One of the most sobering factoids about Barney Frank’s resignation is that he was re-elected 16 times before finally deciding he had had enough. Sixteen times. Leo Linbeck, you may recall, noted in a letter published some days ago on this site that this was no surprise. Death from natural causes far exceeded defeat at the ballot box as a source of Congressional turnover. Barney and his like are dug in more solidly on Capitol Hill than the Imperial Japanese Army was on Iwo Jima. The only time Barney was ever going to leave was when he felt like it. Can they ever be turned out otherwise?
L3 described a plan to challenge the incumbents where they were most vulnerable; at the primaries. But vulnerability is a relative thing. The incumbents are supported by the media monopoly on messaging, and they’ve got all the bucks. Even at their most vulnerable the incumbents have have all the big battalions on their side.
But not all is lost. The summit of Surabachi may be distant, but there’s a way up and L3 gives us an update on the efforts to ‘break the cycle of incumbency’ and elect new candidates into office after the Read More. He describes the necessary adjuncts to challenging the incumbents in primary campaigns, whether Democratic or Republican. To break their stranglehold on power one must challenge their monopoly on messaging and money. Analysis shows there may be as many as 100 seats that are vulnerable. Since only 4 incumbents lost a primary in 2010, maybe, just maybe an America in the crisis year 2012 can do better than cycle out 4. But I’d better let Leo explain things.
Richard,
I really appreciate your publishing my previous letter on the Primary Pledge campaign, and especially thank the members of the Belmont Club for their thoughtful and encouraging responses.
As I alluded to in that letter, there is a second, independent but complementary campaign that I’ve helped launch, which I’d like to share in this letter. I promise to be briefer in this one…
The Primary Pledge is designed to get more people to vote in Congressional primaries. The basic argument is that for our electoral accountability system to work properly, incumbents must be forced to compete in every election to win the continued support of their constituents. This won’t happen if only 10% of the people in their district vote. In addition to this being too low a turnout, it is an unrepresentative sample of the overall electorate in the district.
But even if everyone in a district voted in the dominant party’s primary (i.e. everyone voted in the Republican primary in a Republican district), there is another, perhaps bigger problem that has to be overcome in order to make the incumbent compete:
Incumbents have a “messaging monopoly” in primary elections.
For democratic elections to function properly, voters need to be informed about the choices before them. But the system, as currently constructed, is skewed strongly in favor of incumbents and against challengers. Some of the factors that contribute to this “unlevel playing field” include:
Money. Incumbents get more money, because they have the support of the party (for whom the incumbent provides support), the lobby (who have already “invested” in the incumbent, and are in the “return” phase of that investment, whereas a winning challenger will require additional “investment” before any “returns” can be generated), and the special interests (same logic as the lobby, plus the additional benefit of knowing where they stand on their issue, vs. anticipating what the challenger will do). These advantages are clear when you comb through the contribution reports filed with the FEC; incumbents get most of their money from law firms (lobbyists), trade associations (special interests), unions (special interests), and congressional campaign committees (the parties). The challenger has money from their in-laws (so they can get a special tour if he wins, or complain about how he doesn’t deserve their daughter if he loses), fraternity brothers or sorority sisters (because, you know, we made a promise to each other), etc. Seriously, it becomes obvious that the only realistic way to challenge an House incumbent is to be self-funding – a fact that further distorts our system.
Name Identification. Incumbents are better known, both because they’ve run before, and because of the lovely “franking privilege” that allows them to send free mail to their loyal constituents telling them how wonderful they are. They also get lots of “earned media,” which is to say free press coverage of all of the wonderful things they’ve done (i.e. the earmarks they’ve been able to negotiate for their district).
Consulting Talent. Running a Congressional campaign requires real professional skill. Knowing how to design and distribute messaging materials is not something you can learn in school; the best consultants have years of experience in how to inform and motivate voters to support their client. But long-term incumbents and parties “freeze out” challengers from the best consulting talent. Because consultants rely on referrals, and because parties (and other incumbents, especially the leadership, spread their money around) can literally make or break the career of a political consultant, it is almost impossible to recruit top-flight political talent to a challenger’s campaign.
Constituent Services (aka Protecting the People from the Bureaucracy). It’s a great game the incumbents have going. They support the creation of an impenetrable bureaucracy, and then hire a crack staff to help constituents to navigate that system. The bureaucracy wins (more bureaucrats), the staff wins (more staff), the incumbent wins (he becomes a hero), and the constituent wins (he get what he wants). The only people who lose is everyone else. But those who receive constituent service become very loyal to the incumbent, thinking they’re wonderful and competent.
So, when it comes time to face the challenger, the playing field is completely tilted in favor of the incumbent.
With money, name ID, consulting talent, and a loyal core of supporters, the incumbent has the ability to get their message, to tell their side of the story.
With no money, no name ID, no consulting talent, and no loyal core of supporters, the challenger has no ability to get their message out, to tell the rest of the story.
The implications of this messaging monopoly are huge. It means, effectively, that voters don’t really know the full picture of what their incumbent has been doing.
The incumbent says:
I’m great! I did X, Y, and Z for our district. I stood up to [R version: bureaucrats, unions, environmentalists, and Democrats; D version: the rich, big businesses, polluters, and Republicans] in Washington DC. I will bring home the bacon. Vote for me!
The challenger says:
He’s awful! He did P, Q, and R – he took money from lobbyists representing industries he regulated, voted to raise his own pay, went on junkets sponsored by lobbyists, and sold out his constituents for a mess of pottage [works for both parties]. I will put your interests first. Vote for me!
If the voter hears both of these messages, they can make an informed decisions. But today the problem is that the incumbent has a megaphone, and the challenger is locked in a soundproof room. Without money, earned media, messaging pros, and a loyal base of bacon eaters, the average voter only hears one side of the story.
Money, of course, could break the messaging monopoly. With more money, the challenger could have his voice heard. But campaign finance rules limit contributions to $2,500 per person for the primary. This means that it takes hundreds, or even thousands, of contributors to even “get in the game.” It’s as if a law were passed that limited the amount of money any individual could invest in a software business to $2,500. If that were the case, it would be great for Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and IBM (the incumbents). But it would not be good for the industry as a whole, as it would undermine competition (the same competition that allowed Microsoft to challenge IBM, Google to challenge Microsoft, and Facebook to challenge Google).
Each of these impediments to competition can, of course, be overcome. Wealthy people can self-fund; celebrities can run; state officials with longstanding relationships to consultants can try to move up; and local special interest leaders can give it a shot (e.g. a local union official, or a prolife leader, or the executive director of the Sierra Club) if the incumbent has voted the wrong way on their issue, so they can count on a loyal core of supporters.
But this has not proven successful at any national scale at breaking the cycle of incumbency. Something else is needed to create a level playing field and real competition.
So I’ve been working with a group of folks to create the “Equalizer Campaign.” We have formed a SuperPAC called the Campaign for Primary Accountability (CPA), and it will fund and manage this campaign.
The Equalizer Campaign’s mission is simple:
Break the House incumbent’s messaging monopoly in primary elections.
We will do this by creating messaging materials (emails, webpages, web ads, direct mail pieces, canvassing brochures, etc.) and delivering them to people who plan to vote in the primary election. Our goal is to make sure that every primary voter knows the full facts about the incumbent and their performance. The incumbent will tell voters all of the good that they’ve done; we will tell voters the lousy votes. The votes to raise their own pay; the votes to exempt themselves from their own regulations; the votes to raise the pay of federal employees in the middle of a recession; the votes to bail out Wall Street; the stock trades they made based upon inside information; the money they took from banking lobbyists before voting for TARP; etc.
Once voters have all of the information, they can make an informed decision. If, on balance, they want to return the incumbent to Washington DC, then so be it. It is THEIR choice, not mine.
But the mere existence of a messaging monopoly undermines the accountability system. Long-term incumbents know that no one will challenge them and tell the voters about their lousy votes. So they can do bad, destructive things without any concern that they will be called to account. That has to end.
These two campaigns – the Primary Pledge and the Equalizer Campaign – will attempt to restore competition and accountability to US House elections. If there is real competition, the voters can be back in charge.
We have already begun working on these campaigns in the early primary states, including Texas (March 6) and Illinois (March 20). We are analyzing other early states (Mississippi, Maryland, Alabama, Pennsylvania), and will begin starting more campaigns soon.
We’ve already raised millions of dollars already for this effort, most of it from people like me: small and medium-sized business leaders, entrepreneurs, and people of that ilk. We are not funded by either party, or by Washington DC special interests or lobbyists, or the big national groups who want to control Washington DC and push their own agenda (e.g. Soros, Koch, Rove, etc.). We want local citizens to reclaim control of their Congressional representatives; giving the ring of power to others will not improve our lot – the power needs to reside with the voters, and their representatives should be accountable to them. That’s the way the system is supposed to work, after all…
We’ve also recruited a top-flight team of political consultants to work with us, both Democratic and Republican, with decades of experience in running election campaigns. And we’re going to need all of their experience and expertise:
Our goal is to engage in at least 100 House races in 2012, in roughly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican districts. (Remember: only 4 incumbents lost a primary in 2010.)
We will focus our efforts on those incumbents who have been in DC for at least 10 years; they’re the ones with the power, and they’re the ones who face little or no competition. We are not looking to shift power horizontally between the parties; they’re both subject to the corruptions of power. We’re looking to shift the power vertically, from the federal government to the citizenry.
What can folks do? Well, everyone can help by talking up what we’re doing, signing up on our websites to get updates, and spreading the word to their family, friends, and neighbors, particularly to people they know who are thinking of running against an incumbent. We can’t create competition if there’s no competitor, but we also don’t want to be recruiting challengers to long-term incumbents. We do not want to pick who represents people in these districts; THEY should. We can get more fans to the stadium (the Primary Pledge Campaign) and level the playing field (the Equalizer Campaign), but there have to be leaders who have the guts to get in the game. And if you know of someone who has ever considered running for the House of Representatives, this is the year they should give it a go. It’s a critical election, and the people are ready to make a change.
Folks can also donate to our effort if they’re so inclined. Even small amounts help; the more donors we can show, the more seriously we are taken by incumbents. You can donate at either website:
The Alliance for Self-Governance (to support the Primary Pledge Campaign): www.alliance4selfgovernance.org
The Campaign for Primary Accountability (to support the Equalizer Campaign): www.campaign4primaryaccountability.org
Anyway, that’s what I did during my summer vacation (and why my commenting on the Belmont Club has slowed to a crawl lately).
I hope other club members find these efforts to be a source of optimism, and even pride. After all, much of my thinking and searching for ways to make a difference started with interactions at the BC. You are all, in a real sense, co-creators of these initiatives.
Only if they work, though. Any failure I will take on my own account.
Thanks again for all you do.
Regards,
L3
Leo Linbeck III
President and CEO
Aquinas Companies, LLCAdjunct Professor
Jones Graduate School of Business
Rice University Houston, TexasLecturer
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Palo Alto, California
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $3.99, print $9.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
This is a very ambitious effort and a vitally worthy one. Let me offer one suggestion.
The three little words that make Wash DC go ’round are “Make It Hurt.” Someone does something you don’t like, then you tie it to an action that they can’t stand. As in “Okay, so you cut the funding to this program. Well, then, we’re just gonna have to cancel the contract with that firm that is in your district.” Or Vice Versa.
The Denizens of DC understand this. We need to make sure that the actions of the politicians in Wash are visited upon their constituents. And since the politicians are busy shipping as much pork as possible back home, we need to offset that with explanations of why their actions hurt the folks back home.
Bwany Fwank was not just bad for the whole country; ultimately he was bad for his own congressional district, too. Since it is obvious that the people of his district will never overturn him based on moral turpitude issues, it needs to be explained to them that a vote for old Bwany is the reason they have a smoking hole in the top of their shoe, 16 times now.
Ultimately this is not just about messaging. People, business leaders, companies, need to make real world decisions based on how people are voting, decisions on investments, hiring, and procurements. We need to drag Congress, kicking and squealing, into the real world.
Let’s not forget that one of the current Republican presidential contenders failed to push hard on a Contract for America point of term limits. Once in power himself, the point became far less important to him and his fellow Congressmen who went through a pro forma proceeding rather than a serious and continuous fight to make it happen. Thus we inherited not just Franks, but Pelosi and Reid as well and the rest of the gang. He should be forced to remember that his non-action makes him handmaiden to what we have today.
Persons with good ideas are not usual. Much less common are those who develop a good idea into a plan. And rare is the person who has the energy and commitment to begin to implement that plan. Such a rarity is Leo Linbeck III.
Best wishes,
Jim Nicholas
My concerns about the effect that Leo’s vote in the local dominant party primary plan remain unanswered. It would destroy the national Republican party and leave the Democrats in charge of running the elections and counting the votes in most states. This would result in a Congress with 300 Al Frankens and worse on the state level.
We need to bar those, excepting enlisted members of the Armed Forces and officers called to extended active duty in wartime, who get the majority of their income from the federal treasury from voting for Congress. There should be a similar ban on those who subsist on the state purse from voting in state/local elections. The staffing of elections should not be left to the elderly selected by political clubhouse bosses. Assignment as a poll worker once every 10 years should be treated like jury duty.
Right now almost all of the billboards in America are controlled by Viacom. We need to break that monopoly so that alternative messages can get out. Thousands of billboards with engaging hard hitting images and slogans could have a real impact.
Billboards??? In an age of freeways? Billboards??
Maybe I’m from the wrong part of the country (western US), but billboards sure don’t have much presence (literally or visually) ’round here.
Like many bright ideas this one can have some serious unintended consequences. Do you remember Rush’s “Operation Chaos?” That is the natural outcome of jumping into the other Party’s primary. The outsiders will be looking to get the weakest fringe candidate nominated so they can take over the seat. Did Conservatives learn their lesson from 2006 where we put Pelosi and Reid in power and the budget deficet exploded? Think about second order effects before you jump into this scheme.
Just about any effort to get more citizens to vote is admirable, so best to L3.
However, every scholarly study of our method of conducting politics in America mentions the structural problem the two major parties have created that has the unintended consequence of first electing, and then second protecting, the most extreme ideologues to office. More citizens voting will not solve the structural problem; the system itself simply feeds off more voters participating, effectively negating the effect of a greater turnout. It is because a greater voter turnout has no effect upon the structural problem that so many people–upwards of 50%–do not vote anymore.
The gerrymander system constructed by both major parties insulates the most ideologically fervent candidates from electoral defeat. They have ‘safe seats.’ The post mentions “100″ potential seats could be competitive this next November. Really? Our ‘wave’ elections merely wipe out the moderates in both parties, leaving the hardened ideologues in safe seats to survive as the ‘Professional Political Class’ (Schweizer’s term in his new book, “Throw Them All Out”).
We could have 100% voter turnout, but the results would be the same. Government gridlock, legal corruption, ideolgical hatred and cronyism. The greater turnout does not address the fundamental problem: regardless of how many people vote, the gerrymandering process after every Census guarantees large numbers of ‘safe seats’ will be awarded to the most fervent ideologues in both major parties. They do not just fight for more seats; they fight for a solid core of safe seats, insulated from turnover by the voters.
The DuoFreedomist Party launches on December 12th, dedicated to reforming the gerrymander system as it is practiced. More voters is wonderful; but having too few voters on Election Day is not the structural problem.
This paper from a couple years ago really caught my attention with its surprising and counter-intuitive contentions:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf
It asserts that the districts which are home to powerful congressmen, ie. the committee chairs and the like, pay a significant negative economic cost for the priviledge. In other words, all the goodies that the politicos are likely to tout as “bringing home the bacon” are not so swell after all.
We are all like that bride whose groom bought her a new car on her credit card.
My opinion on why Barney Fwank quit (while ahead) is the redistricting. His last election was close (53%)
and the future outlook for him was dismal.
Redistricting is a very powerful tool for those in charge. I hope the Reps. have take full advantage.
I think in Texas redistricting has been tied up in the courts.
Interesting idea. The obstacle that I see are the limits on PACs giving to candidates, which apply to in-kind contributions as well as monetary contributions. These are limited to $10,000 (perhaps a bit more if it is inflation adjusted). This is nowhere near enough to make a substantial dent in a typical incumbent’s advantage.
Of course, people have free speech rights and can spend more than that. But they can’t do it in conjunction with their candidate’s campaign. To spend a lot of money, these organizations would have to design the campaign materials without having ANY contact with the candidate. You can’t discuss design of the materials, campaign strategy, timing, polling, or anything else with the candidate. You have to take over your candidate’s campaign without his having any say or notice in how it is conducted. Needless to say, this is highly problematic.
I would like to hear Mr. Linbeck’s plans for dealing with this situation. Raising money is only the beginning of this effort.
Seems to me that I have read that the bicameral congress was originally designed so that the senate would function as the party headquarters–in the way that the House does today — and that originally–the House was intended to be the place where the people could have direct interaction with the government–in the way Leo is talking about.
However,around 1900 some rules were changed which reversed the roles which the two Houses of Congress were originally intended to play.
I recall reading about this 5-6 years ago.
The Founders were shrewd men. And the Framers (of the originally two branches of government)were even shrewder Calvinists. It would prudent to figure out what they intended and look into how their original design was altered back about 1900.
I fail to see how Mr. Linbeck’s plans would make much of a difference. Does Nancy Pelosi keep getting reelected because conservatives in her district either do not vote or are kept from voting? No, Pelosi keeps getting reelected because her district is predominantly leftist. The problem is culture. After 100 years of statism the majority of Americans believe that the government is the solution for every problem; that America is somewhat “evil” and that business is inherently corrupt. In fact, it is the majority of the electorate that is corrupt in that they expect benefits from the government — no, they demand benefits from the government while demanding that others pay the bill. Unless this mindset is changed, the slow, leftist undermining of that ideal called America will be complete and the nation created by the founding fathers will be history as will conservatism. And as Ronald Reagan once warned, our grandchildren will ask us what it was like when men were free.
rodomontade @10,
Interesting idea. The obstacle that I see are the limits on PACs giving to candidates, which apply to in-kind contributions as well as monetary contributions. These are limited to $10,000 (perhaps a bit more if it is inflation adjusted).
The reason the Equalizer Campaign can work is Citizens United, the recent Supreme Court ruling. The Campaign for Primary Accountability, which is running the campaign, is a SuperPAC, an independent expenditure vehicle enabled by the Citizens United. We are free to accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures so long as we remain independent of candidate campaigns. This is what we plan to do, and what we are doing.
This approach also fits better with our philosophy. Giving money to a candidate puts the candidate in control. Running an independent expenditure campaign does not. My preference would be for there to emerge many different independent groups working to inform voters. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happening. Most SuperPACs are either trying to elect Republicans or Democrats in the general election – that is, they’re trying to determine which branch of the Ruling Elite gets to distribute the patronage. That’s why our campaign, as far as I know, is unique, at least so far in this election cycle.
The problem, of course, is that we therefore need to have the full campaign infrastructure to make this work – which we have assembled. But once the staff is assembled, it is also more efficient; we can run multiple campaigns on our national platform, and since primaries use very little traditional media, we end up with much more bang for the buck.
Hope this makes sense. And, please, call me Leo or L3. This is a club; there’s no hierarchy here, beyond our esteemed and worthy proprietor.
Cheers,
L3
Charles @11,
It would prudent to figure out what they intended and look into how their original design was altered back about 1900.
Indeed. Having done a fair amount of research on this very issue, here’s what I think happened:
Until 1903, politicians were nominated to run by a “caucus and convention” system. Local delegates were selected in caucuses, and they convened at a state convention to make nominations. Districts then, as now, were controlled by either one party or the other.
(As an aside: the two-party system is not enshrined in the Constitution, but is a natural outgrowth of single member, first-past-the-post voting systems – in such a system, there is only room for two parties, although it is possible for a third party to emerge as a replacement for one of the two parties, as happened when Republicans replaced the Whigs in the mid 19th Century.)
This C&C system produced local “bosses,” who controlled the nomination process. These bosses were responsible for distributing local patronage, as all politicians do, and must, to maintain their position. They viewed the federal government as a threat to their fiefdoms, as indeed it was in many circumstances. As such, they saw to it that nominees to the House of Representatives would be under the control of the local party, and protect their turf. They also imposed forced rotation, limiting the terms of their representative, then giving someone else a turn. That is why, throughout the 19th Century, the average tenure of the US House at the beginning of a Congress was about 2 years. (Today, it’s 10 years.)
This system made elected officials – including House members – agents of the local party. The local bosses watched what was happening in Washington DC, and if their locality (or their local control) was threatened, they intervened. Because they had the power to nominate, they had the power to control their representative. Who controls the nomination, controls the party.
However, by the end of the 19th Century, two things had started to happen to deeply corrupt the local boss system. First, local party bosses saw that there was more patronage to distribute from a federal level, and they began to try to grab control of more federal power. If they had been content to simply stay at home, they may have survived. Second, business interests began to see the opportunity to co-opt the boss system, a prospect that became even more enticing as local bosses started to accumulate national power.
The pushback started with farmers. Between railroad monopolies (thanks to government intervention), oil trusts, and banking interests, the farmers were working harder and barely scraping by. They began to organize protests (Ye Olde Tea Party or Occupy Akron?), forming the Grange Movement, which transformed into the Populist Movement, which transformed into the Progressive Movement.
Seeing the way that financial and distribution businesses were teaming up with elected officials to get protection against competition, the Progressives began looking for ways to undermine the power of the local boss system.
The big innovation in this area was the replacement of the C&C nominating process by primary elections. This initiative was led by one of the great leaders of the Progressive Movement, Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin. LaFollette saw that local bosses controlled nominations by controlling the C&C process, which they controlled using the public patronage system. (In many ways, it was the direct analogy to the public sector union situation today – unions control nominations which determine winners who disperse patronage back to the unions; but I digress…)
His idea was to go around the party infrastructure and directly to the people, letting them vote for the nominee who would run in the general election (which was then, as now, largely a foregone conclusion). He was successful in getting Wisconsin to adopt primary elections in 1903.
As far as breaking the party boss system, it was a masterstroke. Politicians, rather than being supplicants to local political machines, became free agents. They no longer needed the bosses; the bosses needed them. By winning, they had control of the patronage without the influence of the bosses, and ended up destroying the system of local control over time.
Having been put in place in Wisconsin, and successfully reforming the local machine, primary elections swept the country. WIthin a few years, every state had moved to primaries.
Unfortunately, primary elections have never been able to hold incumbents accountable. Why? Because elected officials write the rules, and are the direct beneficiary of them. Think about it: every election law passed by a legislature has been approved by incumbents. It is really realistic to believe that they would pass laws making primaries more accountable? Of course not. At least in the old C&C system, there was someone to hold them accountable – the local bosses. But once they were broken, it was only a matter of time until Congress began protecting themselves, and creating the seniority system, and turning the federal government into the biggest patronage machine the world has ever seen.
Still, there’s no point in wishing for bygone days. The 19th Century may have had its good aspects, but antibiotics are pretty nice to have around. Besides, primaries are here to stay. I, for one, would not advocate replacing elections with smoke-filled rooms.
Instead, we have to engage in them. Primaries shouldn’t belong to the party; they should belong to the people. If the primary is going to determine the outcome of the general (which is the case 80%+ of the time), then everyone should vote in the primary.
Clearly, it’s not the way we’ve been trained to think about primaries. But the idea that a primary belongs just to party members is an idea promoted by, ahem, the parties. So what? Why should the parties be able to limit who gets to decide?
Anyway, I hope this is helpful. Regardless, as I asked above, please call me Leo or L3. Mr. Linbeck is my dad.
Cheers,
L3
Can’t beat something with nothing.
Just what candidates is all this information going to benefit?
I have great faith in the electorate, and that they generally make the best choice available (with the possible exception of California which just went 1000% democratic in all statewide offices, which is insane).
We live in a republic, not a democracy, and most of our elections are about choosing representatives, not deciding issues.
The Internet is already here for anyone who *wants* information. There’s already too much information.
I think we might end up with better office-holders if we simply put the candidates in the octagon and let the survivor serve. I doubt if we would have Pelosi, Reid, or Obama under those circumstances.
aDuoFreedomist @7,
The gerrymander system constructed by both major parties insulates the most ideologically fervent candidates from electoral defeat. They have ‘safe seats.’ The post mentions “100″ potential seats could be competitive this next November. Really? Our ‘wave’ elections merely wipe out the moderates in both parties, leaving the hardened ideologues in safe seats to survive as the ‘Professional Political Class’ (Schweizer’s term in his new book, “Throw Them All Out”).
I used to believe the gerrymander was the root cause. In fact, it’s not, and most research confirms that gerrymandering is, at most, a marginal influence.
Don’t get me wrong; the gerrymander offends my democratic sensibilities. So does voter fraud. But incumbents are winning general elections by an average of 26%. The gerrymander has an impact of maybe 5-10% at most; voter fraud, even less. We should get rid of both, but they’re not the fundamental driver.
The fundamental driver is that we live in communities, and those communities tend to acquire norms of belief and behavior. Simply put, people tend to be a lot like their neighbors. That is, we’re human.
Humans, as social animals, tend to build cultures wherever they congregate. As a result, neighborhoods tend to end up voting either Republican or Democrat, and that core culture tends to draw in the opportunists who are attracted to power. The net result is that 80%+ of districts are either R or D.
If you had perfectly drawn maps, completely fair, that number might drop to 60%. Maybe. But no one knows. And, regardless, we won’t be able to redraw districts in 2012, so we’re stuck with what we’ve got for the time being.
The reality is that the American people are closely divided, not deeply divided. Morris Fiorina’s book, Culture Wars? spells this out quite persuasively. We have huge areas of agreement, but are given polarized choices, so the political elite (which is very polarized) makes us look like we deeply disagree.
But where are those choices determined? In the primary election.
Here’s the other way to look at it: only 10% of the electorate is picking the winner of the primary. This 10% tends to be the most strident supporters of the polarized political elite. They’re the most actively engaged in party politics; they are, literally, partisans. Because they’re the only ones who vote, the politicians have to satisfy them, not the general election voters. The positions they take, therefore, are extreme – after all, they know that all they need to do is win the support of 51% of primary voters, and they’re in.
Now, imagine that everyone who voted in the general election voted in the primary. No longer would the outcome be determined by the “median primary election voter”; it would be determined by the “median general election voter.” This would have a natural moderating influence on the candidates, and would draw in additional candidates who would not otherwise consider running, because they’re not extreme enough.
Even with this, of course, Democratic primary winners would be left-of-center (since Democratic districts are left-of-center), while Republican primaries would be won by right-of-center Republicans, for the same reason. But the choices would be better than our current crop, and the long-term, hyper-partisan, entrenched incumbents would be the ones who were more impacted by the change. After all, swing districts already end up with more moderate candidates.
Anyway, all of your concerns are reasonable ones, and I wouldn’t want to ever claim that there will be no unintended consequences. But I know the status quo is broken, and something must be done.
Whether you agree that any of this should be done, I appreciate the feedback, and wish you well.
Cheers,
L3
#4 Blast From the Past
One can already make a case that the national Institutional Republican party is already dead and just does not know it. They have adopted the unique long term strategy [for at least 20 years] of attacking and insulting their own base of supporters, and not only refusing to oppose their declared enemies, but actually collaborating with them once inside the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Here in Colorado, they have gone so far as to use party money to help Democrats get elected rather than the conservative Republicans who were nominated fair and square. We have two Democrat US Senators and a Democrat Governor because of this.
I wish Leo well in this, but I temper it with two realizations. First, that the Republican party base is about done with them. 2010 was probably the last wake up call that they were going to receive, and they have wasted it by collaborating with the enemy [details on request, it's a long sordid story]. The Institutional Republicans will not dissolve until the matter of elections in 2012 are resolved one way or another. Obama is that great a threat. But absent that threat, there is no positive reason to vote for the Institutional Republicans, and I can say that if they shove Romney down our throats, I will be leaving the Republican party the day after the convention. I am not going to be alone in my neck of the woods.
The second realization is that by their own words and deeds, it is no longer beyond rational thought that it is the intention of the Democrats that there will be no further free elections. Cancellation has been brought up publicly by elected and appointed Democrats, and there is their decades long practice of vote fraud that has been honed to a fine art. And the current administration has documented history of supporting election fraud and intimidation at the DOJ level. Electoral politics may become moot for the forseeable future, with attached sequalae.
Subotai Bahadur
tdiinva @6
Like many bright ideas this one can have some serious unintended consequences. Do you remember Rush’s “Operation Chaos?” That is the natural outcome of jumping into the other Party’s primary. The outsiders will be looking to get the weakest fringe candidate nominated so they can take over the seat. Did Conservatives learn their lesson from 2006 where we put Pelosi and Reid in power and the budget deficet exploded? Think about second order effects before you jump into this scheme.
Very fair concerns, and warning. We’ve certainly tried to think through many of the effects, but surely can’t have thought of them all. I invite you to help consider potential pitfalls, if you’re so inclined. The more minds thinking about this problem, the more likely risks can be identified, and then mitigated.
In the mean time, I’d like to be clear: we’re not proposing to get people to start “jumping into the other Party’s primary.” I don’t think that people should view primary voting as “strategic” to mess with the other side. Rather, you should figure out where and when the decision is really being made, and cast your vote there.
The basic premise is that primaries are where the decision is made 80%+ of the time, so in those cases everyone should vote then, as the general is a fake fight.
If you’re a conservative in Nancy Pelosi’s district, you’re never going to have a conservative representative. If that’s really important to you, you’ll have to move.
But if you do voter in her district, and others like you, you’ll begin to pull the politicians closer to the median voter in the district, rather than the median voter who bothers to vote in the Democratic primary. And that would be progress.
And as far as the voters picking the “weaker, fringe candidate,” it’s not clear to me why that would be true. If the voter’s choice is between a corrupt incumbent and a member of the Monster Raving Loony segment of the party, they’d probably choose the incumbent. Which is fine, so long as it is an informed decision.
Of course, there is no voting scheme that can protect us against our own stupidity. But I think people who think the voters are simply stupid or evil should consider first giving them a fighting chance. It’s like companies where management thinks the workers are all a bunch of rubes, when in reality the workers know a hell of a lot more about how things work than management. All they need is a system that allows that expertise to express itself in a productive way.
So, we might be getting the government we deserve. Or we might be getting the government that the politicians think we should have, but not what we want or deserve.
I’m putting my bet on the people. But if the politicians are right and we’re a bunch of losers, I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Cheers,
L3
It looks like the monopoly on messaging is swinging into gear for the presidential primaries. All the dems have going for them this time is the assisted self- destruct of Republican candidates. You can be sure that if a front runner starts to get a head of steam, allegations of impropriety will flow thick and fast, as is already happening.
Thank you, L3, for your insights, patience, good sense and perceptive analysis. I’m with you. Unintended consequence are indeed always possible, and BCers here will likely be helpful in watching for and reporting should they occur.
I am with Subotai Bahadur, too, on the pending potential eminent demise of the GOP. The process of becoming a permanent minority in CA has been quite revealing. But that’s another posting. If ever a national party was ripe for implosion its them. Governor Barbour’s movement away from the RNC seems instructive. Any comments on that aspect?
I am with Subo on this issue…as is usually the case. The entrenched “Institutional Republicans” are very much a part of the problem and no part of the solution. There is a spending problem at the Federal level and until that is recognized and dealt with there is much work to do. The Republic needs legislators willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Enough of this pork protection, finger pointing and political posturing.
First of all, let me just say that Leo Linbeck is a paragon of intellectual virtue and probably one heck of a good human being. He has my vote for ‘Dad of the Year.’
That being said, this scheme is all wrong. Let us grant that incumbents do indeed benefit from a message monopoly and a money monopoly. Okay, fine; but we still need to appraise the significance of this datum and ask ourselves why it is so, whether or not it is a bad thing in and of itself, and whether things can or ought to be any different.
If the same dirtbags keep getting reelected to Congress year after year, despite their obvious shortcomings, we can infer from this fact that both man and nature tend to favor stable, magisterial governments; and that voters will preference stable, magisterial governments over almost any other outcome, preferring them even to what might be considered their own enlightened self-interests. In fact, as Leo Linbeck amply documents, the makeup of Congress would hardly be any different if we simply dispensed with elections altogether and created the current incumbents an hereditary peerage. Conclusion: Elections scarcely have any effect on the operations of centralized government, and might be considered irrelevant except as lagniappe.
There are some (Linbeck) who will look at these data and say, “Aha, democracy is broken! Let us fix it forthwith.” But is that really the correct analysis? Is democracy really broken, or does power simply operate according to its own fixed nature, independent of any constitutional schemes imposed upon it by well-meaning (small ‘D’) democrats? In order for anyone to decide that matter for himself, all he needs to do is ask himself a handful of simple questions as if he were trying to get something accomplished in the world. These questions have no fixed number or style, but the Platonic form of what I’m driving at can be indicated in just a very few examples.
1. If I saw a problem that needed fixing, or wanted some new statutory law enacted in my favor, to whom would I go to make my case? (Answer: Probably to those vested with the authority of making and enforcing the laws.)
2. If I was a man with a business interest and had some spare money to throw into the pot, would I use at least some of that money to try to secure favor for my interest from the powers that be? (Answer: Yes, unless I was an idiot.)
3. If I were the one holding power, and if the responsibility for keeping the peace throughout the entire realm fell squarely upon my shoulders, would it not be shrewd and prudent, for any number of reasons, to have the best and brightest in every field working for me? (Answer: Obviously.)
4. Furthermore, would it not be a challenge to my authority, and hence disruptive, if I failed to maintain physical, fiscal, and intellectual parity with any potential rival, either foreign or domestic? (Answer: Now you’re starting to talk like a man, said Tevya to the poor tailor.)
5. Therefore, would it not be a good idea if I were to secure my own power base against attack, and regard this as the first and fundamental duty of a prince; which duty must be discharged before said prince can engage any of those loftier duties befitting his noble person, and for which his subjects will be proud to claim him as their own? (Answer: Yes, a very good idea indeed.)
You see where I’m going with this. It is in the very nature of power to be insular, to consist predominantly in a clique of insiders who speak their own patois and orchestrate their efforts according to a secret music which was not formed for each and every ear. It is in the nature of power, also, to attract wealth and talent to itself; to patronize those geniuses of art and intellect who add to the majesty of the state, so that it is in the glory of the courts where the most sublime creations can be found. It is power to whom courtiers go to make their supplications, to ask for a favor or a ruling on this or that. And it is power that every jealous upstart and foreign rival desires, and will seek to grab for himself by every subtlety and treachery his mind can devise.
Some will say that this milieu corrupts; and so it does. One must be made of stern stuff to play this game at all. To play it well requires rare talent and instinct. To play it such that your love of justice never falters in the face of temptation and trial requires nothing less than divine intervention. But still, this is the game that must be played. This is the way of the world, which no will of man can rescind or anywise contrive to alter.
In light of this, we must say that democracy — and especially democracy in the American mould, which explicitly involves the separation of powers and the impotency of the executive as desiderata — has something other-worldly about it. Like antimatter, it cannot exist outside of carefully controlled laboratory conditions. What Leo Linbeck has offered here is a deconstruction, not of a sick American democracy that must be restored to health, but of power itself. He does not like the world as it is, but unfortunately there is no place else to go. An antimatter government will not survive in our universe.
Leo Linbeck’s proposed solution (which is logically the only possible solution, the Hegelian antithesis of the status quo — so kudos to him for elucidating it) is to dematerialize power as both idea and fact, by making incumbents “compete” for their seats in Congress. But since any successful challenger will eventually have the same demands and prerogatives of power thrust upon him, the same necessity for isolation and the means to achieve it, the trick then becomes to incorporate competition into the very heart of the system by a constant barrage of information and voting. (We may mention parenthetically that this program savors of the techniques of the revolutionary Left — it is a sort of white-hat Gramscianism. But need I mention, to a forum full of Tolkienians, that it is dangerous to meddle with the Enemy’s arts?) Analytically, this is a non-starter. Competition does not exist in the abstract; it is always a competition for something; and what the combatants compete for is, in this case, power, with all the concomitant privileges that implies. If you take the carrot away at the start of the furrow, why do you expect the mule to pull the plow?
Practically, this is nothing but a prescription for anarchy. A slow-motion sort of anarchy perhaps, but anarchy nonetheless. Nature abhors a political vacuum no less than a physical, and she will register her disapproval by inflicting social chaos, poverty, and slavery on any nation foolish enough to think that it can dispense with the need for a sovereign. American democracy fails to recognize the universal rules of power-politics. We still have our princes; the only difference is that now we have ironical ones: they all must pretend not to be princes. Consequently we place no one but established liars and prevaricators in public office, fostering unrealistic expectations and disappointing us time and time again. And it is our own silly fault. That is the problem with Washington. It is not that democracy is broken, except in the sense that democracy is always broken. “Democracy” fell stillborn from the pens of sophisticated fools. The problem is the lack of sovereigns who know their business.
So what is to be done? We need to replace our inept barons with ones who will actually govern competently — yes. Can Leo Linbeck’s plan do this? Perhaps, but it must be considered as a mere revolutionary technique, not as the ideological framework of a permanent form of constituional government; i.e. it should only be tried once. My guess is that it will not work by itself, but it will serve as a signal that much more portentuous events are in the offing. It was an avenue that had to be explored first, a sort of pro forma attempt at diplomacy without which the subsequent uprising would lack legitimacy and class. To that extent it is salutary, but it is not enough.
The parting issue for conservatives to bear in mind is that democracy is not really compatible with our worldview. We are supposed to be champions of reality, but democracy is not reality. It is fiction masquerading as fact, the mother and wellspring of all the political correctness we claim to hate. Let democracy die a justly-deserved death. We must be very clear about what we ought to desire before we can work towards its realization, and that is the Holy Roman Empire, throne and altar resurrected and united.
The age of the Caesars is upon us. We must use the intrinsic nature of power-politics to our advantage rather than undertake the fool’s errand of trying to negate it. It is really our proper domain anyway, the role we were born and called for. It is the Leftists who are the natural enemies of reality, not us. It is they who destroy the Natural Law, they who reduce all worthy things — Church and State, man and woman, hearth and home — to the level of concepts to drained and exploited. It is they who gave birth to democracy, and for centuries have used it to advance their hideous agenda. It must not be so with us. We are the loyal subjects of all that is true, the servants of Christ the King.
The great battle of our age is coming to a head. The meaning and import of these times is now clear for all who wish to see. The Democrats no longer need the white working class; the Left has thrown down its gauntlet. Now is the time when we all must decide where we stand.
I bid thee stand, Men of the West.
Matt, kudos for an inspiring comment. Small quibble. If we were a Democratic Republic instead of a Democracy would it affect your challenging analysis?
Late yesterday afternoon I got a phone invitation to attend Robert Spencer’s talk in Sydney. It had been fully booked for some days but someone had an extra ticket and … would I come?
The audience seemed at least as interesting as the speaker since Spencer had been billed as something of a right-wing vampire (cross indexed as seen in this link, with “racists” and “USA”). I came not only to see the “devil”, but those who would hear the “devil” speak.
But apart from a doctor, author and IT guys I recognized, most of the audience was unknown to me, but some actually wore beards and ponytails — all the fashion items one associates with Occupy — except that these bathed. That was interesting, I said to myself.
The meeting opened with master of ceremonies reading the audience the riot act. We were reminded of the existing hate speech laws; admonished to mind our p’s and q’s. To forestall the possibility that anyone might faint in the audience, a short synopsis of Spencer’s views was stated and any unwary attendee thereby warned. Finally the speaker ended by saying that while certain distressing subjects might be mentioned, it was not be construed as reflecting on any cultural group, creed or association. It was like those 1940s cartoons which began with the disclaimer that “all resemblance between the events depicted and persons living or dead is purely coincidental”.
But they needn’t have bothered. Although Spencer went through his routine review of history and practice of the Jihad, most of the concern was really for what some regarded as the criminal blindness and treachery of the Australian political class. “All we have to do is stand up and remember who we are, and the extra-cultural threat will fold.” But no one would stand, least of all those who might be expected to. Not the Church of England, not the political class, not the journalists.
Many of those present spoke with great bitterness of the loss of confidence, self-hatred and sheer wishful thinking that had been taught in the schools, the churches and daily preached in the media.
Some were actually afraid that their employers might find out that they had been to the Robert Spencer talk. “How can I speak out, even a little”, one asked, “without risking my job and social acceptance?”
Spencer’s answer was brutal. “You can’t,” he said. “You will be mercilessly punished, tarred and feathered, even physically menaced by everything in their arsenal.” Nothing he said, illustrated the fact of the cultural aggression as much as their own palpable fear. When some asked what they could do, Spencer gave advice that might have been out of the Acts of the Epistles. Basically his advice was to hold fast in small groups; to keep the flame flickering.
Muslims, he said, were not the enemy. A great many of them were just like that frightened group, meeting secretly, exchanging confidential winks, living on the edges. I felt like an early member of the Church at a meeting in the catacombs.
That brought home to me more than anything else just how far along, in comparative terms the political situation in the United States is. The Tea Party and various other efforts, Leo’s plan to contest the primaries, described above, the scheme to raise money and push messaging — these are streets, miles ahead of where many other societies are now in.
Societies like Australia are just now realizing that the problem isn’t even the Jihad, but with their own elites who have sold them, their financial future and cultural heritage down the river. In many places, to use a campaign metaphor, people are just stirring in their sleeping bags. They are beginning to realize that the political modalities of parliamentary societies, just like the American two-party system, needs waking up from below.
For all its newness and shortcomings, the grassroots political opposition in the US is much further ahead; and have gotten as far as opening one eye and the trying to disentangle their muskets from the stacking swivel. By and by they may even get up and sip coffee.
The miracle isn’t that some of Leo’s and others like them initiatives may succeed; the miracle is that they’ve gotten this far at all. That will be recognized in retrospect for the achievement that it is.
And a lot of that “miracle” will be due to the enterprise of people who have given up their jobs, or invested huge amounts of time and money to … do what? What did they want these patriots? Was it some hoped for return to a better America? Or a new one? I had the feeling they would fight even if they knew they would lose.
As I walked out the Spencer meeting meeting two hours before midnight, a friend approached me and asked whether it was possible to live without speaking your mind; for he had to to half-censor his thoughts in his government job. I told him that there was no hypocrisy in that; just the way things were. And then I realized what it was all about. What the what was.
Freedom is not some state attained in the far future; some condition of perfection that arrives after a change or turning of the world. Freedom is the determination to take possession of your life for the duration of your days. It does not require even victory. It only requires that you resist.
So if there’s a chance to break the media monopoly on messaging; to crack the stranglehold on the dollars; if there’s an opportunity to stop another run of 16 reelections of someone who should never have been elected in the first place, then it would be a golden opportunity that should not be missed. Even the slightest success will let Barney know, in retirement, that for all his efforts the spark still smolders beneath the breast.
I think the urge to freedom is universal; even in Saudi Arabia. Spencer’s best line of the evening came when he described the cost of resistance to the audience and explained why it should be paid. Living as a free man, he said, is bought at a great price. ‘I do not know how Australians will put it, but I know how Americans did when they faced the choice. For there is no great enterprise that does not in a resolve that in its fulfillment “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”‘
#20 49erDweet
Governor Barbour’s movement away from the RNC seems instructive. Any comments on that aspect?
I commented on that yesterday at a piece at PJ Media by Romney-bot Myra Adams. Adams was discussing Barbour’s move to the Crossroads PAC instead of the RNC; and the positive commentary from Politico and Newsweek on the matter. She also mentioned that Barbour was joining Karl Rove at Crossroads. Which was enough of a revelation for me.
If I may repeat myself:
Subotai Bahadur
There is another thing here Leo, I think that’s appropriate to address.
Longevity is not necessarily a bad thing. Why? Because it takes time to figure out the ropes in DC. And even longer to become effective. We’re not talking about just a year or two.
Another approach to this issue was by term limits. The problem with term limits is that just as an elected official gets good at the game — he gets the sky hook.
What happens then? His power doesn’t magically vanish. Rather power flows to the unelected permanent bureaucracy.
When revolving door Japanese elected officials come to the USA to chat with the president–they are typically not the ones who have the real powers. Rather its the unelected bureaucrats who Shepard them around and hang out just beyond camera view.
Again, the point here is that longevity is not necessarily a bad thing–especially in the face of a permanent bureaucracy.
#22. Matt – “democracy” is a bit of a distraction. The American model is not “democracy”, but a “constitutional republic”. The power of the sovereign is meant to be limited by competing interests – the 3 branches of the Federal Government and the many powers (supposed to be) reserved to the states.
L3 – I worry about the opportunities for mischief. My congressional district is Wisc. 1 (Paul Ryan). This is NOT a solid conservative district. Obama actually carried it narrowly in 2008, while Ryan was winning handily against a non-entity. BUT what if Democrats conspired with a fringe Republican in an attempt to knock out Ryan in the primary. Suppose this fringe Republican got 10%-15% of the Republican vote plus a huge turnout of Democrats forsaking their own primary in order to knock out Ryan. Makes me nervous.
SB. I tend to agree.
The Establishment apologists for The Man in general are on the run. Look at this exchange:
http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5795&cpage=1#comment-85097
Andy,
Misha the Tie Eater honored those 300,000 dead Georgians so much that he blew up the Soviet era monument to them, so it had to be painstakingly reconstructed by an ethnic Georgian sculptor in Moscow.
You may recall that this whole discussion started because the SWP had one of his pathologically Russophobic moments, letting the mask slip by saying he’d rather the Pentagon pay huge bribes to the corrupt, anti-American (but in this case, justifiably pissed off) Pakistanis to keep the Kyhber Pass open after NATO killed 27 of their soldiers than send more supplies through Russia/Uzbekistan. If that doesn’t fit the definition of Russophobia and Russophobic derangement — cutting off America’s nose to spite Putin’s face — then I don’t know what does.
And also I don’t know if it gets more ridiculous than a British imperialist (so proud of those Pakistani stiff upper lips slipping IEDs to the Taliban to kill Americans!) playing the race card against some other group of people. You remind me of nothing more than those La Raza trolls who periodically appear over at Pajamas Media praising Reconquista of the U.S. (the ones proclaiming that inshaAllah they Muslims will conquer Europe are more amusing). They too wallow in perpetual ethnic victimhood while ignoring the fact that their ‘race’ has and continues to victimize and brutalize others (Mexicans beating their own illegals from Central America and slaughtering each other in narcowars, Georgian violence towards Ossetians and Abkhazians). And of course, in your constant, ‘we’re all Russia’s victim’s historical revisionism, Iosef V. Dzughashvili was a pure bred Russian who happened to be born in Gori. Clearly Georgia has nothing historically to apologize for while Russians should be in sackcloth and ashes bowed down to all non-Russian nationalities of the FSU every day. The Reconquista analogy is perfect since 25% of the Georgian population chooses to live – wait for it – inside the Russian Federation! That’s more than the mere 1 out of 6 Mexicans who choose to go to El Norte, either legally or mostly illegally.
Ole’ ‘tip of the spear’ Andy missed the Polish link flatly contradicting his lie that no U.S. bombers or important aircraft transited RF airspace after 9/11 — it’s here once again just for good feeling:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6iJywvu_Tu0J:kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/114974/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/530121eb-7a0f-4965-829c-630a7fa8cafa/en/a121-2010.pdf+post+9/11+Russian+air+space+for+Afghanistan&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjO5nRQdFHtmoUhosLNs_U6WLaMknyaVR8TiaTvXlYeHzDtpSQJmkdLv607Meziul5Bc-bvtkcRI_rn5U4DqLRip9xS5ne-EMMF8xOdYR9vLpZeRHRgrYaEGhqWSX9O8IHqf8GI&sig=AHIEtbQHOTKDIxs_G1EI-MDHHcKsdw6J5A
Andy provides no link or evidence for his statement that the video he says was shot on the scene actually was rather than being spliced together from Georgian combat footage (as the one clip he did provide a link to) appears. He wallows in perpetual Georgian and other CIS nationality victimhood while blaming Russia for everything, while ignoring the case of Latvia where Latvians who celebrate their SS forebears continue to die out, perhaps paving the way for that nation to join the 4th Reich at some point in the near future.
So goodbye Andy, I hope you have some valuable skills milking goats when the British foreign aid to Georgia stops and the rioting and police state crackdown starts in your homeland renamed globalist Airstrip One. Because of course, only insane maniacs like Aldous Huxley or George Orwell believed that a tyrannical one world government was coming upon the British Isles.
Comment by Mr. X — November 29, 2011 @ 2:59 pm
http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5795&cpage=1#comment-85102
Rytb,
Did you or did you not swear an oath to defend this country against ‘all enemies, foreign and domestic’ which would include plutocrat traitors (see Wikipedia under Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC), or do you only want to refight the Cold War endlessly and do what you’re told, in hopes they’ll gut your VA benefits and pension last? Unfortunately that’s the first thing on the unconstitutional super duper committee’s cross hairs, since they don’t dare cut the military bases we have in 120 countries. Only that kooky old Ron Paul is proposing to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
[I'll wager when he sees what he's done he'll feel silly].
X@29
Ooh. NICE snark.
L3 @13,
Thanks for the response. Running effective campaigns without coordination will be a difficult and interesting task. This is something that Club for Growth has done for a number of years, though they pursue a policy agenda rather than a straight anti-incumbent agenda. I would think that a policy agenda makes the task easier because you can always advertise on your group’s agenda. It seems like you will need to poll in many cases to choose the most effective issues.
One effect of these laws is that candidates and political parties are steadily losing control over the campaigns that they run. The candidate ends up with no knowledge of major decisions made on his behalf, and can lose control over the issues that come to define his candidacy. If an independent actor makes a mistake, that mistake can also redound on the candidate. The limits on what a political party can contribute to a candidate further reduce the influence of a weak American political parties.
I have long been an opponent of the campaign finance laws as they have developed. I would prefer a system of unlimited giving and instant reporting. Then people could decide for themselves if a particular candidate has been bought and if that bothers them. For example, if Warren Buffett donates $100 million to the President, this would certainly become an issue. This change would certainly make it much easier for challengers who would be able to launch a campaign based on the support of a much smaller circle of donors.
Our current campaign finance law is struggling mightily, but ineffectively against organized interests influencing our politics. It’s like trying to prevent water from running downhill. As the government seizes more and more influence and control over more and more industries, the incentive to influence politicians grows. It’s silly that to have a government picking winners and losers, deciding who will be rich and who will be bankrupt, and then pretending to be shocked when people bend the process to their own purposes. The only real way to control the money would be to limit government power and reduce its control over commerce. Otherwise the task of controlling money is both hopeless and destructive of our First Amendment rights.
You’re taking on a hard and noble task. Good luck.
m @ 22: I bid thee stand, Men of the West
… This is the hour of doom!?
That was advice from Gandalf to stand still, not to stand up. Things were about to turn one way or the other, and as it turned out, well, due to the efforts and sacrifices of others.
Y’know, nowhere in LOTR do I recall a line exorting anybody to keep fighting against Sauron, only encouragement if they are already doing it. Nor offhand in C.S. Lewis. In the LOTR movie, Peter Jackson has Sam give a little motivational speech based on some offhand comments in the text, but even that is rather modest.
So Barney the F_g is packing it in. He figures this is the right time to beat it.
He’s blowing off 36 years in Congress. Must think it’s time to turn the page.
Where does this count on the incumbent scale? He could have gone on getting re-elected for a while. A few more terms at least.
I think that Leo Linbeck sees a political system that is closed to everyone who is not a club member. Club members are the incumbent holders of power and all those apparatchiks who support, serve and nourish the incumbent holders of power. His solution is simply to try to make club membership open to anybody who is eligible to vote in the U.S. The idea is that a fundamental change in club membership will cause a fundamental change in the nature of the club.
L3 is not sitting on his bum and pontificating about what is or is not possible. He is standing up and doing what he believes should be done. Neither success nor failure are guaranteed. I’m guessing he thinks that’s the way it should be. His kind of effort takes a long time to bear fruit. We have a recent example of this kind of effort in Canada. It involved the creation of a third party. I realize that Leo is trying a different approach to a third party with his initiative but the Canadian experience is relevant.
In Canada, the Reform Party of Canada was a Western-based political party that grew out of a coalition of discontented Western interest groups. The coalition began in 1986 as an attempt to voice Western concerns at the national level. The Reform Party’s major preoccupations, however, were with decentralizing and otherwise reducing the size, scope and cost of government, primarily by cuts to social welfare and cultural support programs (including bilingualism and multiculturalism) and firm opposition to Québec’s demands for special status within Confederation. Progressives ridiculed Reform as a bunch of bitter clingers and extreme nutballs.
Reform failed to win a seat in the 1988 federal election. Support for the Reform Party waned until rebounding again during the 1993 election. Disillusionment with the traditional political parties in general, and with the PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE Party specifically, saw the Reform Party win 52 seats, 22 of 26 in Alberta, 24 of 30 in British Columbia, 4 in Saskatchewan, and one in Manitoba.
Reform’s fortunes sagged following the 1993 election. Nonetheless, the Canadian election of June 1997 saw the Reform Party of Canada register a stunning success in emerging as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. In 2000 Reform merged with other conservatives to form the Canadian Alliance Psrty. In 2003 the Alliance merged with remaining conservatives to form the new Conservative Party of Canada. The new Conservative Party formed a minority Canadian government on February 6, 2006. In May 2011 The Conservative Party formed a majority government.
The Reform Party was created in in 1987. It took 24 years for its ideas to go from being ridiculed by Progressives to becoming embedded in the mainstream of a Majority Conservative government. The result is far from perfect but it has changed Canada for the better.
Leo is starting now. Based on the Canadian experience he should be done and dusted by 2035. Sure it will take a long time and the dogged efforts of many people. It might well change course a few times and there will be ups and downs.
The alternative is for people to go all bitter and twisted on the sidelines. That would not be my choice. I wish Leo Linbeck great success.
If my memory serves me correctly, L3 started shortly after Fancy Nancy was sworn in. This latest plan is just an evolution.
America is an Oligarchy. With the (R)’s and (D)’s of the matter being very changeable.
While I’m not advocating armed revolution, I am pointing out that historically, nothing else has worked. I’m also caching arms and ammo.
I leave the URL to his site where ever I go. HuffyPo, Mother Jones, DU. the Onion, etc. I suspect they delete it but I have no control over that.
L3 has to compete with this;
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-10yearold-boys-if-you-see-someone-raping-u,26724/
L3′s plan WILL work, only as wretch says, it’s an uphill battle. The WWW isn’t mature enough yet to challenge the MSM directly.
According to Bob Beckel, it takes about 500,000$US a week just to stay even in a contest for POTUS. I guess that is salary, accommodations, communicatios, etc. Major ad buys are above and beyond that. A good ad in a major market can reach several hundred thousand voters. RIGHT THEN. A vid going viral can reach millions but over time. So the major impact of the web so far is it’s help in raising money to spend on ads. The best thing about that is those that send money via the web don’t expect earmarks making them millions.
Matt #22
Eloquent post. You do a good job describing our system’s feet of clay.
But while you claim that democracy is antimatter, only existing in a bubble world, you miss the log in your own eye.
Holy Catholic Empires died three times – Rome, Constantinople, and Vienna. Like the antimatter, or, perhaps, like hothouse flowers, each went down the same trajectory. It died each time because in a way far more so than democratic republics, theocratic hereditary monarchies are highly limited forms of government. They are limited philosophically by concentration of authority and the ossification and inability to respond to changes from your neighbors that always accompanies it (see VDH’s excellent analysis in Carnage and Culture) and they fall apart genetically when the the aristocracy and nobility limit their gene pool so severely to keep wealth and poweer in the family that double recessives eventually take them out.
Hans Hermann Hoppe was wrong. Democracy was a tool, never a god, and it hasn’t failed. No hereditary theocratic nation was ever as good (true, conservative good) as America even in our current state. To believe otherwise is to go down the path of ultra libertarians like Lew Rockwell and company, people who espouse much that true conservatives like yourself rightly fight against.
Richard,
I did not realize that things were so bad in Australia vis-à-vis the political/cultural situation. Perhaps you would consider writing about it, so that ignorant people such as yours truly can become better informed?
I always thought that the Aussie national character was resistant to the progressive strains that have infected American body politic. I thought, for instance, that political correctness was antithetical to their temperament.
the Aussie national character was resistant
It is resistant, but resistant in a different way. There is a tremendous respect in Australia for law and order; a tradition of obedience and deference to their social leadership which makes it vulnerable in a way, I think, that America is not.
But what constitutes the bedrock of resistance is similarly ineffable. It springs from a memory of the “way things should be”; a kind of unwritten contract. Therefore the Australian is, I think, at once less conscious of his discontents yet feels them more deeply than a more ‘conscious’ political culture like America which relies more strongly on explicit ideas.
That is how I see it at least, as an outsider. And I am a double or triple outsider, who is at the same time not completely alien. So while I may see some things more clearly it is also true there are some things I will never see at all. I will never “get” Australia in a pitch-perfect sense, possibly because you cannot ever gain admission by a mere effort of the mind. You have to “feel the Force” and there is too much, in my case, that is already in the way.
In the main Australia is less vulnerable, I think, than Britain precisely because its zeitgeist is more intact; and that zeitgeist is slowly rousing itself and will move in mysterious ways. I cannot pretend to understand it, except in a vague way.
Yet it is all one world. What seems clear to me is that American political developments are on the edge of a great, but still inchoate wave. If it is not leading the way, it is in the forefront, which is not quite the same thing.
The Tea Party, the campaign to contest the primaries, though they are American as apple pie, contain within them universal concepts which resonate everywhere, perhaps because what the tyranny which threatens us all is everywhere too. Those ideas have yet to be universalized; and perhaps they long ago have been. But it remains for us to explain them again and in Eliot’s words, to “know if for the first time”
L3′s two letters seem really important…
After reading this post, I had a fairly difficult time finding the original post. Is it possible to do something more formal to have links to both of these on the home page or at the top of BC?
Just saying…
Matt @22,
Beautifully done. Continuing the thrust and parry:
There is no doubt that your core point – the nature of power is to protect, and then corrupt itself – is true. The design of the American system – democratic, to be sure, but first a republic – is the reason that we have sustained as long as we have.
Power, to be managed in a large scale enterprise, must be dispersed. It was, in fact, one of the great innovations of Christian ecclesiology – subsidiarity. The organizational design of the Church was to make decisions as low in the hierarchy as practical, but no lower.
Much of the dysfunction we are experiencing is due to the unhealthy, but (as you point out) natural accumulation of power in the center. That power creates pollution in the form of corruption, of which the corruption of the electoral system is but a part. You have correctly identified the true problem: power tends to accumulate naturally, and it takes tremendous effort to keep it dispersed. It is like a law of bizarro thermodynamics, a sort of anti-entropy, or a black hole.
(Sorry, started to slip back into engineer mode. Just a moment…whew. OK. I’m better now.)
Anyway, the republican design of our system was supposed to keep power dispersed. States were protected by the Tenth Amendment from federal expansion. The Senate was chosen by state legislatures. Some critical rights of the people were enumerated in the Constitution, to provide an unambiguous statement that centralized power has its limits.
The Progressive Movement was the inflection point for our nation’s trajectory. The 16th and 17th Amendment; primary elections; the administrative, Bismarckian state and its attendant bureaucracy; the expansion of federal power; and, of course, the War to End All Wars.
After 100 years on this trajectory, we are now left with two choices. One is to continue on the trajectory we’re on, which will lead to a future catastrophic failure, with the likely outcome being the people trading freedom for security – judging from history, in the form of tyranny.
The second is to attempt to change the trajectory mid-flight, under manual control. The autopilot is no longer reliable, and we must retake the controls and attempt to steer back toward a sustainable path.
Ultimately, Washington DC must shrink by 2/3rds if we are to return to that right path. Most of the decisions currently made in Washington DC must be made by individuals, voluntary associations, local governments, or states. The scale of federal power must be reduced. We must restore self-governance.
The problem is that this accumulated power will not be surrendered voluntarily. It must be taken.
One option is to take it by force of arms. This is the least desirable way, as it destroys enormous human capital along the way. And given that human capital is the true source of wealth in any society, that would exact a tremendous toll.
The other option is to use elections. The powerful still respect elections. If voted out, they will leave office and hand over that power to their successor, peacefully.
But it is not a one-shot deal. “Retiring” a large number of incumbents will not create a structural change. That can only come through ongoing citizen engagement after the election, demanding of their new (and newly accountable) representatives that they surrender a large chunk of their power.
That is only possible for a relatively new representative. Freshmen may be elected, but they have no power yet. For them to give up what they don’t yet possess is conceivable. And if there are enough of them, they can compel the leadership to disperse the power that has been accumulated. How? By threatening to elect a new leader in their stead.
Until the power structure in Washington DC perceives that the engaged electorate can fire them, they will not change their behavior. They are acting irresponsibly because that is the politically profitable way for them to act. Change the incentives, and their behavior will change. Their current choice is between giving up a lot of their power or keeping all their power with no consequences. They will choose the latter. Always.
Their choice needs to change to between giving up a lot of their power, or losing their leadership post, or losing their seat.
Could this create the conditions of anarchy? Perhaps. But it could also create the conditions under which self-governance is restored. I have a lot of faith in Americans. I’ve observed too much spontaneous goodness from people when they are presented with the opportunity to work with their neighbors to believe we no longer have it in us.
I always wondered what happened to the ring of power. I know it melted in Mount Doom, but what then? The metal was still there when the volcano exploded, as was the malice of Sauron. They were blown across the land, dispersed in to innumerable nooks and crannies of the landscape of Mordor. I always assumed that Mordor stayed a dark and gloomy place as a result, even after the Dark Lord was beaten. But The Shire was saved, as was Gondor and Rohan.
We will never eliminate human vice. All was can do it try to keep it dispersed. Allowing it to continue to pile up into a huge, steaming mass of corruption is a terrible mistake. We’ll never get it cleaned up until we stop the inflow.
The solution to pollution is dilution. But first we have to close the effluent valve.
Cheers,
L3
#40/wretchard
Thanks for that terrific explanation. Brilliantly illuminating. I wholly agree that, as you say, “American political developments are on the edge of a great, but still inchoate wave.” Emphasis, to my way of thinking, on “inchoate.” As a military historian I’m moved to analogize the situation: we are, I think, in the mid-1942 period of the struggle. The outcome is by no means certain. We could still lose this thing. But we have fought and won our Coral Sea and Midway (the recent landslide elections). Now we are taking the offensive à la Guadalcanal. Let’s hope we don’t experience a Savo Island … or, if we do, that we recover from it with the same grit and can-do determination that we exhibited in the aftermath of that naval debacle of August 1942.
L3 @18: “In the mean time, I’d like to be clear: we’re not proposing to get people to start “jumping into the other Party’s primary.” ”
Well, that’s precisely what happened here in Alabama during the last gubernatorial race. The Repubs had two clear front-runners, one who vowed, among other things, to go after the state teachers’ union (which is a big logjam down here). You can guess what happened: the Dems, realizing they weren’t going to win the governorship, got the teachers all lathered up, and they in turn voted in large numbers during the open Republican primary for the milquetoast candidate. Result: the milquetoast won the nomination, and that’s who we now have in office. Nice guy, but the state teacher’s union is still gumming up the works.
In my mind, the first thing we gotta do is fix the primary system so that only Republicans can vote for the Republican candidate. I realize that may cause problems for those registered as independent, but as long as the Dems can turn the crank on their very successful get-out-the vote effort and booger the primary results, we’re going to have trouble getting energetic candidates into office.
Is it possible to do something more formal to have links to both of these on the home page or at the top of BC?
I have put the link to the first letter in the text of Leo’s second, where he refers to it. I should have done that in the first place.
44. Abbie Normal
I agree with you about abolishing open primaries. I live in Pennsylvania, where we have closed primaries. You have to be registered as Republican or Democrat in order to vote for those parties’ candidates. I was registered independent for years, and could only vote on ballot questions in the primaries. I changed my registration to Republican in 2004 in order to vote against Arlen Specter. You can change your registration pretty much whenever you want, although there are deadlines you have to meet in order to vote in the upcoming primary. I think it’s a month or two beforehand. Of course, you can vote for whomever you like in the general election without regard to party affiliation.
I think the idea of open primaries makes a mockery of the whole process. With closed primaries, Republicans will tend to vote for the best Republican candidate and Democrats will vote for the best Democrat candidate. With open primaries, you could have Republicans voting for who they perceive to be the weakest Democrat, and Democrats voting for the weakest Republican. The flaw in that system should be pretty obvious.
—
14. Leo Linbeck III
That’s a good history of the primary system and how it replaced the “smoke-filled room”. One thing that has occurred to me in the current cycle (and to a lesser extent, the last one) is that the interminable series of debates seem to be replacing the primary system. I can’t get the thought out of my head that the point of the whole exercise is to allow the MSM to declare a clear front-runner before any of those pesky voters get to have their say. In addition, why is the Republican Party allowing these debates to be moderated by MSM liberals from CNN and MSNBC? Why have no debates been moderated by someone like Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh?
Abbie Normal @44,
In my mind, the first thing we gotta do is fix the primary system so that only Republicans can vote for the Republican candidate.
There is another solution to this problem: get more people to vote in the Republican primary.
The question is whether you improve the system by further closing it, or further opening it. If, at the extreme, everyone voted in the primary, the winner (whether burnt toast or milquetoast) would accurately reflect the choice of the total electorate. Even if the milquetoast candidate won, he wouldn’t be as beholden to the teachers’ unions – they would be just one of many groups that helped him win.
The problem with further closing the primary is that it enhances the power of the incumbents. The parties are controlled by the incumbents, not the other way around. If you limit eligibility in the primaries, you’re further limiting competition. (This already happens in states like New York.) It also wouldn’t stop the “primary jumping” – it would just add another step (changing parties), which would lead to further retaliation (e.g. establishing a “litmus test” for what it means to be a Republican), and so on.
My preference would be to work to drive up participation, rather than further limit it. But you may well have a different, and more valid perspective in your neck of the woods.
Cheers,
L3
I hope we can fix this problem through elections and involvement but I honestly believe it will be solved the same way as last time, civil war. Sadly, for the same reason, some wanting to enslave others. I’m sick and tired of having my labor confiscated by threat of imprisonment for lazy, stupid opportunists. I just want to be left alone but that, apparently, is too much to ask.
9
Frank SPECIFICALLY mentioned the redistricting as the fundamental reason he’s retiring.
There should be term limits and instead of sending one congressman to Wash. there should be two, the top 2 vote getters, Rep, Dem or Ind. and they share the same office and staff in order to stop demonizing each other, watch each other and think of the greater good.
This is all very interesting and encouraging. Robert Bork, Charleton Heston and George Washington Plunkitt have commented in writing on the importance of working locally, starting in the smallest ways relevant to our own experience, to effect real, lasting change.
I used to write to 11-14 people every time a (single issue) federal or state matter of shared importance was presented. I’d provide relevant legislators names and addresses, suggested text, and recommended communication on post-cards because they aren’t held-up like post-9/11 sealed envelopes! I stopped all of that some years ago probably because I was too busy. Actually, I really was too busy. Shameful. These citizens/recipients would actually give me money because they wanted to keep receiving the pre-addressed post cards! Try Plunkitt, and get back to it. Where do I sign-up again? Oh, yeah…
To use an important example, when the time came to vote on Obamacare, the Democrats all voted for it, and the Republicans voted against it.
Thus I perceive the problem not as one of ‘too many incumbents’, but as one of ‘too many Democrats’.
Other than that, the article was interesting.
We are at present fully able to contribute from our private coffers to folks whose fortunes we would like to advance in races going forward in far distant provinces.
This will help those candidates a little, and if, God Willing, they prevail, it will in the fullness of time help this country turn back toward the light.
More to the point, it will greatly piss off the apparatchiks in the top echelons of both parties.
Really, can you think of a more satisfying ROI?
It seems that Anders Brievik has been judged to be stark raving looney.
I guess they could not admit that his fears were justified.
one of the main benefits of all this would be that when or if an incumbent wins by more narrowing margins, the message starts to get out that maybe this guy may indeed suck. The taint could start to show up in the chaos produced when an electorate starts putting elected (incumbent) officers on probation. republicans are notorious for talking the talk, and promising the promise, but the system can start to be calibrated by the number of beads of sweat that start showing up on an incumbent’s forehead proportionate with an electorate that has grown impatient with the hackneyed rhetoric.
Hmm. If its the case that the House has become the place for party hacks because of the primary system established by progressives in the early 20th century–and that consequently — the senate is the place where the people’s will is expressed–then it makes most sense to focus attention on the senate rather than the house.
Its not just a question of how do you get the kind of attendance at the voting booths that democracies in Europe and Asia get. Why not? Because even greater attendance does not assure a more representative democracy.
Rather the question is how do you get voters to vote based on a more informed opinion–especially when all the channels are blocked.
That’s very hard. I think the completed idea that Leo is working on is developing a farm system consisting of men of independent means who have been trained to serve the interests of their constituents back home. The messaging system Leo discusses to inform the electorate would also serve to advance the cause of any such men just as the current messaging system advances the careers of incumbents.
The democrats are working the system from a different angle. What they’re interested in doing is abolishing not the primary system but rather the electoral college for the election of the president. By doing this they will effectively make irrelevant much of the country in national elections–such that blue states like California, New York and Illinois plus large blue metropolitan areas like philadelphia and Houston would control the election.
They’re getting closer to achieving this every year. I heard an alarm sounded about this from republicans in the last year. I don’t know where this initiative is currently–though it may have died after the pubbies took over so many statehouses after the last election.
Elections seem almost moot if the ACLU claims are accurate.
Another fine bipartisan effort.
Serious this time. This is the last Senor Equis farewell to my fellow BCers. I’m not giving the bastards an IP address to home in on, they’ll have to come after me the old fashioned way.
http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=5799#comments
link in which Senor Equis apologizes for linking to ‘ha ha ha America’ China parody videos, which may or may not be derogatory towards our Chinese neighbors in this global village. But they’re not our real overlords all hype aside. I don’t see a PLA general running Government Sachs and putting GS men in running all positions of authority across the EU. It wasn’t Hu or Putin who just decided they can lock you up without trial, period, indefinitely, on American soil, when there’s already plenty of laws against conspiracy and terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/4/JvtZaDSKNNY
Corsi talks the ‘s’ word again. I’d prefer monetary secession rather than the kind that left millions dead in the 1860s. Can we just maintain the union and start dealing in gold and silver currency — or even oil and gas backed paper — call it the Dakota-U-Tex…pretty please?
P.S. I agree with Ann Coulter on McCain. As the film J. Edgar said, “Even good men can be corrupted”. What a parody of young McCain who wanted our troops out of Lebanon he’s become — a loyal servant to his master Soros and the other globalist bastards behind the curtain…including in his best buddy Misha the Tie Eater, another Soros puppet.
Stay thirsty my friends. I’ll miss my old sparring partner Buddy Larsen and my dear Marie Claude.
Blast (4),
Yes, you’re asserting the same thing you did earlier.
And I agree, if the net effect is just to strengthen the D’s and weaken the R’s, nothing will have been gained (in fact we may be worse off.)
But you need to do more than assert–an actual explanation of the mechanism whereby this takes place is needed.
Let me give you, again, a test-case scenario, regarding the 6th and 7th Congressional Districts in Washington State.
In the 7th, which covers Seattle and Vashon Island, Jim McDermott has served for 22 years, and most recently in 2010 was re-elected with the embarassingly single-party-esque margin of 82.97%.
The 6th, where I live, covers part of Tacoma and much of Kitsap County, and contains most of Puget Sound’s significant military bases (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Joint Base Lewis/McChord.) Norm Dicks has been our Representative for 34 (!) years, though his last victory was by the still-huge but far less margin of 58.04%,
Now, I almost always vote against Dicks in the general election (my one recent exception was when the R’s “ran”* a genuine 9/11 truther.) But LL3′s Primary Pledge Campaign asserts that I’d be better off voting against Dicks, not in the general election, but in the Primary. Since there’s little chance that Dicks could lose against a Republican (and his predecessor in the House for 12 years was likewise a Democrat), please explain to me how I’m hurting the Republicans by voting against Dicks in the primary. If anything, I’m actually helping them as if Dicks falls than whoever replaces him on the D side will have none of the advantages of incumbency.
The situation is even starker up in Seattle.
—————————————————————————–
*I put “ran” in scare-quotes because the sad reality here–from the partisan point of view–is that the parties are quite weak, and basically anybody can file for the primary election and pick the party designation they choose, thus in the primaries “R” or “D” might serve as indicators of a candidate’s, but it means absolutely zero in terms of any party recommendation.
Oh, dang. Sorry about the missing </b> tag. It’s supposed to be after “against Dicks in the Primary”. Wretchard, can you edit this?
One case you should consider is in states like Indiana where the party primary vote pattern determines party membership, voting in the dominant party primary would decimate the ranks of committeemen and would collapse the minority party almost entirely. Don’t expect this initiative to fly in any state where your last primary party vote determines your party membership.
Josh (15),
In one sense, it hardly matters. To continue my previous example, if we did manage to unseat Norm Dicks, we can to to whoever replaces him–R or D–and credibly threaten: “We just unseated a 34-year incumbent. Don’t think we won’t do the same to you if you don’t pay a little better attention to what the folks in the district want.”
Rep Frankie Barnes, er, Barney Frank won his last election by around 10%. His district is very heavily gerrymandered and was recently re-engineered to his disadvantage. This is quibbling, sorry, but drawing up the districts does have, at least sometimes and in this case, a significant effect (probably thanks to the 2010 elections) – the district is now more competitive which is something which Frank apparently doesn’t want to contend with – And competition is something which L3 seems to want to bring back into the process.
I think part of the trick is to get the right guy in office to do the right thing, but more than that, the thing is to get the wrong guy to do the right thing (Milton Friedman’s comment) – by making our elected people totally accountable.
“There should be term limits and instead of sending one congressman to Wash. there should be two, the top 2 vote getters, Rep, Dem or Ind. and they share the same office and staff in order to stop demonizing each other, watch each other and think of the greater good.”
USSC said term limits are unconstitutional. Representatives are the States business, NOT the federal goobermints. All that was decided back when Senators went from being chosen by the State Legislature to direct elections;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It would require another Constitutional Amendment to get you to where you want to go.
What I think would work better is to have Congress tele-commute. Eliminate Washington D.C. and K Street. Have Congress meet twice a year in a different city each time. Normal (daily) business can be done electronically. That way, your representative would be a neighbor instead of an apparatchik.
Perry has something going on about a ‘part time Congress’. I haven’t looked into it yet.
States can set term limits. None do because political power accrues and a state that term limits it’s representatives is abandoning power. No State ever does that and survives.
Gerrymandering has a great deal to do with safe districts and the longevity of congressional representatives.
One thing the 2010 elections did was to place republicans in total control of a lot of state governments. From their perch they will gerrymander districts all over the country to favor republicans. The state houses will provide a farm team for a new generation of republican elected officials and rule washington for a generation or two as they did from about 1890-1932. After 20 years or so of wielding power in washington dc, they will become less representative of their districts and more representative of the power structure in washington dc.
How do you break the centralization of power? I like Leo’s thoughts on the matter. The only thing I would add would be that the production of food and –especially–energy also needs to be greatly decentralized. That way, more men of independent means can be produced.
Charles @ 56:
Some “Tea Party” legislators supposedly support this initiative, but that’s from MSM sources. Fred Thompson endorsed the idea as well. This is baffling and disturbing. Idiots.
A lot of alternative voting schemes, when tried or examined in detail, end up electing marginal crackpots, generally because the scheme attracts too many reasonable candidates who split the reasonable votes, or allows small special interest groups (that is, other than mine!) to elect candidates who in our traditional system are effectively excluded.
The L3 candidate is The Rational Optimum. That may be my special interest group as well, but it is not the only special interest group that might be helped by weakening the current monopoly. Sadly, I do not think it is a very large special interest group, or perhaps there are a number of roughly equal Local Optimums and the choice between them falls to some other, non-rational, principle, and there we are again.
I’ll say again, the CURRENT situation may already be one of information overload, in which case any information-based reform based on more/better info, is going in the wrong direction.
It’s a complicated world.
L3:
A 32-year Congressional veteran just chose to retire from Congress, saying that re-districting (the gerrymander) had thrown him into a re-mapped district that included several communities he did not know as well as his own. Instead of running again with the huge advantage of incumbency, free postage, a Rolodex with literally thousands of Wall Street and Democratic contributors, Barney Frank chose to retire. He blamed the gerrymander that had benefited him for (finally) undoing him.
If the premise of good governance includes regular fresh blood and new ideas getting elected, then shouldn’t the gerrymander–which now largely insulates 32-year careers–be reformed to move stale politicains out of office? The present system insulated Mr. Frank for 32 years, 16 elections in three decades, so he survived at least two gerrymanderings. Yet, in the end, at his third, he was undone by the gerrymander, not by any insurgent outsider.
Further, since the gerrymander presently clumps ‘like-minded’ neighborhood groups of voters together, how will a greater voter turnout produce any different results than a low voter turnout? If the district is x% Democratic or Republican, those perecentages will hold regardless of how many people vote, so long as turnout is relatively the same between the parties.
It still seems apparent that the key is to reform the gerrymander. Take it out of the hands of the ‘professional political class’ and turn it over to non-partisan commissions using computers, enforcing four directives instead of the traditional two:
1. By population
2. By communities of interest (“opportunity districts” for minorities)
3. By physical proximity
3. By nearly equal registration (plus or minus 2%) between whichever two parties have the greatest registration
This will result in only one district in a large population state having an imbalance that offers a ‘safe seat.’ All others districts in large population states become competitive EVERY election, instead of once every decade after a Census (as in Barney Franks case: ‘safe’ for 16 consecutive elections, only giving up when his seat became competitive). Over time, this will eliminate the most ideologically pure (Barney Frank, again!) from dominating large state politics in Congress, and establish a pragmatic method of assuring the electorate that ‘moderation’ is the ultimate standard for politicians in both parties to get elected. The small states, especially those with only one or two representatives, will likely still have ‘safe seats’ (Rhode Island will always be Left; Wyoming will always be Right).
Is it your position that we should eliminate primaries? I can see how that might result in electing candidates who are more centrist. But how are we going to get all of the American people to give up the primary system, rather than reforming just 435 people benefitting from the ‘fixed’ gerrymandering system?
With my warmest regards,
Don Kirk
Kirk Parker,
Thank you for your reply. TMLutas reinforced my point. The local race is lost, your neighbors are Donks and you must either suffer that or move. The need to retain an intact local Republican structure is important because it effects the State and National level systems. We need to focus our energies on structural reforms that will restore the republican (small r) system at all levels. My idea about disenfranchising tax eaters at one level of our bi-level federal structure is part of it.
Gerrymander reform is another important initiative. Increasing the number of districts is the surest way to reduce the effects of electoral engineering, aka the gerrymander. It would make sense to triple the number of seats in the House. Given the natural desire of politicians to increase the number of jobs available for them the idea could gain traction.
Some ideas that increase the number of elected offices are bad examples of welfare for politicians. Multiple seat districts are a very bad idea. Illinois had three seat districts in the State Legislature and saved a ton of money by dividing each district in two and firing the minority party representative who had a guaranteed seat under the old system. While this contradicts my point about reinforcing a local minority party structure in D strongholds the evidence was that those ghost Republicans lacked credibility or were really Democrat place holders, like the designated R election worker at many poll sites.