep their jobs. In the USA, most of them are lawyers. I would make it a requirement of US law schools that every lawyer write a working program. If you've read the law, the law is one big chunk of spaghetti code. There's no shortage of bad law: 'Selling drugs within 1500' of a school' doubles the penalty, likewise assaulting a senior citizen. Like drug dealers travel with maps of the school districts on their laptops and muggers are attuned to the victims age.<BR/><BR/>Here's a too-radical-for-you idea, eliminate politicans and voting in one stroke by randomly selecting governors (i. e., people who govern) from the general population to serve for a limited single term. This would eliminate campaigns, professional politicians and most lawyers, and voters choosing between self-selected sociopaths on the basis of which is the better liar. A random selection would focus government on the problems of real people since the government would consist of real people.<BR/><BR/>Hard to implement, sure. But perhaps by petition a law could be enacted that required every elected offical to carry around in a book bag the general statutes covering their jurisdiction? And every agency head their rules and regulations? For sure this would simplify the IRS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com