tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post6913214532044908800..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Some Populist Perspective, Ten Years (and Two Weeks) in the MakingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-26740217629441311972014-11-19T15:44:11.469-06:002014-11-19T15:44:11.469-06:00Anonymous,
You make a valid point about at least ...Anonymous,<br /><br />You make a valid point about at least one of the reasons why my preferred route towards social justice was so impracticable, and the proof of its validity is, of course, the U.S. Senate: as the only procedurally (though I would argue not substantively, thanks to the 17th Amendment) federalist political institution left on the national level, it maintains a check on metropolitan liberalism by regularly bringing into the corridors of power individuals who represent disparate (however minimally populated and thus often dominated by extractive industries and Big Ag corporations) rural agendas. <br /><br />But even with that argument on your side, I decline to identity Reynolds v. Sims as an "abomination." Maybe this is a chicken-and-egg argument, but from my reading of history it seems to me that the United States was already so nationalized--and, more crucially, the socio-economic structures it depended upon was already so globalized--by the 1960s that attempting to insist upon manifestly undemocratic arrangements in the name of defending what ideally would have been or could have been distinct communities, cultures, and economies was just ludicrous. Post-WWII America was a nation of socially mobile rights-bearing individuals, and they deserved full and equal recognition as voters, wherever they lived. You may be right that maintaining state and congressional electoral maps which delivered power to increasingly emptying rural counties might have prevented the emergence of quite as deep a cultural bifurcation in the US as we see today, but I strongly suspect that if those federal arrangements had endured we could very easily have seen different, and potentially much worse bifurcations, particularly along racial lines.<br /><br />As for the current zeitgeist, I confess I'm talking about the themes I hear most commonly in academic and informed popular discourse. Our governor here in Kansas likes to throw some red meat regarding the ACA at the 10th amendment crowd, "health compacts" and all that, but the way he views gun legislation and education policy makes it pretty clear he--or, more likely, his primary financial backers--doesn't trust Kansas municipalities any further than he can throw them.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-91568044932379632962014-11-19T14:53:50.159-06:002014-11-19T14:53:50.159-06:00Although I doubt you'll agree, as indicated by...Although I doubt you'll agree, as indicated by your dismissal of rural political power as a mere "quirk" of our system, the root of the problem you can see in the maps you posted and related ones showing red vs. blue America at the district level is rooted in the one-man-one-vote abomination foisted upon us by the Supreme Court. What that decree meant was that the option 2 that you decry for the Democrat Party was viable for the first time in our history. Because of that monstrosity, the Dems could afford to completely write off the interests of rural America. Imagine the politics of any blue state, CA, NY, IL, etc., if they still had a state senate apportioned based on county lines, and therefore dominated by rural interests. They would be radically different. The Dems would still have to reckon with the interests of these voters (urban centers would still dominate the state house, and the governorship), and so would be much more likely to have to adopt your preferred policies as a way to appeal to all segments of society. Option 2 wouldn't be a plausibly winning strategy under such a system, and our politics wouldn't be so strongly bifurcated along cultural lines as it has become.<br /><br />"the current zeitgeist--which I see reflected in my own political interests--is one of decentralization, localism, diversity by way of a re-evaluating of connections"<br /><br />Is this actually true? From upstate New York it doesn't seem to me to be the case at all. Here the governor is openly calling for abolishing local governance. This is mostly aimed at upstate, but he also fights the calls by extreme liberals in NYC to be able to implement their own preferred policies locally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com