Convention of the States

Jim DeMint is taking over the Convention of the States Project, which I tend to think will only become more popular the longer this period of intense political hatred of Americans by Americans continues. Indeed, it has long been my diagnosis that the hatred comes from the excessive power of the Federal government, which imposes one-size-fits-all solutions on the whole of a vast nation. Putting the brakes on D.C. and restoring a capacity for local variation will make Federal elections, and the Supreme Court, much less controversial because much less consequential. In return local and state elections will become moreso, but one can always move away from a city or state election if one is horrified by the result of it.

It's a long-shot for now, but it may not remain so. Consider the criticism of it raised by Andrew Malcolm:

It is, to be honest, a genuinely massive undertaking when, for instance, just Republicans have trouble getting their own congressional majorities to agree on measures.

But the current state of the nation’s capital and the widespread dissatisfaction in flyover country is also a massive reality. “I’ve finally realized,” DeMint adds, “the most important truth of our time. Washington, D.C. will never fix itself.”

The Convention of the States wouldn't be populated by the same people who make up the Republican Congress, however. It would be populated by people from the state level who have been struggling with Congress and the Federal government throughout their careers. It would be populated also with people who sought to serve as delegates just because they are motivated to shrink D.C.'s power. Of course there might also be delegates from states like California who wanted to derail that process, but then again maybe not: maybe California will be adequately alarmed by the Trump/Pence administration, and the shift to a conservative Supreme Court, to reconsider.

There are not now 38 states ready to vote for this, but someday there may well be.