It's Time For A Change

[This is a rather long essay. I hope it's worth it.]

There's an old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it. “ Well, it's broke. And it's important. It's the American government. There are many who wonder about the ability of our public officials to deal with the problems that face our country. Many even doubt that legislators “our representatives,” have as much interest in us as in their own welfare.

We like to think we have “a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” but we don't. The only part the “people” have is in choosing those “sworn” to represent them, but they're actually ore interested in solidifying their own power. They pander to those who support them, and are aided by those they benefit.

Have you ever been polled? Has your opinion ever been (allegedly) sought in defining the issues of the day? Chances are that after your demographics were carefully defined you were given two sets of questions – binary ones (yes/no, more/less, etc.) and those that ask you to put your interests, or those of the poll, in order. There was neither room nor time for nuance nor opinion about compromise.

That would complicate things. It would make things difficult if not impossible. Our “leaders” could no longer lead from behind. Working groups, task forces, and committees may offer additional information, but they are costly, unwieldy, and reliant on the views of an unrepresentative few, and they are less likely to be employed.

After the vote on some important issue, however, your “representative,” after asserting that he voted just as he said he would, will use all manner of interpretation and nuance to explain a vote that is contrary to your wishes. It will be his way of vindicating all the deals and exceptions he made in an effort to obtain votes on some other issue of more importance to him. He will use nuance to justify the turning of a binary question into a thousand-page bill. The reality is that the agendas of our politicians may differ from ours.

In all likelihood, the Founding Fathers anticipated disagreement regarding policies and there were many who railed against the establishment of political parties, but it didn't take long after the establishment of the republic for parties to develop. Two parties. And that's the problem. They convert all issues to binary questions when they present them to the voters, but leave themselves more room for maneuvering. And all decisions are based on party, not voter, loyalty. It's all “black and white.” “My way or the highway.” Compromise is evil.

I can't fault their approach. In the end, all decisions are binary even if we find it difficult to figure them out. But I'd like to offer a use of that system that might make it easier and more rewarding for us, if not for the two major parties. It's not likely to happen because of the vested institution of government already in place. Those in power would oppose it. But there are those – and Jefferson was one – who favored periodic review and alteration of the Constitution. Perhaps now's the time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We live in the age of the internet and our dependence on it will only increase. We live at a time when people don't hesitate to express their opinion on line. At the moment they're mostly negative comments, but that can change when their importance is demonstrated and when we become more mature. For the same devices that spur comments can also be used to “connect” us. And that's what's happening. Like mail and the telephone before, we assume everyone has, or has access to, a computer – at home or in the form of a “smart phone.” There's always the library for those who don't. Toward what end? Expressing a preference or opinion.

But there's not much room for choice when there are only two parties and representatives hew to the dogma dictated by their leaders. (“You're either for us or against us, and we have long memories.”) So you're really voting for the party-line and can't rely on the “promises” of your “representative.” And for the party there is only black and white. No grays. There's no choice.

What I propose – and I recognize that it would require a great deal of determination to organize – is a multiplicity of parties with shades of difference on different issues. We've had third parties before, but they were mainly reactions to specific problems and not designed to deal with the subtleties of many different issues nor to last for more than one or two election cycles.

Suppose there were seven parties (“seven” is an arbitrary number put up for the sake of discussion and should not be taken seriouslyⁱ – the number might be fixed or depend on percentage in a previous poll of some sort); suppose the voters were polled on what issues were important to them an the different parties gave their views (indeed their reaction to the views might be used to determine which parties could contend); suppose the vote was proportional to the voter percentages: it might play out as follows. The questions could be framed by the participating political parties in order to force their opponents to confront them. I'll give a couple of sample questions. (Remember that since a long list of questions would be given, and the parties would express their opinions on a wide variety of issues, their answers would be limited to 140 characters or some such familiar number.ⁱⁱ) And, while all candidate's views and their percentages would be listed, the “official” responses would be given by the plurality choice within each party.

What are your views on gun control?

Party 1.: Eliminate all weapons.

2. Eliminate firearms as opposed to other weapons.
3. Register all firearms and exclude ownership by those with histories of mental disease, drug use, or crime.
4. Register all firearms and their users (who have been vetted for any suspicious activity).
5. Eliminate all automatic weapons.
6. Eliminate all firearms but handguns and they must be visible.
7. Leave laws as they are.
8. Another answer.
   Other parties would also give their views. – 9 and up.

And

How do you feel about DACA (Normalizing status of “dreamers” – children of illegal immigrants).

Party 1.: Tighten borders. Prosecute all illegal immigrants.

2. Prosecute both parents and children. They have violated our laws.
3. Prosecute parents but deport children.
4. Leave both parents and children in place but prosecute other illegal immigrants.
5. Leave both parents and children in place but deport other illegal immigrants.
6. Deal with parents as you would deal with other illegal immigrants but provide a path for citizenship for children.
7. Deal with other illegal immigrants as you would normally do but provide a path for citizenship for DACA parents and children.
8. Provide a path for citizenship for all “illegal” immigrants.
9. Legalize all residents.
10. Another answer.
Other parties would also give their views. – 11 and up.

On the basis of responses to these questions (gun control, illegal immigration, and all the other issues of significance to the politicians) the public would both choose the “seven” parties that would run. The “twenty” (or whatever number) questions that would be considered for election itself might be from among these, or new questions determined by a voter poll. (Since it would be a proportional election with party slates rather than voting for individual candidates, they, and their order on their party's candidate list should be recorded so that voters would have a rough idea of for whom they are voting but) Each person's vote should be for a party based on a consideration if it's positions on all the issues which would be formulated. Listed (remember this is this internet so there's room) would be a distribution of candidate views and choices of answers. There would be a short view but also a hyperlink to a longer (but limitedⁱⁱⁱ) view for each for each candidate who desires it. Included might also be a description of the party's performance on the issue to date.

Two (at least) results are likely – the voter would have a truer sense of the issues about which he's voting, and the representatives would be more free to choose their own ways – indeed almost forced to by the on-line statements they made – they'd be less under party control and more likely to compromise on issues important to the voters. Congressional decisions would be based on plurality vote, or by another formula decided separately. All sponsors of bills presented for consideration would be listed, as would any connection of those who would benefit (excluding those who contribute up to a stated limit) to the party or its candidates.

The results of “off-year” elections – every four years not divisible by four (eg 2018, 2022, 2026) – would be used to determine presidential choices. The three parties with the most representatives could put up candidates and the one with a plurality (or whatever) would be elected. There would be no Electoral College. Votes would be made over the internet based on the same short and hyperlinked longer responses to questions of significance at the time of the election. Those questions would be decided beforehand by the voters, and voting results, though done over a period of days or weeks, would not be revealed until a specific deadline is reached. Since the material necessary would be available to all voters simultaneously, there would be equal significance to every vote – not just the ones on the east coast. At issue would be issues. Negative advertising would have far less impact.

Admittedly the process would be complex and require a lot of reading, but this would ensure the greatest participation of those most interested in the process and the results. Knowing of the importance of the results to everyone, translations to all languages would be available on line if requested.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's another consideration that shouldn't be overlooked – especially now. Do we trust those whom we've elected. Responses from previous elections would remain on line and we'd be able to compare promises and performance more easily – especially if the new computer system was programed to do so. The program would also flag exceptions voted for, and which exceptions aided donors to, or supporters of the party in question. That would allow us all to judge the reliability of the promises and votes (all would be recorded – no acclamation or votes by hand). In short, we'd know what they offered and what they delivered. And to whom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's not likely that the two established parties would support such changes since it would cost them control of the government, but We The People are supposed to run things and the representatives are there only to serve as our agents.

December 30, 2017

iAs with “seven,” all numbers should be viewed as arbitrary. They are simply listed to provide room for discussion. Obviously they ar subject to change. The only condition that the increased numbers provide the voters with room for nuance.

iiSee below.

iii These would be longer, but not so much that they wouldn't be read or understood.

Violence In America

The more I read – especially American history and the news about modern America – the less I understand. We are a society built on violence, from our Revolution and our use of weapons to ensure our “manifest destiny,” to the present situation. Add to that some wars and the use of firearms to oppress those of our people who were weaker than we. More recently there have been mass killings of American citizens using such weapons, and yet we are surprised.

Our founders were also concerned about firearms, but their fear was that the government might dominate us and take away our weapons. To prevent that from happening they passed the Bill of Rights – specifically the Second Amendment – that guaranteed that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court, discounting the language that “A well regulated Militia (emphasis added), being necessary to the security of a free State …,” which was the justification for the guarantee, ruled that we all had the right to guns. I don't agree with that decision but it is the law of the land and I must respect it. It is my view that, while, perhaps, gun ownership cannot be denied, it should be far better regulated than it is at present. But that should be accomplished by legal means.

The latest massacres, most recently in Orlando, make it clear that we have failed to take the proper steps to limit the availability of firearms – actions I believe we must take. Those actions, however, should honor our heritage and our laws, and we cannot use extralegal means to assuage our hysteria.

According to today's Wall Street Journal, two bills to achieve some gun control, which had the support of a majority of Senators, failed to receive “the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles.” I'm unclear what “procedural hurdles” prevent the forwarding of a bill to the President for signature or veto, but the majority no longer seems to rule. And many of the opponents of the bills, demanding the limitation of Constitutional rights without any judicial review, a limitation based on FBI “suspicion” of terrorism, were among those arguing against the review of e-mail on on the basis of “suspicion” of terrorism, often also opposing, simply on the basis of police “suspicion,” the use of “stop and frisk” laws which likewise had the potential to yield weapons and prevent violence.

The two problems I see are the inconsistent regard for judicial review on the basis of suspicion, and the idea that a majority vote isn't adequate. It appears there are many who are troubled by the existence of Constitutional requirements for a separation of powers and checks and balances when the guarantees in our founding documents don't favor their own political perspectives.

In the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams declared that we had a “government of laws, not of men,” but the concept that our officials are responsible for following the law is not currently in vogue. We have reached a point where “interpretation” of the laws is more important than the observance of what legislators have written, and when a strong executive has unilaterally arrogated the power of decision-making – limiting the choices of the legislative branch and of the people whom they represent. Perhaps the President's instincts are correct (I personally don't think so) but voters don't get the chance to make that decision. The best they can hope for is the opportunity to include his executive decisions along with the many other factors they consider in the next Presidential election, and by that time they are already faits accompli.

But it's too late then. If we need to change the Constitution, let's do it. If we need to pass legislation that will better regulate our practices, we deserve the right to encourage our legislators to do so. In the meantime, however, we should follow the laws and practices that we now have on the books. We need government of laws. And we need our elected legislators to take whatever steps are necessary to protect their prerogatives and our freedom.

I Was Wrong

It's hard for me to admit it, but that's the reality and I have to fess up.

I believed that notwithstanding the corruption and immorality in which they participated, politicians were basically good people, like the rest of us. Any missteps simply reflected their humanity. As I said. They were like the rest of us, and they were basically good people.

I used to believe that their major advantages over us – the ones that helped them to succeed as our representatives – were that they were knowledgeable about the way government should work and the way it does work. And they were well informed about the issues that confronted us – so much so that they could lead us to a higher level of humanity, and fruitful participation in world affairs, and they would do so even if they had to disregard our views in the quest of our betterment.ⁱ I believed that their actions would be well-considered and the result of honest deliberation and the agreement of all parties.

My failure resulted from trust. Like all good liberals,ⁱⁱ I believed that human nature was something that was inherently good, and would lead us to better ourselves. And I believed that our leaders actually wanted to encourage us in this aim. Perhaps some do, but more and more I see them as the minority.

So however sad it made me, I was only a little surprised when I saw a headline in an inner section of the Wall Street Journal todayⁱⁱⁱ that read: “Senate Coalition Ends, Independent Democrats Shun GOP as Threats of Primary Election Loom Large.” As it turns out, the article was addressing the situation in the New York State Senate, not the national Senate, but the principles are the same. I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs because I know the Journal to be as opinionated as all papers, and, knowing its politics, the rest of the article was predictable.^iv And I suspect that the facts it described were true, though I may have questioned the conclusions the reporter drew.^v

Actually, although I've always tried to repress it,^vi the truth is that we get what we deserve. And in one respect our representatives are just like us: their main philosophy is “I'm for me first.”

The first rule of politics is “Get elected!” The second is “Prepare for the next election.” If, in order to be reelected, you vote for something beneficial to your community, so much the better – especially if, because of that, more of your constituents will vote for you next time – but even so, that isn't nearly as important as whether the legislation improves the lot of your donors or, better still, you.

And it's also important to be sure that any high-minded legislation – designed to require citizens to help other groups get what they view as benefits^vii – doesn't apply to you.^viii Exemption from the laws for which you vote is often required.^ix People should do what you say,^x not what you do. Because of the importance of your position, you're entitled to some benefits they'll lack. And taxpayers should be generous, especially to influential people and voting blocs, so if they don't see it that way, you should be generous for them. Benefits for large groups are certain to earn you their votes, and that's what it's all about .

So where was I wrong? I was too trusting. My belief in human nature was misplaced. The idea that politicians would impose on us the measures needed to improve our country were naïve. As I noted before, they're just like us and our inclinations are too venal. And the pols follow our lead. If the polls indicate that the public opposes something that would help it,^xi there's no politician who will vote for it – unless there's something in it for him or his supporters. And if, because it will be useful to vote for the legislation, he mustn't risk alienating the voters, so it's important to support some amendment that they'll see as benefiting them^xii – whether it does so or not. The politicians don't lead us to the Good. Only to their Good. Otherwise they follow us wherever we go.

Perhaps it's cynicism, but I'd always assumed that their basic inclination was to make things work. After all, as Bismarck said,^xiii “Politics is the art of the possible.” But less than two years later he said, “He who has his thumb on the purse has the power.”^xiv And that's the message the policians picked up on. I wasn't cynical enough. Doing the possible is not the goal. The purse^xv and the power are paramount. Doing the possible is counterproductive if it muddies the message that the voters want to hear. Ideological purity is to be preferred over cooperation with those having a different point of view with only two exceptions: when the cooperation will bring the politician or his backers a particular benefit, or when the polls indicate that it is for the purpose of achieving something that the voters want and which will prompt their support in the next election.

I trusted our representatives to combine their corruption with some regard for the voters as well as their votes. I was mistaken. It won't happen again.

 

Next episode: “How To Lose Friends And Influence Nobody" – No more Mr Nice Guy

I        “[Bill] Maher stated that Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes for it, 'he only needs 51.' 'Forget getting the sixty votes or sixty percent — sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country — he just needs to drag them to it, like I said, they're stupid; get health care done, with or without them.'” I may not agree with Maher on the issue, but the principle of politicians following their consciences rather than the views of their constituents exemplifies what I thought was the approach of most of our “representatives.” It's the “liberal” approach. Do for (to?) the people what you think is good for them, whether they like it or not. But I had hoped for more good will than I see there. And I had hoped that politicians would have a higher regard for the American People than Mr. Maher seems to have.

ii       I may have lapsed but that's the way I was brought up, and some beliefs from early childhood are hard to shake.

iii      Today is June 26, 2014.

iv       Since I didn't read the article I can't be absolutely sure I'm right, but I assume the Democrats were blamed for their partisanship. As I suggested, however, all papers prejudge situations and their reporters write stories that reflect the paper's slant. Had the article appeared in the New York Times with the same headline, the blame would have been laid at the feet of the Republicans.

v        When consulting the media for information (and when reading web-sites as well) the most important first step is to try to determine the source's perspectives and its biases. Everything it says – even if it sounds like a simple recitation of facts – will be spun to correspond, and should be understood to reflect those preconceived notions.

vi        And I was fooling myself when I did so.

vii     However harmful those “benefits” may be after the bureaucracy begins formulating rules for its administration. It's possible that they may be more restrictive than beneficial – but they sound good.

viii     You don't want for yourself the idiotic things uninformed voters demand. It doesn't matter if you restrict the voters. They're asking for it.

ix       They elected you. They deserve you. Make the rhetoric appealing and it doesn't matter what the facts are. But make sure that you don't suffer from their poor judgment. Leave an escape hatch for yourself.

x         Make them believe it was their idea.

xi       Never forget that the better the medicine is for you the worse it tastes, and the more you rebel at its administration.

xii      A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

xiii     In German: “Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen.” August 11, 1867. Cited inWikipedia.

xiv      May 21, 1869. Also said in German.

xv       Not just the money, but the votes that get them the job that will bring them the power and the money.