2 ms·

Talking about "restoring the Constitution" is a good way to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth throwing in with. I belie

Talking about "restoring the Constitution" is a good way to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth throwing in with. I believe in the future, not the past. Rather than holding up a piece of Scripture and warning me not to sin from the straight and narrow, I'd like to be presented with a vision for life lived. Or, more succinctly, "Build bridges, not guard rails." It irritates me that American politics is often an exclusive-or choice between freedom and justice.

lukifer 13y ago
Oh, I totally agree; the Constitution derives its authority from human rights principles which transcend nationality. I would love to see amendments which strengthened those rights and extended some or all protections to non-citizens. The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. (The Constitution has always been somewhat broken, given our history with slavery, suffrage, and wartime abuses, but it's a more comforting narrative for most conservatives.) If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment, I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. Whether you believe in a big or small government, we deserve one that we genuinely believe reflects our values, rather than the blatant corruption and "lesser evils" we live with now. If you remove the left-right smokescreen, Americans agree on more issues than it would seem; restoring faith in the democratic process would catalyze new progress in other arenas from there.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. But it's not a first step towards that goal. A significant number of people who chant "Restore the Constitution" mean "before the Fourteenth Amendment". > If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment That's not restoration. > I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. That's fine. You don't need to rally behind "Restore the Constitution" to advocate for that.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Like it or not, democracy requires coalitions to get things done, most especially in a country as culturally diverse as the US. While I also find some parts of the Tea Party abhorrent, I belive they are a necessary ally against the overreach of government. Note that that the first significant pushback against drones, and genuine use of the filibuster, came from none other than Rand Paul. We can keep bickering over our disagreements, or we can unite over our common ground. The latter is bound to have much higher efficacy.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Except that our common ground isn't common ground. Once again, you talk about how the government is sinning against your Bible. Your term for this deviation is "overreach", and your response to it is to "pushback" and put forward a messiah. These are guard rails. You are envisioning a future defined by what is not true: by the dearth of government overreach, by a less indiscriminate usage of drones, and so on. These are not bridges. They are walls. Forgive me if I don't tithe, but I am not a member of this church. You can build your coalition, but near as I can tell, you are acting against my interests.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        ...what? How is putting additional restraints on jackbooted thugs against your interests? Perhaps it's "throwing good money after bad", effort-wise, but I hardly see how the pursuit of due process makes things worse. We can build guard rails while the bridges are in pre-production. To be clear: are you referring to working within a conventional political system (over 50% consensus), or outside the political system, through NGOs/technology/etc? The former is more easily achieved by allying with those you disagree with. What would be your practical strategy to building bridges instead? Not with long-term "consciousness change", but right now, today?
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        13y ago

lukifer 13y ago

Oh, I totally agree; the Constitution derives its authority from human rights principles which transcend nationality. I would love to see amendments which strengthened those rights and extended some or all protections to non-citizens. The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. (The Constitution has always been somewhat broken, given our history with slavery, suffrage, and wartime abuses, but it's a more comforting narrative for most conservatives.) If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment, I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. Whether you believe in a big or small government, we deserve one that we genuinely believe reflects our values, rather than the blatant corruption and "lesser evils" we live with now. If you remove the left-right smokescreen, Americans agree on more issues than it would seem; restoring faith in the democratic process would catalyze new progress in other arenas from there.

saraid216 13y ago
> The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. But it's not a first step towards that goal. A significant number of people who chant "Restore the Constitution" mean "before the Fourteenth Amendment". > If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment That's not restoration. > I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. That's fine. You don't need to rally behind "Restore the Constitution" to advocate for that.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Like it or not, democracy requires coalitions to get things done, most especially in a country as culturally diverse as the US. While I also find some parts of the Tea Party abhorrent, I belive they are a necessary ally against the overreach of government. Note that that the first significant pushback against drones, and genuine use of the filibuster, came from none other than Rand Paul. We can keep bickering over our disagreements, or we can unite over our common ground. The latter is bound to have much higher efficacy.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Except that our common ground isn't common ground. Once again, you talk about how the government is sinning against your Bible. Your term for this deviation is "overreach", and your response to it is to "pushback" and put forward a messiah. These are guard rails. You are envisioning a future defined by what is not true: by the dearth of government overreach, by a less indiscriminate usage of drones, and so on. These are not bridges. They are walls. Forgive me if I don't tithe, but I am not a member of this church. You can build your coalition, but near as I can tell, you are acting against my interests.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      ...what? How is putting additional restraints on jackbooted thugs against your interests? Perhaps it's "throwing good money after bad", effort-wise, but I hardly see how the pursuit of due process makes things worse. We can build guard rails while the bridges are in pre-production. To be clear: are you referring to working within a conventional political system (over 50% consensus), or outside the political system, through NGOs/technology/etc? The former is more easily achieved by allying with those you disagree with. What would be your practical strategy to building bridges instead? Not with long-term "consciousness change", but right now, today?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - 13y ago