think the political challenge is that those who are drawn to power tend to prefer that power to open debate. From Erdoğan to Hitler to those in all governments, free speech in a democracy is an access point to power, but state violence against your enemies is a better way to maintain that power. Why leave the door open to those behind you who want to follow that same path to replace you?
The temporary solution was the Bill of Rights and to their credit it lasted longer than I think even they expected. The idea of a set of inalienable rights that cannot be taken away through a vote of otherwise ensured the door would remain open to peaceful access by new challengers. It's what ensures liberty within the democracy by placing a inalienable limit on what can be done to those who attempt to gain power and change the system. The challenge is that despite calling it a Bill of Rights and inalienable, meaning it was literally beyond the law to change, there was nothing to stop those in power from attacking it by simply changing the vocabulary to ensure the words did not directly violate or Rights even as the laws behind those words drained the Rights of all their protections.
Many people will disagree with me, but I think that's much of what led to both the protests last Summer inspired by George Floyd and the attack on the Capital. Both were made up of people who have little in common politically, but believe the system no longer offers them the inalienable rights needed to challenge incumbents and change the system. Both groups faced enormous entrenched bureaucracies that reserves Constitutional rights for themselves, but limit those rights to anyone outside the bureaucracies.
I can't disagree with them on that, even if I don't always agree with their tactics.
think the political challenge is that those who are drawn to power tend to prefer that power to open debate. From Erdoğan to Hitler to those in all governments, free speech in a democracy is an access point to power, but state violence against your enemies is a better way to maintain that power. Why leave the door open to those behind you who want to follow that same path to replace you?
The temporary solution was the Bill of Rights and to their credit it lasted longer than I think even they expected. The idea of a set of inalienable rights that cannot be taken away through a vote of otherwise ensured the door would remain open to peaceful access by new challengers. It's what ensures liberty within the democracy by placing a inalienable limit on what can be done to those who attempt to gain power and change the system. The challenge is that despite calling it a Bill of Rights and inalienable, meaning it was literally beyond the law to change, there was nothing to stop those in power from attacking it by simply changing the vocabulary to ensure the words did not directly violate or Rights even as the laws behind those words drained the Rights of all their protections.
Many people will disagree with me, but I think that's much of what led to both the protests last Summer inspired by George Floyd and the attack on the Capital. Both were made up of people who have little in common politically, but believe the system no longer offers them the inalienable rights needed to challenge incumbents and change the system. Both groups faced enormous entrenched bureaucracies that reserves Constitutional rights for themselves, but limit those rights to anyone outside the bureaucracies.
I can't disagree with them on that, even if I don't always agree with their tactics.