Clarity;854042; said:
One question I have is this -- if we had a new convention for the sake of recrafting the Constitution, why is it assumed that we wouldn't integrate much or all of the facets of the original? I guess I don't follow why we would see some sort of major shift in the type of government and society we are and would be. Which in of itself asks what the purpose would be then?
If anything, a re-writing and reestablishment of the Constitution as originally written (with a few notable exceptions of course) is most assuredly needed at this point. I seriously doubt the founders of this nation envisioned a money hog like the IRS or the NEA and certainly didn't envision anything like Social Security.
I want to backtrack and be clear about a few things in this thread. I don't necessarily believe rewriting the Constitution is what's needed. Nor do I believe that we're witnessing the last haggard gasps of our 'empire'. I don't think we're healthy though, and it seems to me that there's *real* hardship ahead, and a somewhat dangerous period where we're less equipped to back our own plays than we should be.
Honestly, I personally think that we, as Americans, have had it "too easy" since at least the end of World War II. Even then, we were practically the only country without a ton of war damage whereas most of Europe and the strongest country in the Pacific, Japan, were on their collective asses. Even the Soviets had quite an adjustment after World War II.
There has to be an adjustment coming and it's been coming for a while. perhaps it will be like the 70s? Maybe it will be a sharp recession like in the early 90s? Who knows at this point? That said one cannot wait for the government to tell them what to do or what to save. If a person is waiting on the government, you're going to be waiting a while.
Self-reliance is QUICKLY dying in this country.
What I really wanted to think about in this thread, is whether or not our culture could produce the same type of clear thinking and debate that led to such an extraordinary foundation. One that lasted far longer than the 20 or so years they thought it probably should, and is still not only relevant today, but still something we can regard in a certain amount of awe. I am not of the "our founders were infallible gods" camp, but there was an extraordinary genius, collectively, that went into this whole process. But that was at a time without phones, television, the internet, radio. The Federalist Papers appeared in print, much was discussed over mail, those involved were afforded a certain amount of insulation in terms of being able to collaborate and work through things. I always come back to their concern about factions, because I think that's an area that we've let get out of hand.
I asked Vince the other day, and maybe I posed it in here as well, I can't remember, if he thinks maybe we've transitioned into a different era of thought. Where we go from a few great thinkers, great debates across various journal publications (I never get bored digging through philosophical writings on JSTOR) -- to a time where there are still great thinkers, but the issues are carried more collectively across blogs and the media. That's an incomplete thought, maybe I'll clean it up and bring it back to this forum some other time when I'm clear headed.
Unfortunately in this day and age, the last true landslide occurred in 1988. With the advent of internet access to the masses, 24hour new networks and constant coverage of every single happening in DC (CSPAN, CNN, Fox News, etc), the chances of a clear, concise debate are only possible between individuals, not in groups. It's not a bad thing at all. People are by and large better informed now than they were just 10 years ago.
Now the battle is determining who is running a line of BS and who is telling the story without editorializing. Both sides do it so that's not exactly one side doing it and the other complaining about it, although that goes on too.
People don't see their own biases.
I just wanted to think out loud about some of this stuff, and I appreciate you all entertaining that and responding. The China issues are interesting, will have to see if there are other threads about that. Some of the comments in this one basically imply that China has a dangerous amount of control over our economic well-being. A scary thought, given how much energy they're putting into being prepared to wage 'war' on a digital level, as well as all the traditional ones. I don't believe China to be aggressive or expansionist, as I said before. But it's also clear, if one takes a look at the areas of military technology in which they're focusing, that they're not just building up -- but they're building up in such a way that they're best equipped to counter us.
China can only hope, at this point, to beat us economically. We are doing our best to help them along, BUT they'll need quite a while before they can get close to us militarily. I do believe that China will be opportunistic when it comes to such issues. If they see an advantage, they'll take it. They have virtually no allies in their area, the Vietnamese aren't exactly a world beater and that loon in NK isn't reliable.
The Hong Kong issue is and will be an interesting one. Going to be a lot of interesting things to watch over the next 50 years, for everyone who is around to see it all.
The poliboard is a great place, but I'd love to see more discussions that dig beneath surface issues, to talk about the foundations for the beliefs behind them.
It's all well and good to say you're for or against same-sex unions, for example. But dig into that, and explain how laws against that are different than the anti-miscegenation laws that were stuck down (in harsh terms) by SCOTUS not all that long ago. Go deeper. It's obvious a lot of people on this forum could go very deep, so why not? I'd love to read it, and would enjoy participating.
Anyway, this thread isn't dead by any means, and I'm definitely curious as to the questions above, but wanted to be clear about why I started it.
The poliboard here is fine, although I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall for the 2008 elections
As for same sex marriage, I just wish it would come up to a vote. That might be a bit more democratic than a republic generally runs, but if it falls the way I think it will, I think that while 3/4ths of the states would eventually approve, such an amendment would never get through Congress in the first place.
That would probably leave it up to the courts....fun stuff....
