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.