Why is it OK.....

Originally posted by whodey
The limited government has been usurped by collectivists from both parties. In fact, the GOP started the Progressive movement. Now it matters little who you put in there, the system has become corrupted by power, so really voting is pointless.

That is, unless people vote to amend the Constitution and remove much of the powers assumed by the Federal government via the Article V movement.

Yes the American usage of "progressive" has its own history and is often confusing to Europeans. When you refer to "collectivists" though you can only (validly) be referring to the emergence of corporate power from the end of the 19th Century. That has had a potent impact whcih consistently dominates American politics and, especially, foreign policy, including the demand for the largest armed forces in the world, the bipartisan nature of America's foreign activities and the constantly repeated refrain that the US president is "The Leader of the Free World."

Originally posted by finnegan
Yes the American usage of "progressive" has its own history and is often confusing to Europeans. When you refer to "collectivists" though you can only (validly) be referring to the emergence of corporate power from the end of the 19th Century. That has had a potent impact whcih consistently dominates American politics and, especially, foreign policy, inclu ...[text shortened]... ies and the constantly repeated refrain that the US president is "The Leader of the Free World."

Collectivism is not a hard term to understand. Its focus is simply to centralize power.

Looking at the Executive Branch with its army of regulators who now write more laws than Congress even though they are unelected, along with a President who does the same with Executive Orders, it is not hard to see how power has been centralized.

The Executive Branch now dictates to us, and it will appoint their stooge members on the Supreme Court to tell us it is all perfectly Constitutional.

Originally posted by whodey
Collectivism is not a hard term to understand. Its focus is simply to centralize power.

Looking at the Executive Branch with its army of regulators who now write more laws than Congress even though they are unelected, along with a President who does the same with Executive Orders, it is not hard to see how power has been centralized.

The Executive Bran ...[text shortened]... appoint their stooge members on the Supreme Court to tell us it is all perfectly Constitutional.

'Collectivism' apparently is a hard term to understand since you abuse and misuse the term so frequently.

I do not disagre with you that the Executive in the US has extended its powers beyond any reasonable boundaries disabling the brakes on executive power by hobbling the judiciary with politicised appointees. I am not convinced that it is reasonable to see the US President as "Leader of the free world" - an oft repeated label - nor to accept the desirability - or constitutionality of building the biggest armed forces in the world and operating on a global scale to impose American "interests" as these are very weirdly defined by - the Executive itself of course. American foreign policy is largely bipartisan because it is largely out of reach of democratic control and accountability.

I do not see the remedy being to disable government and hand over control to the wealthy elite or to the executives of large corporations, let alone to the military - all being the remedies imposed on many other countries by the Americans and it is not that far away from being the effective situation in the US itself.

I see the remedy being to implement effective democratic restraints on all power, whether that of the executive or that of the wealthy elite. That is, I am afraid, what I would understand by "collectivism." It concerns using our collective strength as citizens to hold authority and the elite to account. This can only be done within a democratic constitution, something the US lacks. Fundamental to that would be controls against corruption, which is blatant in the US.

Originally posted by finnegan
'Collectivism' apparently is a hard term to understand since you abuse and misuse the term so frequently.

I do not disagre with you that the Executive in the US has extended its powers beyond any reasonable boundaries disabling the brakes on executive power by hobbling the judiciary with politicised appointees. I am not convinced that it is reasonable ...[text shortened]... US lacks. Fundamental to that would be controls against corruption, which is blatant in the US.

finnegan: This can only be done within a democratic constitution, something the US lacks.

Explain this statement giving particular examples of what in the US Constitution is offensively "non-democratic" in your view.

Originally posted by no1marauder
finnegan: This can only be done within a democratic constitution, something the US lacks.

Explain this statement giving particular examples of what in the US Constitution is offensively "non-democratic" in your view.

Long topic, starts by pointing out that republican and democrat are not identical concepts and US is a republic. Obviously, the term "democracy" allows for a huge range of political arrangements, as long as some basics are in place, but when the "democracy" is so evidently "managed" by vested interests, then it ceases to be driven by the needs of the people.

What sort of things are not democratic?/

Citizens United, corporate power, corruption.
Partisan appointments to the judiciary, so that while laws of interest to the corporate lobbies are well served, those focused on the needs of citizens are subverted.
Foreign policy almost in toto is outside the normal field of democratic debate, buried in patriotic jingoism. The type of opposition seen against the Vietnam war is no longer so apparent as passive citizens are distracted by trivia.
The power of the military is extraordinary and under poor supervision.
Human rights are routinely abused with impunity (Guantanamo).
Control of mass media is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands and under excessive influence of the very wealthy.
Trade Union rights are systematically abused and worker rights neglected.
Educational opportunity is increasingly the privilige of the wealthy elite.
Wealth and opportunity are increasingly inherited and restricted to a shrinking proportion of the people.
Systematic racism

The US is a democracy with major democratic achevements but it is a managed democracy and it is managed by an elite to serve the interests of its elite. That is to say, it functions anti-democratically.

See you later.

Originally posted by finnegan
Long topic, starts by pointing out that republican and democrat are not identical concepts and US is a republic. Obviously, the term "democracy" allows for a huge range of political arrangements, as long as some basics are in place, but when the "democracy" is so evidently "managed" by vested interests, then it ceases to be driven by the needs of the peopl ...[text shortened]... e interests of its elite. That is to say, it functions anti-democratically.

See you later.

I agree with the list, but none are mandated by and many are contrary to, the US Constitution.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I agree with the list, but none are mandated by and many are contrary to, the US Constitution.

More to the point, none have been prevented by the constitution. All have been enabled by it. It is a mistake to project onto the constitution properties it does not have or to ignore the reality of how it works out over time. It was never intended to promote democracy but rather to constrain and restrict democracy. The Founders were determined to put restraints on the "tumultuous" "turbulent" people - you know the ones that engaged in street protests and demonstrations, attacks on official residences, petitions, mass meetings, pamphlets and newspaper articles, the politics of protest and grievances. In the 20th Century democracy made many gains and it is those gains that have been attacked and largely rolled back, not only by Reagan and Bush II but also by Clinton and Obama. Restoring even those limited gains will require a big transformation in American politics. I don't see Trump or Hillary Clinton meeting the occasion.