An End To Tyranny?
Most of us who comment on this blog seem to be on common ground with the thinking that our government has gotten waaaaay out of control in size and scope; that more and more of our liberties are being crushed every day, and soon (in perhaps a generation or two) Americans will no longer be free. What I've been thinking a lot about lately is what, exactly, to do about it. Jack Mercer has suggested our only pragmatic recourse is to mentally prepare ourselves and our children for the inevitable time when our government becomes a completely fascist state, but is there really nothing that can be done to stop, or even slow down, this monster?
The more I think about government tyranny, the more I think campaign finance reform is the ONLY realistic way to curb it. Right now the RNC and the DNC have total control over our government. Doesn't that seem strange? Almost every single representative in every governmental branch of our nation is beholden to one of these two organizations whose sole purpose is to perpetuate their own existences. Isn't that disturbing?
Being a neoliberal, I advocate fiscal restraint and the solvency of our treasury, but the word "liberal" is still part of that moniker, and I have no problem handing my hard earned money to our government if the cause it's funding is sound. Think about this: why do political candidates declare a party at all? It's a franchise, basically, and they're going to get a lot more business as a McDonald's or a Burger King than they are as a Tom Nobody's, and Mr. Nobody simply doesn't have the resources to compete at the same level as Ronald McDonald.
If we overhauled our financial priorities as a nation and publicly funded 100% of ALL political campaigns--no individual or corporation could contribute whatsoever--then the people who ran would do it on platforms of relative truthfulness. I realize many people are pretty much just in it for the glory and the power, but they have to make decisions at some point, and if they aren't expected to return favors to businesses, cronies, lobbyists, etc. then those decisions would be a hell of a lot less tainted. At present, the first thought a politician has before making a decision is "will this help or hurt my chances of reelection," or if they're at the end of their term, "will this help or hurt the chances of another member of my party getting elected." Now, if their campaign was financed by the anonymous public, they would still ask question one, BUT (and this is a big but) the people the incumbent would be considering in the decision would be his or her CONSTITUENTS, whereas now consideration is made for the people who funded his or her campaign.
If this scenario were realized, it wouldn't take long before other parties (which would be just ideological camps) gained prominence and, eventually, it could lead to the end of partisan politics all together. The oligarchy could be toppled, representatives would actually represent the people, and we could all hold hands in a circle around the world!
Or perhaps I'm just naïve...
The more I think about government tyranny, the more I think campaign finance reform is the ONLY realistic way to curb it. Right now the RNC and the DNC have total control over our government. Doesn't that seem strange? Almost every single representative in every governmental branch of our nation is beholden to one of these two organizations whose sole purpose is to perpetuate their own existences. Isn't that disturbing?
Being a neoliberal, I advocate fiscal restraint and the solvency of our treasury, but the word "liberal" is still part of that moniker, and I have no problem handing my hard earned money to our government if the cause it's funding is sound. Think about this: why do political candidates declare a party at all? It's a franchise, basically, and they're going to get a lot more business as a McDonald's or a Burger King than they are as a Tom Nobody's, and Mr. Nobody simply doesn't have the resources to compete at the same level as Ronald McDonald.
If we overhauled our financial priorities as a nation and publicly funded 100% of ALL political campaigns--no individual or corporation could contribute whatsoever--then the people who ran would do it on platforms of relative truthfulness. I realize many people are pretty much just in it for the glory and the power, but they have to make decisions at some point, and if they aren't expected to return favors to businesses, cronies, lobbyists, etc. then those decisions would be a hell of a lot less tainted. At present, the first thought a politician has before making a decision is "will this help or hurt my chances of reelection," or if they're at the end of their term, "will this help or hurt the chances of another member of my party getting elected." Now, if their campaign was financed by the anonymous public, they would still ask question one, BUT (and this is a big but) the people the incumbent would be considering in the decision would be his or her CONSTITUENTS, whereas now consideration is made for the people who funded his or her campaign.
If this scenario were realized, it wouldn't take long before other parties (which would be just ideological camps) gained prominence and, eventually, it could lead to the end of partisan politics all together. The oligarchy could be toppled, representatives would actually represent the people, and we could all hold hands in a circle around the world!
Or perhaps I'm just naïve...
posted by Smorgasbord at 4:37 PM
10 Comments:
No, Smorg, I think you are right on. But in order for this to happen the same two branches we speak of have to vote for it. Those same parties are in the pockets of special interest to begin with--they will not cut their own funding.
Another problem is that I think that enforcement of such would be a restriction of freedom. Individuals or groups should be able to fund a candidate they think that they want in.
I'll take it a step further. I think the REASON that money wields such influence is because the ignorant, uneducated, and apathetic masses who refuse to exercise their civic duty and exercise it responsibly. Smorg, you know why we have the government we do? Not because of the Corporations, not because of the fringe activists, but because Americans have voted for these people. Last year our primaries were pathetic. This is the true problem with America, and this is the reason we have what we do.
-Jack
I don't think this proposal can work. How is it decided who gets public money, and how much? This plan makes it impossible for any third party to make inroads, and potentially it makes it difficult for an independent voice to be heard and contribute to, or help shape, the public debate. If you have suggestions on exactly how to address these concerns, I'd love to hear them, because campaign finance reform is an absolute necessity in eliminating the influence peddling that so corrupts politics.
I, too, agree with Smorgasbord 8^). If politicians were not bought-and-paid-for, it would be a much better situation.
Jack - While it's true about the voter-responsibility issue, I think it's more complex than that - there are more pieces to the pie. The actions of big corporations, etc., are also to blame, the only question is how much of the blame each one can claim. After all, many voters have no one to vote for except the (flawed) candidates presented to them. They're choice is to either not vote, or pick the least revolting candidate (unless a good independent runs, but we know how often that happens).
There's one more thing I would like to add to Smorgasbord's idea: along with campaign finance reform, I think it is also necessary to have mandatory runoff elections. When I lived in Arizona, we got stuck with a governor that everyone despised, who was elected with only 40-something percent of the vote, because a third candidate entered the fray. A better system would be to have runoff elections until a majority candidate was elected, especially since more indie candidates would run under a reformed system.
Of course, this all assumes accurate, verifyable, paper-trail voting, which has just been taken away from us in California (1, 2).
P.S. - I hate the electoral college, too 8^)
First, to Jack's point, the masses vote boobs into office because that's all that's available to them. Last year they had a choice of either the regular boob or the definition-of-evil-boob (they apparently prefer evil to standard boobery). In the primaries, Democrats had choices (not Reps!), but how many voters are registered as Democrats, first, and out of those how many actually vote in the primary? They know a boob will get the nod no matter what. My guy was Dennis Kucinich, and I voted happily for him, but politicians like him (love 'em or hate 'em) rarely get elected. This is how it always is, and this is the very reason such a large percentage of the masses are apathetic. If the two parties ended their stranglehold on our government, people would become less disenfranchised.
As far as “Individuals or groups should be able to fund a candidate they think that they want in,” I disagree. I believe in “one vote, one voice.” If groups of any kind get together to influence others, we have political parties again. I think every solitary voter should have exactly the same impact on the outcome of the election – which includes not having their impressionable mind warped by a big advocacy group.
To anonymous: the logistics of arranging this would obviously need to be hammered out by people who would have given it more thought than I, but here’s a taste of my idea… Ultimately, I’d want ALL elections at every level to be publicly funded and I think the places holding the elections should bear the burden, e.g. city elections are paid for by city taxes, state elections by state taxes, and federal elections by federal taxes. As far as who gets the money and how much, there would need to be a qualifying system, such as signatures. If a person gets X amount of verifiable signatures, he or she can be put on the ballot. This would, in theory, increase the size of ballots significantly, but that’s the real point, isn’t it. Once a candidate qualifies, they each would be given an equal share of pre budgeted funds – no more, no less. The gov’t could also do things like give tax breaks to networks for donating air time to political ads, and each candidate would get the same amount of “air value.”
I think this method would make it far easier for “third parties” to make inroads because the influence of the big two would be dramatically diminished. Your presidential ballot, for instance, instead of reading like “Democrat, Republican, person with no chance of winning 1, person with no chance of winning 2,” would look like a complete group of ACTUAL CHOICES. Everyone would have had a fair shot at media, literature, travel time, etc. so the only reason one candidate or another might hold an edge is real public scrutiny – the voice of the people.
Now, there is an option that might be possible without using taxpayer money. I have thought this one through as much, but Massachusetts has a “clean elections” system in which no one person or group can contribute more than $100 to any candidate. I like that idea a lot. The problem Massachusetts is having is this system is not mandatory, so pretty much no one abides by it. If we could implement a mandatory system like, we might be able to get there....
Oops! By "I have thought this one through as much," I meant "I have NOT thought this one through as much." Sorry.
Shea, the run off election issue should have been in place long ago. It only makes sense.
I know I sounded a bit hard on voters, but it gets under my skin that there are those out there who are not voting or worst yet voting irresponsibly. You, Smorg, and others here at NL's take time to educate yourselfs with issues, candidates, etc. Why do you do that? There is one simple answer--because you care about yourselves, your families, your fellow men, your country and its future. THAT is responsibility. The reason we have the leaders we do is because of the apathy--and apathy is generally not caring about others.
The more I look around the more I see people who WANT to be told what to do--want others to make decisions for them. That is the reason groups and associations have such influence. We are losing the rugged individualists in this country.
It is interesting that there is almost a direct parallel in the Bible in 2 Samuel chapter 8. The children of Israel were tired of their freedom and responsibility and so they wanted a king to rule over them. It's interesting what they were warned what they would get with a king. If you have a sec, check it out. Not preaching negativity, but maybe the real solution is to light a fire under the rears of our fellow countrymen and galvanize them to action. Of course we don't want to do like P Diddy (or one of those MTV people) who tells people "Just get out and vote". The worst thing a person could do is to vote irresponsibly and uninformed.
-Jack
"The more I look around the more I see people who WANT to be told what to do" - It has always been so. the "rugged individualists" are far fewer than their reputation implies.
NUTS! The only thing campaign finance reform does is entrench the two parties. With CFR, a rich guy like Perot who is sickened by government can't fund a poor idealist like be for a run for the White House. It's a bad idea that the America Boby Politic has been deceived into thinking will make us better off with than without it. Too bad we're too dumb to really think it through.
Kevin, your shrewd legal mind has indeed left me in the dust. I don't understand what you mean by "...can't fund a poor idealist like be for a run for the White House." Is that latin?
Kevin, I respect your opinion in general despite disagreeing with it often, but when you post a half-assed comment like that--having no point and making no sense--it doesn't do anyone any good.
Entrench the two parties? That needs an explanation. I feel I've made an adequate case for the opposite argument. And, as Shea points out, that "poor idealist" sentence simply doesn't mean anything.
If you just want to pop onto NeoLibs here and there to leave nonsensical quips then it's your right, I guess, but I think we'd all prefer if you put a little effort into your comments.
Thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home