3 ms·

> As a country, we just seem to be too (lazy?) to [amend the Constitution] The problem with passing Constitutional amendments right now is the highly partisan

by csense 14y ago

> As a country, we just seem to be too (lazy?) to [amend the Constitution] The problem with passing Constitutional amendments right now is the highly partisan political climate of the last decade or two: The parties divide nearly fifty-fifty and often define themselves by their opposition to the other party. Many of the most commonly raised ideas for amendments -- getting rid of the death penalty, legalizing gay marriage, abolishing the Second Amendment -- are deeply divisive issues among the people. These factors make it very difficult for anyone to get the big majority necessary for a Constitutional amendment. Changes in US party politics will ultimately be forced by demographics. Minorities are increasing due to higher birth rates and immigration. The baby boomers will eventually start dying. Society as a whole is becoming more secular, especially among the young. Either the Republican party will redefine itself in order to steal some categories of currently Democratic voters, a new party will rise to prominence, or (IMHO the most likely scenario) when the Republican party ceases to be a threat to Democrats' political agendas in ~10-40 years, the Democrats will themselves collapse. The fault lines are already there: Liberals like Obama favor massive spending on ambitious social programs. Civil libertarians -- there seem to be quite a few here on HN -- want a reduced government presence and an expansion of individual rights. Centrists like Bill Clinton aren't opposed to overseas military intervention and support balanced budgets and the reform of social programs. It's easy to see this coalition disintegrating without the pressure presented by their current common political foe, the Republican party.

philwelch 14y ago
> The fault lines are already there: Liberals like Obama favor massive spending on ambitious social programs. Civil libertarians -- there seem to be quite a few here on HN -- want a reduced government presence and an expansion of individual rights. Centrists like Bill Clinton aren't opposed to overseas military intervention and support balanced budgets and the reform of social programs. The fact that you refer to "massive spending on ambitious social programs" as a "liberal" idea, and distinguish "liberal" from "civil libertarian", already kind of belies the issue. In most countries, there's a distinction between liberals and leftists. A liberal is someone who favores reduced government presence, strong individual rights, and markets--kind of like US libertarians, except far less extreme. An example would be the UK Liberal Democrats. Leftists are the ones who favor workers and social programs, and have strong ties to labor unions, like the UK Labour party. Conservatives are like conservatives here except, again, less extreme. Conservative parties in countries like the UK or Canada still tend to favor universal healthcare, for instance. As we've seen in the UK, liberals can and do coalition with either side. You tend to see similar things in the US, though--whatever party holds the Presidency usually wants to expand executive powers at the expense of civil liberties, which leads the other party to reflexively take liberal stances. For instance, the Clinton administration's efforts against cryptography and gun ownership led to Republican opposition on both fronts, while the Bush administration's advancement of warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention led to strong Democratic opposition that disappeared as soon as a Democratic president was pushing for the same things. Actually, the problem is that there is no coherent liberal agenda in America. Philosophically, gay marriage, gun rights, opposition to warrantless wiretapping, and marijuana legalization are all liberal viewpoints, but out of the current political parties, each position is respectively supported by Democrats, Republicans, no one, and a minority on both sides.

by csense 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

> The fault lines are already there: Liberals like Obama favor massive spending on ambitious social programs. Civil libertarians -- there seem to be quite a few here on HN -- want a reduced government presence and an expansion of individual rights. Centrists like Bill Clinton aren't opposed to overseas military intervention and support balanced budgets and the reform of social programs. The fact that you refer to "massive spending on ambitious social programs" as a "liberal" idea, and distinguish "liberal" from "civil libertarian", already kind of belies the issue. In most countries, there's a distinction between liberals and leftists. A liberal is someone who favores reduced government presence, strong individual rights, and markets--kind of like US libertarians, except far less extreme. An example would be the UK Liberal Democrats. Leftists are the ones who favor workers and social programs, and have strong ties to labor unions, like the UK Labour party. Conservatives are like conservatives here except, again, less extreme. Conservative parties in countries like the UK or Canada still tend to favor universal healthcare, for instance. As we've seen in the UK, liberals can and do coalition with either side. You tend to see similar things in the US, though--whatever party holds the Presidency usually wants to expand executive powers at the expense of civil liberties, which leads the other party to reflexively take liberal stances. For instance, the Clinton administration's efforts against cryptography and gun ownership led to Republican opposition on both fronts, while the Bush administration's advancement of warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention led to strong Democratic opposition that disappeared as soon as a Democratic president was pushing for the same things. Actually, the problem is that there is no coherent liberal agenda in America. Philosophically, gay marriage, gun rights, opposition to warrantless wiretapping, and marijuana legalization are all liberal viewpoints, but out of the current political parties, each position is respectively supported by Democrats, Republicans, no one, and a minority on both sides.