This is the guy that had a mafia-like committee that went around and accused research scientists of fraud back in the 80s/90s, right?? He ****ed a lot of dedicated scientists out of serious money/credentials because he was a narcissistic *******.
The last thing I would ever celebrate is a man who spent 59 years as a Representative of his district, especially when his father was the previous office holder. That's 1933-2015 with one family holding a spot. No family deserves power for that long regardless of their ideas, party, etc.
Sometimes they name varieties of fruit after notable people or places. For instance, a bartlet pear is a variety of pear named after Enoch Bartlett, an English hortaculuturalist. And the marionberry is a type of blackberry.l developed in Oregon, named after Marion County Oregon, where it was developed. I think affording him the same honor would be apropos. That way, every time you go in the supermarket and see a bunch of Dingellberries on sale, you'll stop for a moment and think of him.
I was one sentence in and knew where this was going. Bravo. (don't know anything about Dingell so no disrespect to the dead, but funny is funny).
His claim to fame may well be his recent article that we should abolish the US Senate as being an anti-democratic institution and have publicly fund elections. John Dingell: How to Fix Government - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how.../577222/ Of course the elitists righties (disguised as "populists" lol) and contented moderates of both parties will have a fit. Dec 4, 2018 - Abolish the Senate and publicly fund elections. ... This article is an excerpt from The Dean: The Best Seat in the House, by John Dingell with ...
The Senate is supposed to be an elitist institution. It was designed that way, hence the fancy-pants Ancient Roman Republic name they borrowed. It was the swankiest name they could think of for "The House of Lords" in a country without any Lords. By design, the Senate is supposed to moderate the House and the Tyrany of the Majority. I know "moderate" is probably a dirty word for you but that is the intended design as modeled on the bicameral English Parliment.
The elites tend to prefer the Tyranny of their Tiny Minority. The Senate also has an additional problem in that states with tiny populations have two senators. So Dakota has approximat3ly 1/75 of the population of California, but equal representation in the Senate and in the ridiculous Electoral College vote for president. Are you also content with this?
As they say, it's a feature not a bug. That is how it was intentionally designed. Tyrany of the Majority is exactly the play that Donnie is trying with immigrants. I'm glad that there is a moderating force at play. Without the Senate this country would have had some batshit crazy years between 1994 and 2018 with nobody to put the breaks on Newt Gingrich impeaching Clinton. And then John Boehner, Dennis Hassert, and Paul Ryan letting their freak flag fly. After 9/11 Muslims would have probably ended up in concentration camps. And there damn well would be a ridiculous giant wall blocking Mexico from the US, riddled with little holes to allow easy passage without the Senate to pump the brakes. So all in all, I'm pretty happy with recent Senate moderation. It's not perfect, but it more or less functions as intended. I'm extremely wary of the unknown unknowns that scraping the system would introduce. Government is meta-stable at best and knocking it off the hill that it is balanced on could very well cause it to careen into the xenophobic religious dictatorship that many clearly crave.
I really do not think that some of your examples are well thought out. For example the ridiculous over representatiion and power of quite a few of the small population rural states who generally support nativism and the Wall and Trump would be ended. The representatives from the much more populous states with large urban populations who actually live day to day with immigrants do not tend to so ignorant/racist on the issue. BTW do you still support the Electoral Collge, too?
I understand theoretically why you think this is a good idea. I believe that the actual record of what has happened doesn't match your theory. Between 1994 and 2018, there has been a liberal majority in the house for 4 years. The House has consistently been the source of all the radical conservative rabble rousing. Impeach Clinton, birtherism, repeal Obamacare, build the wall, etc were all ideas that built momentum in the House and were shut down in the Senate. The history shows that exact opposite of what you think would happen would have actually have happened. The country would have legislated a much more radically conservative agenda over the last 30 years without the Senate. Isolated pockets of crazy elect crazy. To win an entire state you need to be bland and boring. The experimental evidence paints a picture contrary to your theory. I'm ambivalent here. There is a reason for them to exist, but they aren't really serving it so I dont want to write a whole bunch about a complex theoretical mechanism. I think there is more reason for them to exist than you credit. They are supposed to serve a function greater than how you view them as an impediment to liberalism, but it hasn't worked and they need to be fixed at best.
