[thechat] protests?

[Martin Burns]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, deacon b. wrote:

> > deacon b. wrote:
> > > The electoral college serves a very valid purpose - it
> > > makes it a lot more *certain* who lives at 1600
> > > Pennsylvania Avenue. Better the guy who's second-
> > > best than nobody at all!
>
> > That's not why the electoral college was created at all.  It was
> > created as a compromise between individual/states rights folks and
> > federalists.
>
> Should "why it was created" really matter at this
> point? It exists - and it has a *very* good reason to
> continue to exist.

'Good' depending on your perspective of course. There are plenty of more
representative ways of electing someone (and no, I don't include
Westminster's method). STV being a good example (although it works best
when you have > 2 candidates).

> > The Reagan and Bush I administrations were also
> > directly responsible for the greatest expansion of government
> > intrusion into private behavior, known as the War On Drugs.
>
> Lyndon Johnson started the War on Drugs in
> December 1964 with the Single Convention on
> Narcotic Drugs.

However, it took Reagan to take the drug enforcement budget from the
$single_digit_millions of the 1960s to over $1bn. In the interests of
balance, I'll note that Clinton's administration took it over $17bn.

Interesting that in the era of budget cutting and distaste for Big
Government, drug control agences were one of the few places where federal
government grew significantly.

[
Of course, the most significant drug problems are with legal drugs (and
that's not even including tobacco and alcohol), yet <1% of the enforcement
money goes to combatting prescription drug abuse.

And the vast majority of teenage drug use is given up by the early 30s,
with the main exception of tobacco
]


The increase in spending is more to do with responding to the fear of
drugs, fanned by media coverage. Here's why:
http://www.uwp.edu/academic/psychology/demos/UTICdemo/UTICdemo.html

Not that the media are doing this on their own. Every president since
Nixon have asked/used the media to keep the drugs issue reported above its
weight. Bush I addressed the nation over all 3 major networks in 1989 to
drive home the message of a drugs crisis, even though illegal drug use had
declined over the previous 10 years.

I would guess that it's now pretty difficult for any senior US or UK
politician to seriously stand on a platform of anything but 'tough on
drugs, no matter the evidence'. Dole tried to paint Clinton as pro-drug in
the 1996 campaign, with a fast turn-around by Clinton to be positioned
more anti-drug than Dole. And let's not forget that drugs associations was
a convenient club for conservatives to use to beat Clinton simply for
being a boomer.

So it's a neat feedback loop.

> The modern republican party has been built on the
> philosophy of Barry Goldwater, and to a lesser
> degree, Ronald Reagan.

I think you're underestimating the influence of
a) the Christian right
b) the likes of William Buckley, Dinesh D'Souza et al, moving the party
from a (mostly) principled one to one which is a 'win at all costs' party.

> Neither party has been particularly successful in
> reducing the size of government

You seem to imply that this is a good in itself. I would very much
disagree. Where a government has grown over-large to accomplish the tasks
it sets itself, then sure, there's a certain amount of discipline
necessary. Usually, the discipline is imposed crudely when it is in
response to political pressure, rather than effectively - it's all about
being *seen* to spend less money, rather than actual efficiency.

Me, I think government should spend to benefit the population, providing a
fair level of access to services deemed to be a right of the citizen (ie
in the US' case, things which are required for life, liberty & the pursuit
of happiness). Housing, healthcare and education are pretty much to the
top of my list.

I would also cite the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote on the side of the
Treasury building: "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."

Although what the hell a civilised society has to do with bombing the shit
out of countries that don't pose us a threat I don't know... If the US
govt were serious about privatising stuff that is not in the national
interest, it would privatise the army, who would then directly tender with
the nation's commercial interests on whose behalf they usually fight.


> largely because of the Civil Service constraints.  If we want to do
> something to improve the federal government, Civil Service is the first
> thing that needs to go.

hahaha. You've never worked in a public sector project then. Not that I
think Civil Service couldn't do a better (nb not 'cheaper') job...

> As it is, our government is not run by Republicans or Democrats, but by
> bureaucrats who are free to tell their elected "superiors" to go fish.

As I said, you've never worked in a public sector project.

That's a neat way of blaming the people who you hate the most btw, thus
giving yourself a justification for hating them. Circular argument, cap'n!

Cheers
Martin

-- 
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie