|
1:05 PM (2 minutes ago)
|  | ||
| ||||
Reading his opinion, I could not decide whether Glenn was arguing in good faith and simply stupid, or whether he was arguing in bad faith and secretly yearned for tyranny.
Yes, tyranny. A strong word, but that seems to be the substance of the remedy he envisages. For all his hand-wringing talk of "tyranny of the majority" is to justify a system which would give more weight, power, and voice to a minority of the population, and thus institute a "tyranny of the minority" which is just tyranny of the ordinary sort.
For this end seems to be the only thread that hold his argument together. He begins by lamenting democracy, bemoaning that the principle of "one person, one vote" results in relatively less power in Statehouses for regions which are devoid of people. "It is not fair that our faction lost that election", they moan, "just because we had fewer votes!"
And how does he propose to remedy this? By massively expanding the powers of Congress to micro-manage state governments - a de facto abolition of federalism. For, since it is the strictest laws that bind, saying that no law may be stricter than Federal law is akin to saying no law binds but federal law. Apparently, being governed by a representative statehouse you dislike is so intolerable that it would be better to give all power to Congress, which already massively over-represents rural people and their interests - a fact obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the Federal budget and its consistent and systematic transfers from urban areas to rural areas.
P.S.
I would just like to say how much I appreciate the work of USA Today, which I quite sincerely think is the finest newspaper in America, because it aims to speak the truth plainly to all Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment