The Wall was authorized by Tip O'Neill during Reagan's administration. It was even funded. We have waited for 30 years to have it built. It was part of the One Time Amnesty Bill. I remember being insulted by it because all of a sudden I had to make all my employees and then new hires prove they were citizens with legal penalties if I failed to do so properly. That put the .gov on my back in a brand new way and everyone else who was legally or wanted to be legally employed. But it was part of the deal and my job, so I did it. Another reason I say bull puckey to those who object to voter ID laws. But I digress. Its been 30 + years waiting for the freaking wall to be built. And the primary method used to keep it from being built is objections by the EPA. Another reason for the EPA to go bye, bye.
Yes, it has sucked away jobs from citizens and legal immigrants. No one is or was speaking to and for these people until Trump arrived. And the same goes for those who are pissed as all get out over the wall not being built. And they also know the role of the EPA in this, which in the big picture is a typical democratic party bureaucracy hell bent on disrupting businesses with ridiculous regulations and putting national security behind the 'environment'.
The deportation will pay for itself. How ? 5 years ago the annual local, state and federal government expenses for illegals totaled $200 billion. 5 years ago LA county documented their annual burden to be $1 billion. If the expense is only $400 billion, then with reduction of the costs of services it would take only several years to break even and then it also means that's $200 billion back in citizen's pockets for the good of the citizen. That's not a trifling sum either.
Then there is the issue of Sanctuary Cities that I have a major problem with. I refuse to be tarred by the assertion that I am a xenophobic racist because I have a problem with the people who come here illegally. I cannot help that it seems to be one primary ethnicity that is coming in. That's their problem not mine. Its not who they are, its what they are. A secure border is supposed to keep everyone out, not just certain people.
So I'm a xenophobic racist (not saying you said it, but many others here have) for putting my family, friends and neighbors ahead of people trying to get here illegally and f*ck the system at their expense ? This sure as f*ck ain't the country I was raised in if that's the way it is now. Angry ? You have no idea how angry. 30 years angry. I am not a recent arrival to this party.
Interesting. I did a bit of googling and could not find mention that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (was that the One Time Amnesty Bill you mentioned?) authorized construction of a wall. With that law, Dutch Reagan gave legal status to around 2.7 million illegal immigrants who'd been in the US before '82. GHW Bush extended that federal protection to around 40% of the illegal immigrant population through a change in INS policy, which Congress ratified in '89:
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The act increased fines for illegal aliens, provided additional funding for border patrol and surveillance, and also approved the installation of an additional 14-mile (22-kilometer) fence near San Diego. Some landowners in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas erected their own fences, often with the help of militia, but no permanent barrier had been constructed by the government in these areas until recently.
The ACLU is bitterly opposed to the IIRIRA in part of this draconian policy:
Because of IIRIRA, detention is now mandated for virtually any immigrant the government tries to deport based on criminal history — no matter how minor the offense. Detention is mandatory even if the immigrant poses no danger or flight risk, and regardless of the fact that he has already served his criminal sentence and paid his debt to society. At the same time, IIRIRA radically expanded the kinds of offenses that subject an immigrant to mandatory detention. As a result, many immigrants who have strong cases to challenge their removal are forced to choose between enduring additional months or years in detention to fight their cases, or agreeing to banishment from the country they call home.
As to whether The Wall would pay for itself (I do hope Paul Wolfowitz isn't hyping that notion like he promised that the occupation of Iraq would pay for itself ), this Factcheck.org article states that there doesn't seem to be a great cost to state and local governments from illegal immigration:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/ So, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists. The Urban Institute put the net national costat $1.9 billion in 1992; a Rice University professor, whose work the Urban Institute criticized, said it was $19.3 billion in 1993. More recently, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years in an attempt to answer this question. CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level." As for the environmental and water-flow issues surrounding a possible wall, I urge you to go back to the NYT article and read the section towards the end entitled "Maintaining water supplies: A diplomatic challenge"
The OMB study looked at a range of regulations across the economy, and found their benefits outweighed their costs across the board.
...
But no where was the effect greater than with EPA regulations themselves. Over the last decade, they imposed as much as $45 billion in costs on the economy, but they also drove as much as $640 billion in benefits:
The OMB found that a decade’s worth of major federal rules had produced annual benefits to the U.S. economy of between $193 billion and $800 billion and impose aggregate costs of $57 billion to $84 billion. “These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect the uncertain benefits and costs of each rule,” the report noted.
Rules from the EPA added significantly to both sides of the ledger. “It should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of Air and Radiation,” the OMB study said. EPA regulations accounted for between 58% and 80% of the benefits the study found as well as 44% to 54% of the costs. Air regulations accounted for nearly 99% of EPA rule benefits, according to the report.
Getting into the numbers, the single biggest effect from any of the EPA’s rules came from the recently enacted Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which Republicans have vociferously opposed. MATS also brought the biggest effect of any of the 14 rules issued in fiscal year 2012 — resulting in an estimated cost of $8.1 billion annually, but also offsetting benefits of $28 to $77 billion annually. The runner-up, which along with MATS made up the vast majority of 2012’s costs and benefits, were the vehicle fuel efficiency standards jointly issued by the EPA and Transportation Department.
Since this is a study by the executive branch that endorses policies preferred by the executive branch, it’s worth pointing out that similar findings have been regularly dug up by other researchers. In 2011, an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that job loss due to increased energy prices from MATS would be swamped by new jobs in pollution abatement and control. It also found that for each major EPA rule finalized by the Obama Administration at the time, annual benefits exceeded costs by $10 to $95 billion a piece. EPI even returned to the question in 2012, and found net job gains from MATS would reach 117,000 to 135,000 in 2015. The San Francisco Federal Reserve even ran an analysis of regulations more broadly, and found that in states where businesses expressed more concern about regulations over time, employment actually went up slightly.
Surveys of small businesses routinely fail to find compelling evidence that firms view taxes and regulations as a major impediment to hiring, an EPA-mandated clean-up of the Chesapeake BAY is anticipated to create 35 times as many jobs as the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and jobs in the coal industry actually increased by 10 percent after the EPA cracked down on mountaintop-removal mining in 2009.
The link to the OMB report: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf
The link to the Economic Policy Institute Report: http://www.epi.org/publication/a_life_saver_not_a_job_killer/
Also check out: http://www.epi.org/publication/combined-effect-obama-epa-rules/
Unrelated but I was laughing the other day about how when traveling abroad there were times we didn't want to brag about being from the US but now we can just say "Hey, we're not Canadians" and they'll welcome us with open arms.
I would say I'm from California and they'd laugh and ask me if I knew what was going on with Trump, and could I believe it?
Then we'd move to Bernie and I'd argue that Bernie isn't going to be the winner, but he's the advance man waking up the younger generation to mobilize and they'll bring the true change next time.
"The "establishment" or whatever name is attached to it, is what Madison was talking about."
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, it seems that Madison was talking about institutionalizing the power of landed interests to protect their wealth.
"The power of grass roots and collective action has long been acknowledged by said establishment as a danger. As such, actions were taken to prevent them, or to try to control/disperse/co-opt them when they threaten to re-emerge."
Agreed, and that's one reason why third parties don't last long in American politics. But grass roots efforts can bring about change in American politics—note the success of abolitionists (who were regarded as fringe loons at the start of the Civil War), the suffragette movement, the civil rights movement, the LBGT movement, the political power that unions once wielded, etc.
The point is that what the establishment deems unrealistic, crazy, etc. doesn't happen. As the earlier study pointed out. It's never just the wealthy that are part of the establishment. There are the scribes, experts, P.R. people, etc.
Sure, there was "people power" to get changes enacted, but that has declined/been consciously curtailed to some extent in line with the other sentence.
From what I've read, Trump supporters want The Wall because they feel their jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants. I'd call that wanting the government to do something for them. It should be obvious to Trump supporters that enforcement of immigration laws on the books isn't going to protect their jobs at this point. One conservative economist calculated that deportation of the 11 million immigrants in the US would cost $400+ billion and then only if the proceedings were spread out over 20 years.
It's a bit odd to hear people calling for government to get off their backs when they just want government intervention in a different form.
I'd also call Trump's promise to roll back previous trade agreements a form of active government intervention. Also renegotiating defense agreements with other countries and slapping penalties on firms like Carrier that move jobs out of the country. There are also cases of confusion when people say they want the government off their backs: for instance, voters in coal-mining country think that clean-air regulations are killing coal jobs but the rise of fracking and resurgence of cheap natural gas in production is doing far greater and more lasting damage to the coal industry.
The Wall was authorized by Tip O'Neill during Reagan's administration. It was even funded. We have waited for 30 years to have it built. It was part of the One Time Amnesty Bill. I remember being insulted by it because all of a sudden I had to make all my employees and then new hires prove they were citizens with legal penalties if I failed to do so properly. That put the .gov on my back in a brand new way and everyone else who was legally or wanted to be legally employed. But it was part of the deal and my job, so I did it. Another reason I say bull puckey to those who object to voter ID laws. But I digress. Its been 30 + years waiting for the freaking wall to be built. And the primary method used to keep it from being built is objections by the EPA. Another reason for the EPA to go bye, bye.
Yes, it has sucked away jobs from citizens and legal immigrants. No one is or was speaking to and for these people until Trump arrived. And the same goes for those who are pissed as all get out over the wall not being built. And they also know the role of the EPA in this, which in the big picture is a typical democratic party bureaucracy hell bent on disrupting businesses with ridiculous regulations and putting national security behind the 'environment'.
The deportation will pay for itself. How ? 5 years ago the annual local, state and federal government expenses for illegals totaled $200 billion. 5 years ago LA county documented their annual burden to be $1 billion. If the expense is only $400 billion, then with reduction of the costs of services it would take only several years to break even and then it also means that's $200 billion back in citizen's pockets for the good of the citizen. That's not a trifling sum either.
Then there is the issue of Sanctuary Cities that I have a major problem with. I refuse to be tarred by the assertion that I am a xenophobic racist because I have a problem with the people who come here illegally. I cannot help that it seems to be one primary ethnicity that is coming in. That's their problem not mine. Its not who they are, its what they are. A secure border is supposed to keep everyone out, not just certain people.
So I'm a xenophobic racist (not saying you said it, but many others here have) for putting my family, friends and neighbors ahead of people trying to get here illegally and f*ck the system at their expense ? This sure as f*ck ain't the country I was raised in if that's the way it is now. Angry ? You have no idea how angry. 30 years angry. I am not a recent arrival to this party.
Unrelated but I was laughing the other day about how when traveling abroad there were times we didn't want to brag about being from the US but now we can just say "Hey, we're not Canadians" and they'll welcome us with open arms.
What's considered crazy will depend largely on your own norms and, in this particular context, ideological views. Was B. Clinton's proposal for universal healthcare crazy? Was Obama's proposal of ending of war(s) or closing Guantanamo crazy? Depends on who you ask.
The "establishment" or whatever name is attached to it, is what Madison was talking about.
You can provide all the public information in the world, but people will continue to self-select based on their own ideology-driven confirmation bias. They'll read and defend what they already believe to be true. Someone else can of course do the same for an opposing view, using different data and experts, and believing just as much that the other's proposal is evidently crazy too.
The power of grass roots and collective action has long been acknowledged by said establishment as a danger. As such, actions were taken to prevent them, or to try to control/disperse/co-opt them when they threaten to re-emerge.
When I call Trump's and Sanders' promises crazy, I mean that they have little chance of becoming law or being realized, either for legal, political or cost-benefit reasons. I also refer to the lack of analysis provided by both campaigns to defend their platform planks like building the Wall or providing free healthcare for everyone. Those two promises have no grounding in reality, aside from their power to boost the respective candidates' popularity.
In contrast, Clinton's push for health care reform as well as Obama's calls for getting out of Iraq and closing Gitmo were serious proposals, bounded by considerations of applicable law, the political landscape and cost-benefit analyses. Interested people could dig into what Clinton and Obama were proposing, although people justly complained about the closed hearings that the Clintons used to discuss health care reform. The Clintons and Ira Magaziner were concerned that lobbying would corrupt and derail the reform process. Unfortunately, lobbyists and Republicans used that secrecy to inflame public fears about "government-run healthcare", death panels, etc. But both Clinton and Obama's ideas were taken seriously and subjected to vigorous, informed debate.
I agree with you that voters will self-select information to confirm their own biases. I just wish that voters would try harder to become more informed. Even if you read just the stuff that confirms your biases and wish-list for government, you will be raising the level of debate when you voice your biased opinion. You will force politicians to base their promises a little more deeply in the realities that limit what government can do. You will force them to back up their ideas with evidence.
Right now we're at the point where Sanders and Trump are pretty much promising free beer and steak for everybody. Their supporters are no longer bothering to ask how these promises would happen or what the cost would be. They remind me of people I saw back in a London subway stop during the mid-80s who were putting money into the cap of a man who stood at the bottom of an escalator and chanted "We gonna free-ee Mandela! Free thot man..." The guy couldn't do jack about freeing Mandela but people didn't stop to think about that when they gave their money away. The chanter tapped into people's guilt or vulnerability to peer pressure or stupidity and made himself a little rich that night.
"The "establishment" or whatever name is attached to it, is what Madison was talking about."
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, it seems that Madison was talking about institutionalizing the power of landed interests to protect their wealth.
"The power of grass roots and collective action has long been acknowledged by said establishment as a danger. As such, actions were taken to prevent them, or to try to control/disperse/co-opt them when they threaten to re-emerge."
Agreed, and that's one reason why third parties don't last long in American politics. But grass roots efforts can bring about change in American politics—note the success of abolitionists (who were regarded as fringe loons at the start of the Civil War), the suffragette movement, the civil rights movement, the LBGT movement, the political power that unions once wielded, etc. kurtster wrote:
I guess that I am seeing and hearing things much differently than you.
The people I know who support Trump are not screaming for help from the .gov. On the contrary, they are screaming to get it off their backs and do their job and enforce the laws on the books. For openers ...
From what I've read, Trump supporters want The Wall because they feel their jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants. I'd call that wanting the government to do something for them. It should be obvious to Trump supporters that enforcement of immigration laws on the books isn't going to protect their jobs at this point. One conservative economist calculated that deportation of the 11 million immigrants in the US would cost $400+ billion and then only if the proceedings were spread out over 20 years.
It's a bit odd to hear people calling for government to get off their backs when they just want government intervention in a different form.
I'd also call Trump's promise to roll back previous trade agreements a form of active government intervention. Also renegotiating defense agreements with other countries and slapping penalties on firms like Carrier that move jobs out of the country. There are also cases of confusion when people say they want the government off their backs: for instance, voters in coal-mining country think that clean-air regulations are killing coal jobs but the rise of fracking and resurgence of cheap natural gas in production is doing far greater and more lasting damage to the coal industry.
It's going to be a weird ride, but leading isn't all of the problem (checks & balances and all that), but representing us on the world stage: that's a problem.
That's a YUGE problem. "Telling it like it is" will likely piss off every major and minor national power, and it will take years to undo the damage.
Examples in recent past: Bush 41, Bush 43, and Bush 43. The harm done to our international reputation and standing as a world power is only now starting to be repaired - despite our OWN attempt to make our President look like an imbecile. Putting someone in the White House who's never even dealt with a city council meeting will be a self-inflicted wound we might not recover from in most of our lifetimes.
My impatience with their supporters stems not from their deep frustration and desperation but from their unwillingness to subject Trump and Sanders to reality checks. If you're screaming for help from the government, a few rants and blue-sky promises shouldn't be enough to get your vote. You should force your candidate to provide reality-based details to back up those promises.
Our political system was bound to hit this wall of craziness eventually. It doesn't allow the average citizen much voice or input into policies. ...
I guess that I am seeing and hearing things much differently than you.
The people I know who support Trump are not screaming for help from the .gov. On the contrary, they are screaming to get it off their backs and do their job and enforce the laws on the books. For openers ...
Given that new Presidents have made agreements with members of their party who serve in Congress and also with non-political allies (especially the contributing kind), I think you do have a real way of knowing what a new President will do, especially in terms of major policy proposals. Presidential candidates make campaign promises based on what they think they can get through Congress and often calibrate their platforms based on discussions with potential allies in Congress). A presidential candidate is usually supported by his party's establishment and cannot make wild-ass promises that have no hope of realization or contradict his/her party's core beliefs. That candidate is usually a path to predicted, planned and mostly desired political outcomes for his/her party.
Trump and Sanders are outsiders and therefore can make crazy promises (...)
What's considered crazy will depend largely on your own norms and, in this particular context, ideological views. Was B. Clinton's proposal for universal healthcare crazy? Was Obama's proposal of ending of war(s) or closing Guantanamo crazy? Depends on who you ask.
The "establishment" or whatever name is attached to it, is what Madison was talking about.
You can provide all the public information in the world, but people will continue to self-select based on their own ideology-driven confirmation bias. They'll read and defend what they already believe to be true. Someone else can of course do the same for an opposing view, using different data and experts, and believing just as much that the other's proposal is evidently crazy too.
The power of grass roots and collective action has long been acknowledged by said establishment as a danger. As such, actions were taken to prevent them, or to try to control/disperse/co-opt them when they threaten to re-emerge.
It's going to be a weird ride, but leading isn't all of the problem (checks & balances and all that), but representing us on the world stage: that's a problem.
No argument there. How many allies can he alienate in 4 years?... the mind boggles.
He seems to only have respect for powerful dictatorial/autocratic regimes led by leaders with poor human-rights histories. To Donald "Might is Right" is his modus operandi.
You have no real way of knowing what they will do once elected into Congress, or even more relevant, as President (you can no doubt think of many examples from the past, up to and including Obama).
They may, or possibly may not, have a relevant record. They will promise policies, pork, or "change", and some may even come through in certain line items, but in the end of the day they will still need to function as cogs in the system. A system that has safeguards (such as an electoral college, party hierarchies, two party bias) to produce mostly desired outcomes.
Now all of that does not excuse the voter from having a responsibility in making the best possible (subjective) choice in part based on personal views and priorities, and despite of all the disinformation that gets thrown in the mix. And the information shouldn't just be gathered when it's time to tick a box. However, in the end of the day, partly due to the money involved, the conclusion about the current influence of "the masses" on most policies remains largely true.
I agree with your observation that
"but in the end of the day they will still need to function as cogs in the system. A system that has safeguards (such as an electoral college, party hierarchies, two party bias) to produce mostly desired outcomes."
Given that new Presidents have made agreements with members of their party who serve in Congress and also with non-political allies (especially the contributing kind), I think you do have a real way of knowing what a new President will do, especially in terms of major policy proposals. Presidential candidates make campaign promises based on what they think they can get through Congress and often calibrate their platforms based on discussions with potential allies in Congress). A presidential candidate is usually supported by his party's establishment and cannot make wild-ass promises that have no hope of realization or contradict his/her party's core beliefs. That candidate is usually a path to predicted, planned and mostly desired political outcomes for his/her party.
Trump and Sanders are outsiders and therefore can make crazy promises because they don't rely on their party's establishment leaders. They don't have to worry about the consequences of not fulfilling their wild promises until after the election.
My impatience with their supporters stems not from their deep frustration and desperation but from their unwillingness to subject Trump and Sanders to reality checks. If you're screaming for help from the government, a few rants and blue-sky promises shouldn't be enough to get your vote. You should force your candidate to provide reality-based details to back up those promises.
Our political system was bound to hit this wall of craziness eventually. It doesn't allow the average citizen much voice or input into policies. You don't like the incumbent? Wait 'til the next election and vote. Still unhappy? Wait and vote again. That just builds frustration and alienation, especially when your unhappiness stems from structural changes to the economy that politicians can't easily fix, like the disappearance of manufacturing and low-skill jobs.
With all our communication and information resources, we should be able to create a clearinghouse of information about elected politicians and candidates to help voters become more informed. Something like voter referendums, binding or not, might help voters stay interested in politics between elections. I re-read that New Yorker piece that you linked to about the disproportionate political power of the economic elite in the US. I wonder whether that outsized influence would survive if we created a new culture of political participation amongst the non-elite.
This election will suck. Trump and Hillary both suck. But Trump by far sucks more.
A more ill-equipped person to serve as our leader (except for maybe Dennis Rodman) I cannot even conceive.
It's going to be a weird ride, but leading isn't all of the problem (checks & balances and all that), but representing us on the world stage: that's a problem.
I think you do have to blame the people when they elect poor or ineffective political representatives. If you elect a politician based on his PR without looking into the possibility that his/her record doesn't align with the PR, then you've allowed yourself to be suckered and perhaps swindled. (...)
You have no real way of knowing what they will do once elected into Congress, or even more relevant, as President (you can no doubt think of many examples from the past, up to and including Obama).
They may, or possibly may not, have a relevant record. They will promise policies, pork, or "change", and some may even come through in certain line items, but in the end of the day they will still need to function as cogs in the system. A system that has safeguards (such as an electoral college, party hierarchies, two party bias) to produce mostly desired outcomes.
Now all of that does not excuse the voter from having a responsibility in making the best possible (subjective) choice in part based on personal views and priorities, and despite of all the disinformation that gets thrown in the mix. And the information shouldn't just be gathered when it's time to tick a box. However, in the end of the day, partly due to the money involved, the conclusion about the current influence of "the masses" on most policies remains largely true.
Why blame the people? They have very little say in the actual policies (whether in commerce, war, civil rights, etc.) unless they become a menace. They merely approve a representative based on their P.R. If the representative then does an about face while in office...
The assumption is that the members of an elite of a republic that do the governing are at least somewhat rational people and not entirely selfish. However:
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
You have a big problem when a lot of people don't get their fair share (i.e. institutionalized inequality) while others make out like bandits.
I think you do have to blame the people when they elect poor or ineffective political representatives. If you elect a politician based on his PR without looking into the possibility that his/her record doesn't align with the PR, then you've allowed yourself to be suckered and perhaps swindled.
If a friend of yours bought a car or condo based on a slick but uninformative TV ad and then discovered that the ad was misleading, you'd likely blame the ad but also blame your friend for not making a more informed decision. Voters should perform the same research and skeptical scrutiny of candidates, especially when they're running for President.
Many people have lined up behind Bernie and Trump because they're hurting financially and feel that the economy is rigged against them. That's understandable, since Bernie and Trump seem outraged for them and are promising Great Things to help the little guy. But Bernie and Trump's promises aren't backed up by reality, and it doesn't take a lot digging to figure that out. When a snake oil salesman talks a good game about sympathizing with your plight, he's still a snake oil salesman.
Your excerpt from James Madison is interesting. It seems like he was advocating that landholders have a permanent chamber in the legislative body to protect their inherited wealth against a majority attempt at imposing agrarian law (which I interpret as a land redistribution program). The quote likely has implications for any opinion Madison might have had about income inequality in the US today and the struggle of competing interests between those deriving income from inherited wealth and those getting income from wages.
I don't know what Madison's attitudes were about a progressive tax system that effectively redistributes taxed income in favor of the poor and the social welfare system that relies on that tax system. We live in very different times than Madison's.
I found this quote from Madison on the same Wikipedia page a lot more relevant to our discussion of Trump and this general election:
A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
Letter to W.T. Barry (1822-08-04), in Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison vol. 9 (1910), p. 103. These words, using the older spelling "Governours", are inscribed to the left of the main entrance, Library of Congress James Madison Memorial Building.
In answer to your question, Steely_D
"So the question is inevitable: is the USA done as an experiment?" I don't think it is done. My parents and other adults were convinced during the late 60s that America was tearing itself apart and might not last. I'm sure their parents thought the same thing during the Great Depression. Americans likely worried whether the nation would heal and unite again after the Civil War.
Our national politics is in transition. I think that the GOP has lost its identity and reason for existence. It's shocking how irresponsible and irrelevant to governance it's become. Trump's popularity is a sign that the working class is no longer reliably Republican. A segment of that same group wants the Democratic party to move left, and that shift may be permanent. Essentially, supporters of Trump and Sanders want the government to do more for them—just in different ways.
That desire for greater government help and presence in the lives of Americans is fine, but voters need to become more informed and more involved, especially after the election. Trump or Sanders alone isn't going to bring about big changes. Sustained and structured grassroots efforts will push Washington to change and to help the average American more.
It does make you wonder if democracy is such a good idea. Why should everyone have the right to an opinion if it's uneducated? By making America a republic, it was an attempt to bypass that sort of issue. I'm sure they were thinking of the intelligent but undereducated farmer, or whatever, but these days it's the misinformed web surfer. It's looking more lately that America is basically an oligarchy, too. So the question is inevitable: is the USA done as an experiment?
Why blame the people? They have very little say in the actual policies (whether in commerce, war, civil rights, etc.) unless they become a menace. They merely approve a representative based on their P.R. If the representative then does an about face while in office...
The assumption is that the members of an elite of a republic that do the governing are at least somewhat rational people and not entirely selfish. However:
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
You have a big problem when a lot of people don't get their fair share (i.e. institutionalized inequality) while others make out like bandits.
You have to wonder what it'll take for voters to learn about candidates before casting their votes.
1. Terrorist attacks in America and the death of thousands of Americans thanks to a White House that pretended Al Qaeda didn't exist? Apparently not.
2. A needless war we got suckered into thanks to exaggerated and fabricated intelligence, the stupidity of our president and the neocons' fixation on removing Saddam?...Naaah.
3. A near-meltdown of our economy due to almost no scrutiny of home loan applications, the over-rating of bundled mortgages, and the failure of the government to rein in careless investment practices of institutions too big to fail? Ummm...what?
Gosh, reading is hard. Let's just get a 24/7 narcissistic blowhard from TV to be king! Things'll be fine! Donald says so!
It does make you wonder if democracy is such a good idea. Why should everyone have the right to an opinion if it's uneducated? Who would argue FOR having people cast a ballot that might lead to a worse nation? There's a benefit to that?
By making America a republic, it was an attempt to bypass that sort of issue. I'm sure they were thinking of the intelligent but undereducated farmer, or whatever, but these days it's the misinformed web surfer. It's looking more lately that America is basically an oligarchy, too. So the question is inevitable: is the USA done as an experiment?
You have to wonder what it'll take for voters to learn about candidates before casting their votes.
1. Terrorist attacks in America and the death of thousands of Americans thanks to a White House that pretended Al Qaeda didn't exist? Apparently not.
2. A needless war we got suckered into thanks to exaggerated and fabricated intelligence, the stupidity of our president and the neocons' fixation on removing Saddam?...Naaah.
3. A near-meltdown of our economy due to almost no scrutiny of home loan applications, the over-rating of bundled mortgages, and the failure of the government to rein in careless investment practices of institutions too big to fail? Ummm...what?
Gosh, reading is hard. Let's just get a 24/7 narcissistic blowhard from TV to be king! Things'll be fine! Donald says so!
), 
