concerned about one-party rule? yes, i am. but more concerned if things don't change first.

[acroyear]

Can One Party Rule? - washingtonpost.com:

We worry, too, though we support Mr. Obama even knowing the result may be one-party rule. A political theorist might root for the Democrats to win the White House, a 60-vote majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House. Then voters could find out what the Democrats really stand for and render a thumbs-up or thumbs-down in two and four years -- just as they passed judgment in 2006 on the one-party rule (though short of 60-vote control in the Senate) of Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens and George W. Bush.

But we don't believe either party has a monopoly on policy wisdom. We liked Mr. Bush's insistence on accountability in education, tempered by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's reminder that you couldn't fix urban schools without some money. We don't support the Democrats' plan to allow unionization without secret ballots, but we agree with them that National Labor Relations Board rules have tipped too far toward management. And so on. We like to think, in other words, that a process in which both parties play a role can sometimes lead to better outcomes and not always to dead ends.

That's harder to imagine, though, as each party's moderate wing shrinks. A Democratic sweep might bring to Washington some relatively centrist freshmen who would provide a check on the most liberal wing of the party. But it might claim as victims some of the few remaining Republican moderates, such as Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and some of the real workhorses who are more interested in legislating than grandstanding -- the capable New Hampshire senator John E. Sununu, for example. The defeat of such politicians would be a loss for the country, not just for their party.

Of course, the very same sentiment should have been expressed in 2002 and 2004, when reasonable and moderate Democrats were voted out by their constituencies in favor of partisan Republicans (or moderate-talking Republicans who still voted the party line every time).

I do fear one-party rule over the long term (as the damage done from 2004-2007 has shown, damage that continues through Reid's relative spinelessness), and certainly I hate how our Constitutional rights are split between the two parties (support Republican policies and watch the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments disappear; support Democrat policies and watch the 2nd disappear, along with gross abuses of the eminent domain clause; plus NEITHER party seems to give a crap about the fair use and public domain aspects of the Copyright and Patent clauses.).

But for at least the next 2 years, I might at least hope that the damage done to this country, it's constitution, and its international reputation by this administration and a compliant congress be cleaned up before the pendulum swings too far the other direction.

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

support Democrat policies and watch the 2nd disappear

Really? Care to specify?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The DC gun ban decision was 5-4. I really wish it wasn't. I really expected it to not be (I expected 7-2). But 5-4 it was.

One justice different and the over-broad measure might have survived and then every locality could implement its own ban. Where a national-level or even a state-level ban would never pass muster, precedent could easily support widespread local bans until a new court challenge made it up that far.

Mind you, it's not like the NRA doesn't have the resources (re: money), but I'd really rather money be spent on better things than gun lawyers. It may cost the NRA money to file the suit, but it's also my tax dollars being spent defending it.

I'd rather we all could agree on a reasonable gun policy so that the NRA doesn't have to exist at all (or doesn't have to hold such sway over large portions of the population) and we can get on with legally securing the rest of our rights.

As I wrote before (or am putting down in words now), I believe in registrations, I believe in wait periods (and eliminating things like the gun show loopholes), I'm in favor of forced trigger locks and safeties, I think automatic assault weaponry is prohibitable and unnecessary (if you want to do that, join a real, licensed militia and have a community-level security for the things rather than at your own home), and I think the background checks process should be improved even more.

In fact, I think there needs to be proof of classes and training and a demonstration of skills and knowledge for a gun just as there needs to be to get a driver's license (a gun and a car can be equally deadly in inexperienced or immature hands). That a ham license is harder to get than a gun shows just how screwy priorities are.

But I also don't believe that any form of raw prohibition is of any practical use at all.

I don't consider the 2nd to be the most important right, but it is still a right, and was a right that was too damn close to disappearing.