Commenter Archive

I prefer Churchill's version, "democracy isn't the best form of government, its the worse form of government save all others tried."

Do you have any evidence for your first accusation?

No it isn't. Truman was acting within his powers as Commander-in-Chief when he ordered the army desegregated. Since his actions were within the powers granted to him by the Constitution than they were perfectly democratic.

This is a much more intelligent explanation than mine.

This is a much more intelligent explanation than mine.

Even well-educated people can drink the kool-aid if their pay check depends on it.

Even well-educated people can drink the kool-aid if their pay check depends on it.

I can live with that. I'm not very sympathetic to the foodies. I kind of agree with their message but the ahistoricism in much of the writing is a real turn off. A lot of foodies imagine a past that never was, when people ate the seasonal bounty of the land. We actually have a good idea what people ate like in the past and and it wasn't the seasonal bounty of the land. It was mainly grains or tubers of some sort and maybe some salt meat, dairy, or vegetables. It was industrial agriculture that led the world of varied diets and increased fruit and vegetable consumption.

Isn't Obama basically a geek who hides it very well in public? The man read Conan comics as a kid.

Isn't Obama basically a geek who hides it very well in public? The man read Conan comics as a kid.

And collectively say ouch.

I'm still relatively unsure of the difference between a liberal and a progressive. As far as I can tell, a progressive is only liberal that doesn't want to refer to him or herself as such for some reason.

James, I don't think that getting rid of districts would have the effect that you want without really changing how the House seats are distributed. In states that have lots of Representatives, non-district based voting would work. In states with one representative than the state is just a giant district. In states where you have a only a few representatives than things get confusing, especially if you use some form of proportional voting.

I also think that multiple parties work better in parliamentary system where the executive power is more closely aligned with the legislature. In our system, a multiple parties would either increase deadlock by making legislative compromise even harder or turn the House into a rubber stamp because nobody can agree and just differs to the Presidency.

I'm not really talking about idealism, so much as words have meaning. A representative democracy thats functionally controlled by the minority political party is not a representative democracy. Its a kind of oligarchy.

I'd argue that in a republican or democratic system, gerrymandering is not how politics are supposed to work. If the minority rigs the game so they win even when they do not get the majority of votes than you aren't really dealing with functioning representative government. The people aren't getting to choose you represent them.

Or bluntly, the Swiss system doesn't seem fairly market oriented. Its actually further to the left of the PPACA since the insurance companies are much more regulated under the Swiss system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

This is the Swiss healthcare system. It seems to be a fairly typical Bismarckian system. Everybody has to purchase health insurance, every health insurance company has to offer the same basic services and has to register with the government. Insurance companies can not earn profit from mandated services but only for supplementary services. The only difference between the Swiss system and other Bismarckian systems is that the Swiss system involves co-pay.

This. The GOP's problem isn't that its turning off liberals but thats its scarring a lot of people who don't consider themselves liberal. Many apolitical, non-political, moderate, and even conservative people are increasingly finding the GOP as not offering any practical solution for the problems facing society. The GOP is never going to attract people but they need to get more than conservatives to vote for them.

Which ones? The most conservative form of healthcare coverage in the rest of the developed world is the Bismarckian system, which is kind of the inspiration of the PPACA. In Bismarckian system, the insurance companies are much more regulated than their American counterparts and basically operate more like utility companies than insurance companies.

Is Cthulu a demon? Cthulu is more alien than demonic.

Thats what it is. All the benefits of power and none of the downside.

I also think its debatable about whether the GOP really wants an alternative to the PPACA. Jonathan Chait made a very important point when he noted that conservative really don't believe in luck. They believe that peopel deserve their good fortune or bad fortune, nobody is simply lucky or unlucky. To more than a few conservatives, not being able to afford healthcare is simply something that people deserve.

The problem is that there really can't be a Republican or conservative alternative to the PPACA. American conservtives have been arguing that market based healthcare is better than government based healthcare for generations. They ranted against Medicare when LBJ first introduced it into Congress and they have been proven wrong every time. Government based healthcare works and nobody has really created a market-based healthcare system that does work.

There can't be a conservative alternative to the PPACA because I'd argue that the PPACA is the most conservative form of universal healthcare that will kind of work thats possible. Any alternative that would work would be more socialist and not less socialist in nature.

The behavior of the GOP in office is strong evidence that they want power without responsibility. Otherwise, they'd govern better.

Also Third Parties don't work in the American political system.

This is assuming that there is a difference between the Tea Party and GOP that doesn't actually exist.