Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space

"A community’s physical form, rather than its land uses, is its most intrinsic and enduring characteristic." [Katz, EPA] This blog focuses on place and placemaking and all that makes it work--historic preservation, urban design, transportation, asset-based community development, arts & cultural development, commercial district revitalization, tourism & destination development, and quality of life advocacy--along with doses of civic engagement and good governance watchdogging.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Two ways to f*** American democracy courtesy of the US Supreme Court

1. Give fettered power to wealthy and/or corporate interests to provide unlimited funding to political campaigns with almost zero oversight and disclosure requirements.

-- Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission

2. Decide that creating unfair and undemocratic geographical representation systems in the House of Representatives is not Unconstitutional.

-- "Supreme Court Says Constitution Does Not Bar Partisan Gerrymandering," New York Times

From the article:
The drafters of the Constitution, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, understood that politics would play a role in drawing election districts when they gave the task to state legislatures. Judges, the chief justice said, are not entitled to second-guess lawmakers’ judgments.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” the chief justice wrote.
Without fairness as a fundamental element of government and the electoral process, you don't have democracy.

And there is no excuse that the US isn't a "direct democracy," that it is "a republic," with "representative democracy." If your representatives are chosen in an unfair manner, there is no trust, and little necessity in protecting the rights of all, including minority interests.

For example,

It's not like you have to watch the "Poldark" television program on PBS, where in the late 1700s, the wealthy could buy lands that automatically conferred a seat in Parliament, to know that such a system is undemocratic.

And of course it's obvious this is a partisan decision, with the conservative justices manipulated onto the Supreme Court by McConnell et al key to the decision.

I think this might be the most disheartening news I have ever heard of as a citizen of the United States.

It's the only reason I'd use an expletive in the title of an entry.

And it does reinforce the point that Professor G. William Domhoff and others make, that fundamentally, US political power is controlled by capital.

-- Who Rules America? website, G. William Domhoff, University of California, Santa Cruz
-- "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," Gillens & Page, Perspectives in Politics, 2014
-- "Election shows how gerrymandering is difficult to overcome," Associated Press

Labels: , , ,

7 Comments:

At 9:01 AM, Anonymous charlie said...

Not sure on the ruling.

two good opposing views:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/gerrymandering-ruling-could-have-been-worse/592879/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-27/supreme-court-gerrymandering-case-upholds-a-political-tradition

You'll notice that the issue of gerrymandering did not once come up in the debates. Warren has sworn of big donors, and in practice I think Sanders has as well.


(of course would take unlimited soft money from large donors if the nominee).

 
At 9:06 AM, Blogger Richard Layman said...

I happened to be in a vehicle yesterday so I was listening to NPR and I was surprised that there (and online newspaper coverage too) they were far more focused on the Census question ruling than this one.

I am not a lawyer. I don't know much legal history. But this seems as big a ruling as Plessy v. Ferguson, or … Citizens United.

Will check out the cites. Thanx.

although just on the headline of the Bloomberg story, there are plenty of traditions (lynching, racism, sexism, misogyny, etc.) that are traditions but morally and ethically wrong.

Diminishing democracy shouldn't be justified as being part of a long tradition.

 
At 11:37 AM, Anonymous charlie said...

I doubt Stephen Carter -- author of the Bloomberg piece would disagree with you.

As he cites, basically outside of race (or strict scrunity standards) you can organize the state district however you want.


Meant to send you this a few days ago:

https://tocqueville21.com/jacob-hamburger/americas-orwellian-left/


You have to scroll to the end -- that the real authors of Occupy were spanish anarchists -- but my larger point is that chaos is a much much deeper American tradition as well. (Also why we hate planners!)

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

You're acting like the Supreme Court should rule on things as they see fit and ignore the constitution. There's nothing remotely touching on the gerrymandering in the constitution just as there are no political parties named. They leave it up to Congress to decide on issues not in that document, as they should. Now, if you want to get into how the current system makes it impossible to have real representation, more than two parties, actual moderates, or even civil discourse, then we could have a real discussion.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger Richard Layman said...

Blinkers (horse tack) Blinkers, sometimes known as blinders, are a piece of horse tack that prevent the horse seeing to the rear and, in some cases, to the side.


If you can't see to the rear or sides of the Constitution, then it can be flawed or tampered with. If by "it" you mean the system of government that it is supposed to create and function.

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Richard Layman said...

Great short essay.

The thing about direct democracy is that after awhile, people aren't interested in putting in the work. Especially party organization vs. democracy.

I think we need to do (way) more in terms of providing opportunities for engagement, including setting up systems to be open to it. Providing capacity building, etc. But expecting most people to participate is unrealistic.


a perfect example is voting, how people decide to vote, how people think everyone is corrupt (it doesn't help that some are, or fall prey to corruption, e.g., Jack Evans), how people are quick to believe conspiracy (although there is a difference between conspiracy and a system set up to favor capital), etc.

But more and more I am starting to think that Michels' _Political Parties_ which dates to something like 1911 is one of the most important books I've read. It is about oligarchy in organizations and how hierarchy ends up being the overarching force.

====
in the neighborhood there was a thread started by a guy who saw "three chemical trucks at night getting stuff from a building and they seemed furtive." He didn't walk over and identify the trucks, take a photo or anything.

Likely they were convoying to their final destination and they weren't removing scary chemical waste from a building complex that is a for profit college, charter school, light office, artists studios and a school teaching English to foreigners.

I said, be vigilant, but don't jump immediately to conclusions. If it were in an industrial area, it'd be a much different situation.

… it reminded me many years ago on H Street where someone was alarmed about how the police were going to convert Sherwood Recreation Center to a jail. That transmogrified from the announcement of a meeting at Sherwood on how a nearby police precinct building that had been abandoned decades ago and left to moulder was going to be redeveloped.

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger Richard Layman said...

A friend is Nicaraguan (probably naturalized). Her sister in law started out as a revolutionary and then got her PhD in economics and worked at the central bank. As you know, in "Communist" governments, agencies have a two-level system of officials and party officials. Technically, she was also the chief party representative.

With the strife, she was asked to identify staff who "didn't support Ortega." She refused, saying "I don't pay attention to who thinks what, we just focus on doing the work." Then the agencies were required to provide personnel to serve on barricades and other military-type positions to "defend the Revolution", with weapons. She wasn't big on that--"most of our staff don't know how to use guns..."

I am not sure on all the sequence of events, but because they had visited recently, they still had an open tourist visa, and they "fled" to the US to stay with them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home