Is Federalist 10 Still Valid? 9-19-2010, Part Six

 [Continued from Is Federalist 10 Still Valid? 9-19-2010, Part Five. sch 7/22/2023.]

With a political party controlled by an ideological faction, the filibuster gives the faction control over national legislation. That Republicans now get criticized and lose elections for talking to Democrats, ideology now means more than the public good. Therefore, we have reached the state that Madison thought had been prevented by the Constitution.

I do not see this as a passing phase. This state of affairs may be a part of what I am calling the Age of Unreason. It may be done in by increasing the electoral turnout of independents, but why should they vote for ideologues for whom they had no choice in selecting? It may be that President Obama thinks he can discredit these ideologues as having no talent for governing. That is a risky move, and I am no longer sure President Obama has the nerve for such a maneuver. It would require not reinforcing the factional psychology, they are the victims of oppression. I think only constitutional changes can solve the problem.

 I would change the constitution in three ways: 1) proportional representation in the House; 2) require congruity between title and subject of legislation; and 3) term limits for Congress and the federal courts. I expect no politician to support these ideas. Any politician who might campaign for them will likely stop campaigning for them upon election. That does not change my opinion.

[I wrote in another of these notes that term limits should not be a complate bar, but limit only for a specific time. It is meant to facilitate rotation in office than remove talent from ever serving again. For example, a person elected in 2024 could run in 2026 and 2026 (assuming they won in the last two elections, could not run in 2030, but could run again in 2032. My times - serve for six yeears and stand down for 2 - are wholly arbitrary. sch 7/22.]

I want to expand on the proportional representation idea. First, I see this as allowing for greater involvement by third parties. Second, I hope for the lessening of ideological vehemence. People will feel less excluded, feel less like victims.

I would also add a ballot provision for "None of the Above." I think the Australians do something like this (along with fining non-voters, that is not a necessarily bad idea.) I see this as encouraging the independent voter and curbing the excesses of political factions.

[I think I did a very bad job in that last paragraph. I do not really explain the whole idea - one I still like, by the way. Whoever fails in a general election to get 51% of the vote more than "None of the Above" is out and, if none gets more than 51% there will be a second election in which those winning their primaries are excluded. My thinking was, and is, that the parties must look for candidates and campaigns that will appeal more to the general electorate than to their respective ideologues. This seems to be a problem right now for the Republicans that I did not think possible in 2010. sch 7/22/2023.]

I say again, I expect no politician to adopt any of these ideas. My true hope lies in time wearing away the ideological dogmas of the present day political factions. It may be a vain hope, as the Tea Partiers approach politics with a religious fervor. That fervor has reached the point where this assertion of James Madison seems false:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

My best hope for all of you lies in thinking that your political factionalism does no lasting damage. I wonder what will be the view from 2022 back to 2010. Meanwhile, good luck. I have done all I can.

sch

[Part of me wants to laugh at myself. I look back and am surprised at how little has changed, how much has gotten so much the worse, and whatever hope I had thought 2010 would look worse than 2023 is risible optimism. sch 7/22/2023.]

[Dear Reader, give Liberal Patriot's What Can Federalist No. 10 Teach Us About Contemporary Politics? a look. sch 8/13/2023.]