By Tim Baldwin
Political philosophers conclude that every political structure has the seeds of destruction within itself. Even Robert Welch (founder of the John Birch Society) said, “The American republic was bound —is still bound — to follow … the same course to destruction … [which is the] results of a natural political evolution.” So, how should Americans prepare for political death?
The U.S. has had types of deaths and rebirths, but we have maintained the same Constitution with the same parties to it. For over 200 years, competing political philosophies have engaged in offense-defense strategies. Wins and losses have been had, and our system has changed through evolution. Fine.
Eventually, however, a political system evolves a breaking point, where fundamental reflection and choice are required, not just evolution. The Constitution provides for this choice. Article V allows the states to amend the Constitution to correct perceived systemic errors and flaws. Or, acting outside of the Constitution, the people can hold a constitutional convention to create a new political system with even new parties to it. The latter option is how the Constitution was created in 1787.
The “breaking point of destruction” can only be seen through the eyes of history. Regardless, looking at all political decisions, reasonable people should prefer and work for rebirth through choice and deliberation instead of violent death.
By Joe Carbonari
Most of us don’t have the time or inclination to follow the ins and outs of what our representatives vote for or against. If polled, most of us would try to recall what someone trusted said about whatever was at question. That failing, political party positions come into play. We often just go with the party. There’s the problem.
Our major political parties are on average much more extremely opposed in their views than we, as average people, are. Once elected they are protected. Their districts have been designed to give their party safe seats. Once in it’s all about the primary election, where those of the more extreme views tend to hold sway. They must be pleased or appeased and their positions are often limited in their perspective. They overvalue their issue and are too slow to input and admit the values of those with whom they disagree, on average.
We have to improve our primaries. They are too frequently turning out representatives with many positive characteristics but whom, on balance, are not well-suited to the process. We are not getting government by the best and the brightest, and it is not working well.
With an open primary we might better see where the most of us sit on various issues, and people, at least those that vote, or are polled. More representative than now.