| | Machan:
I think your conclusion is right on -- when they got nothing, they got nothing, and they resort to up-against-the-wall extreme painting of those who simply disagree with them as, well, everything you say. It's a clumsly and transparent attempt to cut off all debate as pointless and unnecessary.
As in...the less they got, the more of that their critics get.
They're pushing single point of failure, monolithic solutions on a massive scale. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize their approach.
Why not 50 state experiments in parallel? Why a single federal model? The arguments for the single federal model are the same reasons we prohibit, in once our 'mixed economy' sensibilities, the formation of massive monopolies of any kind in the marketplace.
I don't see any 'racism' in that criticism, but then again, I'm biased, because it is my criticism.
I suppose one can find a hidden agenda to restore balanced federalism in there, and from that, it's a short drive to me waving the stars and bars, wearing a hood, and pining for the good old days of slavery...
...which is to say, how earlier arguments to not rush towards totalitarian state solutions were once criticized, using the same specious scheme you outline in your piece.
But, there are legitimate arguments -- arguments based on reasonable systems design -- which make the current massively 'universal' scheme seem like something to avoid like the plague.
regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/12, 4:20pm)
|
|
