Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I found this article on RCP and even though it is written by a Democrat I cannot deny that he speaks truth - in any election, not just this one.
"Our latest national nightmare is almost over. The 2008 presidential race that started early in 2007 is the longest in modern history. It has been conducted while American troops are fighting two wars and while the home front is under threat of attack. The October surprise was a meltdown of the stock market and the start of a recession.
Was it worth it? Other than a new name in the White House and proving we can have a national election without a Bush or a Clinton on a ticket - a first since 1976 - what did America gain from this hyper-partisan, ridiculously expensive, often irrelevant bash fest?
Nothing, not yet, anyway. As Mario Cuomo famously said, you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Wednesday starts the prose.
What kind of government emerges, and how much government, will largely be determined by whether we have one-party rule. My strong preference for a check and balance on the accumulation of power leads me to hope Republicans salvage a sliver of power from this Democratic tide.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," James Madison wrote in Federalist paper 51, and later added: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
We can say with certainty we're not dealing with angels, so let's hope against the same party winning the White House and all of Congress. While Republicans and Democrats have sometimes been indistinguishable in their greed for gorging at the public trough, partisan allegiances still offer hope for fulfilling the Constitution's vision of checks and balances. Without competing ambitions and interests, institutional balance often withers.
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself," Madison wrote.
Any case where government has been able to "control itself" would be the exception. Most examples of one-party rule are cautionary tales of excess as the minority party is shut up and shut down. Monopolies are seldom in the public interest, and political monopolies are no exception.
Indeed, much of Barack Obama's argument for election is based on ending not just George Bush's administration, but on overturning Republican philosophy on everything from Iraq to regulating markets to tax policy. Most of those issues emerged during Bush's first six years, when the GOP also held Congress.
Republicans deserve a thrashing, but the pendulum would be swinging too far in the opposite direction if GOP misrule yielded to Democratic monopoly. It would satisfy partisan competitiveness and a thirst for revenge among angry activists, but would not benefit the nation.
"A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions," Madison wrote.
Political parties are important expressions of "auxiliary precautions," especially when the minority has a share of governmental authority with which to wage dissent. For example, if Obama wins the White House, a Republican Senate would at least have advise and consent power on key nominations as well as a say in legislation.
Parliamentary rules are a lesser defense against one-party abuse. If Democrats win the Senate with 60 seats, a real possibility, they would be able to silence GOP voices on virtually any issue.
This combination of political facts and human nature leads to a personal view. I am a Democrat, but hardly in lock-step with some of Obama's plans or with the wildly liberal, partisan instincts of top Dem congressional leaders. I want Republicans to stay in the game not because they deserve it, but because the rest of us do."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...heres_my_dream_ticket_why_divided_govern.html
"Our latest national nightmare is almost over. The 2008 presidential race that started early in 2007 is the longest in modern history. It has been conducted while American troops are fighting two wars and while the home front is under threat of attack. The October surprise was a meltdown of the stock market and the start of a recession.
Was it worth it? Other than a new name in the White House and proving we can have a national election without a Bush or a Clinton on a ticket - a first since 1976 - what did America gain from this hyper-partisan, ridiculously expensive, often irrelevant bash fest?
Nothing, not yet, anyway. As Mario Cuomo famously said, you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Wednesday starts the prose.
What kind of government emerges, and how much government, will largely be determined by whether we have one-party rule. My strong preference for a check and balance on the accumulation of power leads me to hope Republicans salvage a sliver of power from this Democratic tide.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," James Madison wrote in Federalist paper 51, and later added: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
We can say with certainty we're not dealing with angels, so let's hope against the same party winning the White House and all of Congress. While Republicans and Democrats have sometimes been indistinguishable in their greed for gorging at the public trough, partisan allegiances still offer hope for fulfilling the Constitution's vision of checks and balances. Without competing ambitions and interests, institutional balance often withers.
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself," Madison wrote.
Any case where government has been able to "control itself" would be the exception. Most examples of one-party rule are cautionary tales of excess as the minority party is shut up and shut down. Monopolies are seldom in the public interest, and political monopolies are no exception.
Indeed, much of Barack Obama's argument for election is based on ending not just George Bush's administration, but on overturning Republican philosophy on everything from Iraq to regulating markets to tax policy. Most of those issues emerged during Bush's first six years, when the GOP also held Congress.
Republicans deserve a thrashing, but the pendulum would be swinging too far in the opposite direction if GOP misrule yielded to Democratic monopoly. It would satisfy partisan competitiveness and a thirst for revenge among angry activists, but would not benefit the nation.
"A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions," Madison wrote.
Political parties are important expressions of "auxiliary precautions," especially when the minority has a share of governmental authority with which to wage dissent. For example, if Obama wins the White House, a Republican Senate would at least have advise and consent power on key nominations as well as a say in legislation.
Parliamentary rules are a lesser defense against one-party abuse. If Democrats win the Senate with 60 seats, a real possibility, they would be able to silence GOP voices on virtually any issue.
This combination of political facts and human nature leads to a personal view. I am a Democrat, but hardly in lock-step with some of Obama's plans or with the wildly liberal, partisan instincts of top Dem congressional leaders. I want Republicans to stay in the game not because they deserve it, but because the rest of us do."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...heres_my_dream_ticket_why_divided_govern.html
