Political Inequality - Even some conservatives see this as a risk

A while back, Andrew Sullivan commented in his blog about the political threat of soaring inequality. That problem is still with us, and is getting worse.

- - - - - -

One of the things noted in the chart below is Elite Fratricide preceding Political Disorder.

This is a very dangerous time for any nation, as the lunatics come out and are at risk of gaining power.  Recently, the Governor of Texas put the state guard on alert, claiming to protect Texas from an invasion from the United States. Even Forbes Magazine (where this link originated) senses that people who would believe this are Right Wing Nut Jobs!  And yet, the polity in many of the Red States keeps electing people who in other times, would only be fit for a clown car.

In the past, I posed the question:

How many clowns can be fit into a typical Clown Car?

And I realized that I already had the answer:

No one knows - it is still spewing out clowns.

In the case of the GOP's field for 2016, we now have so many candidates, that it will be impossible to have all of them on the debate floor at the same time.

The "Tea Party" said that giving financial aid to Hurricane Sandy victims would be a big mistake because of all the fraud that would be involved. (And they were right.  Does anyone remember the "Stronger than the Storm" campaign, which had Governor Chris Christie prominent in every ad?") And now that Texas has been hit by a natural disaster, they have changed their tune....

- - - - - - 

What we're seeing here is a political party that is out of control, a party which favors the political elite over the common good of society, and one that wants to continue adding to the economic inequality which is now disrupting the body politic.

An example of the disconnect between the GOP and reality is the candidacy of Carly Fiorina for the presidency. She is running, using her experience as CEO of Hewlett Packard as her way of showing she is qualified to hold high office.  One problem - HP kicked her out of the "C-Suite", as the firm under performed during her tenure. Can we risk having a poorly performing business person running the country, if we want America run as if it were a business?

- - - - - -

Right now, there is a case working its way through the court system which is geared to disrupt the idea that congressional districts are to contain equal numbers of people, by posing that the districts should contain equal numbers of voters.  Is this fair? Probably not. But, like Jim Crow, we've seen unfair systems established before in this country to keep a ruling elite in power. And I keep wondering - how long will it be before the disenfranchised say: "We're not going to take it anymore?"

Now that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum, now what?

If the lunatics were in charge of the above asylum, I'm not too sure of how bad things would get. However, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum below, and there's no limit to how much damage they can do....

Here's the problem - the wingnuts from the GOP's extreme right wing have taken over the party, and people like Ronald Reagan would be considered a leftist if his actions were listed without his name being attached to them.

Why is this important?

There is a lot of damage that can be done when one party is in charge of the legislative branch. There is even more damage that can be done when the same party is in charge of both legislative and executive branches of government. Regardless of what one thinks of today's Democratic party (and I don't think much of them), I am very upset at the rhetoric coming from the party in power.

- - - - - -

I'm a person who believes that as much power in society as possible should be left in the hands of the individual, and not the big corporation or big government. So my philosophy had led me to support a "pro choice" position on abortion, as well as a "pro 2nd amendment" position on gun control. The opponents of my viewpoints have valid reasons to disagree with me, and I respect their positions as important enough to discuss. In a healthy society, this discussion would lead to policies that would minimize the negative effects of preserving these individual rights. Sadly, in our society, both parties (and their supporters) are shouting past each other, saying nothing that the other side finds worthwhile to listen to.

This post will not be one that attempts to justify my position on these controversial issues. I could almost as easily justify the opposite positions on these issues - save that I don't want big government, big business, or some moral zealot telling me what I can do (or not do) with my body, and another moral zealot telling me what I can (or can't) use to protect myself (and my rights).

- - - - - -

When one party gains too much power, it can implement laws without the consent of a significant number from the opposition party. We live in a society where important decisions are being made with a public that is split 50/50 down the middle on most issues. Sometimes, this is needed. Other times, the opposite (no action) would be the best course of action to take.

Our founding fathers designed the American system to slow down the pace of decision making. The House of Representatives was designed for hot heads to vent their steam, while the Senate was designed to let bad bills go and languish in committee until they are dead and buried. This is very different from a unicameral parliamentary system as used in most of the British commonwealth - where one party can act very quickly. and get voted out (a vote of no confidence) at a moment's notice.

We suffer from a system which has become sclerotic. But should we be in a rush to change our system?  I doubt that major changes are needed. Instead, I think we need "small" changes such as term limits and non-partisan (or bipartisan) drawing of congressional district maps. We might also consider laws that break up the two party monopoly, mandating the governmental support for a third party in the same way that the Democrats and Republicans are supported in most states' laws today. Another avenue to help third parties would be laws to allow third party cross-endorsement of major party candidates. No matter what, we need to do something to destabilize the two major parties, as to help facilitate new ideas in the "public debate"....

- - - - - -

I find it amazing that both the Tea Party (on the right) and many leftists believe that the big banks are out of control. Yet they haven't bothered to look across the aisle to find that common ground needed to design meaningful regulation of the financial services industry, to rebuild checks and balances (like the Glass-Steagall act which once separated Commercial Banks from Investment Banks) needed for a sound economy.

In 2008, we almost saw a complete systemic collapse of the banking industry. I was in a bank that was reasonably well capitalized (I can't say anything about it now, as I no longer follow it in detail), while other "too big to fail" banks could have collapsed had the Federal Government not stepped in to save them.  (The HBO movie, "Too Big To Fail" gives a good idea of what was happening behind the scenes, and shows how close we were to the collapse I still fear so much.)

Recently, in the latest "Must Pass" bill, designed to keep the Federal Government running, we saw a relaxation of the "Dodd-Frank" rules that were designed to help prevent another systemic collapse of the financial system. Sadly, this bill was signed into law.

Right now, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Will they continue to act irresponsibly, now that they have the power to govern? I'm not sure. But I hope things will change for the better....