And we wonder why the USA is a mess

[tsukinofaerii]

(headdesk headdesk headdesk)

Someone tell me when my country was dropped in the Twilight Zone. Please. Because this is just too dumb even for me to swallow.

This is the article that just made me choke. You probably don't want to read it if you value your braincells, so I'll give a quick summary.

Former State Senator Rod Beck is a bitter super conservative who's failed three times to get through his party's (Republican) primary elections. He blames this on his rivals, who "don't support party ideals".

At a state convention last month, Rod Beck staged a revolt with the Tea Party and old school conservatives (I suspect that "old school" here means "Civil War Era"). With their powers combined, Beck managed to drag the Idaho Republican party into a big spiral that is best described as a Magic Eye Picture (it only makes sense if you look at it out of focus and squint). From this, according to the article, arose a platform based on, "a spasm of anti-fed outrage — and anger at Republicans who Beck thinks have strayed from the fold". Included in this platform are the following goals:

• The seizing of federal lands located in Idaho.
  
• The repeal of the 17th Amendment.
  
• A return to the gold/silver standard.

Fortunately, they (barely) stopped short of supporting an unregulated State Militia. Oh, and did I forget to mention that it's all in the name of "States' Rights" and "State Supremacy"? Also given a nod is a return to hard labor in exchange for meals for inmates (and I thought I wanted to kick Joe Arpaio in the nads — just let me in kicking range of Beck). Of course, there's the usual social conservative splattering of anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-war, etc etc bullshit. One remarkably hammer-headed ass would like to get rid of the federal income tax (you know, that thing that pays for our government).

For my non-USA people, the 17th Amendment is the one that covers the election of the Senate. It goes thusly:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. It's so much easier to bribe a small group.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

So, TL;DR, they want to end popular elections of Senators. WTF. How fucking out of touch do you have to be to think that re-writing the US democracy is a good thing? Of course, it makes sense if you're Rod Beck, who kept losing in the (popular election) primaries for some unknown reason. No word on what they want to replace it — probably back to being elected by the state legislators.

Remember kiddies: voting directly on the people who represent you is bad. Real Americans vote on the people who vote on the people who represent you. That's how Great-Great-Grandpa did it! It's not like the 17th Amendment was passed in part to prevent corporate interests from putting Senators in their pockets like certain people are accused of now or any...

Oh.

Comments

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

They seriously, no-kidding want to repeal the 17th Amendment? I thought the tea-party were a vaguely neo-populist brand of crazy, who kept going on about how the current administration doesn't represent the real majority of Americans (as opposed to the apparently fake majority who elected Obama). I can see exactly why the republican party would want to do away with the popular election of senators, since it nicely solves the issue of "the majority of the population are moderates who don't want to vote for crazy right wing whack-jobs like Beck," but how is not getting to vote for your senators anymore anywhere within spitting distance of the "more control over our government" that the Tea Partiers claim to want?

Also, bimetallism? Really? Do they think that the silver standard will defend the working man from the encroachments of organized wealth via the glories of rampant inflation and that the current administration wants to crucify mankind upon a cross of gold?

[tsukinofaerii.livejournal.com]

From what I can tell, they want to appeal the 17th because of the "not really American" fake-majority that elected Obama and a Congress full of democrats. A lot of usually-Republican states went Democratic in '08 on a federal level, but stayed Republican on a state level. If state legislatures elected senators, then the Democrats never would have gotten the sixty vote majority.

There's also a lot of in-fighting and "not really Republican", on top of "un-American" BS — classic versions of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Beck couldn't even make it through his last three attempts at the Republican primaries, so he's decided that anyone who's not entirely batshit isn't really a Republican.

Do they think that the silver standard will defend the working man from the encroachments of organized wealth via the glories of rampant inflation and that the current administration wants to crucify mankind upon a cross of gold?

Yes. They do. And I wish by all I hold dear that I could say that with sarcasm. Specifically, they think it will ease inflation. No one seems to to have stopped and wondered where we'll get all those precious metals to back up the greenback, since we certainly don't have those sorts of reserves now.

(epic facepalm of epic)

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

they think it will ease inflation

The irony of that is kind of painfully amusing, since a combination gold & silver standard was first suggested by people who were pro-inflation, because inflation makes paying back debt easier for the debtors (because you owe the same amount of $$ on paper, but the [x many dollars] you pay back are worth less than they were when you borrowed them). Because silver, unlike gold, was de facto fiat currency in the 19th century (i.e. a silver dollar in the 1880/90s was not actually a dollar's worth of silver if you melted it down, because things like the Comstock silver strike had pushed down the value of silver. It = a dollar because the US government said it did.)

no one seems to to have stopped and wondered where we'll get all those precious metals to back up the greenback

I'm pretty sure there literally isn't enough gold on the planet to back up all the money currently in circulation around the globe and move the international economy back to a gold standard. The global economy is too big for that.

[tsukinofaerii.livejournal.com]

The amount of ignorance and blatant disregard for both reality and history in their platform is stunning. There really isn't enough gold on the planet. Our global economy deals with numbers that the people in the 1700s couldn't imagine. Heck, people in the 2000s have trouble imagining it! Even if, by some weird logic, it seemed like a good idea, it's not feasible.

I keep wanting to say, "The great philosopher Sir Terry Pratchett discussed this very topic in his book, Making Money, wherein he dissects and explains the concept of a gold standard as "a shared dream" in medieval societies, and how it applies to modern economics and societies." And then I remember that these people have probably never heard of Sir Pterry in their lives, and would not get it. *sigh*