Wednesday, January 05, 2011

To Filibuster or Not To Filibuster

The democrats are trying to change the legislative rules associated with filibuster. Their argument is that the government is broken and drastic measures are necessary. I agree with that, but I'm unsure as to whether I want any legislative changes. Our current system is stagnant, but when our country is packed with such perfect morons as those in, say, Mississippi, I prefer having a government that can't do anything. It's desirable.

The other options is fixing what's wrong with our government. This is a non-option. It's not going to happen. Again, we have morons electing morons. We cannot stop that. There is no way to fix the rift, so we simply compensate for it by preventing the government from doing anything substantive. Yes. It will be bankrupt in twenty years, and we'll deal with it then. There is no way to motivate this country to fix it until we're actually on fire. So don't worry, be happy, and let the government do its thing.


invagrantly said...

it all started with we elect a moron to the whitehouse...

Aaron MC said...

No, I think these issues go much farther back. We were nearing complete legislative gridlock back before World War II, and it was only the Great Depression and the war that fixed it.

Actually, it could be argued that it was ONLY the war, because legislative issues persisted before and during the depression. There was a great book written about how the New Deal was not the universally accepted process that pop-history sees it as, today. I can't remember the name... dammit.