Outside of major recessions, there’s aren’t many votes to win “fighting the power”, especially since the power is the government. The Republicans won that argument back in the 80s. You have to convince Americans that the government is good and competent first. That’s why Martin O’Malley is a compelling candidate, if Democrats are interested in listening.
One of the interesting things about O’Malley that I didn’t know is that throughout his pre-elected office political career, he always joined the campaign of whoever was the liberal reformist candidate: guys like Gary Hart and Bob Kerrey. If you really want to get into issue like a Democratic Contract With America, candidates like him are necessary to change things. Hillary Clinton and even guys like Barack Obama won’t get it done.
While that’s true, anyone who isn’t the absolute lowest is often going to have a tendency to step on those lower. Human nature. Populist parties often have trouble keeping those inclinations in check. It’s a problem now for Republicans. Democrats kid themselves if they think they can bring tens of million of disgruntled working class whites over to the party and not go through many of the same things the Republican Party is going through. Populism is a double edged sword. I think a lot of Democrats figure there’s a way to win all these voters over without actually surrendering control of the party to them. Doesn’t work that way.
Populist parties are often producerist, hating both the rich and the poor, not as an aberration but as a conscious part of their ideology. We’re talking about a different kind of party, a left-populist party; that’s what America needs, and that’s what the Democratic Party is not but needs to become.
Which doesn’t change the fact that the government is also perceived as incompetent and is likely to continue to step on the little people even if it’s also stepping on the rich.
The first step towards persuading the public to support an activist government is to actually have a government that is responsive and serves rather than one that is incompetent and rules.
Has such a party ever successfully won power? Sounds as pie in the sky to me as a libertarian party winning.
It all comes down to persuasion again. Somehow you have to convince people that the cause of their problems are people like the Kochs, rather than the dude robbing them at the ATM machine. And given America’s prosperity, you also need to convince the very well off that somehow the really rich are who are “keeping them down”, when strangely, they aren’t living in gates communities to keep Bernie Madoff out.
Constitutions can be amended, rewritten, replaced. The 1787 Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation without the Republic winking out of existence or becoming vassals of France or something. It was even instituted without following the protocols set out in the Articles of Confederation.
If you believe that the Constitution constitutes and comprises the USA, who comprised the Patriot side in the War for Independence?
It is entirely permissible to suggest amending the present constitution in the interest of the nation, because the nation was not made for the Constitution but rather the other way around.
John Mace, I long ago left behind a fundamentalist Christian upbringing. I know biblicism and text-worship well.
I am certainly not going to exalt as a perfect blameless scripture a bit of law my arrogant cousin Alexander and his slaver friends hacked together in 1787 in a desperate bid to give their people a strong and competent chief executive. It doesn’t even have any poetry or philosophy.
I can respect constitutional law by and large while acknowledging errors, missteps, and bad intentions that have crept into the tradition.
And anyway, if you’re a constitutional fundamentalist, why aren’t you agitating to free the falsely imprisoned foreigners in Gitmo? For that matter, why ain’t I?
Simple. Because “constitutionalism” is 3000 miles wide and a millimeter deep. Most of our countrymen only care about their own rights, prerogatives, and pleasures. Constitutionalism is a crock, as I learned well eleven years ago when no one would impeach our kidnappers-in-chief.
I use electricity every day, and all day in the winter.
My local power company buys electricity from coal-burning plants. The market for electricity has enriched the Koch family to the tune of several billions of dollars.
By comparison, I have never been robbed at an ATM, nor while leaving my thrift, bank, or credit union. And if I had been, it would have cost me less than what I pay in power bills in a month or two. And I expect this is typical.
So your little post here is bad cost-benefit analysis.
ETA: Do you, by the way, know any street criminals worth $10 billion? How about $100 million? How about $1 million? No, of course not. We lose more money to the “legitimate” costs of the “system” than to street crime.
Of course; most countries in Europe have been ruled by social-democratic parties (even the “Socialists” and “Communists” are social-democratic nowadays) at one time or another. Some are now. And the PRD is still a big deal in Mexico and the NDP in Canada, though neither has ever won power nationally.
I wouldn’t exactly call those populist parties though. Social democracy is not left-populism, it’s technocratic liberalism like in the US, only they tax and spend more.
Of course, that’s another possible direction to go in, but in order to do that the US government has to work as well as social democracy governments. It’s much harder to manage a vast country of 300 million from DC than a compact country of 50 million, most of whom live within 300 miles of the capital. Thus our federalist system.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and the President, Congress, and all federal courts derive their authority from it. If you want to amend it as you now suggest, you are going to need more than 55%.
Still waiting to hear the amendments you are suggesting to include in the Democratic Contract with America, and what you want to be allowed to do that the Constitution now forbids you.
Well, you make that sound all dangerous. No matter what a constitutional convention does, it means nothing until 3/4 of the states ratify it. Everybody knows that, which is why talk of a constitutional convention never goes anywhere.