No, I don't have a problem with direct election of United States Senators. Any attempt to repeal the 17th Amendment and give even more control over the Senate to the usual gang of corrupt plutocrats makes birtherism (or even paleo-"conservatism" look like a practical political program. Let's bear in mind here that YOU are the enthusiast for the election of Mr. Nearly $200 million to the US Senate. If there were no 17th Amendment, Lieutenant Governor Plutocrat would be Senator Plutocrat by simply dishing out enough in the way of bribes (which would be the new standard in "Campaigns"). State legislators, adequately greased, would be doing back-over flips.
Progressivism is NOT a four-letter word. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive of the right sort and Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive of the wrong sort. I have no problem with government maintaining truly sanitary water systems rather than having to combat periodic cholera epidemics. I have seen the result of impure water and cholera in the 18-50s era gravestones in the town cemetery in the town where I now live. We ain't going back.
OTOH, many Progressives thought that Eugenics was a really nifty idea as did Margaret Higgins Sanger, founding kiler at Planned Barrenhood (originally American Birth Control League). She wanted to eliminate what she called (to the delight of the elites of her time) human weeds. Read her pal Lothrop Stoddard's enthusiastic eugenics books. Or Madison Grant's work.
William Jennings Bryan had much to recommend him but was hardly infallible. Anything named LaFollette can be safely dismissed to this day. Progressives, like Republicans, are a mixed bag. Democrats used to be a mixed bag until McGovern and the communists seized permanent control in 1972. Al Smith was a great man. He drove Workman's Compensation (a Progressive idea) through the New York Legislature before WW I after the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist fire. My mom was for many years a seamstress and we were quite appreciative of Al Smith's work in the state next door.
I really don't give a crap that the state governments were denied representation of their legislators' choice in the Senate. Governments ought not to have a right to representation. The Founders were not infallible. Neither are the voters but it is the voters who fight the wars and pay the taxes. If that offends the plutocrats, tooooo bad!
Sorry but I really don't lament the passing of the ability of state legislators to receive massive bribes twice in every six years. The notion that popular election of senators somehow enables rich elites to control the Senate is what the logicians call the error of post hoc, propter hoc. Use Occam's Razor and the recent despicable primary campaign of Robamney funded by people who make Robamney's assets look like those of a lawn jockey to find the simple answer: rich elitists buy what they want, regardless of price. It is a lot harder for them to bribe millions of voters. In a popular primary or election, they are limited to carpetbombing the airwaves with lies to keep from the peasants what Percival Gotbucks Pecksniff XXIII wants for himself (as a sort of birthright). It is the sort of thing that leads his old chums down at the ye ancient polo club or at Skull and Bones reunions or whatever to accept that Percival has that "common touch" to fleece the suckers.
I figured if I could just get BlackElk to keep writing his his long polemics, he would expose himself as Progressive he really is.
I do hope many will read your rant, so that all can see BlackElk’s general political philosophy is in opposition to conservative principles and the founders idea of the greatest possible freedom for the individual and recognition that an unchecked central government is a threat to the liberties of the people.
Your feelings of envy and bitterness toward those who have more money and have been successful in life shine through in your writings brightly.
That someone with such attitudes as yours could consider himself to be conservative is testament to the power of self-delusion. Or, perhaps you are just schizophrenic.
I figured if I could just get BlackElk to keep writing his his long polemics, he would expose himself as Progressive he really is.
I do hope many will read your rant, so that all can see BlackElk’s general political philosophy is in opposition to conservative principles and the founders idea of the greatest possible freedom for the individual and recognition that an unchecked central government is a threat to the liberties of the people.
Your feelings of envy and bitterness toward those who have more money and have been successful in life shine through in your writings brightly.
That someone with such attitudes as yours could consider himself to be conservative is testament to the power of self-delusion. Or, perhaps you are just schizophrenic.