Comments on: APRIL 2004: U.S. NO LONGER FREE, NOR A DEMOCRACY

By: agnes

agnes — Mon, 03 May 2004 20:28:55 +0000

On the point… I hope you don’t mind if I share your post on Ryze (network SANS FRONTIERE)Agnes

By: Conor

Conor — Sun, 02 May 2004 17:33:50 +0000

It’s profound to think that the civic mechanisms that are in place to make the U.S. a liberal democracy and a “land of the free” can be so corrupted and perverted to this extent. It’s very depressing to think about it. Yup, pretty spooky. Makes me think of Margaret Atwood’s ‘Handmaid’s Tale’.

By: Stentor

Stentor — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:44:28 +0000

The fact that Kennedy would decry gerrymandering in such strong language, yet still join the majority decision, suggests the problem is in the Constitution. Just because fair districting is fundamental to the proper functioning of district-based representation doesn’t mean the Founders thought to put it explicitly in the Constitution. Which means that we need to stop wasting time with anti-gay-marriage and anti-flag-burning amendments and work on an anti-gerrymandering one.(psst … Maybe we should all move to Alaska — in your graphic it’s still free.)

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:48:24 +0000

Unfortunately, the Rawlsian system of justice is predicated on a practice of reflection that alienates one from reality. I would prefer a system of government along the lines of Nozick’s minimalism (IMHO, “just tax structure” is an oxymoron, since a tax is always an injustice). Unfortunately, there is nothing minimalist about the Bush administration. Tax less but spend more, become more socially invasive, mess with crap oversees, renew a failing war on drugs – sheesh, is this guy the anti-libertarian, or what?

By: Dave Pollard

Dave Pollard — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:46:46 +0000

Ken: I don’t want the courts ‘involved’, I want them to strike down gerrymandering as unconstitutional, and mandate the appointment of independent electoral commissions in each state (my understanding is that only Iowa has such a commission now). The legislators won’t act until they have no constitutional alternative — it’s against their self-interest. And I don’t think you can compare the recent computer-assisted redistricting exercises with the much less sophisticated gerrymandering that went on in the ’80s and before.

By: Ken Hirsch

Ken Hirsch — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:45:45 +0000

I don’t see why you want the courts involved in districting. The current system of defining districts in Canada was devised by the Canadian legislature, not its courts. Some states in the U.S. have similar independent commissions.This decision reversed one from 1986, so the law has been set back to the dark days of 1985, where–according to you, evidently–there was no multi-party democracy in the U.S.

By: David

David — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:17:20 +0000

A thoroughly excellent post.It would also be nice to have a fundamentally just (in a Rawlsian sense) society. For example, a just tax structure and a commitment to employment.On the tax structure, see David Cay Johnston.On employment, see today’s Center For American Progress report comparing Canada and the US on employment.