Mayors can save USA

[Spathi]

As far as I can see, US is moving towards a collapse of the presidential power: smart and rational people are not allowed to become candidates for presidency, because a smart president can become a competitor for the financial aristocracy ("Deep State"); moreover, a man must be corrupted to become a politician, because you can find dirt (kompromat) on a corrupt person, and dirt is the best way to ensure a politician's loyalty to his group. And if the collapse becomes, the power can transfer from the central power to governors. However I am afraid that the US governors are controlled by the financial aristocracy too, so mayors would be better.
If I lived in America, I would try to become a mayor of my city; I would declare that my aim is to become a politician of whole America. And because the role of a mayor requires knowledge of things like housing service, I would find another man with this knowledge, maybe a former mayor, and ask him the questions on all subjects relating the mayor's main work. And I would give this experienced man my mayor's salary, but my status of the mayor would give me, possibly, the opportunity to initiate a referendum in my state. What do you think about such a plan?

 

[dlu]

There are a few city states still hanging around - Vatican, Monaco, Singapore.
Not sure if a nation state can dump all of its responsibility to a city.
Is that what you are proposing?

 

[Spathi]

There are a few city states still hanging around - Vatican, Monaco, Singapore.
Not sure if a nation state can dump all of its responsibility to a city.
Is that what you are proposing?

No. I meant that the position of a mayor can serve like a "springboard" for a smart person intending to go into big politics.

 

[dlu]

That could be Mamdani's plan afteral.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Ironically the conservative stance always was for more state/local control. Turns our politics is always just about total control and domination regardless the color.

 

[Grinkle]

the conservative stance always was for more state/local control

Its consistently been largely a matter of convenience imo. Lincoln was a Republican and he clearly believed in the supremacy of the Federal government over states rights.

just about total control and domination regardless the color.

Definitely agree. I argue the resurgence (post Civil War) of Republican desire for states being less subject to the Feds co-incided with Federal enforcement of civil rights in the 60's. Now that the Federal government is reversing those policies, the desire on the right is for the Feds to enforce right-leaning social policies in blue states, very much as the liberal desire since the 60's was for the Feds to enforce liberal social policy in red states; public school integration being one of the flashpoints.

 

[sbrothy]

I've always had the feeling (not much more than that as I haven't studied the topic as such) that democracy works fine in the US locally, by which I mean state-level and down. When it comes to the federal level and mass media it quickly becomes ugly. It's a problem we don't have in the EU yet and I suspect federacy won't work over here. Too much mistrust.

 

[Grinkle]

that democracy works fine in the US locally

If you are interested, ask ChatGPT for examples of local government corruption in the US. I think the track record is hit-and-miss for city governments. ChatGPT will interpret "local" as "city". If you want state, use that word instead.

At the state level, broadly speaking, its winner-take-all, similar to how congress works - the majority party holds all the power to make things happen, and the minority party, best case, is in a position to veto or impede opposition proposals, not to move their own proposals forward. Political polarization has worked to diminish cross-party compromising at the state level in my state, for sure, and I suspect in most states.

 

[sbrothy]

Hm. So much for my illusions. So in other words it's just like here.

EDIT: To clarify: we don't have the federal level problems over here is what I meant. State-level is a crapshoot.

EDIT2: Is the "filibuster"-thing state or federal? Senate usually, no?

EDIT3: Thinking deeper about it we have some other federal level problems over here. Ah well.

 

[Grinkle]

Is the "filibuster"-thing state or federal? Senate usually, no?

Filibuster without further context refers to the Federal government, the Senate in particular. They have a rule that it requires 2/3's of the members to end debate on a bill. No votes can happen prior to debate ending. If no one is actively speaking on the floor, debate is also deemed to be closed, no 2/3's needed. So you get Senators holding forth on the floor, tag-teaming when they need to pee or sleep. There are no rules that floor speech needs to be on-topic, it can be anything as long as speach is being recorded into the congressional record.

Edit: Fact check - filibuster rules are 60 votes to end debate on a bill, 67 votes to end debate on a nomination or a Senate rule (like the filibuster rule itself).

There is no such rule in the house of representatives, debate is much more strictly controlled and can't run on for very long without the consent of the majority party.

I think some state legislatures also have similar filibuster rules - not sure on that, though.

 

[sbrothy]

Filibuster without further context refers to the Federal government, the Senate in particular. They have a rule that it requires 2/3's of the members to end debate on a bill. No votes can happen prior to debate ending. If no one is actively speaking on the floor, debate is also deemed to be closed, no 2/3's needed. So you get Senators holding forth on the floor, tag-teaming when they need to pee or sleep. There are no rules that floor speech needs to be on-topic, it can be anything as long as speach is being recorded into the congressional record.

There is no such rule in the house of representatives, debate is much more strictly controlled and can't run on for very long without the consent of the majority party.

I think some state legislatures also have similar filibuster rules - not sure on that, though.

Forgive me but this sounds absolutely bats... insane. OTOH once you've seen the British Parliament in action nothing surprises you anymore.

EDIT: MPs call for end to booing and jeering in Commons

 

[Grinkle]

this sounds absolutely bats

The idea makes more sense than the implementation. The idea is that it requires more than a simple majority for a single party to ram something through if there is serious objection from the minority party. Its a way to enable the minority party to leverage the majority party into some kind of compromise. IMO, this is a sound motivation.

The spectacle of Senators reading recipes or bed time stories into the congressional record is, indeed, bats, un-serious, ridiculous and more descriptors besides.