As Venezuela Prepares to Vote, Some Fear an End to Democracy

[radcen]

Again, putting more Democrats in congress who would happily grow the size of government is not an option. The only option for now is maintaining the bottleneck and hoping the Constitutional limits and separation of powers will stymie future power grabs while working at the state level to grow conservative representation there. Throwing elections to spite Republicans is bad advice that no conservative should follow.

The real conservative power, as it has expanded, rests in the courts and the Constitution. Maybe some day we can manage a convention of the states that would allow state legislatures to put some stronger government limitations in writing, until then the best fight conservatives have is in the courts, and that dies with a string of Democrat administrations and Congresses.

If there were to be any fight to have in the Republican party it should be in the primaries, not the general election.

Voting a non-performing Rep out isn't only done at the general election. Vote them out in the primary (there usually is one), then vote that person in at the general election. You don't necessarily have to "throw" an election.

You talk about where the real power lies, but the current crop of so-called conservatives aren't doing that, either. That would jeopardize their own little nests. Most politicians are no less selfish than the average person, without outside motivation. Reduce the re-election rate and they'll get motivated.

 

[MTAtech]

No really, capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services by the private citizen which is not compatible with a dictatorship which seeks state control of everything.

According to that twisted definition, Nazi Germany, which had a capitalist economy, was not a dictatorship. Here are the dictatorships (in red) in today's world. Most of them are capitalist economies.

 

[MTAtech]

Again, putting more Democrats in congress who would happily grow the size of government is not an option.

As I said in another thread:
That just displays your mirror thinking. Liberals are, in your mind, the mirror image of conservatives. Conservatives think of smaller government as a goal of its own. Thus, liberals must want big government, regardless of the reason.

Liberals want government to provide certain service: a social safety net and affordable health care are two of them. The size of government isn't the issue.

 

[jmotivator]

Voting a non-performing Rep out isn't only done at the general election. Vote them out in the primary (there usually is one), then vote that person in at the general election. You don't necessarily have to "throw" an election.

You talk about where the real power lies, but the current crop of so-called conservatives aren't doing that, either. That would jeopardize their own little nests. Most politicians are no less selfish than the average person, without outside motivation. Reduce the re-election rate and they'll get motivated.

You seem to have forgotten the Garland/Gorsuch story. For all the Republicans faults, holding the line and replacing Alito with Gorsuch was much more important than a vote on Obamacare this year. Obamacare can't survive, and right now the only answer that Democrats offer is a government takeover of healthcare.

As for the primaries, sure, I stated as much myself. There has been movement over the last 7 years towards more conservative candidates in Red States, and we will likely see more of that in 2018. 2018 will be an interesting year as I think both parties will be running on the repeal of Obamacare.

 

[jmotivator]

According to that twisted definition, Nazi Germany, which had a capitalist economy, was not a dictatorship. Here are the dictatorships (in red) in today's world. Most of them are capitalist economies.

No, Nazi Germany did not have a Capitalist economy. The Nazi leadership selected who would "own" the means of production. The Nazi state always maintained strict control on what could be made and where the goods and services would go. That isn't capitalism.

 

[jmotivator]

As I said in another thread:
That just displays your mirror thinking. Liberals are, in your mind, the mirror image of conservatives. Conservatives think of smaller government as a goal of its own. Thus, liberals must want big government, regardless of the reason.

Liberals want government to provide certain service: a social safety net and affordable health care are two of them. The size of government isn't the issue.

*Sigh* The Liberals want the government to take over 16% of the American economy. When they back away from that plan feel free to argue that they don't support growing the size of government.

And no, conservatives aren't against big government "regardless of reason", that is patently absurd. Conservatives support the expansion of government is the roles specifically delineated in the Constitution such as national defense, but oppose many specific avenues of Government growth that infringes on the rights of the US citizen.

 

[radcen]

You seem to have forgotten the Garland/Gorsuch story. For all the Republicans faults, holding the line and replacing Alito with Gorsuch was much more important than a vote on Obamacare this year. Obamacare can't survive, and right now the only answer that Democrats offer is a government takeover of healthcare.

As for the primaries, sure, I stated as much myself. There has been movement over the last 7 years towards more conservative candidates in Red States, and we will likely see more of that in 2018. 2018 will be an interesting year as I think both parties will be running on the repeal of Obamacare.

I didn't forget it, but I'm thinking long-term. Immediate considerations always pop up. Sometimes they are indeed important, such as an SC appointment, but often they are not. We too often allow short-term insignificant stuff to distract us. Long-term thinking needs to be equally important. That's my primary point.

 

[Anthony60]

We have a real time witness to how Socialism ends freedom in a country....How anyone can look at what has happened to Venezuela since the institution of more and more socialist policy, and rule, and how it has drifted toward authoritarian rule, as most Socialist countries track to, and say that Venezuela has prospered from this change in their government is beyond me....Thoughts.

Imagine that. More and more power to the government, less and less freedom and liberty for the people. all of a sudden... Tyranny! And the left in this country behaves as if this is a big surprise. Because it happens every single time, but it'll work here.

We'll have a big, powerful government that dictates everything from healthcare and cars, right down to lightbulbs and if you are allowed to use your fireplace today. But we won't lose an ounce of freedom! That is what they are selling.

 

[jmotivator]

I didn't forget it, but I'm thinking long-term. Immediate considerations always pop up. Sometimes they are indeed important, such as an SC appointment, but often they are not. We too often allow short-term insignificant stuff to distract us. Long-term thinking needs to be equally important. That's my primary point.

While I agree with your point, I don't think either party can achieve a 50% turnover rate without handing the reigns of government to the other party, and that is why it doesn't happen. That power needs to be taken out of their hands and the turnover needs to be automatic and evenly applied.

What would be necessary, I think, is for a few more states to turn red, a Convention of states being called, and a Congressional Term limits amendment being passed by the states since there isn't a chance in hell of getting enough votes in congress for such an amendment.

With term limits we'd get better than 50% turnover. I don't think it needs to be too severe, a limit of 2 terms for a Senator and 6 for a Representative would be fine.

Speaking of which, since I am on the subject of amendments, I'd rather go back to the old way of appointing senators rather than having a general election. The state houses need a voice at the federal level.

Edit: And, in fact, you couldn't actually get a Term Limit Amendment to stick without reverting to the old way of appointing Senators since under the current method of electing Senators it is a guarantee that any amendment passed by the states would be stricken from the record by an overwhelming vote in the Congress.

 

[Anthony60]

What would be necessary, I think, is for a few more states to turn red, a Convention of states being called, and a Congressional Term limits amendment being passed by the states since there isn't a chance in hell of getting enough votes in congress for such an amendment.

With term limits we'd get better than 50% turnover. I don't think it needs to be too severe, a limit of 2 terms for a Senator and 6 for a Representative would be fine.

Speaking of which, since I am on the subject of amendments, I'd rather go back to the old way of appointing senators rather than having a general election. The state houses need a voice at the federal level.

If we could get only one thing done, this, IMO, would be the most effective in the long haul. By far and away, the biggest concern of a person in Congress is to get reelected, period. That's a problem. That should not be what they are there for. The Founders never thought anyone would want to be in the government that long.

And of course, the geniuses that decided that States should have no voice in the Federal government. What a move. The States created the federal government, and then the idiotic progressive movement decide to eliminate them from sending Senators. Probably the dumbest, most overlooked decision in our history. Yeah, those dopey Founders, what the hell were they thinking? Balancing things like that?

 

[radcen]

While I agree with your point, I don't think either party can achieve a 50% turnover rate without handing the reigns of government to the other party, and that is why it doesn't happen. That power needs to be taken out of their hands and the turnover needs to be automatic and evenly applied.

What would be necessary, I think, is for a few more states to turn red, a Convention of states being called, and a Congressional Term limits amendment being passed by the states since there isn't a chance in hell of getting enough votes in congress for such an amendment.

With term limits we'd get better than 50% turnover. I don't think it needs to be too severe, a limit of 2 terms for a Senator and 6 for a Representative would be fine.

Speaking of which, since I am on the subject of amendments, I'd rather go back to the old way of appointing senators rather than having a general election. The state houses need a voice at the federal level.

Edit: And, in fact, you couldn't actually get a Term Limit Amendment to stick without reverting to the old way of appointing Senators since under the current method of electing Senators it is a guarantee that any amendment passed by the states would be stricken from the record by an overwhelming vote in the Congress.

Good post. I like it.

Several things going on here.

- Theoretically, both sides should be more discerning in their voting. All legislators should know their seat isn't pretty much a lock and that they actually have to perform instead of posture. I agree it would not work well if only one side did it.

- As much as I believe voters should be more discerning, I am vehemently opposed to term limits. I feel TL just makes the situation worse, for many reasons, not the least of which they encourage representatives to "get what they can while they can". As long as there are no legal consequences, why would they care if they shaft the voters for their own personal gain? The voters are naive and they're going to be out in a few years anyway.

- I am in the minority in this, but I believe the 17th Amendment (taking Senate appointments from states and making it a vote of the people) should be repealed. Our federal government has been out-of-balance ever since, and that is a large and insidious factor in the rise and expansion of federal government since that time. States no longer have a voice to counter encroachment and bullying from the feds, and that doesn't serve us well.

 

[jmotivator]

Good post. I like it.

Several things going on here.

- Theoretically, both sides should be more discerning in their voting. All legislators should know their seat isn't pretty much a lock and that they actually have to perform instead of posture. I agree it would not work well if only one side did it.

- As much as I believe voters should be more discerning, I am vehemently opposed to term limits. I feel TL just makes the situation worse, for many reasons, not the least of which they encourage representatives to "get what they can while they can". As long as there are no legal consequences, why would they care if they shaft the voters for their own personal gain? The voters are naive and they're going to be out in a few years anyway.

- I am in the minority in this, but I believe the 17th Amendment (taking Senate appointments from states and making it a vote of the people) should be repealed. Our federal government has been out-of-balance ever since, and that is a large and insidious factor in the rise and expansion of federal government since that time. States no longer have a voice to counter encroachment and bullying from the feds, and that doesn't serve us well.

While it may be true that the Congressperson would "get all they can while they can" the truth remains that a congressperson with term limits isn't as useful as one without.

But, hey, if we were to repeal the 17th Amendment then I would be amenable to removing term limits on Senators, but term limits on the House is essential, in my opinion.

 

[j-mac]

Capitalism and Socialism are economic models. Democracy and Dictatorship are political models.

One can have dictatorship in either Socialist or Capitalist countries. One can have democracy in either Socialist or Capitalist countries. The USSR was a Socialist dictatorship and now is a Capitalist dictatorship.

There are few real examples of either full Socialism or full capitalism. Most nations are mixed economies with varying degrees of freedom.

That explanation to me is just a huge dodge, a way for liberal progressives that would love to see a more authoritarian socialist model here in the US, and we can look to a real life example as to where that leads in terms of what is happening in Venezuela....

 

[MTAtech]

That explanation to me is just a huge dodge, a way for liberal progressives that would love to see a more authoritarian socialist model here in the US, and we can look to a real life example as to where that leads in terms of what is happening in Venezuela....

There are no parallels between Venezuela and the U.S.

But responding to the "dodge" claim, what I said was 100% true. Equating Socialism to dictatorship is an inference that does not follow from the premises. There are many historical examples and current nations that are capitalist, yet dictatorships. We currently have a U.S. president as authoritarian as they come. What prevents dictatorship is the strength of our political system. The economic system isn't relevant.

Central and South America are areas that have historic dictatorships. The fact that Venezuela is socialist doesn't make it a dictatorship per se.

Most nations have realized that pure socialism or pure laissez-faire capitalism do not work. They have therefore realized that a mixture of both works. Under pure aissez-faire capitalism the disabled and old would starve, like those is a Dickens novel. Pure Socialism is not as efficient at bringing products consumers want, to market.

 

[Aristaeus]

The transition wasnt slow, it happened immediately after the coup. The exact moment that Hugo Chavez became the esteemed ruler of Venezuela democracy died there. All of the elections (including the one that got Chavez in office) were just for show.

Elections under Chavez were monitored by 4 different independent election-observing organisations from various countries including the US, and all of them said the elections more than met the international standard for free and fair elections.

 

[DaveFagan]

We have a real time witness to how Socialism ends freedom in a country....How anyone can look at what has happened to Venezuela since the institution of more and more socialist policy, and rule, and how it has drifted toward authoritarian rule, as most Socialist countries track to, and say that Venezuela has prospered from this change in their government is beyond me....Thoughts.

Let me get this right now. Voting, that is, having an election. is going to kill democracy. Bullcrap! Elections are about democracy. The Elite and that includes USA Corporate Elite want to control Venezuela, like the old days. That is what caused Venezuela's poverty.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Elections under Chavez were monitored by 4 different independent election-observing organisations from various countries including the US, and all of them said the elections more than met the international standard for free and fair elections.

That is BS, domestic and international monitoring organizations charged the electoral commission with significantly manipulating voter registries and altering the vote.

 

[Carjosse]

Let me get this right now. Voting, that is, having an election. is going to kill democracy. Bullcrap! Elections are about democracy. The Elite and that includes USA Corporate Elite want to control Venezuela, like the old days. That is what caused Venezuela's poverty.

North Korea and Belarus also have elections does not mean they are democratic.