Liberal Professor Calls For Ending Democracy

Now that the euphoria of the mid-term elections has diminished several decibels, I want to tell you about an Op-Ed run by the New York Times (NYT) on the day before the elections. The opinion piece was written by a liberal Duke University professor and one of his brainwashed students. It was titled: Cancel the Midterms and effectively calls for an end to democracy. That the NYT editorial board would run such a piece of blather demonstrates the Grey Lady is suffering from late stage Alzheimer’s disease.

The National Review Online provides the details:

… Schanzer and Sullivan have a proposal that’s more inane than simply canceling Tuesday’s vote. They want to eliminate the gross injustice of having members of Congress justify their jobs every two years. “There was a time,” they write, “when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense.”



But the professor and the junior don’t actually care about the voters. Their concern is for the leader:

The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.

The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

You have to be awe of this bit of twisted liberal logic. They are saying because Americans don’t trust their government they should allow the president free rein to do whatever he wants. I wonder if they would feel the same way if there was a conservative occupying the White House?

Your humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in has some thoughts on congressional gridlock. What follows is a comment I wrote a the Frankenstein Government blog the other day:

I cringe every time I hear someone complain about the “gridlock” caused by the Republicans in the House or by the Democrats in the Senate. It’s as though doing nothing is a bad thing. The second best thing our governments can do is nothing. The best thing they could do would be to spend 99% of their time undoing bad laws and regulations and 1% of their time considering the need for new laws.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?





17 thoughts on “Liberal Professor Calls For Ending Democracy

  1. Why is it whenever Liberals don’t get their way they whine about a broken system? The system isn’t broken. Our government was designed to do nothing. It’s a limited government with a few specially delineated powers.

    But then again I am not a member of the elite. Maybe I’m stupid and missing something.

  2. As it stands, Congress doesn’t matter apparently anymore. Congress has given up so much of its authority to the agencies that they are the ones that rule. Add a lawless President and we end up with what we have. Good luck in having an operational Congress. Oh, they do have the power of the purse,, see what that has gotten us.

  3. I happen to agree with the notion that democracy should be ended in America. However I believe we should return to the constitutional republic the founders intended and a god start would be repealing the 17th amendment. However, that is obviously not what he is talking about here.

  4. The idea of changing the terms has been around as long as here has been the terms. Many, including myself, have long felt two-year terms are far to often and it should be every four or five at least. The biennial cycle bottlenecks turn-out through the political poles, causes incessant campaigning, with a constant hand out to moneyed interests.

    All you guys ridiculousness aside, many conservatives have agreed with this opinion and observation over the years, so really, right now, you guys sound like you’re just automatically barking partisan again, like rabid political dogs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s