Editor's Note: Last week, I posited the formation of a third party to counter the dysfunctional current system. Then, while watching Bill Maher's show this weekend, author Thomas Friedman is already promoting this concept. I knew nothing of Mr. Friedman's proposal when I made my declaration. It's good to know that there are people out there with a bigger megaphone than me espousing this idea. But, like OWS, it also takes us to make it happen. I am gratefult that the conversation is starting. As promised, I am still moving forward with the premise because I believe it is important. Discuss.
Due to the sheer number of issues facing the country right now, I am not going to attempt to list the platform agenda in order of importance. All of them are important, but I also think that the only way to solve the biggest issues is to first address the flaws in the system that prevent us from making the necessary changes. Senate reform has to be at the top of that agenda.
Operational Deficiencies
This may seem simplistic, but the single greatest deterrent to progress is obstruction. I have been writing to Vice President Biden to tell him that, as President of the Senate he is presiding over an unconstitutional assembly. The Constitution clearly states that the Senate operate under majority rule, therefore making the Super Majority now necessary to pass any legislation fundamentally illegal. I have not heard back from Mr. Biden, as shocking as that may seem. In order for change to occur, the mechanism to implement that change must work. The current system simply does not and none of the people who control that body have the nerve to fix it.
Our political structure is a nightmare of corruption. Citizens United merely codified what was already going on. Lobbying groups and political action committees have been perverting the political discourse in this country for years, but prior to the Roberts' court it still had to disclose just how much influence it was pedalling and where that influence was coming from. None of that is true now, of course, and it is to the detriment of our nation.
Therefore, the candidates must refuse money from corporations, the banks, Wall Street, lobbyists, pacs, and super pacs. Instead, we campaign the old-fashioned way. Public speeches, personal contact, and broadcast appearances. Add in the new tools available like social media and the rest of the internet and a non-establishment candidate can still win. Simply by not taking money from the 1% and even the next 2% will get you the 57% that agree with OWS. And in our elections, unlike our Senate, the majority still wins. They may have all the money, but we have the ballot boxes.
What I am talking about is true campaign finance reform. The new party must be willing to take on and legislatively overturn Citizens United, eliminate the lobbyists (like England did), and close the loopholes that allow campaign contributions from undisclosed sources to be funneled to candidates. If someone wants to spend millions of dollars on an issue, so be it. But the money has to stop flowing to the politicians.
Campaign finance reform must also include a candidates own resources. No candidate can be allowed to "self fund" their campaign. What I propose is that a candidate can only give as much to their coffers as the current law allows anyone else to donate. Self-funding by multi-millionaires unevens the playing field by preventing less well funded potential candidates from even entering the race. Meg Whitman spent a crapload of money to lose to Jerry Brown, and lost to him for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that Californians routinely reject these types of people. However, if this reform had been in place, we might have Gavin Newsom as Governor right now instead of Mr. Brown. We might even have Ms. Whitman if she hadn't flaunted her money. Who knows?
There are a dozen more structural issues to be reformed, but they are of lesser priority. The system is broken and those in charge of operating the system have a vested interest in keeping it that way. Our elected representatives are not representing, they're campaigning non-stop. Legislation has come to a virtual standstill as these folks sell their principles to the highest bidder. Which underscores the basic problem: They have no principles.
Yes, there are a few exceptions and those brave people are to be commended. I can't actually name one right now, but I'm sure there have to a couple somewhere in DC. Pollyanna, is that you?
The Issues
I think we are all pretty well informed on the issues. We know what the problems are. Our government has insulated itself from us and they have this notion that they have all the power. That notion was well-founded because for quite awhile, we let them take it. We took their shiny objects of distraction and largely turned our backs, or at least a blind eye, to what they were doing.
What they fail to realize, apparently, is that we have the ballot boxes. We have the votes that allow them to keep their positions of power...or, hopefully, not keep them. We also have the power to take back the controls if we collectively choose to. And in my humble opinion, that is exactly what we need to do and the best way to do it is to create this new party that will challenge the old notions of who the government is supposed to represent. It is not and cannot be the lobbyists, banks, Wall Street, corporations, or special interests.
On every major policy issue and/or problem that has been polled, the majority of the respondents are against what they are doing. Time was once where that made a difference in how they behaved. Now, they just completely ignore those numbers and do what they want. This has got to change. What I cannot stress enough here is that they will not change it. At least not without a compelling reason to do so.
That compulsion may be aided by the introduction of a strong, grassroots, and real threat from the outside. Let's not forget that the majority of the voting public is now listed as "independent" by slightly over half. The two parties share the remainder with the Democrats holding the larger of that minority stake. So, it stands to reason, an independent party already has more than half the electorate by definition, and would certainly attract the disenchanted folks who still cling to the parties. Couple that with the 57% (and growing) of Americans who support OWS, it's completely doable.
The time is right for the right reasons.
Hamster Prez
Whether you agree or not, please share and participate. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment