Iowa Primary

[Leo]

Great debate about this with Jon Stewart and Jim DeMint (R - South Carolina) http://www.putlocker.com/file/B7AAB16D6AC8437A#

all of jon stewart's extended/unedited interviews (which are always his best ones) are available to stream on the daily show website (http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews) i watched the demint interviews yesterday (all three segments run about a half-hour), good discussion but demint still doesn't acknowledge and address some pretty obvious points made by stewart.

the joe norcera interview is also good, about the economy/wall street/banks, etc. not bad for a guy who writes for such a universally discredited, biased rag.

 

[IdleRich]

To what extent is the constitution studied at schools in the US? In other words, how well does the average American know the constitution and what it really says? Also, to what extent are there disagreements about the meaning of important points in the document?
Is there a good website that summarises and interprets the constitution and its amendmentts?
How does one get an amendment?

 

[Leo]

To what extent is the constitution studied at schools in the US? In other words, how well does the average American know the constitution and what it really says? Also, to what extent are there disagreements about the meaning of important points in the document?
Is there a good website that summarises and interprets the constitution and its amendmentts?
How does one get an amendment?

based on my experience, you might get into some detail about the constitution if you take political science courses in high school (and certainly, college) but the basic US history courses in grade school (ages 7-14 or so) give a very cursory overview, it's just one element in the entire landscape of american history. on average, i think americans have a very vague understanding of the constitution, some know more and many know nothing.

the rise of the tea party increased discussion about it, their view often being that any law, bill or judicial decision be specifically tied to the original intent of constitution. the far-right often portrays their efforts as a quest to preserve the constitution (expressed in language like "take back america", "return the countries to its traditional values", the good ol' days, etc.) and tries to position liberals as "progressives" who want to change things and break from original intent. but those discussions are still among the vast minority of citizens.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But part of the US being the 'greatest country on earth' is the notion that it's a federal state. Part of the appeal is that states have a level of autonomy to decide their own affairs, but are protected by the umbrella of the federal government mostly for national security reasons. The reason Ron Paul votes 'no' to 99% of bills in congress is that he believes the Constitution -- and when you read it, he's right -- only gives a few explicit powers to the federal government.

that's pretty spot on. the Constitution not only gives the federal govt few powers (the "enumerated powers"), it also reserves all powers not explicitly given to the federal govt for the states. further, some of the enumerated powers - like those dealing with taxation + trade regulation - are pretty murky, which has provided the Supremes with much fodder over the last 2+ centuries. even in 1776 with a much smaller population/area to govern it was inadequate. in 1819 there was a big SC ruling (McCulloch v. Maryland) that gave the federal govt the right to pass laws beyond the original enumerated powers so long as those laws were meant only to advance those powers in ways that could implied from the Constitution, hence "implied powers", which unsurprisingly this has been a source of great, ongoing contention. clashes between central + local authority are at the heart of American history. the conservative resurgence of the last 30 years has largely been about rolling back the massive expansion of federal power under the New Deal + LBJ's Great Society.

more to Rich's point, I don't think the argument is so much for states as it is against powerful central authority. maybe there's a belief that local govt is more accountable, but when most conservatives or libertarians say smaller govt they mean smaller at all levels. at the most basic level many, if not all, Americans just believe strongly in the individual, the free market, all that, in a way that most Europeans don't, like it makes sense to most people in a Euro social democracy to pay higher taxes in return for free or at least subsidized health care, higher education, welfare, etc. I realize that may not be as true now as austerity kicks in everywhere but really it's still a basic philosophical difference of view.

and as far as the disconnect between "greatest country on Earth" and "i hate the government" you have to understand that the United States and the government of the United States are not the same thing to most people. you know, like how the loyalty of the Praetorian Guard was to the throne itself rather than whoever happened to be sitting on it at the time.

 

[IdleRich]

But I just don't really see how the greatest country on earth can really be a country if your movements around it are restricted by the fact that your normal behaviour at home can make you a criminal elsewhere.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

To what extent is the constitution studied at schools in the US? In other words, how well does the average American know the constitution and what it really says? Also, to what extent are there disagreements about the meaning of important points in the document?
Is there a good website that summarises and interprets the constitution and its amendmentts?
How does one get an amendment?

most Americans are shockingly ill-informed about both their own history and pretty much everything having to do w/how their country is run, up to + including the Constitution. + yes, before someone says it, most Americans are shockingly ill-informed about nearly everything in general, it's just more embarrassing when it's in relation to the place they're citizens of. what Leo says w/r/t schooling is pretty accurate. high school generally covers the basics but you don't get into it on any serious level unless you go to college + elect to take a PoliSci course or two once there.

there have always been serious disagreements about interpreting the Constitution. parts of it - like I mentioned above - are just really ambiguous. that's actually seen as one of its strengths in ways but it's a double edged sword. strict Constructionism - by no means a fringe view as its held by multiple SC judges - is the equivalent of people who interpret the Bible word for word. tho really there's no such thing as a 100% pure strict Constructionist, in the way that there's no such thing as a pure Dogme filmmaker.

amendments are really, really hard to get passed. the method for doing so is both difficult + circuitous. this describes it well.

as far as websites I mean, it's all on Wiki. just going off google, here's something on the enumerated powers. I would just google + look into university sites, PoliSci depts, law schools probably have stuff, etc. also I would be happy to take a crack at answering any specific questions. not that I'm an expert or anything but I have taken a couple of those college-level courses and I think I at least halfway know what I'm talking about.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But I just don't really see how the greatest country on earth can really be a country if your movements around it are restricted by the fact that your normal behaviour at home can make you a criminal elsewhere.

first let's be totally clear that "greatest country on earth" etc is not my personal view. I dunno if you remember my politics at all, but they certainly ain't that. I'm just trying to explain a point of view held by a lot of people.

as far as your point, that's the whole thing of it being a federation of individual states. think of it like the UK where Scotland, Wales + N. Ireland all have their own govts but also send MPs to the English Parliament. except that the states aren't (far-right rhetoric aside) subjects of Washington like the other UK members are of England. or maybe a better analogy is to the semi-autonomous regions of Spain and their relation to the national government. except, you know, minus the figurehead monarchy.

 

[IdleRich]

Yeah, sure, that was a Tea Party phrase which I was contrasting with the Tea Party rhetoric towards big (or indeed any) government. Wasn't implying that was your politics at all.
Cheers for the info, gotta rush now but I'll read all that stuff about amendments when I get a sec - though intuitively it makes sense that it should be fairly hard to amend the constitution.

 

[IdleRich]

All wide open again now I guess...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

yeah the angry little attack muffin unravels the mitten, he really came on strong over the last week. it's not quite a disaster for Romney tho. he was always going to struggle in a southern Tea Party stronghold. he'll have to win at least a couple of those kind of states to get the nomination of course. I dunno about wide open but Newt's solidly in it. Florida will be huge, obviously. I predict at least one serious gaffe (if only Perry was still around) as everyone tries to navigate the minefield of talking tough on "illegals" without completely alienating the Latino vote for November. Marco Rubio is supposed to be the magic cure-all there but potential running mates might not want to count on that. still think it'll be Romney in the end, no matter how much everyone dislikes him. Newt's capacity for self-destruction is nearly limitless. just when it seems like he's on top of the world he finds a way to implode in dramatic fashion.

 

[Leo]

wonder if marco rubio will come out with a big mitt endorsement. that really blew up in the face of south carolina first-term tea party governor nikki haley, and now she's suffering the negative backlash for not having any influence on the results. will rubio take that chance? he could come out looking like either a hero or a lightweight, risky.

i still really can't imagine it being anyone but mitt, but the guy just can't seem to nail it down. popular indiana GOP governor mitch daniels has been selected to do the republican rebuttal to obama's state of the union address on tuesday, that's a high-visibility role that is often used to launch politicians nationally. daniels has already turned down the offer to run but maybe he's reconsidering. he's conservative and smart but not a far-right wingnut who turns off moderate/independent voters, would be a very tough opponent for obama. but maybe he (and christie, and jeb bush, etc.) are just waiting for 2016.

 

[Sectionfive]

Not sure that comparison is really valid - the EU makes no pretence to being a country, does it? Yes, it makes laws that its members (at least notionally) have to conform to, but the individual sovereignty of member states is respected.

Only up to a point

 

[vimothy]

Not sure that comparison is really valid - the EU makes no pretence to being a country, does it? Yes, it makes laws that its members (at least notionally) have to conform to, but the individual sovereignty of member states is respected.

Either the EU makes laws that its member states abide by, or it does not. If not, then it's clear that EU member states don't surrender any sovereignty to it. If so, then what does it mean to say that individual sovereignty is respected?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

don't think Rubio will come out w/endorsement any time soon, especially not before the FL primary. why would he? no reason to alienate potential running mates. also, lack of track record is actually big part of his allure, same as Obama or JFK as young senators. jumping into vicious primary bloodletting can only tarnish image. best to remain aloof. also as Senator less pressure on him than on a governor like Haley to come up w/timely endorsement.

as far as new GOP guys jumping in, no way, not for 2012. but jockeying for 2016 or 2020, hell yeah. Daniels is getting a bit long in tooth - he's 62 now - but Huntsman, Rubio, Christie, Jindal, Rand Paul (don't laugh), etc. long way off, of course. speaking of VP, it's a job that sucks, I dunno why any rising young star would take it.

 

[Esp]

i still really can't imagine it being anyone but mitt, but the guy just can't seem to nail it down. popular indiana GOP governor mitch daniels has been selected to do the republican rebuttal to obama's state of the union address on tuesday, that's a high-visibility role that is often used to launch politicians nationally. daniels has already turned down the offer to run but maybe he's reconsidering. he's conservative and smart but not a far-right wingnut who turns off moderate/independent voters, would be a very tough opponent for obama. but maybe he (and christie, and jeb bush, etc.) are just waiting for 2016.

It would seem a fairly astute move to me for Daniels or Christie to enter now. Romney is flailing and Gingrich surely wouldnt survive the hammering he'd get once the DNC got going on him. The spin for the new candidate would be all about 'coming to the rescue' and the excuses would be easy to make if it didnt work. The media would be keen, not least because of the added drama, and so would probably amp the new candidate up as 'the real deal', if the new candidate was nominated and then lost to Obama, they would still potentially set themselves up as de facto nominee for the next election. Daniels and Christie are probably waiting till 2016 but the way things are going, a punt at this race seems as good a possibility as going up against a potentially stronger Republican line up next time round.

I thought Michael Bloomberg might get in the race as an independent, that would've made it really interesting. Hopefully Obama should win though if the Republicans carry on as they are.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also was thinking about that dude upthread talking about reality TV + whatever. which on the surface of it, well no shit what an obvious point that everyone - including any candidate or political operator who's not an idiot - has been fully aware for a long time (since the beginning of politics as a thing, really). but more to the point, observing the whole circus with the detachment that comes from having less than zero faith in any of it, it's all very imminent critique, in a Gulf War Did Not Take Place kind of way. I mean it always has, just when I was younger I was so far outside the sectors of society that actually pay attention to + consume all this shit that I never thought about it. unfortunately I don't have the academic background to be able to really articulate this very well. that guy above also mentioned Infinite Jest, go read DFW's essay on going to the AVN awards if you dunno what I'm taking about it. the, like, terrifying real unreality of it. you know smart pop music critics were always taking about millennial pressure in the late 90s, or now it's the fear or whatever iteration of directionless amorphous existential dread + the outpouring of that which presidential races summon up from the depths. 2008 was horrible for that. anyway I'm a subpar luka over here.

so long as it's clear people think about these things on more than just a functional level, however reluctantly.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

It would seem a fairly astute move to me

no offense bro but it's almost literally impossible by this point. these guys have not only missed the actual primaries (or caucuses) of 3 states, they also would have had to register in many states months ago to be included on those states' ballots in upcoming primaries. which involves paying fees, getting petitions signed, etc. even if they could get onto ballots, where would their funding come from? what about the extensive organization required to actually carry out a campaign? it takes a long time + a helluva lot of $ to get all that stuff together. most people usually start their primary campaigning a year + a half or so before the general election (that is, May 2011) and the latest you can get away w/officially opening a campaign is October, b/c of aforementioned deadlines to get on ballots.

Bloomberg was a serious threat to run as an indie in 2008 but he's almost 70 now + seems pretty happy as mayor of NYC. the real scare for the GOP is Paul, who is granted even older but kind of an anomaly. seriously doubt he will tho for bunch of reasons, it ain't really analogous to Nader or even Perot.

 

[Esp]

no offense bro but it's almost literally impossible by this point. these guys have not only missed the actual primaries (or caucuses) of 3 states, they also would have had to register in many states months ago to be included on those states' ballots in upcoming primaries. which involves paying fees, getting petitions signed, etc. even if they could get onto ballots, where would their funding come from? what about the extensive organization required to actually carry out a campaign? it takes a long time + a helluva lot of $ to get all that stuff together. most people usually start their primary campaigning a year + a half or so before the general election (that is, May 2011) and the latest you can get away w/officially opening a campaign is October, b/c of aforementioned deadlines to get on ballots.

Bloomberg was a serious threat to run as an indie in 2008 but he's almost 70 now + seems pretty happy as mayor of NYC. the real scare for the GOP is Paul, who is granted even older but kind of an anomaly. seriously doubt he will tho for bunch of reasons, it ain't really analogous to Nader or even Perot.

I agree the logistics of it make it extremely unlikely but if the calls for Daniels to run were to grow to a fever pitch after the SOTU response and the GOP were keen to make it happen logistically and organizationally, would you still say he'd be mad to run? I'm working on the assumption that Gingrich and Romney are 'best of the worst' candidates as far as Republican primary voters are concerned, maybe I'm underestimating their popularity in assuming that Romney/Gingrich supporters would instantly flock to a new candidate that looks to have a better chance of beating Obama.

 

[IdleRich]

"Either the EU makes laws that its member states abide by, or it does not. If not, then it's clear that EU member states don't surrender any sovereignty to it. If so, then what does it mean to say that individual sovereignty is respected?"

The EU issues directives which ultimately have to become law in member states - however, the EU only has this authority over the UK because of an act of the UK parliament which can (theoretically) be repealed so I'd say that there is some sense in which individual sovereignty exists, at least in the case of Britain, I assume that this is the case for other countries.

 

[Leo]

I agree the logistics of it make it extremely unlikely but if the calls for Daniels to run were to grow to a fever pitch after the SOTU response and the GOP were keen to make it happen logistically and organizationally, would you still say he'd be mad to run? I'm working on the assumption that Gingrich and Romney are 'best of the worst' candidates as far as Republican primary voters are concerned, maybe I'm underestimating their popularity in assuming that Romney/Gingrich supporters would instantly flock to a new candidate that looks to have a better chance of beating Obama.

even though i initially raised the possibility, i really don't see daniels changing his mind, particularly because he also cited family issues (apparently his wife is really against the idea). there's also no guarantee GOP primary voters would suddenly rush to a new candidate (that's what rick perry expected). the republican establishment has largely come out in favor of romney, it'll be really difficult at this point for them to dump him now for someone new. that would make them look really desperate, disorganized and weak as a party.

florida could be a watershed moment for who gets the nomination, demographics there are more reflective of the nation as a whole compared to iowa/new hampshire/south carolina. newt could get away with some things when speaking to south carolina evangelicals and far-right types that probably won't fly in florida.