One Liners – Part Two

Last week I raised the issue of elections, and the difficulties in our current system – considered to be one of representative democracy. As I noted then, several countries choose parties and their slates, rather than specific representatives for particular districts. It's a system very different from ours – but it might be a way to deal with some of the problems we now endure. The core idea is that currently we tolerate an arrangement that allows the two major parties to fight with each other – to prevent needed legislation as they jockey for position in the next election – and suffer no consequences for it. Since we elect local representatives – individuals who are rarely held responsible for Congressional failures – the swings back and forth don't always reflect the true degree of dissatisfaction with the political parties and their actions,ⁱ as a national vote for parties would do.

It is with this in mind that I offer a proposal to deal with a system based on a Constitution written in the eighteenth century. The proposal would obviously require changes in that document, but that would be a healthy development from time to time anyway. Other changes are included in the proposal in keeping with our present situation and with twenty-first century technology, but it is important to recognize that it only deals with the election of Congress – not with any changes in the Executive or Judiciary branches of our government.ⁱⁱ The goal is to make the political parties more responsive to the wishes of the electorate, while not compromising the rights of the minority. The proposal is meant as a starting point for discussion; I know that many points will be viewed as unacceptable or impractical.

The first area to be considered relates to parties themselves. There is no mention of parties in the Constitution. Representation in the bicameral legislature was to be based on local as well as national needs. Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures to ensure the protection of state needs and congressmen by individual voters. With representation set at one for no fewer than 30,000 voters, it was hoped that these representatives would somehow reflect the populations from which they came, even though a representative could not be expected to know all 30,000 people.

But neither arrangement has really worked out. A constitutional amendment followed,ⁱⁱⁱ allowing the popular election of senators, and representation at present is, on average, about one per 718,500.^iv And that means, of course, that for many districts even larger populations are “served” by a single Congressman. There is no way that such a person reflects the population in his district. In fact, both Senators and Representatives are more likely to respond to party leaders than to their constituents. And the parties are more interested in scoring points than in legislating – unless they fear political repercussions from their tactics. Hence the lack of cooperation between them.

So the reality is that the idea of local representation is illusory, even though members of Congress may attempt to get benefits for local constituents and pressure groups. What is transpiring is a battle of party political philosophies. And the soldiers are representatives of the parties, not the people. It seems logical to acknowledge that reality and use it for our own purposes. If, in a shortened campaign season, the parties presented the voters with statements of their philosophies^v – statements that could be reviewed at the time of the next election – the election could be for the parties directly, and based on vision rather than vituperation, and the parties,^vi knowing that they, rather than local representatives, would be judged, might be persuaded to cooperate with each other and actually accomplish something rather than simply posture.

Since the “representatives” are unlikely to know many of the voters, the continuation of the pretense makes no sense.^vii Parties^viii should present lists of their candidates for the (unicameral^ix) legislature along with biographical information and their proposals, and voters should prioritize the candidate lists in primaries. The answers of all candidates to a set of questions formulated by an independent nonpartisan group would also help in such prioritization. And with no particular constituency, there would be no reason for separate direct appeals to the voters.^x But, based on the information provided in the media, voters should be able to prioritize all candidate lists, irrespective of the voter's party enrollment – a practice that is likely to move the best, most flexible, and least ideological candidates, to the top of the lists of all parties. If a particular candidate is seeking reelection, previous promises, and previous questions and answers should be presented to the voters so that prioritization and voting can be more educated.^xi The voting, then, should be for a party, and the number of seats assigned in the legislature should be proportional to the total party votes.

It would make sense if all prioritization and voting were done by computer.^xii Social Security numbers and passwords could be used for voter identification, and voting could be done at home, or in a public setting established for those who cannot do it elsewhere. Election “Day” should take place over a few days, on a twenty-four hour basis. The need for an Election Day holiday would be obviated – a benefit to our economy.^xiii The election season – the time between the choice of candidates and the final election – should be shortened. Since those who would be candidates will be on a party list, they need not make appeals to voters nor have tiresome debates. And with computer voting the results would be almost instantaneous.

Efforts should be made to increase voting, but it should not be made mandatory. Perhaps a tax discount could be given voters – a discount which increased (to a point) with regular voting. It might mean that some other tax adjustments would be necessary to keep it revenue neutral, but it would encourage participation in suffrage and in the education of citizens both to the issues and to the process of democracy. A method might also be formulated to relate the tax benefit to the reading of biographies and platforms, a linkage that might result in better educated voters.

Another educational tool that might be of value would require the establishment of a non-partisan citizens' commission which could review all proposed legislation and publicize any special benefits received by an individual or group or by a particular geographical entity. No judgment need be made, but voters should know how, and for whom, their money is being spent.^xiv This would be a counterforce to lobbying, and might influence both the party associated with the specific benefit, and the politicians involved – politicians who might be dropped by the party in future elections, or whose priority might be changed by the voters in the next primary.^xv In addition, both the recipients and the supporters of such benefits should be given the opportunity (or perhaps required) at the time to justify the special benefit.

In the end, citizens would be better informed and the voting process would be easier. They would ultimately cast a single vote for a party, and, with a limitation of those parties, if candidates were listed on the final ballot at all they would appear in only one place. They would be one-liners.

Next episode: “Baby Face” – Do they all look like Winston Churchill?

i      See footnote iii in last week's essay.

ii     And it only deals with national government, not state or local administrations. I deal with the Executive, the Judiciary, and other matters, in previous and future messages.

iii    The seventeenth.

  

iv    According to the US Census Bureau, the population at present is about 312,700,000. With 435 Representatives, we average about 718,500 individuals for each one, and 6,254,000 for each state's Senators.

v     Perhaps in addition each party should be able to submit a few questions to the other parties, to be answered in a limited space and published by the media.

vi    It would not be unreasonable for the parties to place advertisements describing their positions, however individual candidates' names should not appear. For the education of the voters, the cost of each advertisement should be included in it.

vii    Local issues can be addressed at the state level. No change is proposed for local and statewide elections. The states should manage their own affairs and systems as long as the Constitution's Bill of Rights is respected. On the subject of the states, consideration should be given to block grants to the states (based on population, unemployment rate, average income, etc.) for local needs to be decided on locally rather than as “pork-barrel” projects slipped into national bills. That may decrease the amount of lobbying and the involvement of national government in local problems.

viii   The number of parties on the final election ballot should be limited, perhaps to three. Voters should have the opportunity in the primary to prioritize the parties with only the top ones listed on the ballot. Party write-ins would be permitted, but individual candidate names would not be listed. A party receiving over a specified percentage of the vote would be on the ballot for the next election, even if that meant more than the usual number.

ix     It does not seem necessary to have separate Senators and Representatives when neither has any particular association with a specific constituency. Two houses could be elected, however, if people were more comfortable with that arrangement.

x      A welcome side effect – however unlikely it may be – would be the decrease in the number of political mailings.

xi    Positions, promises, and performance are likely to be affected by public opinion so it is important that minority rights be protected since there will be the temptation to pander to the majority. The Bill of Rights should be strengthened, rather than threatened.

xii     With safeguards to ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

xiii    Some unions may see matters otherwise, but since only a minority of citizens vote – and that includes union members – a holiday, with all its service disruptions and economic consequences, makes no sense.

xiv    In a previous essay, “The Council Of Wise Folks,” I suggested a slightly different mechanism to achieve this aim. I think both are worth considering. Whatever method is chosen, candidates should be invited to comment on the projects cited, especially if they were involved in bring them about.

xv     In the unlikely event that the act may be approved by voters, those involved would benefit.

One Liners

(Second in an ongoing – though irregular – series on proposed Constitutional changes.

This particular proposal will be continued next week.)

Have you watched television recently (where “recently” means “in the last few decades”)? Or gone to a “comedy club?” Humor has been reduced to a succession of one line zingers rather than any coherent attempt to tell a story or build to an amusing conclusion.ⁱ If the joke isn't delivered in a few words and in a very short time, the audience may fall asleep or change the channel.

And the politicians have learned from them.ⁱⁱ The message is condensed and usually designed to (mis)characterize the opponent rather than to outline any positive approach to a problem. So we receive multiple glossy mailings which argue against electing someone, rather than clear statements of a candidate's proposals. And many of the negative mailings are unsigned, so they can be easily disowned by those who are actually promoting the attack.

The pattern is also apparent in the public statements of candidates who are trying to gain points at the expense of their opponents. And they, too, tend to fall into the zinger mold. It's almost childish.

“A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged.”

“A Liberal is a Conservative who's been indicted.”

“My father can lick your father.”

All we can seem to do is to find different ways to insult each other. That is certainly the pattern in political rhetoric. Rather than engage in courteous discourse and discussion, we simply “diss.” There used to be an expression, “Politics stops at the water's edge.” It was first enunciated in 1947 by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg during President Truman's first term, and indicated that while we may not share the same values, all Americans should be united when it came to dealing with the world.

The obvious implication – and nothing could be closer to the truth – is that we were not united at home. For that is what politics is all about. Nonetheless, despite disagreements about policies, the parties found a way to work together in the long run.

Sadly, at least publicly, we no longer have any kind of political cooperation – either for domestic or foreign policy. The predictable pattern is that the party out of power will do its best to paralyze the government until it can take over. Then, of course, it will be paralyzed by the party it replaced. The old saw, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country,” no longer has currency. Our “leaders” place their own positions above that of their country.

Voters are acutely aware of the problem. They decry the failure of politicians to cooperate. But while they are angry over the inaction and obstruction of the parties, they usuallyⁱⁱⁱ reelect their own representatives. Having the choice of representatives, therefore, is a prescription for Congressional failure. Our system doesn't seem to be doing the job.^iv

There are alternatives, however. They're not all logistically viable though. Direct democracy, in which all voters consider and vote on all issues is somewhat more plausible than it used to be, since computers are so widespread. It would make life more difficult for lobbyists, but it's likely they would find a way to advertise their message on the same computers, and to influence voters that way.^v The large number of issues to be decided, however, and the need for discussion of them all, even if there were time to do so, and even if the voters had adequate background to understand the problems, would make such procedures impossible. It would also be impossible to maintain the necessary secrecy to run a government properly, and the required expertise to make the rapid decisions often needed.

Another possibility would be to strengthen the Executive branch of the government; to give the President and his Cabinet the authority to make more of the decisions necessary to run the country. Decisions could be reached quickly and without partisan debate and stalling. That would mean weakening Congress, but Congress is unpopular anyway, and its judgment is not trusted. Of course, the President's popularity is also quite variable. But his power would increase considerably with such a system. And, as we all know, power corrupts. Indeed, the American Revolution came about because of the great power of George III and his Parliament. We abhorred monarchy and we established a representative democracy to replace it.

Perhaps we'd be better off if we pared down the charge of Congress. As Thoreau put it, “That government is best which governs least.”^vi And Emerson wrote “The less government we have, the better.” Some of the programs we now have are dysfunctional, so this approach might deal with that reality. But another reality is that in the over two centuries since the Constitutional Convention forwarded a much less ponderous proposal to the states than the government and the laws which control our daily lives, we have developed an unwieldy complex of laws, regulations, bureaus, and commissions. Fortunately none of these commissions has full control of our lives.^vii The wisdom of the Founding Fathers' decision to balance three branches of government is evident, even if the execution of their plan has been defective. And because of all the laws now in place, it is clear that, at least at this point, minarchy^viii is equally undesirable. We can't all go it alone. The government owns too much of us.

Some countries have a different approach to democracy, however, and it is one we should consider. Those countries elect parties and party lists, with the distribution of legislative seats based on the percentage of the vote the party gets. Since the lists are national, this doesn't really qualify as representative democracy, although the people do elect “representatives” to the legislature. However the people chosen are less likely to be linked to local parties and causes, and they have less reason to support any local group. Ideally, their concern is national. Perhaps we should consider such a system.

So anyway, this married politician walked into a bar with his mistress. Wait. That's not funny. I'll expand on the last idea above – the one about national lists – next week. I don't view that idea as comical, but the married politician might. Or he may see it as frightening.

Next episode: “One Liners – Part Two” – The case for national elections of representatives.

i     The difference between a humorist and a comic is that the “humorist” (who is now out of style) is more likely to be subtle, droll, and inventive. His goal is to amuse you – to make you smile. The “comic” is more “in your face” – eager to have you rolling on the floor, even if you can't remember why a moment later.

ii     Rather than having learned from them, some may view politicians as comics (or jokes themselves), but I won't pursue that evaluation.

iii    Usually, not always. Nonetheless, a majority of senators and representatives are reelected even though the approval rate for Congress is low. At last count it was nine percent. The same poll that generated that statistic noted that eleven percent of Americans favored Communism. Communism was more popular than Congress.

iv    Even though we view our system as the best in the world, it doesn't work. Only a minority of citizens vote. Our parties resist compromise, being more focused on crafting a platform for the next election than in governing. And our “representatives” seem to be more interested in themselves and in the next election as well – voting on the basis of what can they use to convince voters to support them. Or on the basis of what will raise their pensions or bring them bribes. But maybe the operative word is “seem,” and we've misjudged them.

v     And they'd still court whoever got elected.

vi    A similar sentiment had been made a few years earlier by John Louis O'Sullivan, who wrote, in an editorial in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, “The best government is that which governs least.” Both versions are quoted frequently.

vii    At least not yet.

viii   Libertarianism is the closest thing we have to what used to be known as “classical liberalism.”

Enough Already

I heard on the radio recently that the International Bullying Prevention Association was holding its annual meeting in New Orleans. That sounds like a good place to hold it. Stella Kowalski would certainly approve, even if Stanley wouldn't be amused. New Orleans must be the ideal place for the IBPA to meet.ⁱ

But it set me thinking. When I searched for “Associations” in Yahoo! I got a return of 243,000,000 results. Google had 246,000,000, but I don't think the additional three million will make much of a difference.ⁱⁱ Both engines gave me too many results. And that sent me in two different directions. First of all, there's altogether too much information out there. Too many people are putting stuff on line for the search engines to find. Which makes it all but useless to try to study a subject exhaustively.

More to the point, though, there are too many associations, and organizations with special interests. Things have gotten out of hand. When I was growing up there were a few major American charities that pretty much covered all problems, while the English were accused of being eccentrics – of having too many organizations with weird agendas. Often they were interested in preserving some form of animal life (though it never seemed that they were equally committed to preserving humans). Now there are various American conservation organizations that are devoted to more species than I knew existed. In fact, since the internet and Facebook have appeared, there has been a penchant for forming groups of all kinds. I'm convinced that a large part of the impetus for such activity is ego.ⁱⁱⁱ I suspect that the new organization man (or woman) is thinking: “I know what's important, so just join my group, follow me, and I'll lead the rest of you to the GOOD.”

One of the most prominent manifestations of this effort is the formation of foundations for research into all manner of diseases – some of them virtually unknown to the public. It often appears to be a quest for the immortality of a lost loved-one. For every disease there appear to be several foundations named after people who suffered with it or died from it.^iv (The same is true of laws, only those statutes seem to be named after children who were victims of kidnaping, abuse or sexual crimes.)

I don't mean to suggest that any of these foundations is unworthy – that its aims are anything less than virtuous, or that the problem that it was established to battle isn't deserving of public aid and attention. I'm cheered that there are so many who are eager to help their fellows. But at a time when voluntarism is less than it has been in the past, and when the state of the economy doesn't contribute to generosity, the multiplicity of organizations that will increase the burden on these resources may act in a way contrary to our interests. Too often a new organization is created whose aims parallel those of one or more bodies already in business.^v Either the new founders are unable to identify existing organizations,^vi or would prefer to start their own – perhaps to obtain the immortality of their loved one (or of themselves). In doing so, however, there is duplication of administrative support structures as well as a competition for resources and publicity. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that if the same amount of money and effort were devoted to fewer organizations, far more could be accomplished in accomplishing the goals which they all proclaim.

Mae West is famed for (among the other attractions) saying “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful.”^vii I could be wrong, but somehow I don't think she was referring to helping others. It's not up to me to decide which is the best organization in a particular field, but before starting a new one, I suspect that it would be beneficial to see what institutions already exist that deal with the problem you'd like to address, and then to use your resources to support one of them.

Unless, of course, your goal is to immortalize your own name or that of a friend or relative. It's a bully great way to do so – in New Orleans or elsewhere.

Next episode: “One Liners” – Humor and politics.

i     Lest anyone misunderstand the level of brotherly love in that city, it should be noted that “The Big Easy's homicide rate (52 homicides per 100,000 residents) is 10 times higher than the national average and almost five times that of other cities of its size.” Douglas McCollam in The Wall Street Journal, November 12-13, 2011.

ii    I probably won't read all the references.

iii    In that way it's a lot like writing a blog.

iv   It's hard not to view the establishment of so many foundations – so many philanthropic memorials – as overkill.

v     In fairness to the International Bullying Prevention Association, at its founding in 2002, only a few such organizations existed.

vi    A “Google” search using “breast cancer organizations” listed more than 68 million “hits.” While these do not indicate separate organizations, the actual number must be quite high. And that is the case even if we allow for actual differences in their missions.

vii    She said many other delightful things, but I leave it to the reader to find them.

Edison Was Wrong

Last week I quoted Thomas Edison: “None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”

So far, so good.

However I learned later that the statement was made in a press conference in 1929,ⁱ and was a variant of a statement that he had made around 1902:ⁱⁱ

“Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration.”

Whoa.

There's no question that Thomas Edison was bright and insightful.ⁱⁱⁱ And he was certainly hard working. Really hard working. But I'm not convinced he was a genius. Was he a great inventor? Yes. Was he a technological innovator? Yes. Was he a great spokesman and marketer? Unquestionably. But those qualities, by themselves, are not genius.

It's hard to define what a genius is. It certainly can't be defined by IQ, although perhaps the level of intelligence can.^iv But not all bright people are geniuses. Neither can the tag be assigned based on accomplishment. While a genius will usually accomplish great things, that is not invariably the case.^v And, indeed, as I hinted above, great accomplishments may result from a high degree of intelligence accompanied by hard work,^vi but more is needed to be a genius. There is vision in the face of darkness. And the ability to bring light in that darkness – to make others aware of what you have discovered.

An innovator recognizes a need and, by his intelligence and effort, fills it. Edison was such a man. The average individual, may not recognize a problem, but when he does, having accepted its presence, he will either ignore it or give up. One who is bright will find a way to work around it. Only an Edison will devise a real solution for the problem so others will not have to face it or work around it.

But those problems are apparent to most people, whether or not the solutions are. We all see and recognize the areas that need work. There are many disciplines, however, in which we lack comprehension, and we may not be cognizant of our ignorance, or what it is about which we are ignorant. There has to be vision and the ability to provide the light to eliminate that darkness. It takes a genius to see what is invisible to the rest of us, and to recognize the solution when we aren't even aware of the problem; it takes a genius to see the mistakes of the past – a Galileo to confirm and “publicize” the sun's centrality, an Einstein to recognize that Newtonian concepts could not account for all the universe's phenomena. And it took an Abraham to declare the concept of a single G-D and a Moses to promote it.

But these were not popular positions and, to one degree or another, their proponents suffered for them. Since Einstein conceived of his Theories of Relativity, others have tried to poke holes in them. Galileo risked excommunication and death for his beliefs, Abraham had to flee his homeland and Moses was threatened by both Pharaoh and the Israelites for his words and actions. (And, while the idea of monotheism has received approval by billions, those who promoted it, who were to be a “light to the nations,”^vii have been persecuted ever since.) Bringing light in the face of darkness is not an easy task for physicist or philosopher.

How can we recognize genius, or a genius? Most of us can't. We're told by experts that someone is a genius and we have to accept it at face value, since, based on our own intelligence and the education we've received, we can't begin to understand ideas so far beyond us.^viii But we can sometimes recognize the kind of person who is capable of such brilliance.

The average individual, however bright, is not aware that he is in an envelope. He accepts the view that there is no point in “reinventing the wheel.” Those in front of him are blocking his vision if he sees them at all. The innovator is ready to “push the envelope.” He identifies problems with the wheel and devises remedies. He stands “on the shoulders of giants.”

The genius, however, has his mind on bigger things – on matters well past the perceptions of others. He recognizes the errors of the past – errors that the rest of us accept with reverence. He sees visions of physical, artistic, and philosophical realities which are beyond our imagining. He has torn up the envelope and discarded the wheel in the recognition of questions which require completely different solutions.^ix He is the giant on whose shoulders future generations will stand – future generations that will build on the ideas which he has tried to reveal to an unprepared public.

There have certainly been many geniuses who, lacking the tools available to later generations, recognized problems but were unable to solve them. They were viewed as eccentrics and malcontents. It is troubling to know that their gifts have been lost to us. They were ahead of their times. We are the poorer for it.

And there have been geniuses whose insights were too troubling for the establishment to tolerate. Socrates found that out. But, as Socrates demonstrated, from his perspective the views of others are irrelevant.^x

An innovator solves problems and is hailed for it. His work is recognized quickly, even if it is not fully understood by all. Most people aren't interested in carburetor construction as long as the car starts. But a genius often causes problems. He denies what everyone knows, and for that, at least initially, he is vilified. If he is recognized at all. But his sweat has nothing to do with it.

 

Next episode: “Enough Already” – Things have gotten out of hand.

 

i     See Wikiquote.

ii    Reported in Harper's Monthly in 1932 as having been said “ sometime around 1902.”

iii    Or, as Yogi would put it, he was “smarter than the average bear.”

iv    Not everyone will agree with this statement, viewing the tests as biased or otherwise imperfect. This is not the place to debate that issue. Whatever the imperfections, if any, IQ tests have shown themselves to be very helpful in sorting out different levels of intelligence among individuals.

v      A brilliant insight that is not pursued may lead nowhere. Its originator will certainly not be known for it. The genius of the idea will remain unknown as will its possessor, the genius.

vi     As with Edison.

vii    Isaiah, 42:6 and 49:6.

viii   And we resent someone smarter than ourselves. It's like elementary school. No one likes the smart kid. Let's beat him up.

ix    The wheel is not the answer to all problems. Something that most of us don't appreciate.

x     One might argue that Galileo fell down here. Or perhaps, knowing that ultimately he would win out, that his ideas would someday be accepted by everyone, he chose the path of discretion. Whatever his decision about his life, he certainly didn't change his view of the universe.

Taxing And Voting

“The more things change …”

I think I've said that before. Not that it was original in the first place, but I think I'm repeating myself.ⁱ

The same is true of the subjects I choose to think about and to discuss. And one I can't get out of my mind, because the media talk about it every day, is the “Occupy Wall Street” protest in Zuccotti Park.ⁱⁱ In the past I've focused on its apparent lack of goals with the single exception of “Tax the rich,” which seems to have become their mantra. It's not clear whom they consider rich, although it seems to be everyone other than themselves. The rich are the “one percent” who, according to their ideology, are making out like bandits by stealing from the rest of us – the “ninety-nine percent.” They're not paying their fair share which is why we cannot pay our credit card bills, mortgage loans, health care costs, student loans, food costs, and the like.

I've noted in the past that raising the taxes on the “rich” wouldn't really solve our problem, and would not only attack the jackals we loathe, but those whom we love and lionizeⁱⁱⁱ (even if we do envy them a little). As a matter of fact, though I can't prove it, I suspect there are more people we love than those we hate on the one percent list. Most, of course, we've never heard of.^iv

But the real issue is us, not them, even though we focus on the others. It's easy to hate people we don't know – people whose names aren't even familiar. What we want is “equality” and they are depriving us of it. We're very different from our ancestors and, to a degree, we lack self-respect. If there is something wrong, someone else is to blame. We are being acted upon by forces greater than ourselves. We are impotent. If (read “when”) we don't succeed it's because of “them.”

But that is merely cover for our own greed, laziness, and failures. Thomas Edison is quoted as saying, “None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”^v,vi That was then. Now we purchase lottery tickets in the hope that we can cut out the perspiration. We don't really expect to win, but hey, you never know. What we're really looking for is a handout. We call it an “entitlement” since we are all entitled to whatever we need. We shouldn't have debts no matter what we want. (If we cheat on our income taxes it's because everyone else does it, and besides, the “rich” should be paying them for all of us.) What we need is socialism.^vii We shouldn't lack anything, and the others should be no better off than we – even if they work harder.^viii The “Bell Curve” should be replaced by a golden spike: instead of a range of incomes, everyone should have the same earnings. That would obviate the need for tax differentials since we'd all be getting, and paying in taxes, the same amount. Differentials based on accomplishment, or for any other reason, encourage competition, and we all know how harmful that can be.

But putting aside the specifics – or the lack of specifics – what is happening is a mass movement, much like the civil rights movements of the late 1950's and early 1960's, the movement for educational “relevance” of the early 1960's, and the anti-Viet Nam movement later in that decade. And the participants are the current version of the “Moral Majority.” The mantra may be different, but the psychology is the same. It's the psychology discussed by Eric Hoffer in the early 1950's in his book, “The True Believer.” Belonging to a movement along with others validates our own views – indeed, it validates us. We are part of something bigger than ourselves, even if we don't fully understand what it is or what are its implications. And if we have no goals of our own – if we feel isolated – we can immerse ourselves in meaning.

Unfortunately, the result is protest for its own sake. We become part of a fellowship of protesters who may not be any more enlightened about the goals of protest than we. In fact the message of the movement is not especially important except insofar as it serves as the current battle cry. To a degree, the messages of the various movements are interchangeable. It is the process that is important – the chance to be part of something important. It is a rebellion against authority.^ix It is anarchy,^x and we can get away with it because there are so many others.

Who are those others? Who participates in these protests? It seems to be the same group irrespective of the stated aim. That group consists of white,^xi middle and upper-middle class Americans^xii who see injustice wherever they look. That is not to say that, in the great battle of Good against Evil, there is not such injustice. But looking at the call of the protesters may not be the best way to understand why the demonstration is occurring.

It is more interesting to note what Americans do about their disgruntlement. If the goal is to change America in a particular way, it would seem that the best approach would be to choose representatives who would institute the policies they demand – whatever they are. But that does not seem to be the goal, and the logical solution is not one that, by and large, they're willing to undertake. In 1962, when the entire House of Representatives stood for election, as well as one third of the Senate, 47.3% of the voting age population turned out.^xiii,xiv In 2010, with the same positions up for election, we were down to 37.8%. In presidential years the trend has been in the same direction: in 1960 the turnout was 63.1% while in 2008 it was 56.8%.^xv While I can't get national figures for 2011, I know that about 16% of the citizens in my town (“city”) voted for mayor this year. Even if we allow for those below voting age, it is a disappointing, but telling, percentage.

I don't know if the protests will still be going on a few weeks from now when this is published, but I suspect they will – at least in some of the locations where they're now taking place. Even if they have no interest in putting in the effort to solve the problems about which they complain, people enjoy the camaraderie which accompanies mass protests. And they'll rejoice in doing so even if the neighborhood in which they hold their event is trashed, and its economy destroyed.

Next episode: “Edison Was Wrong” -- Wherein I take exception with myself – well, sort of.

i     That's what happens as you get older.

ii    The movement has spread elsewhere as well. It is said to have originated based on the protests which have formed a large part of the “Arab Spring.” In those protests the participants were prepared to risk their lives for their goals.

iii    For example, entertainment stars like Oprah Winfrey and sports stars like C. C. Sabathia. And lots of others in the public eye who earn large salaries but are admired for it. (According to the web site of the Major League Baseball Players Association, the minimum salary for the 2011 season is $414,000. TV and movie stars often get more for each performance. And a percentage, which, in keeping with their rich status, is closer to one percent than ninety-nine.)

iv    Less than half of the group are CEO's and Wall Street financiers and bankers according to a study by Indiana University economists cited in the (Mount Vernon, New York) Journal News, November 14, 2001. The majority are medical professionals, lawyers, computer workers, mathematicians, engineers, technical workers, salesmen, workers in “blue-collar and miscellaneous service jobs,” people in real estate, business operations workers, entrepreneurs, professors, scientists and, of course, media and sports professionals. It's a diverse group with only their incomes as a common link.

v     According to Wikiquote, it is a “statement in a press conference (1929), as quoted in Uncommon Friends: Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel & Charles Lindbergh (1987) by James D. Newton, p. 24.”

vi    “One percent” and “ninety-nine percent.” That sounds familiar. Almost as if those who lack inspiration, whose livelihood, as it says in the Bible, depends on “the sweat of [their] brow[s]” – those whose wages depend on the work they do, are being treated unfairly.

vii    Of course we can't call it that. “Socialism” is a dirty word.

viii    And they'd be fools to work harder in a society that addresses all their needs irrespective of their effort.

ix     And especially our bosses. Perhaps also our parents and religion?

x     A poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland, in addition to demonstrating that more than half had participated in prior efforts at political action, states that 98% would support civil disobedience and 31% violence to achieve their goals.

xi    Baruch College researchers, business analyst Harrison Schultz and professor Hector R. Cordero-Guzman, state “Occupy Wall Street would qualify as stuff white people like. The sample of non-white people, ..., is too small to even analyze.”

xii     It's interesting that the poor – those with the most to gain by raising the taxes of the “rich” and increasing entitlements for themselves – are underrepresented. 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000 (information from the cited members of the faculty of Baruch College School of Public Affairs). Put differently, 87% are employed. The hard-core unemployed and the poor are not, for whatever reasons, the main participants in this cry for equity.

xiii   Infoplease.com. The source they cite is the Federal Election Commission.

xiv    I'll have a little more to say about voting in a future essay. And, possibly, more about taxes.

xv    Actually that was an improvement over 1996 when President William Clinton ran for reelection. The turnout was 49.1% and President Clinton received less than half of their votes.

The Council Of Wise Folks

The Council Of Wise Folks

(and the counsel of wise folksⁱ)

The President's Cabinet, consisting of the heads of the various agencies, is designed as a group of authorities for him, to advise him on areas about which he might not be as knowledgeable as he would like. Its members, however, are often chosen for political reasons, or because of the contributions they have already made to his election, or for future help they may offer. Expertise in the area for which they are chosen, necessary as it might be, is a less important consideration. They will follow his lead politically, or they will lose their positions.ⁱⁱ He may also have a separate group of unofficial advisors, however they, too, are aligned with him politically and their advice parallels his instincts, though it may be better informed.ⁱⁱⁱ

Some countries follow this model but others don't. In some cases – and this is often the situation when there is a plethora of political parties catering to a variety of interests – the advising council will consist of representatives of all the parties that participate in the government, since it would be impossible for any single party to gain a majority. The smörgåsbord of proposals that such a body provides is all but useless to the head of government. Each of its members is likely to pander to his own constituency, and unity is impossible. Policies may be cobbled in order to keep the government standing until the next election, but logic and consistency are often lacking.

To deal with this situation, therefore, as an addition to the presidential cabinet,^iv there could be a non-elected Council that would offer analyses and recommendations on a small number of subjects for dissemination to the public and politicians for guidance. The Council would have only moral authority, but it could set the tone for other organizations such as government panels and bureaucratic boards. ^v

Let me begin the discussion with the following highly arbitrary suggestions:

1. The Council should report to the President and to the American People.
2. It should consist of 101 members – the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a representative of the opposing major party (ie opposing that of the Speaker), and 98 other members (7 X 14),
3. The members should represent seven Working Groups^vi (listed below) and each Group should discuss issues that fall in its purview:^vii perhaps the court system, and the death penalty would be subjects for discussion by the Law working Group, defense by Security, minority rights by Citizen needs, etc.

                                                                          a. Law

                                                                          b. Science

                                                                          c. Economics

                                                                          d. Citizen needs

                                                                          e. Security

                                                                          f. Foreign affairs

                                                                          g. Domestic affairs

4. Some issues might be raised by several different Groups (eg jobs might be discussed by the Economics Group, by Citizen needs, and by the Group on Domestic affairs – either simultaneously or at different times), and each might consider a different aspect of the problem. Unless there is a good reason to do so, however, there should be a waiting period before an issue can be re-discussed since the initial airing might result in legislation and that legislation should have a chance to take effect before it is challenged or changed.
5. The working Groups and the Council could call whatever additional experts they needed to clarify issues about which individual members were unclear.
6. The individual working Groups having met separately to discuss issues of importance to them, should then report, with majority and minority reports, to the entire Council which could then discuss the issue and prepare reports and suggestions.
7. Council suggestions should be timely and straightforward, and not require myriad regulations to effectuate them. The suggestions should be understandable to the public and, if any regulations are needed, their nature should be explained to the voters. Ideally the Council would, at a later date, report to the public the nature of subsequent legislation and regulation so that citizens would have the chance to decide if their wishes were being honored.

One of the more difficult aspects of the system would relate to the formation of the Groups and Council. How would members be chosen? It would probably be best if experts in particular areas were chosen by their peers. Examples might be the choice of members of the Law Working Group by the boards of the three largest legal associations,^viii or the decision on membership on the Science Working Group by members of the boards of the various science associations.^ix

The membership of Working Groups that dealt primarily with political issues (like Foreign affairs or Domestic affairs) would be chosen, in equal numbers, by political conservatives and liberals, each choosing from a panel offered by the opposing side. Because the membership would be limited, it would be difficult to select a Group that was representative of the entire population in terms of race, religion, sex, socio-economic groupings, etc. So be it. However, those individuals or groups who wanted their voices heard could submit documents and “Friend of the Council” briefs (with a maximum length and possibly with a copy of its mission statement so voters would understand any biases of the group) which would be published along with the decisions. Since the Working Groups would have no authority, and since all reports would be public, an even number of members (in this instance fourteen) is reasonable, and since each would choose the other's representatives a relatively middle-of-the-road Group would result, making decisions easier. The membership periods would be overlapping^x and for a single fixed term (eg fourteen years), to allow for changing views while members would not be forced to decide based on political pressures. Ideally, the members would not be in politics and would have no constituencies. The chair would rotate.

Agenda would perforce be limited, like that of the Supreme Court, and would have to be decided on by the individual Groups, although the Council could develop a procedure for referring specific issues to Groups for discussion. Perhaps there would be subgroups to review easier issues, as Jethro suggested to Moses.^xi A report (a listing including the sponsor) on private bills and pork-barrel projects should be issued regularly. It would not require discussion or debate, only disclosure. Publicizing the issue should be all that is necessary.^xii Voters would probably consider that useful. Other reports, those requiring discussion, would, ideally, be by consensus, since the Group would be relatively knowledgeable, middle-of-the-road, and free of political and constituent pressures. Nonetheless, minority reports could be issued as well. Transparency would be important and the public should have access to discussions as well as decisions. (Perhaps the public should even be made aware of its ability to amend the constitution outside of Article 5 which only presents one permissible way but doesn't exclude others. This, however, would probably frighten public officials, and cause them to nix the whole idea.)

What might be achieved? Congressional committees hold interminable hearings. Council discussions would be briefer and less political. There might be money savings resulting from the outside pressure and the opportunity of shorten or eliminate Congressional hearings. Legislation would probably be quicker. Lobbying may decrease – at least that which results in pork barrel projects which are expensive but not valuable to the public at large. Moreover, the Council, by publicizing those parts of legislative actions which seem to be intended to benefit small numbers at the expense of many – or at least bringing them to light – might have a positive effect on corruption.

It is virtually certain that such a Group (or subgroups if there are lower-level panels) will be viewed as increasing governmental cost and bureaucracy. It is similarly certain that their reports will be “spun” by those with an interest in doing so. That's the way democracy works. It is to be hoped that the general public will see through such criticisms and attempts to distort the reports. The low esteem of politicians would probably mean that the Council reports would have greater credibility than any political distortions of them. They certainly can't be worse than what we have now – either in Congress or in the President's Cabinet.

[NB: This is the first of a series of undetermined length and of irregular publication, that will deal with American Democracy and with the way our government runs. However wise and virtuous the Founding Fathers may have been, times change, and not all situations were considered by them. Nor was there a recognition that our size and status in the world might affect our choices. They left room for amending the Constitution, however, and it may be useful to discuss some of the changes that have taken place since the eighteenth century with an “eye” on modernizing our system of government.]

Next episode: “Taxing And Voting” – What could be more taxing?

i     Not wise guys nor biblical wise men.

ii    The President will praise the individual and laud the great job he's done, bemoaning the resignation, which was necessary, of course, “for personal reasons.” Those reasons, however, are related to the fact that the President would otherwise have fired the person now “resigning.”

iii    Although these individuals lack formal official standing, they usually have more influence on government decisions than the Cabinet members.

iv     Cabinet secretaries will still be necessary as administrative heads of the various departments, and for interaction with foreign officials having similar mandates.

v     The Council would not replace, but would supplement the Cabinet. It would have no legal standing, but would report quickly, and its reports would be known to be apolitical. Thus they would influence voters and, secondarily, those who wanted to be (re)elected.

vi    There is nothing sacred about the number seven or the total of about 101. Nor about the nature of the particular working Groups. The only purpose of presenting the list and numbers is to start the discussion.

vii    Issues might be brought to a working Group's attention by a small number, perhaps three of the fourteen, with discussion initiated by a larger number, say five, and then, after discussion, taken to the Council for further discussion by those interested in the topic but not in the working Group. The Council would then issue prompt reports on the subject. Issues would not be linked to legislation, although legislation might follow. They would simply require a large enough number of individuals who would want to discuss them.

viii   Which might change from time to time.

ix    This is left in an ambiguous state because it serves no purpose to prescribe the organizations that would pick Group and Council members at this time. The decision regarding the method of choice would be left to a committee of board members of scientific societies (or economic societies or whatever) designated by the Chief Justice, House Speaker, and minority party representative. Any committee would understand that if it could not choose members by a date certain – a week, for example – the three of them would choose the members.

x     For example there might be two appointed every two years. See the United States Constitution for an example of the method (see the second paragraph of Article 1, Section 3, ignoring references to resignations and replacements.)

xi    Exodus, Chapter 18, verses 19-22. Obviously there would be changes relating to size, and to the fact that the Council would be dealing with secular, not religious, issues.

xii    One way of achieving this goal would be to list all the organizations – including Congress – that are exceptions to whatever law is passed, and to list all local projects and their costs for the voters to see.