Comment by Nevermark
3 days ago
> the actual publicized investment plans are barely any different
On the contrary.
> The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat gold
My recollection, which may be way off, is Biden preferred fine grade silver dinner ware and free Uber passes...
It is amazing how quickly centralized power can not just become deeply and openly corrupt, but operate free of credible challenge. The centralization in this case being years of tightened coordination within one party, acting on all three branches. The internal leverage created by such processes provides a natural habitat for final consolidation by an opportunistic individual.
And suddenly the standards of governance are unrecognizable. The unsurprising result of successfully centralized power.
It has long occurred to me that by not having limits on party power (seat limits? term limits? Cross state limits? Cross branch limits?), the US Constitution left a huge power coordination loop hole, free of checks and balances.
That loophole holds up an eternal carrot of legal one party rule. Temporary one party rule in theory, but the constant drive for that grinds down bipartisanship and respect for any shared power.
No one party should ever have a dominant majority of congress, much less dominate all three branches.
At that point, in-party incentives overwhelmingly push party solidarity above any other issue.
(Another great side effect of party seat/term limits would be the breakup up of the party duopoly which even when "working" lowered the bar for each party to the floor, i.e. neither party needed to do much but not be the latest disappointing incumbent. And a duopoly is incapable of providing choices reflecting a complex reality. They are reduced to competing via team identification/shibboleths.
I’m not entirely sure what you think you’re arguing for or against here.
For congressional seat/term limits on parties.
Lots of ways to achieve that. I am not going to pick here. That’s an interesting discussion in its own right. But simple examples that demonstrate limits: parties can only operate in 10 states or less (for congressional candidates). Or parties can only hold 30% or less of congressional seats in either house. Etc.
In the short run, it enforces bipartisanship,
In the long run, it kills long term incentives to attempt to achieve single party rule temporarily, permanent or effectively permanent. Which has been a very destructive incentive driving tremendous organized partisan efforts. (Even when not achieved, the pursuit kills bipartisanship and competition on policy, in pursuit of a lasting hold on power.)
And it would open up elections to more parties, more choices, and force more flexibility, adaptation and collaboration from all parties, instead of more two party polarization and entrenchment.
> For congressional seat/term limits on parties.
Limits on parties like you discuss are a dumb idea, because they are trivially evaded by factional alliances that aren't formally parties.
OTOH, you wouldn't even need to have a reason to consider them if you simply had an electoral system that didn't lead to national duopoly frequently consisting of regional monopolies, e.g., if the legislative branch was elected in multiseat districts with a system structurally providing roughly proportional results, like Single Transferrable Vote.
The social technology of democracy has advanced since the 18th Century, but the most important parts of that advance, have been ignored in the US, at least at the federal level and statewide levels, though some local use is seen.