Tag Archives: federal government

Is the United States a failed country?

by Nathaniel Smith, Politics: A View from West Chester, July 4, 2016

That term “failed state” (I prefer “country”*) is often tossed around in news reports to describe other countries, the most dramatic of which are predominantly Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, and Pakistan (one of the three pieces of what was one country on independence from Britain).

Then there is Latin America, where two of many examples are Venezuela (an example of pure government incompetence leading to breakdown in vital services and widespread starvation) and Brazil (whose infrastructure and services are collapsing under corruption, impeachments, and the 2016 Olympics).

You know: countries with governments that can’t govern, countries riven by ethnic and ideological strife and about to fall apart, countries with leaders on the take and huge gaps between the wealthy and the impoverished, countries whose citizens can’t get along because they lack the long tradition of respectful democracy founded long ago in Europe, of which it is accepted wisdom that we are the greatest exemplar.

And Europe? Come to think of it, Germany was split in two states after World War II. Czechoslovakia split into two parts and Yugoslavia into, eventually, seven. The USSR collapsed into its 15 constituent republics. Belgium periodically looks like the Flemish and French speakers are breaking up. The UK again is threatened by possible Scottish independence and Spain by the long-standing Catalan and Basque independence movements. And Greece, the birthplace of democracy, has been undergoing a bit of turmoil itself recently….

continue reading at Politics: A View from West Chester

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Nathaniel Smith, National govt & politics

The Constitutional Woes of American Democracy

by Roger Cohen, Autokthonous, 2/10/14

Of all the myriad public-policy problem facing the country, there is probably broad consensus that the very worst of them is the corruption of our elections and officeholders by the ceaseless orgy of political fundraising and contributions.

The 1974 reforms enacted by Congress in the shadow of Watergate only served to prove conclusively the law of unintended consequences that result when trying to separate thirsty politicians from their supply of mother’s milk.

And the horrible irony of the mess is that it is a direct outgrowth of our most cherished and fundamental constitutional principle: the freedom of speech — or at least as it is understood by the constitutional interpreters who sit on the Supreme Court.

Since the High Court’s five-to-four decision in 2010 in Citizens United v FEC, ending the ban on corporate independent political expenditures, political spending has exploded, turning what had already become a permanent campaign into a full-time fever of nearly election-eve frenzy.

Political communication now is as much driven by Super-PACs and a new structure called “Hybrid PACs” (combining traditional Political Action Committee direct support to candidates with the independence of Super-PACS, all under one roof), and untraceable “Dark Money,” that the politicians themselves — always so eager to collect — find they’ve lost control of the process.

The effect of so much independent cash flooding the marketplace of debate, said Philadelphia elections law attorney Adam C. Bonin, has been “to destabilize the parties as a mediating influence and to shift the center of gravity to outside the party structure.”

Bonin, at a presentation last weekend in Hershey, Pa. on campaign finance post-Citizens United, said he foresees even greater disruption ahead. The 2010 decision of the DC Circuit in SpeechNow.org v FEC “takes Citizens United to its extreme,” Bonin said, holding that “if [under Citizens United] it’s not corrupting for one corporation to do independent expenditures, it can’t be corrupting for a lot of them to join together to do it.”

Currently only binding in the District of Columbia, SpeechNow portends an environment where independent political spending enlarges to a scale approaching the economy of medium-sized countries like Chile or Malaysia.

“The next earthquake,” Bonin said, is likely to be McCutcheon v FEC, now awaiting Supreme Court decision, which challenges aggregate limits on individual contributions to political parties and candidates for office….

continue reading at Autokthonous

Leave a comment

Filed under Election rights and laws