In uncivil conditions, being friends with the biggest bully usually helps—Morally be dammed!

"Again, people like to just look at the (D) and (R) next to the name, but the actual philosophical leanings are not so clear-cut on the Republican side."
"beloved Democrats"
I obviously could be wrong, but it all seems like a show to me. It seems to me the way gov't works now is a direct result of gov't having the ability to tax and spend. The parties that you say people like to look at and even love (really??) don't matter. So if you're right I completely misunderstand the entire political process. I don't see the philosophies or even superficial ideas associated with political parties.

Oftentimes when I have started a new job, I've learned that how things actually are are different from how they seem on the outside. I'm not a political insider, so I could completely misunderstand. I see it as a stupid show that arises organically (i.e. without central direction) from many people doing whatever it takes to get to the levers of power.

"I don’t believe in this stuff at all. Ideas that are “left” or “right” today could easily be the opposite 20 years ago or 20 years from now."

Only if you hold to the notion of relative morality. I don't. Either something is right (meaning that it can be morally justified) or it is wrong. There is no moral principle which switches sides on the spectrum and becomes "right" or "left" based on time frame. Only a progressive believes that they have power over reality.

--

Try reading up on Article 5 Convention of States. It is a provision in the Constitution which allows the States to directly Amend the Constitution without going through the House and Senate. It still requires 2/3 ratification by the States themselves.

"What if there were a rule that tax money collected in one state had to be spent in that state?"

I have another idea along a similar line: why don't we apportion spending to the states based on their representation in Congress? A State which has two senators and 4 Congressmen pays six shares of the spending while a State with 30 Congressmen and two Senators pays 32 shares? How the States came up with their allotments would be up to them...

The other provision I would like to see is that all States are responsible for paying for the costs of their own delegations, i.e. that the Federal Government doesn't pay salaries or wages to Elected officials or their staffs. Those costs are instead born by their respective States.

"The Democrats? OMG. People elected Republicans to House, Senate, and presidency. Spending increased and borrowing doubled."

And why? Because the Democrats blocked all the other bills from coming to the floor by filibustering! And so the RINO's caved in and gave them massive spending to go with tax cuts. Again, people like to just look at the (D) and (R) next to the name, but the actual philosophical leanings are not so clear-cut on the Republican side. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans don't vote as a bloc because they are comprised of at least two significantly different groups. In the House you have the Freedom Caucus, which are your conservative Republicans - but that's only about 40% of the party. They tend to take a hard line on spending, etc., but the other 60% voted with the Democrats! I know you don't want to believe that your beloved Democrats are the party of tax-and-spend, but please - go look at the historical voting for the past 30 years. It's right there.

One consequence we get is a "translation" into the elastic "living constitution" of the "liberal" Pragmatists and Progressives.

What do you mean by "a modern 'translation' ... ? I have the two volume Library of America ", The Debate on the Constitution" which collects the Federalist and Antifederalist arguments. If you mean giving opinions of what was meant by the speakers and writers, then beware of what you will get.

It's very important for understanding. In particular the sources of Pragmatism, its meaning and its pervasive influence over the last century accounts for much of what we are seeing now and the policies leading to it.

"Did you get to Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Pragmatism yet?"
It's competing with free material from the library and stuff my book group is reading. I need to bite the bullet and buy that lecture series you recommend.

It's deeper than trying to trick people; that is Pragmatism, avoiding principle as a matter of principle for whatever "works" at the moment. Pragmatism itself "does not work". Did you get to Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Pragmatism yet?

States getting even more power and passing laws "consistent with local values" means more balkanization and statism. Laws are supposed to protect the rights of the individual not enforce "local values".

Levin's history is not philosophy. He does not have a good understanding of philosophical principles and how they evolved over time. Like most conservative intellectuals he substitutes religion.

"Ameritopia, by Mark Levin, is a good, concise read that examines the history of failed Utopian concepts, beginning with Plato's The Republic."
This is an interesting discussion. I had a similar discussion where I say we need simplified explanations for non-philosophers as to why people should respect on another's rights. ewv says quick-and-dirty explanations won't work and are wrong by nature. I say most people are not philosophers, so I'll take whatever works. ewv says that amounts to tricking people, and without philosophical underpinnings they can be tricked in any direction.

I am swayed by what ewv says. If I read Mark Levin's book and had never read Rand or anything like that, I wonder if Levin would make individualism look worse in my eyes.

“That's why we call them RINO's - because they are actually what would constitute Blue Dog Democrats/centrists - if those still existed.”
I don’t believe in this stuff at all. Ideas that are “left” or “right” today could easily be the opposite 20 years ago or 20 years from now. I certainly believe in reducing the cost and intrusiveness of government. All the political machinations, including those that mention gov’t cost/intrusiveness, are show business for ugly people. I just don’t think those centrists, RINOs, blue dogs, parties creeping left or right, and socialists amount to anything.

“I'd especially love to see some alternative parties in there - from the Constitution Party to the Green Party - so that those voting bases can be accurately represented.”
I agree with this, but I want them all limited in what they can actually do. I have no idea how to accomplish that.

“put election of Senators back in the State Legislators' hands.”
This seems to me just to create a smaller group of people to pander to. It’s hard for me to see how this makes the Senate act differently.

“Nullification to the States”
I am not knowledgeable about even what this means, but I like the idea of the states having more power. They could pass laws consistent with local values and if I it would be a laboratory to test policies. I actually think the should break the states up into urban and rural regions, since there’s so much division along those lines.

What if there were a rule that tax money collected in one state had to be spent in that state? There would be no reason for my state to spend my state tax dollars helping residents get federal dollars, as happens right now.

“But in my mind nothing like this is going to happen outside an Article 5 Convention of States. There's no way the Democrats are going to give up the power”
The Democrats? OMG. People elected Republicans to House, Senate, and presidency. Spending increased and borrowing doubled. It sounds like Republicans are the problem. Of course, if we elect and all Democrat gov’t, spending would probably keep increasing.

Getting into the partisan bickering avoids addressing the actual problem. Republicans have this fantasy that if they just got enough power they’d stop increasing gov’t spending, borrowing, and intrusiveness. It almost seems comical in a British-comedy sort of way.

“I think its an example of the entire process going horribly wrong that so much is so dependent on the personal opinions of nine robed Jurists.”
I always wrongly thought their stated role was to limit what gov’t did. I thought judicial review was part of the constitution until around the time I married a lawyer at age 31.

Most people get weighed down trying to follow the writings of Burke, Montesquieu, Hobbes and the like, primarily due to the cumbersome prose of their time. I've read most Utopian philosophical writings, and generally speaking, Levin has given a pretty accurate condensed description of their foundation that's more easily understood by contemporary readers. Marxism and most socialist concepts seem devoid of any understanding of economics.

Mark Levin has a generally poor understanding of philosophy. He is a conservative faith-family-traditionalist who is one of the worst in substituting the tradition of the constitution for the principles that made it possible and necessary. The history can be interesting and sometimes important for explanation, but it is not a substitute for proper philosophical principles.

Which is why civics and philosophy need to be taught in a forum examining the historical conflict between collectivism and individualism. Ameritopia, by Mark Levin, is a good, concise read that examines the history of failed Utopian concepts, beginning with Plato's The Republic.

"They seem to do the best job when they're balancing each other..."

I agree. And if that were what had been going on for the past 30 years, we'd be in a lot better spot. The whole idea of Congress is to be a deliberative body (especially the Senate) where it takes them time to iron out the kinks in legislation and make it for the entire country - not the hodge-podge of pork we see to garner one Legislator's vote.

While Constitutionally, I don't think the line-item veto holds water, in principle it did force the Legislature to concentrate and itemize - which is a good thing. I believe that one of the huge problems is the sheer size of many of the legislative packages being trotted out only to be voted on two days later (cough, cough Obamacare). I would be all in favor of a House rule (pun intended) that states clearly that NO bill may pass Congress until it has been orally read before a quorum in its entirety. I think that would severely cut down on these huge bills of any kind where "we have to pass it to know what's in it".

"No [sic] only is this incorrect, it's part of the problem. People are taking about which political party is slightly closer to the Constitution's founding principles and not doing anything to bring back the founding principles."

I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats abandoned Constitutional Democracy during FDR and have steadily crept left ever since. They've taken a hard turn to the extreme left in the past 15 years. The Republicans on the other hand have tried (poorly) to play the middle in many states. That's where you get the ones like John McCain, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc. That's why we call them RINO's - because they are actually what would constitute Blue Dog Democrats/centrists - if those still existed. As a result, what you really have are two major factions within the Republican party. For all the bandying about (D) vs (R), the lines aren't nearly that clear-cut, which is why we see what we see come time to vote.

And I agree with you that we need to get back to the Founders' principles of limited, representative government. That's why I'd love to see a House where each member represented no more than 200,000 people to broaden the voting base. I'd especially love to see some alternative parties in there - from the Constitution Party to the Green Party - so that those voting bases can be accurately represented. The other one is definitely the repeal of the seventeenth Amendment and to put election of Senators back in the State Legislators' hands. We need to give back the power of Nullification to the States. (I would also suggest one further adjustment, and that is that the Senate and House members and their staffs are paid for not with Federal dollars, but by their respective States - making them beholden to their constituencies for audits and accountability.)

"In my dream scenario is they have very little money to solve the problems."

Amen to that! But in my mind nothing like this is going to happen outside an Article 5 Convention of States. There's no way the Democrats are going to give up the power they've spent the last hundred years giving to themselves and those centrist Republicans are going to go along with them like they usually do.

"I love the notion that if we just got the right people in the Supreme Court, they could get us back to the Constitution w/o amending it."

I think its an example of the entire process going horribly wrong that so much is so dependent on the personal opinions of nine robed Jurists. There is a reason why the Judicial Branch has the shortest Article in the Constitution and why it comes last: it was supposed to have the least amount of power. I sometimes seriously question Marbury vs Madison.

Circuit Guy: "It seems like the world needs a great Ayn Rand communicator, not a politician, but an intellectual that reaches that average non-philosopher person"

That is what Ayn Rand did. But it took more than "communicating"; it took her ideas and insights applying them. No one is doing that now.

"It doesn’t even need to be a person. It could be a hit TV show. I have no idea what form it would take."

That is what Atlas Shrugged did as a novel in its illustration of the ideal man and the proper philosophic principles. But it also takes non-fiction explanation, which she subsequently did once she saw that the novel wasn't enough. There is always a need for fiction and other forms of art to portray the proper sense of life, but that takes people producing it who have a proper sense of life and the knowledge to properly portray it. We don't have that either.

Organized statism and anarchy are a false alternative. Ayn Rand described the nature of a proper government based on the rights of the individual.

Prager U? Don't you read Ayn Rand?

There is no philosophy in the Declaration. There are a couple statements of a philosophic premise that presupposed a philosophy. Without that basis in ideas, the country is not going to "get back on that road" of the Declaration.

Conservative appeals to the politics and history of the writing of the Constitution, with no discussion of the Enlightenment ideas that made a Constitutionally limited government possible or desirable, are hopeless. People who want more and more collectivism don't care about the details of the Constitution.

A majority was not "seeking a philosophy of liberty". They already had that. The colonists already had freedom and wanted to keep it. Only about a third wanted to fight a war with Britain as the means to keep it.

They had something that we do not: the Enlightenment's general acceptance of reason, individualism and freedom. A collapse due to infighting by the entrenched powers or anything else will not create that basis. It would only create more chaos and more demands for collectivism. The only opportunities we have are those allowing for spreading the proper ideas required for civilization.

They didn't isolate themselves as a first act. They were already here, living in a thriving society; they understood what was being done to them and fought to defend what they understood that they had. Atlas Shrugged is credible because of the logic of how Ayn Rand conceived it and wrote the plot and theme. The theme of rational individuals using their own minds for their own goals, and what happens to a society when the mind is withdrawn, is the credible idea. Going on strike to cause a collapse that would create a renaissance without regard for the ideas people hold was not the theme or purpose of the novel and is not credible.

RE Paragraph #1 about ups-and-downs of economy belonging to Congress
We could start another thread about this, but I just don't see it. The "economy" is just people helping one another in mutually beneficial trades.
"Democrats are largely responsible for the negative trajectory of our nation's deficits."

Republicans seems lightly worse about borrowing, but I'll agree it's too close to call and unimportant. They seem to do the best job when they're balancing each other as Clinton vs New Gingrich.

"Current Democrats HATE this country's founding principles. "
No only is this incorrect, it's part of the problem. People are taking about which political party is slightly closer to the Constitution's founding principles and not doing anything to bring back the founding principles.

"history demonstrates that many of the very policies you oppose are the very policies the Democratic Party has been championing for at least the past 60 years - if not longer. What is even more sad is that a large number of Republicans have also abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility as well - especially in the last 20 years. "
This party history just doesn't matter me. I am very confused why anyone not involved in a political party would care about them. I want to see less gov't spending and intrusion. It makes no difference whatsoever if it comes through politician X making politician Y look bad so that X supporters can feel less pathetic by indulging in vicarious schadenfreude or if it's the reverse scenario with Y making X look bad and different set of deplorables getting their mean-spirited jollies. It blows my mind that anyone should care. I want results. If nasty political scheming resulted in less gov't, I'd be okay with it.

"[Congress is] supposed to be the ones making laws and fixing problems. "
In my dream scenario is they have very little money to solve the problems. They mostly help states organize militia of minutemen who would mobilize in an emergency. They would make sure a state doesn't impede ingress or egress. They would do almost nothing about Syria, poverty, cancer research, investing in new technologies, and so on. I don't know how practical that is. Maybe if that did that, they'd end mobilizing the milita for whatever the modern-day Barbary pirates are, and then we're on the road back to a massive gov't. I just want to try to move in the direction of limited gov't.

I love the notion that if we just got the right people in the Supreme Court, they could get us back to the Constitution w/o amending it. I'm not knowledgeable about that, but that name-calling and use of the word conservative does not inspire confidence. I want it not to matter if the gov't is conservative (wants old ways just b/c they're old) or liberal (wants new ways just b/c they're new) because the gov't doesn't have power to act on these impulses.

"the stuff you're repeating about presidents being responsible for the small ups-and-downs of the economy"

I never said that. In most cases, the ups and downs of the economy belong to the party controlling the House (wherein lies the Constitutional power to tax and spend). The President in certain circumstances has championed economic bills which became law and have also had major impacts. Reagan's tax cuts were passed as an executive priority despite the House being controlled by Democrats - a fact seen that along with the tax cuts were huge spending increases for social programs. The economy took off - and so did the deficits! Similarly, Bill Clinton took credit for an economy on the uptick even though it was Newt Gingrich's House which cut taxes AND spending to facilitate economic growth. The economy had started to slow down because the Democratic House (a holdover from GHW Bush's term) passed tax hikes. In the case of GW Bush, you had just the opposite - a weak President eager to go along with a Democratic Congress. Bush wanted war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan and Dems used that to also boost social spending again, resulting in huge (for the time) deficits. Again, it was the Dems who controlled Congress and denied that there were structural problems in Fannie and Freddie prior to the crash of 2008. The Dems pinned it on Bush in the media, but it was their blundering. And then they - along with President Obama - doubled down on those failed policies from 2008 - 2012, holding the economy in recession nearly the entire time. It only started to turn around once Republicans took control of the House and started pushing back against some of Obama's heavy-handedness in 2014. (It is incredibly unfortunate that while they tried to reign in tax hikes, they didn't bother to reign in spending.) President Trump took office in 2017 with a Republican Congress who passed huge tax decreases and got the economy going again. Again, however, they failed to do anything about the spending, leading to some of the largest deficits in history.

Yes. Democrats are largely responsible for the negative trajectory of our nation's deficits. If Republicans had the cajones to oppose them when they held power, we wouldn't be in the fiscal mess we are in, but they are weak and spineless (with the exception of the body known as the House Freedom Caucus). I hold that the only reason they (Republicans) lost the House in the recent mid-terms was because they failed on their two major campaign promises: to repeal Obamacare and build the wall. (I exempt the California battles because those switches were largely a result of gerrymandering.)

"They're not doing it out of malice"

I beg to differ. Current Democrats HATE this country's founding principles. They hate the limitations to their power proscribed in the Constitution. Woodrow Wilson was a major champion of expanding the powers of the executive a full century ago and nearly every President since - even including some Republicans - have agreed with him. Wilson made no illusory pandering to the Founding Fathers like many of his predecessors. He openly advocated in his professorial writings about fundamentally altering the Constitution to enable an imperial executive with broad law-making authority. If he were President today I think he would bring about the fall of the Republic because he would have complicit socialist Democrats to help him and spineless Republicans who would look the other way.

You remind me of my wife's late Grandmother. I know you have the tendency to side with the Democrats, but history demonstrates that many of the very policies you oppose are the very policies the Democratic Party has been championing for at least the past 60 years - if not longer. What is even more sad is that a large number of Republicans have also abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility as well - especially in the last 20 years. And as a result of the Democrats pushing and zero substantial resistance from the Republicans (as a body), we've gotten lots and lots of tax and spend - with tremendous emphasis on spend - policy. One needs look no further than the current socialist wave of Democrats such as Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and many others to see that the Democratic Party has nothing resembling the Blue Dog Democrat I believe you represent and hasn't since Bill Clinton's presidency.

"I think the real "bad guy" is interpreting the Constitution broadly, which makes the sophistry about which president steers the economy better slightly more plausible. It allows people in Congress and running for president to promise to solve people problems."

I agree with you here. What you are pointing out isn't really at odds with Congress' job, however: they are supposed to be the ones making laws and fixing problems. But all that we've seen is more taxation, more spending, and almost zero real legislative action. The tough policy decisions they've kicked to the Supreme Court so as to absolve themselves of responsibility - which is why Cavanaugh's confirmation threw a huge wrench in the Progressive's plans. They've been using the Courts since WW II (when FDR packed them with his appointees) to forward their agenda. That all has the chance to be undone now that the Court has four very strong Conservative voices (Roberts is wishy-washy). If Ruth Vader-Ginsburg [typo intentional] dies (she won't voluntarily resign) and Trump puts another strong Conservative like Amy something-or-other on the bench, you will begin to see the unravelling of sixty+ years of progressive rulings such as Chevron deference which gave power to the administrative state and allow the Legislature to punt on such critical areas as immigration policy. If the Supreme Court begins to put the target for all this bad policy bad in the laps of Congress, we may actually see the Constitution as it was intended.