|
this is as baffling a proposal as i've seen anywhere...so the "insidious degradation of american "democracy"" can be rectified by expanding the size of the house of representatives how exactly?
and oligarchy is being used as a counter example in what sense?
i have looked around at the townhall (tm) blog space and assume that this proposal is somehow linked to a nostalgia for decentralized forms of american democratic practice, the sort of range that grew out of local necessity and a lack of centralizing or co-ordinating mechanisms and media...
but how one would get from there to an enormous house of representatives to a claim that making the house enormous would in itself do anything at all...i don't follow.
well, it's clear that it would make for a more convincing theater of representation in the context of which carl schmitt probably would appear to be correct about the interminable blah blah blah of democracy, which required the Intervention of a Decider in the Context of a State of Exception--so a pseudo-republic behind which an authoritarian state would operate--so a form of authoritarian state amongst the leading characteristics of which would be a tick for referring to itself as a republic and maintaining self-paralyzing rituals to go along with it....that is, if you were to imagine this strange idea as wedged onto the existing order.
no particular attention to procedural questions--no particular attention to implications--just a question (why 435?) and a counter (why not 300,000)---well, why not pay attention to procedural matters and move toward direct democracy--or don't pay attention and move toward an new and improved version of the american style of soft totalitarian government.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|