A comment

Commented: The Foxification of OpEdNews and other “Progressive” Betrayals

Outside of the box thinking

It reminds me of Communist China if we are now conflating political opinions and mental health. It is objectionable, above, if certain particular (selected by whom?) political opinions are taken as markers of mental illness. The UN has come down and scolded the Chinese government for its abuse of psychiatry, locking dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners in mental institutions. Perhaps what we need is for the UN to come down and scold those of us here who are creating linkages between political views and mental illness.

I want to thank bucketslogg, above, for the link that reminded me about the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers don’t deserve to be kicked as hard as they were in that link, but it’s true that they were elitists. Even so, they did a good job of creating a nation; I am still a fan and would honor the work of America’s founders.

I would give an A+ to the Declaration of Independence, and I would give a B- to the Constitution. In other words, I think that Thomas Jefferson did a better job than James Madison.

And this is what troubles me when I see OEN trying to “go mainstream” by following the mainstream rather than leading it. Following the mainstream means that it is only acceptable to think as a liberal or a conservative, with American faults entirely laid at the feet of the other side. Following mainstream means don’t be a libertarian, because some (sellouts) suspect that they’re mentally ill. (Above, I already registered my disapproval of starting down this slippery slope, of painting e.g. libertarians as mentally ill. If that’s really in the editorial tenets around here, it’s ludicrous and should cause the place to lose credulity, credibility, and audience.)

But there’s a different route, and I think it necessary to be taken. Instead of narrowing debate, widen it. My subject line said “Outside of the box thinking,” because the biggest real issues that we have are not within the left/right paradigm, but rather systemic issues.

That means, instead of simply honoring what I referred to above as our “B-” Constitution, we should instead seek the necessary amendments to upgrade ours to an “A” Constitution. How much enormous good could be accomplished with simple constitutional amendments?

– “Loser pays” in civil litigation would stop the court system from being a playground for the rich. Frivolous lawsuits against people with shallow pockets are, at present, almost surely winning moves — even if the case could never be won on the law or the merits. If the loser of a case had to pay attorney’s fees for both sides, frivolous cases would cease. Instead of a stacked deck, the justice system could offer a level playing field.

– Term limits could curtail careerism in public office.

– Getting money out of politics will never happen with a John McCain-style “campaign finance reform.” Instead, the constitution can and should spell out rules against conflict of interest, and could provide public financing at least for the campaigns of incumbents. (That seems counterintuitive, financing the incumbents. But that’s what it takes to relieve the re-election fundraising pressure that allows donors to buy a representative’s vote in Congress. Challengers are not yet in Congress — it is a crapshoot to finance them, and arguably wasteful.)

– How about if a supermajority was required to pass an unbalanced budget? If the Constitution required that, fiscal responsibility would be de rigeur.

As a result, I’m unhappy when it seems that OEN is narrowing the scope of debate, when in fact I argue that we all need to widen the scope of the debate. The above four suggestions will never happen in the ordinary course of legislation. The above four things will only happen by (gasp) (yes!) changing the U.S. Constitution.

I think that those four amendments are worth fighting for. But, does that make me a liberal? A conservative? A libertarian? A wingnut? Disgruntled? Mentally ill? –Come on, there must be a label that can be applied to me for thinking outside of the box!… 🙂

—————————————

(comment was carried over from an article by Rob Kall on OEN)

======================

And another comment in the same thread:

Rady, thanks for the repost. It raises an eyebrow and in fact I think that OEN has gotten into a pickle. If there’s an attempt to “go mainstream,” then all Rob needs to do is to provide a rote, formulaic, paint-by-numbers product that conforms to establishment expectations of a left leaning outlet. But at an earlier time, OEN had made the decision that they would allow 9/11 truth posts. I’m foggy about why OEN would kick out the COTO crew but keep GW and others who continue to post along those same lines.

If they want to quell such discussion at OEN, then perhaps they have only kicked out half of the people whom they need to kick out. Somehow, I suspect that they would still find themselves the recipients of such posts no matter how many they kicked out.

The continuing vitality of the Chinese democracy movement — drawing 150,000 people recently in Hong Kong — 20 years after Tiananmen Square is an example which shows that while an unwilling listener (in this case the Chinese regime) can shoot messengers, they cannot shoot the message.

COTO crew is messengers. But the message lives even at OEN and isn’t going away. I suspect that this entire country has “another think coming.”