The theory of a "Deep State" represents governing that is independent of those who govern. The conspiracy theorists imagine some cabal of people (generations of them?) who somehow control everyone else and all governments. Those conspiracy theorists get vague about who are the members of this cabal. Occasionally, they talk about Jews. Maybe they think it's someone else. Maybe they're not sure.
But there is a "Deep State" that controls those who govern. They are the major donors, who underwrite candidates, essentially pay for the candidates' victories, and expect to get what they paid for. Which they do, because they pay candidates a lot more than the office they win compensates them. The rich keep getting richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class is being lost, the stock market keeps going up (I remember in about 1980 when the big news was that the Dow hit 3000. It's 30,000 now.). Coincidence?
People on one "side of the aisle" think George Soros controls the "Deep State." People on the other side think the Koch brothers, or Leonard Leo, or Harlan Crow controls it.
And that's just to name a few. The fact is that there are many large donors, and not infrequently, they donate to multiple candidates in a campaign. They don't care who wins. They just need reassurance that whoever wins owes them something, and knows it, and will deliver.
This corruption of what was originally intended to be American democracy is very pervasive. And there are some simple reasons for that: no one trusts the voters, seemingly with good reason; the assumption is that voters can easily be swayed, like by an avalanche of exposure; in recent years, some candidates have adopted the strategy of simply claiming that the competing argument, even if it is the product of trained and experienced professionals, which the candidates are not, or proven correct, is wrong, or a scam. So, all that's needed is exposure. And exposure of people who say things about which they don't know anything. The finer points are whether or not these candidates have some kind of charisma or appeal, or whether they use a form of "reverse psychology," and assert that their special and compelling characteristic is that they are political outsiders, so that it's as if not knowing what you're talking about is a twisted sign of purity of insight. The suggestion is that these outsider candidates are not. in effect, soiled by corrupt indoctrination. (If I offered to perform surgery on someone, using an argument like that, I'd get laughed out of town, and lose my license, just as a point of comparison.)
So, the system we have now relies on money -- lots and lots of money -- to provide as much exposure as possible. And the e-ads will tell you that: so-and-so is winning, because they have more donations. It's also noteworthy that campaigns these days are very short on intelligent arguments. Yard signs and TV ads? Good. Debates? Literally (last week) not worth the time and trouble. And even the debates that occur are structured in a way to provide as little useful content as possible.
So, here's my suggestion. In BP, our campaign season is short. It lasts about 6-8 weeks. As far as I know, the vast majority of candidates fund their own campaigns. And until recent years, they made it their business to walk the Park, and meet and talk to the people they wanted to represent. No one spent a lot of money, because no one needed to spend a lot of money, and no one owed anything to anyone, except the voters and residents of the Park. That's not doable on a national level, but there are some adjustments that could be made. We can have a national campaign season that lasts maybe 3-6 months: you can't declare a candidacy or do any campaign activities until the starting gun fires. Just like here. And no private money in politics.
National candidates have a lot of people to reach, and if they wanted to do something as simple as handing out, or mailing, campaign flyers, probably none of them could afford to do it. Nor, possibly, could they afford to take repeated campaign trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and most others of the states. And according to current pricing, few or none of them could afford to buy TV time. So, I would suggest that taxes be raised, and all of this be free, paid for by the government. And everyone gets the same amount of publicity (flyers, TV time, etc). The TV networks are already required to air certain content for free (emergency alerts, etc), and this can be added.
You start, then, with X number of candidates. They can campaign on whatever they consider their advantages. But every two weeks, their campaigns are required to submit a list of registered voters who still want to see them contending. A given voter is not limited to one candidate. And the number of registered voters who have to endorse a campaign increases every two weeks. As soon as a given candidate can't get that level of increasing endorsement, s/he is out. The final election can be between two candidates, or 15 of them.
There's no more "dark money," George Soros, Koch brothers, Leonard Leo, or any of the rest of them. All they can do is what I can do: vote.
If that won't fix it, tell me why not.
It was pointed out to me today that I made a mistake. I said that TV stations are required to air things like emergency alerts. Someone told me that during the Reagan administration, that requirement was rescinded. (Why is that not surprising?) So it should be reinstated, even though the networks make a ton of money from airing political ads. Come to think of it, they also shouldn't be advertising to the public medications the public are in no possible position to evaluate. But that's another story.
ReplyDelete