Centrist Reform Movement?
Dean
Alan Stewart Carl has some proposals for a centrist reform movement, which seems to dovetail somewhat with what I had to say about Jack Grant's piece below. Some of the proposed reforms are good ideas--but some aren't. While I have issues with more than one of the proposals, I'll pick on one in particular: "Reduce the Influence of Special Interests."
This one gives me the willies. Not only because every politician who goes to Washington says he will do that, but because so much damage has been done in the name of this bugaboo.
It comes as a surprise to most people, but, even though lobbyists and PACs are probably the most reviled phenomenon in Washington DC, the truth is that what they do is enshrined and protected by the First Amendment, right alongside freedom of speech and press.
Don't believe me? Here's your First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There it is: freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to lobby.
Martin Luther King represented a "special interest." So does the ACLU. So does the NRA. So do People for the American Way, the Christian Coalition, the American Conservative Union, NORML, NAACP, NOW, and so on. So do various trade associations, trade unions, environmental groups, gay rights groups, pro-life groups, pro-choice groups, and on and on and on.
I am reminded of a humorous quote from the classic Animal House:
But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
The context of that quote is humorous and silly, but it applies here: another term for "special interest" is citizens exercising their Constitutional rights and participating in our democracy.
Furthermore, efforts to "reduce the influence of special interests" have been ongoing for decades, and every time a new "reform" gets passed, more of our precious civil liberties are chipped away. One of the worst in history has been the anti-sedition actCampaign Finance "Reform" act championed by so-called "centrists" Russ Feingold and John McCain. This act tramples political speech, makes the system more byzantine, bewildering and unaccountable, and has contributed massively to the difficulties challengers face in unseating incumbents. Senator Mitch McConnell was one of the few in the Senate with the courage to oppose this monster and identify it properly: an incumbency protection act and a First Amendment shredder. It has done far more to make sure most in congress win easy re-election than gerrymandering has.
This illustrates one of my points about politics: much of what appears at first blush to be "moderate" or "centrist" turns out to be rather radical and extreme--because it sounds good even though the actual effects are devastating.
Furthermore, most people think of themselves as centrists--but wind up strongly disagreeing with each other nevertheless. Which leads me to another point, about how a lot of centrists bring up the supposed evil of so-called "wedge issues."
What precisely is a "wedge issue?" One that divides people. But isn't the whole point of democracy to settle contentious issues by majority rule? Should we be electing politicians who promise not to tackle any tough issues, to always be nice and to avoid anything that upsets anyone?
I am all for improving the tenor and tone of political discourse. But the #1 way to do that is to focus on issues and beliefs rather than the people or parties espousing them. Yet in the end, settling the issues that divide people is where the rubber hits the road in a democracy. It's the whole reason we have elections in the first place.
There are already centrists in both our major parties who often work together. Non-partisan PACs already exist that work with both parties on various "special interests" that are important to them.
If you want to be a real centrist, the solution is to start identifying the issues that matter most to you, and start contributing to (or better yet, volunteering for) groups that work toward and lobby for those goals. Not for individual politicians or parties, but for the issues that matter most to you. The politicians will follow if enough others agree with you.
That's the way the system is supposed to work, no?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Moderation As Temperament
- Centrist Reform Movement?
- On Moderation
But to address Dean's main point, I don't want to regulate special interests. I should have been more clear in the original post because this has gotten me a lot of grief. What I want to do is make the influence of special interest groups more proportional by mobilizing other groups when necessary. It is unreasonable, for instance, that the NRA often gets things passed that a majority of Americans disagree with. We need to get those Americans to speak up. (I actually support the NRA on most issues, but it's a good example of special interests who seem to weild more power than they really should) I think the Internet increases the likelihood of being able to mobilize ad hoc groups when special interests seem to be taking disproportional power. I've been told this is rather idealistic. And it may be. But I am VERY against regulation of speech and, if we can't get ad hoc groups to balance out the special interests, then so be it. I don't see another way to do it without trampling the constitution.
To recap, in case anyone missed it: I am NOT proposing laws, regulations or anything other than countering democratic free speech with louder democratic free speech. I recognize this is rather idealistic but, frankly, I'd rather be idealistic and right than pragmatic and wrong.
As for wedge issues, there's nothing wrong with legitimate disagreements and there's nothing wrong with politicians picking sides (that's pretty much their job). What is wrong is when a normal disagreement is exploited by politicos to stir up anger in the electorate. I really dislike demogougery and most so-called wedge issues are just that. Politicians who use them aren't just taking sides, they're purposefully trying to turn people against each other, often over an issue (like gay marriage) which really isn't a real problem to begin with. Again, it's not something we can, or should regulate. But we don't have to tolerate it either.
Great point, now if we could only get those other jerks to understand this everything would be ok.
The problem with self-proclaimed 'centrists' is that just believing in some of one party's platform and some of the other's doesn't make one a centrist.
I believe in a lot of what the Democratic party claims to stand for but nobody would call me a 'centrist'. I also don't believe in all of what the GOP claims to stand for but again, nobody would call me a centrist. Except me.
I say, we need a new party, but one that actually knows what the Constitution means.
Now that's centrism.
The amount of money swirling around Congress is disgusting. I don't care if they ALL do it or not, the kind of things DeLay has profited from should be 100% illegal.
I for one do not want even the hint that a particular bill was bought and paid for by lobbyists. As far as I'm concerned, working in Congress, or any other legislative body for that matter, has become nothing more than a money making scheme. Some may be more guilty than others, and obviously the scale is different depending on which legislature you consider, but that's the way it is.
"Campaign Finance Reform" may be dysfunctional in practice, but it is essential to fair government in theory.
Since the majority of Americans do not support doing away with the Second Amendment, which expressly forbids any restriction on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, this sounds more like a personal bias tossed in as a motivation.
The rest of Alan's comment reads as an attempt to guarantee a desirable outcome from his perspective. Understandable, but hardly democratic.
What exactly is undemocratic about fighting entrenched special interests with ad-hoc special interests (which is pretty much what I'm suggesting)?
And I shouldn't have used the NRA as an example because that opens up the Second Amendment floodgates. I'm a big supporter on the 2nd Amendment, but I do know that most Americans supported the assualt-weapons ban (although most don't realize it was not much more than symbolic) and it would have been a more democratic process if they had a way to mobilize on-the-spot and make their interests known.
But the fact that it was entirely cosmetic, had no actual public-safety value whatsover, and therefore was merely a trial balloon for further unconstitutional gun control was very widely disseminated by the NRA, whose lobbying efforts paid off in the end.
Right now, civil rights are an "entrenched" special interest. There is no practical difference between an old and a new (or "entrenched" and "ad hoc" in your own vernacular) special interest, other than in whether the public decides to support one over the other. You stated you do not support additional laws, regulations, etc to bolster your position, but I do not see how, other than the time-old position of lobbying for a cause, you can pull it off in any other way. Unless, of course, you feel that the campaign finance reform has already provided sufficient regulation to bring about your desired results.
But the fatal flaw in the reasoning behind campaign finance reform is that money DOES NOT EQUAL political success. Successful and popular political candidates, organizations, and causes of course draw in more money than less agreeable versins of same. Quick version, no matter how much money you pour into convincing the American public your NewCoke is better, they'll still decide it tastes like crap and continue with the Classic. But a Subway can come along before a pricey ad campaign and knock the market share out from under the entrenched fast food joints.
I trust the American people, even when they're a bit daft. Your statements do not appear to extend them that same trust.
Hmmm, I think you're reading into my views some ideas that aren't there. I actually have great trust in the American people. That's even my main point. All I'm looking to do is find ways to better mobilize people on issues.
Not everyone belongs to a special interest group and even those of us who do don't belong to an interest group for every cause we care about. Say a bill comes up and the PSC (People for Screwing the Constistiution) are pushing hard to get it passed, to the point that it looks like it will get passed. Well, what do people do who are opposed to the PSC but have no existing interest group to represent them? Sure, they can call their representative but that's hardly going to meet force with force. What would be better is if they could come together and petition together.
In fact, using the Internet, all kinds of groups are already doing this (like the Family Research Council or MoveOn). These groups aren't your typical special interets with K Street offices. They're just people who come together and petition en masse whenever an issue arises that they care about.
That's what I'm proposing. Of course, I'm proposing it as a method for Centrists, but any group can use it.
In my mind, campaign finance laws have nothing to do with this. It has nothing to do with money at all. It's about giving voice to ideas.
It's odd, neither in my original post nor on any comment here did I say anything about wanting regulations or laws and yet both you and Dean concluded that I did. If I'd called myself a libertarian rather than a Centrist, would that have made a difference?
Being a libertarian is usually acceptable, but being a Centrist is often viewed with mistrust (at least by some). And yet, most Centrists I know are just less-ideological libertarians, a little more comfortable with regulations and more upbeat about using government for positive results, but generally of the same live-and-let-live mindset.
If what you're wanting is to forbid politicians from putting special interest money into their own pockets--why, we've had laws against that for decades.
But the effort to prevent "special interests" from donating to political campaign warchests is simply tyranny dressed up in virtuous clothing. The latest campaign finance "reform" is not imperfect: it increases corruption, decreases accountability, and protects incumbents. There is nothing good about it--nothing.
What is a "Centrist"? I still have some idea what or who is a "Leftist" today, i.e., Lord Pork Pork and his ilk, for collectivism particularly in economics and also treasonous against our military. I know that, e.g., Santorum and Leonard Peikoff are both called "Rightists" because they are both anti-Left, though they diverge from the Left in opposite directions, Santorum toward total collectivism in morals, Peikoff toward an integrated individualism. "Centrist"? Hmmm.... Three examples of those called "Centrist" that I can think of are John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and the New Republic magazine. What do these have in common? They are "hawkish" on foreign policy but statist in domestic policy. I'm with them on the former but against them on the latter.
The problem with this whole "Left"-"Center"-"Right" spectrum is that is only one dimension. I have found that I need two or three dimensions to have a spectrum sufficient for me to fit into or use. The spectrum I increasingly use has 2 dimensions. One is which is more important: economics or non-economic ideas and values (materialists vs. spiritualists)? The other is who should control that which is most important: the state or the individual (collectivists vs. individualists)?
I place the materialists, those who emphasize the economic, on the left on this spectrum. I place the spiritualists, those who emphasize non-economic ideas and ideals, on the right on this spectrum. I place the collectivists, those who want the state or "society" to control what is most important, on the bottom of this spectrum. I place the individualists, those who want what is most important to remain in the hands of the individual man or woman, on the top of this spectrum.
Thus, classic Marxists would be in the bottom left corner, libertarians who stress economic freedom in the top left corner, mixed-economy pragmatists (which is what is usually meant by "Centrists" or "moderates") on the left between the two. Santorum and Scalia and those like them would be in the bottom right corner, spiritual-sexual individualists like Camille Paglia or myself would be in the top right corner, conflicted conservatives like Justice Thomas would be on the right between the two. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff would be at the top, and consistent totalitarians like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and today's Politically Correct would be at the bottom. That's how I see it.
Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums....
The center in that, to me, would be where it is understood that some people can't be responsible for their actions but most should be. What to do about the irresponsible would probably fracture that center too.
Dean, I hope this isn't too late for you to read this comment, but I'm curious about your thoughts on this post as it relates to your earlier posts regarding companies as constructs of the governments. Clearly, many special interests are not "citizens" exercising their constitutional rights, but agregated institutional interests banding together to protect their territory. While those entities have citizens working for them, they are representatives of purely paper "citizens" in the lobbying process.
This is somewhat different from the 2nd amendment example, I think, and may be more along the lines of what the author was looking at.
HOWEVER, stockholders and other stakeholders in a business should be able to form voluntary associations which they give money to in order to promote candidates or political causes they believe are important--and there's no reason the corporations shouldn't be able to solicit voluntary funds for same. The key word being voluntary--stockholders (and employees for that matter) could be asked to contribute, not forced to do so.
Notably, I would also forbid trade unions from directly lobbying, because trade unions should be treated like corporations. They can solicit voluntary funds but not spend them themselves. They'd have the same rules.
Interestingly, this might actually encourage the auto workers' unions to work together with the manufacturers on issues that affect their industry, rather than so often being at crossed swords. But that's idealism, sometimes they'll clash regardless.
The thing to me is that a business is a part of the community, and there is nothing inherently wrong with those who have a stake in a business petitioning the government (i.e. lobbying). That's an entirely legitimate activity.
(I'll probably turn this into a main posting.)