Republicans may win in the mid-terms? Solution: cancel them!
(The mid-terms, that is, not the Republicans.)
Thus saith an op-ed by David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan appearing in today’s NY Times.
Of course, they don’t actually say to cancel them because Republicans stand to do well. Their argument is that they should be canceled because midterms negate the power of the president. However, to most people of a non-tyrannical nature, that would be a feature rather than a bug. The midterms are one of the only checks the people have on a president such as Obama—or any other president, for that matter—who throws them a curve by doing the opposite of what he/she promised or pledged, and a Congress that goes along with it.
But no:
The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms…
The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.
Well, maybe the public has decided it doesn’t want that agenda, as events have played out. Or maybe, just maybe, the agenda that was promised is not the one that was delivered, and the people want the president stopped. Or maybe even impeached.
Another problem Schanzer and Sullivan see is that midterms tend to attract the whiter, older, wealthier, more educated voters:
Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.
There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years.
Hey, I’ve got an idea for an even better fix! Only allow voters to vote in strict proportion to their racial and socioeconomic category percentages in the population, so that no one group is over-represented because of its suspiciously greater voting zeal.
The sort of thinking Schanzer and Sullivan espouse is frightening but not surprising. And the Times has a tendency to publish these “enough with the Constitution, already” op-eds now and then, as experimental feelers for how far the public is willing to go to enable the leftist agenda, and to get the people used to the arguments therein. They like to use professors to accomplish this.
The curious thing in this case is that Schanzer, although a Democrat, does not seem (at least by my reading of his resume) to be an extreme leftist—for example, the Congressional Democrat he advised was a Blue Dog Democrat from Texas. Why, then, is Schanzer so hepped now on an imperial presidency, unaccountable to the people [hint: rhetorical question]? Did he advocate that same position back in 2006? I certainly doubt it.
. . . and then, only if they have paid some income tax in both of the past two years’ filing (I don’t care if it’s only $1, but some income tax — not compulsory social security tax). Everyone should have some skin in the game, which is one of the reasons the founding fathers limited the vote to property owners.
T:
I hope it’s clear that my suggestion was sarcasm.
Personally, I think that if some socioeconomic group has less “voting zeal” than others, that’s their problem. Let them take it up with their, uh, community organizers.
I have a great idea, tell liberal voters today that Obama has cancelled mid-term elections in order to have more balance and fairness and of course they will believe that’s a fact since Obama said it. Then all conservatives go to the poll and vote for responsible leadership. Yep, that might work, even in D.C., N.Y. & CA. Since Obama doesn’t talk to the press it would take them a week to find our they might have been mislead.
Neo:
So how many times did this alleged “Blue Dog Democrat from Texas” go against the progressive-dictated party line of the Democrats? A friend of mine claims to be a “Blue Dog Democrat,” here in the heart of Texas. I do not know of any Obama proposals he has been against.
Yes, my Blue Dog Texas Democrat friend did come out against Weiner’s attempt to resurrect his political career- but did so only after the Clintons and others decided that Weiner was roasted. He certainly made no negative comments about Weiner when he was a Congressman whose electronic habits had been, shall we say, exposed.
My experience with Democrats is that party loyalty trumps anything else. As I see it, Blue Dog Democrats will spinelessly follow whatever Obama, Pelosi, Clinton & Company propose.
The Left often make puppet copy propaganda lines to attack Republican leaders because they think that if they can break people’s belief in those Republican leaders, people will change their behavior. They are projecting, as usual, for their behavior stems directly from their fanatical belief in the Messiah, Global Warming, rapists like T Kennedy/Clinton, and various other Leftist priests, deus ex machina, and gods.
Their “faith” would be weakened if they doubted their gods, so why shouldn’t yours be as well since they are fighting yours?
That’s why the most popular refrain during 2005 Iraq War to a subject on socio economic military political subjects as “But Bush did it too” or something of that nature. It was to stomp your foot in so you stopped advanced along a certain bad thought line. The assumption was that you, like LEftist zombie minions, were only talking and behaving like that because your leaders (Bush) gave you the orders.
The framers fully intended that lawmakers, House members in particular, be required to grovel for their jobs every two years. It is they who are entrusted with the power of the purse, not the President.
A Presbyterian minister I know referred to the constitution as a Calvinist document, meaning that it was constructed in recognition of a flawed human nature.
These guys apparently see no flaws in the current President’s nature.
As I see it, Blue Dog Democrats will spinelessly follow whatever Obama, Pelosi, Clinton & Company propose.
Blue dogs are little different from the old yellow dogs or red dogs or vipers.
A side skirmish battlefield in the greater war.
http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2014/11/i-may-have-misread-that-one.html
I like OldTexan’s idea. 🙂
Neo,
Your “suggestion” clearly was. Mine, however, was not. IMO voters should have a vested interest in the system what ever the criterion of that vested interest might be (that’s always the controversial part, isn’t it?). The founders understood this.
To enable those on the dole to vote for representatives who would maintain and increase that dependency is no different than govt employee unions using mandatory dues to elect politicians who are sympathetic to govt unions. The unions and thus the employees they represent wind up with representatives on both sides of the bargaining table. Neither Truman nor FDR were sympathetic to govt unions.
Donees legislating the largesse of their donors is a roadmap to bankruptcy. Early on even Ben Franklin noted that the death knell for any republic is when the populace understands that they can vote themselves subsidies from the public treasury.
Democrats these days are about as patriotic and pro nation as 1850s Democrats.
They wanted more slaves because more slaves equaled more voting power.
That has changed… how now?
Gringo:
My point was not about whether Blue Dog Democrats are Democrats. They certainly are. My point is that I was trying to get a clue as to whether Schanzer was a leftist or a liberal. From his job with Turner, and a few other facts I didn’t mention, I concluded he was probably a liberal rather than a leftist.
“For the Left, it’s never about the issue, it’s always about the revolution.” David Horowitz
“Democrats regard politics as a war conducted by other means. Their agenda is not to seek compromise over practical solutions to complex problems. It is to achieve power to dictate the fundamental transformation of American society into a socialist-redistributionist state.
Democrats regard Republicans as enemies standing in the way of social justice and social progress. Every issue for them is a means to a greater end, which first of all is power, and beyond that the transformation of American society into a socialist-redistributionist state.“ David Horowitz
“The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years.”
This could be a “what’s wrong with this sentence?” test question for a high school civics class.
The government?!?
Mac…
I also like their term ” we SELECT a president” — what would Freud say?
Select is a top down mentality.
Elect is a bottom up mentality.
Great observation, Mac.
“Well developed agenda”
that in itself tells you all you need to know about the idiot who wrote the article. If Obama’s health care, foreign policy, economic agendas were well developed, then God only knows what this moron would view as illconceived, disorganized, and unprepared.
And if this holy many the President is somehow a better representative of the WHOLE country than all the other rubes who go to Washington and just mess up the President’ s agenda, it only stands to reason we could save money and time with just a president, with unlimited terms of office, and authority.
The NY Times must have the most brain dead dictatorial minded nitwit editors in the history of a free press.
Unreal they would publish this crap as anything but UNDEMOCRATIC in the highest degree.
Sigh. I’m as guilty of this as anyone else, so don’t take this as personal criticism but the comments here demonstrate that Horowitz’s insight continues to be unappreciated.
Everyone here is listing all the reasons why the democrats are wrong and how unethical they are… so what? It’s not about that for them nor the audience to whom they are preaching, the low-info voter. This is about using any lie, untruth or distortion of the truth that will gain them votes. It’s about appealing to emotions and inculcating in the public a sense of injustice.
Polls indicate that only 23% of Americans self-identify as liberal. NEITHER a majority of white men or white women have voted for a democrat presidential candidate since 1992… yet they keep winning.
But this is NOT about race, it is about propaganda and culture.
That have and are winning the propaganda/culture war by their appeal to emotions and inculcating a sense of injustice and that is reflected in the polls.
Legal immigration that heavily favors socialist societies and thus likely democrat voters is another tactic and yes, there is voter fraud but that only works in close elections.
“Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd, evil and self-serving men. The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.” R.A. Heinlein
You can’t win a propaganda war with facts and reason alone. Responding to propaganda primarily with facts and reason is a formula for defeat.
> A Presbyterian minister I know referred to the constitution as a Calvinist document, meaning that it was constructed in recognition of a flawed human nature.
I always assumed it was an idea that all intelligent people held.
Romney inserts himself into the race saying that a GOP-led Senate will take on immigration reform. Way to inspire the grassroots Romney! Once again, Romney confirms he is a establishment tool and a really poor politician.
As I have stated before, a simple intelligence test of 5 T or F questions should be required in order to vote. If you do not know basic facts about the world, or about the Constitution, you have no right to vote for people who write the laws I must live under. If we allow livs to vote we are doomed to live with the consequences of their willful ignorance.
And, isn’t it just like ‘progressives’ to whine about changing the rules when they think they are losing.
The liberal is a fascist pig.
Is it a surprise that a fascist pig wants to cancel an election? Not to me.
cancel elections because Barack is so wonderful you all know it doncha ??? smacks of what the AIRHEAD Paltrow suggested, “Lets just give all the power he needs to get done what he wants to do”
They make me tear my hair out, What is wrong with these people ?????
“What is wrong with these people?????”
That is an easy one, everything.