[saraid216]

Talking about "restoring the Constitution" is a good way to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth throwing in with. I believe in the future, not the past. Rather than holding up a piece of Scripture and warning me not to sin from the straight and narrow, I'd like to be presented with a vision for life lived.

Or, more succinctly, "Build bridges, not guard rails." It irritates me that American politics is often an exclusive-or choice between freedom and justice.

[lukifer]

Oh, I totally agree; the Constitution derives its authority from human rights principles which transcend nationality. I would love to see amendments which strengthened those rights and extended some or all protections to non-citizens.

The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved. (The Constitution has always been somewhat broken, given our history with slavery, suffrage, and wartime abuses, but it's a more comforting narrative for most conservatives.)

If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment, I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections. Whether you believe in a big or small government, we deserve one that we genuinely believe reflects our values, rather than the blatant corruption and "lesser evils" we live with now. If you remove the left-right smokescreen, Americans agree on more issues than it would seem; restoring faith in the democratic process would catalyze new progress in other arenas from there.

[saraid216]

> The meme of "Restore the Constitution" can either be seen as a first step towards that goal, and/or a realistic low bar for what can actually be achieved.

But it's not a first step towards that goal. A significant number of people who chant "Restore the Constitution" mean "before the Fourteenth Amendment".

> If we could somehow pass a new constitutional amendment

That's not restoration.

> I think the most urgent matter is electoral reform: instant run-off, and publicly financed elections.

That's fine. You don't need to rally behind "Restore the Constitution" to advocate for that.

[lukifer]

Like it or not, democracy requires coalitions to get things done, most especially in a country as culturally diverse as the US. While I also find some parts of the Tea Party abhorrent, I belive they are a necessary ally against the overreach of government. Note that that the first significant pushback against drones, and genuine use of the filibuster, came from none other than Rand Paul.

We can keep bickering over our disagreements, or we can unite over our common ground. The latter is bound to have much higher efficacy.

[saraid216]

Except that our common ground isn't common ground.

Once again, you talk about how the government is sinning against your Bible. Your term for this deviation is "overreach", and your response to it is to "pushback" and put forward a messiah. These are guard rails. You are envisioning a future defined by what is not true: by the dearth of government overreach, by a less indiscriminate usage of drones, and so on. These are not bridges. They are walls.

Forgive me if I don't tithe, but I am not a member of this church.

You can build your coalition, but near as I can tell, you are acting against my interests.

[lukifer]

...what? How is putting additional restraints on jackbooted thugs against your interests? Perhaps it's "throwing good money after bad", effort-wise, but I hardly see how the pursuit of due process makes things worse. We can build guard rails while the bridges are in pre-production.

To be clear: are you referring to working within a conventional political system (over 50% consensus), or outside the political system, through NGOs/technology/etc? The former is more easily achieved by allying with those you disagree with. What would be your practical strategy to building bridges instead? Not with long-term "consciousness change", but right now, today?

[saraid216]

> We can build guard rails while the bridges are in pre-production.

This is a campaign promise. This is where the jackbooted thugs come from. We never imagine ourselves to be the ones who start the oppression; it's always such a small compromise. We ally ourselves with someone who is distasteful, but gets the job done.

And the bridges never even get a blueprint, because our only concern is the quality and placement of the guard rails. That's all we end up discussing. We talk about freedom as if we knew what it was, and our first step is to curtail it because the people we don't like have more freedoms than the people we do like. And suddenly we look like Mohamed Morsi.

> What would be your practical strategy to building bridges instead?

We do something uncanny: we think about what we're doing. We consider why we want to do what we want to do. We strengthen our own ethical framework and hold it up for others to take apart. We turn our actions into natural consequences of a tested ethical structure. We ask others to do the same. We teach them how to build one if they don't know how. We compare and contrast our results. We argue about them; we disagree about them; we compromise and find ways to build policies despite those merge conflicts. That's a bridge.

Yeah, it can be argued that that's less practical than getting all the pro-slavery people in power and then hoping they fix our surveillance issues. Or maybe they'll just surveil the brown people and the atheist commies? It's unclear. A good chunk of them are in power right now, and they didn't actually stop this from happening. What would you trade with them for due process? Should we scratch health care? Religious freedom? Infrastructure maintenance? Public education? What would you give them for their support? You should know, and you should know why: that's part of practicality.

Yeah, it will take more time, more effort, more sweat, more tears. It's a harder road, because it's less traveled. But if you're going to pursue due process, why isn't the process due here?

What is government supposed to look like? Surely not "the status quo, minus a panopticon". What does a government predicated on human rights principles that transcend nationality actually look like? Why? What are the necessary demands on a state and society that such principles require? List out the rights. Prioritize them, if you wish, and postpone some that you consider least important. What are the consequences of meeting such demands? What does the resultant society and state actually look like? Who holds what power, and how, and why?

What is the collateral damage of your actions? Justify its acceptability. And try to make it more legitimate than, "This is what I care about most, so it's the most important."

All of that. Because you're promising me to build the bridge eventually, but every time I put down a beam, someone says, "Oh, I need that for another guard rail. Sorry." And pretty soon all we have are prisons and an American dream you have to be asleep to believe in. That's "right now, today".

Show me how you're not just more of the same.