Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    258 points anigbrowl | 15 comments | | HN request time: 1.649s | source | bottom
    Show context
    jleyank ◴[] No.44611189[source]
    It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.

    As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

    replies(20): >>44611243 #>>44611251 #>>44611274 #>>44611292 #>>44611294 #>>44611300 #>>44611372 #>>44611468 #>>44612747 #>>44612970 #>>44613048 #>>44613100 #>>44613128 #>>44613243 #>>44613469 #>>44613869 #>>44615093 #>>44616024 #>>44616939 #>>44617655 #
    1. asperous ◴[] No.44613048[source]
    The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now).

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

    replies(6): >>44613331 #>>44613351 #>>44613478 #>>44613773 #>>44614498 #>>44615357 #
    2. insane_dreamer ◴[] No.44613331[source]
    The Founders would never have approved of Citizens United.
    replies(3): >>44613353 #>>44613485 #>>44615424 #
    3. adrr ◴[] No.44613351[source]
    It didn’t help making senators directly elected. Makes them vulnerable to populists movements.
    4. rtpg ◴[] No.44613353[source]
    Sure they would have! The elite of the United States that lead the revolution were all extremely mercantile and many were coming to the colonies to run their own little fiefdoms away from the crown.

    One should acknowledge how many of the freedoms locked into the founding ideology of the US is pretty close to what libertarians reach out for. I don't know many libertarians arguing against Citizens United.

    That isn't to say that the US can't aim for something different, and that the core of the nation today likely believes many different things.

    We can choose our own destiny without trying to ascribe every good idea to what a group of people thought at the founding of the country.

    5. ◴[] No.44613478[source]
    6. ◴[] No.44613485[source]
    7. freddie_mercury ◴[] No.44613773[source]
    I don't think corporate election influence or mass media really have anything to do with it.

    The issue first showed up in 1828 election, when some of the Framers were still alive, and the US basically did nothing about it over the ensuing 200 years.

    Remember it was Andrew Jackson who went around ignoring Supreme Court decisions and saying "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it".

    And his abuse of executive powers during the Bank Wars to punish political enemies led to the formation of a new political party.

    replies(4): >>44614254 #>>44618100 #>>44624912 #>>44627374 #
    8. buran77 ◴[] No.44614254[source]
    > "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it"

    This was one lesson the common people never wanted to learn because it was so much easier to live on the belief that their system is intrinsically immune to abuse, it's just better, magically almost. It was bolstered by the same people's desire to feel better by pointing fingers at the "weak fools" living under dictatorships, incapable to fight. "We have rights and guns, we'll pick up arms and fight any abuse".

    But when the abuses came pouring almost everyone piffled, living on the next belief that time will fix things. Sometimes it did. Or maybe one of these times will bring the shocking realization that it's easy to talk big in good times and hard to act in bad times when your skin is in the game.

    9. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.44614498[source]
    > The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1].

    That was hundreds of years ago; when Madison says "domestic faction", he doesn't mean "a faction", he means what we would today call "factionalism". The 18th-century use is a pretty direct mirror of the Latin word factio, also meaning factionalism.

    The idea that "checks and balances" are built into the US governmental structure is interesting. It would make sense if governmental positions were held by right of heredity. They aren't, but you can see how the Framers would be working with that mental model.

    As the US government is actually constructed, Congressmen, for example, have no incentives to preserve anything as a power exclusive to Congress, because they have no lasting affiliation with Congress.

    10. bmitc ◴[] No.44615357[source]
    It turns out that people were right about capitalism and its sinister dangers.
    11. tzs ◴[] No.44615424[source]
    Yes they would have, for many of the same reasons the ACLU did [1].

    [1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united

    replies(1): >>44616227 #
    12. techjamie ◴[] No.44616227{3}[source]
    I'm probably being cynical, but I take their reasoning for opposition with a grain of salt when they themselves partake in lobbying. Removing it would hurt them, too.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-un...

    13. QuantumGood ◴[] No.44618100[source]

      > I don't think corporate election influence or mass media had anything to do with it
    
    Always risky to allow the implication that money or propaganda isn't central to power/influence.
    14. gepardi ◴[] No.44624912[source]
    Dark Money has nothing to do with being able to consolidate power, gerrymander, and reduce the system to a two-party system whose members seem to be mostly under the influence of their own desire for gain? Which brings us back to the money…
    15. amy214 ◴[] No.44627374[source]
    >I don't think corporate election influence or mass media really have anything to do with it.

    Is any particular group overrepresented there? Hairy, long hooked nose? I'm talking about white cishetero men of course, this is all their fault. We need to have more, and by more, I mean ALL, such people to be non-cishetero non-white non-men.