Yes, Net Neutrality is important.
But if you're on Team Pepsi, you shouldn't be very happy when your captain makes things happen due to technicalities and the ability to skirt Congress; Team Coke is going to be in charge at some point and all of these easily-implemented changes are so easily undone.
So now Team Coke is going to be running things, and the very means by which Team Pepsi got what they wanted will quite possibly be the same means by which they are removed.
The hand-wringing is over the wrong thing, and years too late. The focus should have been in placing proper legislative protections in place when the political environment was favorable.
This possibility was predictable and, given enough time, inevitable.
I understand the point that people shouldn't feel complacent, but what else is Team Pepsi supposed to do if they don't get support from congress?
IMO the Executive Order/fiat by committee approach is detrimental in the long run. Sure, stuff gets done...but once the goal has been reached everybody moves on without much thought about the long-term.
It's like those home renovation shows where they have a pizza budget but champagne tastes, and the designer/builder figures out a clever way to get a particular look for cheap. The unveil the house, the owners are thrilled about how it looks, and the show ends on a happy note. They never go back 6-12 months later, and talk about how the cheap facade peeled away or the sharp edges on the hastily-built cabinetry, etc etc.
Resistance to the slowly creeping dismantling of consumer rights and freedoms will require frequent hyperventilation and the ability to be outraged. Having grown up in a totalitarian state, it all felt banal and common place. I'm not saying this one piece of news indicates that's the future in the US, but we will get there with hundreds of compromises like it.
During 8 years of Obama the only thing in the table was more regulation. Now your only hope is for a Trump administration that pushes for more competition; which given his policy on healthcare I'd say that's a battle worth fighting for.
As opposed to....your comment?
Hyperventilation is navel-gazing without the self-reflection. It is a step below hysteria. If you truly grew up in a totalitarian state, then you should be in favor of doing things right, by the law, rather than allowing a single person or small group of people circumvent (or pervert) it.
And that is the problem here. Executive Orders and appointees during both the Obama and Bush administrations have allowed the executive branch to do what they want, when they want. It's technically legal, but it's as permanent as smoke. And those who are upset that the smoke bridge to a better future is falling apart are fools.
You've got a very valid point, and one we should extend. Part of the very point of democracy is to cultivate a loyal opposition whose rule you can live with, even if it displeases you sometimes.
On that score, the American party system is, unfortunately, a massive failure. The Republicans are dangerously close to using districting and electoral quirks (and even, after 2018, potentially amending the Constitution) to exterminate the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party have been trying for more than a decade to put together a demographic coalition that could keep the Republicans from winning anything ever again -- except for how miserable a failure that project has been.
"The Disease of American Democracy" 2014
http://robertreich.org/post/95109113190
In an ideal world, a parliamentary/coalition system maybe better because it promotes greater socio-political evolution and forces parties/leaders to put forth better platforms. There are other pros/cons as well.
The problem is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered as fuck, making it quite often impossible to have a genuine two-party contest within electoral politics. I mean, are you suggesting Team Pepsi run in Team Coke's Congressional primaries as moderates rather than contesting a general election they basically can't win?
A system in which Congresspeople get to pick their favorite voters isn't democratic.
Congressional districts are ultimately decided by the individual states, (theoretically) based upon Census data as I understand it. (A correction is welcome if I've misunderstood)
Given that, it seems like if you want to fix the US Congress, work must begin at the individual state level to ensure gerrymandering is eliminated. This would likely involve not only pushing for state representatives to support this but electing governors (in cases where the governor has a say in districting issues).
At first this seems like a "it's turtles all the way down" kind of problem but I think voter education campaigns (as opposed to the voter-insulting or voter-shaming that seems to be standard for the national level these days) would probably be the most effective way to address it. Regardless of party, I think most Americans are in favor of fairness and equality.
Trouble is, when a party wins (and thus is in the best position to fix the issue), this isn't seen as a problem worth addressing. That change, too, needs to come from within.
Theoretically based on Census data, but ultimately at the near-unrestricted discretion of whoever holds the state legislature at the time.
>Trouble is, when a party wins (and thus is in the best position to fix the issue), this isn't seen as a problem worth addressing. That change, too, needs to come from within.
Yep. It's taken lawsuits in some places: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89402. This case could end up before the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court then votes their own partisan preferences, which they often do these days, it will be... fucked-up.
Again here just sticking to a popular vote would help on the state-level.