You get the government you deserve. Here in Massachusetts, the speaker of the state house of reprehensibles resigns today amid a corruption probe. He is the third speaker in a row to resign thusly. His two predecessors, Speaker Tax Evasion and Speaker Obstruction of Justice, are now convicted felons. A few weeks ago, despite widespread awareness of the corruption investigation, the speaker's colleagues overwhelmingly reelected him to his post. Such are the perils of one-party rule.

What has always amazed me about this is that the most powerful person in the state (and it’s not the Governor) is usually a person elected by a small demographic constituency yet they control the fates of all 6 million citizens in the Commonwealth. What’s wrong with that picture when a handful of corrupt legislators can vote on who will be King?! Will of the people? Democracy? Fogedaboudit!

Asdf, may I remind you that the founders accepted indirect representation. It was the first model of the Senate. You elected people to the state houses, and they elected your Senator.

They would not have considered it covered in that the people should elect people who they trust to elect somebody for that leadership position. Really, it's the same way as electors to the President. The States cast electoral votes for president in the fashion that they decide, and a majority of them elect the President.

They did not see the role that party would play (and those that could see a glimmer, feared it). You can tell that by the way they originally thought of filling the VP slot: the runner-up. In our two-party days that's the other party's candidate. Parties have their own structure and needs, and thus devotion and importance to the party starts to take on a role greater than the best person for the job.

Now keep in mind a party is a side in the debate about how best to govern. In the end they have governance goals. And so party is bound up with a plan for governance, and the best person for the job is often viewed through the lens of person who is most important to the best plan of governance. I'm just saying that to avoid the overly-easy conclusion that party needs are entirely venial and unseemly.

The problem with a lot of government is that there is a larger debate going on, but the pitfalls are logistical distractions.

I also understand the call to sloganeering--perhaps ironic reflections of the 60s radical sloganeering. The liberals have attacked many such structures as "anti-democratic" in their time. It's only fitting that that complaint to be raised in the same voice against them. (The reformed 60s radical will often admit to maturing and re-thinking, but they will hardly ever admit that their former selves did damage--unless they are like Horowitz and recant.)

Whoops, that should read: "They would have considered it covered..."

Incidentally, I should have written, "I look forward to the day he also recants..." I am grateful for his first.

I was correcting a comment I placed in wrong post. Here it is:

I'm looking forward to the day Horowitz recants of the damage he has helped cause as a neo-con, esp. what with his shrill calls for endless war in the Middle East and jettisoning of our civil liberties at home in the name of "defense" against "terror."

Thanks Sea King. I do understand how it works in our system and that it is truly not Democratic but is in fact a representative republic. But I think it becomes more inherently and visibly corrupt when such majorities of one party are holding all the cards and there are no real elections for such a powerful position. And it is more personal at the state level when a small time Rep. from a small time local area consisting of such a small percentage of the electorate can hold the rest of us hostage.

Eric,

I respect your position, but I was talking about claiming "enlightenment" on an issue vs. admitting the damage done. Horowitz admits the damage done in the name of socialism and anti-war (mainly to further the cause of Marxism), he does not claim to be "enlightened" in respect to the "War on Terror".

In general, I'm speaking about people formerly protesting in one fashion, and then being suspect by the same standards that they applied, but simply claiming "enlightenment" or "new information". That's hardly above suspicion about the very human different-rules-for-me sentiment.

I agree with Lincoln that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but a statement of organizing principles. I don't know that he accepted that he was invading a legally-seceded nation (under the Articles of Confederation), but I can't say that I lack all appreciation for the Union despite that I view it that way. Our constitution has provision given as "in times of peace" because they knew that defense of country was a legitimate qualifier for ideals of freedom.

The Civil War was a massive, bloody affair. Someone might even be able to argue that we could have avoided fighting it. Thus, it's arguably an "unnecessary war"--and a bloody, unnecessary war(!!)

Still, it's hard to imagine how freedom would have come in a form that libertarians cherish had the daily compromise on freedom for the sake of commerce continued with two more or less congenial nations, the southern one simply having a different take on the differential value of personal liberties.

People sacrificed for freedom, and it became even more dear.