Lots of silliness here. All effective reform "legitimate" the system by
making it work better, or at least less destructively, for those on the
bottom. If you oppose reforms on this basis, you will cut yourself off from
all political activity except for PL-ish demand for total revolution NOW!
Moreover, reforms are achieved by affected the process of legislation and
regulation. So, if you accept that refiorms are good and necessary, you have
to support lobbuing for and otherwise trying to effect them through the
esrablished channels. Otherwise, you will be out in the streets yelling for
reforms that will be implemented, if at all, without your participation.
A small point. The Sherman Antitrust Act was and is a moderately effective
reform that has been fairly successful in promoting competition. It is the
international model for antitrust law in Europe, and, i understand,
eslsewhere.
The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to
discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely because
of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the
C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some people
might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is precisely
its glory, in providing discrete and insular minorities a defense against
majoritarianian oppression. --jks
In a message dated 6/4/00 2:44:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Nader appearance in *Homes and Gardens* is indication of limits of his
politics. His anti-corporate theme reminds of not-so-Progressive Era
advocacy of using gov't to prevent economy from imposing hardships on
individuals unable to help themselves and to promote social reforms that
would lead to social progress. While number of such reforms were enacted,
middle-strata progressivism had conservative effect of undercutting more
substantive democratic demands and reducing pressure for great changes.
And legislation to control monopolies was largely ineffectual anyway.
RN's rhetoric may sound populist theme but his modus operandi has always
been 'reform from above': lobbying, testifying at hearings, influencing
rulemaking process, presenting research findings, organizing 'astroturf'
(in contrast to grassroots) efforts. And while he is identified with
'public interest' causes, Nader has been contributor to interest group
'hyperpluralism' given his association with founding (or co-founding)
over 50 organizations during his career.
'Leftish' types in US have tendency to call for 'home grown' examples
of 'good' politics and Nader's reference to Jeffersonian democracy
keeps with that tradition. Despite his view that nature ratified
exclusion of women, African-Americans, & Native Americans from ranks
of autonomous people and public realm, there was a radical TJ. More-
over, Jefferson's words have been used in ways and by folks that he
would never have intended (Seneca Falls Declaration, Frederick Douglas,
Martin Luther King, Jr., for example).
But TJ also played important role in making 1787 non-majoritarian
constitution legitimate. Despite riding wave of reinvigorated
egalitarianism stemming from French Revolution to the presidency
in 1800, he did not (contrary to Federalist expectations) 'rip up'
the document or dismantle established gov't institutions. Instead,
he began attaching democratic label to the constitution. Fact of
matter is that Jefferson was part of US 'duopoly' that Nader opposes,
a duopoly that has existed throughout country's history. In any
event, invoking TJ - who was simultaneously individualist,
communitarian, republican, democratic - is call to go 'back to
future' that only partially was. Michael Hoover
>>
