You’re ignoring game theory and history. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Nothing more. And there is no constitution or law you can write that cannot be stretched with a bogus interpretation to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
Democracies are only stable when both sides recognize a kind of mutually assured destruction. Sure, your side can seek unlimited power by making crazy interpretations of every law and constitutional provision. But if you do so, you better be sure the other side doesn’t do the same. And even if you’re able to use your bogus interpretations to stifle fair elections, you have to worry about the other side eventually embracing some interpretation of the Constitution that would allow open armed rebellion. Then you have an actual civil war on your hands. And the business interests that drive both parties ultimately aren’t served by the country tearing itself apart by turning into another Syria.
Instead, democracies work when both sides recognize, “that outcome is bad for all of us. Let’s just agree to good-faith interpretation of the rules and settle our differences through reasonably honest electoralism.”
This is the only way democracy can function. If one side is willing to continually push the line, but the other isn’t, you end up with authoritarianism and autocracy. They know they can act with impunity and bad-faith efforts, and the other side will try to take the high road. In extreme cases, like American Democrats, one side wants to take the high road all the way to the gallows.
The only way any democracy can survive is if both sides are willing to meet escalation with escalation. The threat of the other side using an equally bad-faith interpretation is the only thing that can potentially keep a side honest. If there are no consequences, then they have no reason not to push the line and abuse of power further and further.
If Trump is going to run for a third term, Obama absolutely should run for a third term. Would such an Obama run be based on a poor interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution? Yes. But again, it’s just a piece of paper. It isn’t self-enforcing. Only balance of power between the two political camps can maintain a stable democracy. Both sides need to be pulling on the rope with similar strength. This is ultimately what prevents further slide into autocracy. Hell, if he was smart, Obama in a third term should have just as corrupt a justice department as Trump. Start bogus prosecutions of Republican leaders. Ideally, use that pressure to force laws through Congress that will constrain future presidents from such abuses.
Your sentiments are noble, but this sentiment, the reflexive need to always take the high road, is precisely why we have the Trump regime. Republicans are willing to escalate, while Democrats seek compromise and servile conciliation, always seeking to be the better person. This cowardly approach, this refusal to accept that democracy is a peace treaty based on mutually opposed strength, is what has lead us to our current political moment.
Democracy is a tug-of-war. If you’re not willing to pull, democracy collapses.
That is the dumbest fuckin essay… The ammendment is clear as day, it’s not an interpretation issue. And we could change it, it’s a living document, there’s a process for it. That is not what is being suggested here.
You’re ignoring game theory and history. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Nothing more. And there is no constitution or law you can write that cannot be stretched with a bogus interpretation to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
Democracies are only stable when both sides recognize a kind of mutually assured destruction. Sure, your side can seek unlimited power by making crazy interpretations of every law and constitutional provision. But if you do so, you better be sure the other side doesn’t do the same. And even if you’re able to use your bogus interpretations to stifle fair elections, you have to worry about the other side eventually embracing some interpretation of the Constitution that would allow open armed rebellion. Then you have an actual civil war on your hands. And the business interests that drive both parties ultimately aren’t served by the country tearing itself apart by turning into another Syria.
Instead, democracies work when both sides recognize, “that outcome is bad for all of us. Let’s just agree to good-faith interpretation of the rules and settle our differences through reasonably honest electoralism.”
This is the only way democracy can function. If one side is willing to continually push the line, but the other isn’t, you end up with authoritarianism and autocracy. They know they can act with impunity and bad-faith efforts, and the other side will try to take the high road. In extreme cases, like American Democrats, one side wants to take the high road all the way to the gallows.
The only way any democracy can survive is if both sides are willing to meet escalation with escalation. The threat of the other side using an equally bad-faith interpretation is the only thing that can potentially keep a side honest. If there are no consequences, then they have no reason not to push the line and abuse of power further and further.
If Trump is going to run for a third term, Obama absolutely should run for a third term. Would such an Obama run be based on a poor interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution? Yes. But again, it’s just a piece of paper. It isn’t self-enforcing. Only balance of power between the two political camps can maintain a stable democracy. Both sides need to be pulling on the rope with similar strength. This is ultimately what prevents further slide into autocracy. Hell, if he was smart, Obama in a third term should have just as corrupt a justice department as Trump. Start bogus prosecutions of Republican leaders. Ideally, use that pressure to force laws through Congress that will constrain future presidents from such abuses.
Your sentiments are noble, but this sentiment, the reflexive need to always take the high road, is precisely why we have the Trump regime. Republicans are willing to escalate, while Democrats seek compromise and servile conciliation, always seeking to be the better person. This cowardly approach, this refusal to accept that democracy is a peace treaty based on mutually opposed strength, is what has lead us to our current political moment.
Democracy is a tug-of-war. If you’re not willing to pull, democracy collapses.
That is the dumbest fuckin essay… The ammendment is clear as day, it’s not an interpretation issue. And we could change it, it’s a living document, there’s a process for it. That is not what is being suggested here.