Two Solutions to Money in Politics: A Radical Democratic Advocacy

 Last week, after a brief summary, I offered a simple but radical solution to campaign finance (decrease the maximum limit to an amount the middle class can afford). Yet the power for this solution resides in Congress and the Supreme Court, who seem intent on allowing an unlimited amount of money into politics. Today I unveil another solution, admittedly desperate, and yet an archaically, democratic path forward out of corporate party control. Perkicles of ancient Athens declared, “Athens’ constitution is called a democracy because it respects the interests not of the minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses.” In the United States, political parties are currently acting in the interest of the minority: corporations and the wealthy. In contrast, the Athenian's emphasized their belief, in the equality of all citizens filling government positions by lot. For various positions, each citizen had the opportunity to place their name into the lottery. Any free, male citizen could participate, and with the same chance as anyone else, become an official in Ancient Athens. Elected officals in Ancient Athens were viewed as a minor form of oligarchy, and these public positions a bulwark against Tyranny.

And so, the proposition is this: The next president should be appointed by lot. Practically, how would this be implemented? One must begin by reemphasizing the incredible difficulty, but reemphasize the possibility. The president would be chosen at random, but how would the choosing occur, and who would vote for the person? To be eligible, a citizen would declare their intention to enter into, and accept the result of presidency by lot. A record would be made of all who have agreed to such a proposal. At a reasonable time, November 1st 2019, all members who have submitted, would have their names placed in a physical box (or an electronic equivalent). A name would be picked at random, and all members would be bound (not by legal mechanism, but by personal integrity) to vote for the winner in the presidential election.

Is it absurd, outrageous, and insane? Certainly, but are we more comfortable with the vacuous and callous wealthy (who yet expound upon their superior intellect and compassion) leading the country into further economic predation and suffering? Whether one has supported Democrats or Republicans in the past, one must concede their capacity to abandon the poor and middle class for a prime lobbying job. Both are two entwined with corporate interests.

Could it succeed? The number of citizens required to bring the plan to fruition would need to be a significant portion of the population, enough to secure enough states to earn 270 electoral votes. President Trump won with only 46% of the vote. But is it impossible? Again, Donald Trump won. And there is more than two years until the primary season.

Aside from the innumerable difficulties (again, not insurmountable), there are a equally innumerable number of issues. Critics of this plan might contest it on the same issue as Plato, who saw democracy as likely to be administered by a collection of well spoken charlatans and fools. These incompetent bunglers, he claimed, would soon lead the ship of state onto a reef of disaster.

So, who is supposed to compose the government? The Constitution, Civics, Democracy all declare: the elected, aided by experts. Citizens are best served by professionals advising the National Government in devising policy, whether it be in science, diplomacy, economics or other study of national interest. There are strident disagreements between experts in a field, but everyone should recognize the difference between an expert and their opposite: the faker, the neophyte, the political hack. President Trump has not filled his cabinet and administrative departments with experts, but their antithesis, the anti-expert, persons who despise the mission of the very agency which they have been appointed to lead. There is no other explanation for appointees such as Betsy Devos (who doesn't even understand basic educational terms such as proficiency and growth), Rick Perry (who is helming the department he couldn't remember he wanted to eliminate), Scott Pruitt (who has repeatedly sued the department he operates), and Ben Carson (whose only qualification is he was poor once, but is no longer). This is to name only a few of the many incompetent, anti-experts who manage the vital agencies of the most powerful government in the history of the world. If one wants to disagree with this assessment, it is possible to find a few true experts in the Trump administration, and thereby demonstrate the difference. Contrast these anti-experts with James Mattis and H. R. McMaster. Both are men who I vehemently disagree with on policy, yet I admit they are experts in their capacity to kill. With these examples, it is possible to see the difference between experts, and the dilettantes.

And this plan, of electing by lot, does not alter this desire for experience and expertise. In fact, when Plato (and others through the ages) have criticized democracy for empowering those with the most sophisticated voices (whether the speaker be wise or witless), are they not also condemning those with the loudest, cash fueled voice, for where is the difference between how one acquires the political reigns if it is not through the value of policy?

This essay isn't intended as a nihilistic, what-do-we-have-to-lose proposal based on the hopeless cynicism which has begun to infect those across the nation. In fact, it's an paean to the essential democratic principle: the United States is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the rich, for the corporations, and by the elite. There is a value in the egalitarian spirit of democracy, of the election of the common man, an occurrence which lies outside the realm of everyday experience because of the sickness of campaign finance. We must resist the Tyranny of the wealthy, the anti-expert, and the system of oligarchic privilege.

Let me begin by saying, I'm in.

The Supreme Court, Money in Politics, and Originalism




Comments