Before I criticize the political system I will prefer to lay the parameters of what I see as the playing field. I will start by saying that this country is the standard of freedom and democracy by which all the rest of the world is measured. The freedoms that we have in this country make it possible for citizens to speak against and even protest against government in a way which is unique to our form of government. One only has to consider the student demonstrations at Tiananmen Square in 1989 (where some reports say as many as 3000 students may have died) to appreciate that we are in a unique position and free to express decent. ("Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History: Documents")
This country has the ability to self rule and change in a way which could either bring us into a future which is free and prosperous or cast us down to just another third world country, subservient and impoverished. No matter how it turns out, it will by nature be our own fault. I worry that as we expect more from government and understand less the role and function of government, that we may not continue to have all of the intellectual tools necessary to fix the issues that we daftly intend to improve upon.
This reminds me of the ongoing dissatisfaction of most people with the development (and market share) of the Microsoft Operation System, it’s the operating system which almost everybody loves to hate, yet can’t do without. Who hasn’t been amused with the humor that prevails across the internet about “If Windows were a car…” my favorite is the line about having to press the start button to shut off the engine, or all of the warning lights being replaced with one message that says “general protection fault”. Seriously everyone can criticize it but most have no idea about the complexity of it. The fact that the United States can direct itself at all though amazes me more that the idea that another operating system can spring up from a grass root effort and actually function, at least most of the time. Linux gives me hope that a few dedicated men can volunteer their time and actually put together something of substance.
But that, exactly is the crux of the problem, our government no longer is the product of a few great men who are so dedicated to a cause as to volunteer their time and countless energy to build a free, read that open source, form of government that stands against the tyranny of the well established rich and powerful (corrupt) kingdom we have fought to separate ourselves from. By contrast we now have politicians which are so flush with wealth that they poopoo the use of a mere 84.1 million dollars of the public campaign action fund in preference to much greater funding opportunities provided through other fundraising. How long has it been since a President has been elected without the expenditure of countless millions.
While the office of presidency may not yet go to the highest bidder, it has almost sunk to this depth with the money being spent on campaigns swelling to nearly unimaginable levels. According to an article on the site of the government agency International Information Programs which states that “The total cost of electing a president in 1992 was about $550 million. That sum includes not only the $220 million spent by or on behalf of the two major political party candidates in the general election; it also includes funds spent by all the candidates who sought their parties' nominations, by the nominating conventions of the parties, and by third-party and independent campaigns.” (USIS -- Issues of Democracy, September 1996 --Financing)
This amount of money is reminiscent of a You Tube video I once saw of someone surfing a wave from the 2004 Hurricane Ivan. And just like Hurricane Ivan I see the huge swell as being a monstrous demonstration of destructive and out of control power. It is a fact that is almost beyond dispute that money is power, and just to tie it all together there is another adage that I think fits here which says “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To which I can only give a nod to Lord Acton who continued to pen “Great men are almost always bad men.”
This leaves me with the question I asked at first, which is how to decide who to vote against? If I were to judge the candidates level of badness by the extent of campaign contributions they are able to raise then Obama may be worse that Hillary and McCain together. Yes I am being a little facetious but I am serious that I think that money represents corruption in both our government and election process and that a man of great character yet little worth would be at a loss to contribute to our great system. So I propose that we separate the elite from power and create an opportunity for a common man to ascend to power.
I think there is an answer and that it is within the reach of the common man. I can think of a media which is as available to the poor as to the upper class. A I attempt to describe it I can assume that it will begin to sound a lot like the internet. It would have to remain free, secure, and uncensored. It would also have to both give voters an open source from which to assimilate information and protect sources from piracy or having their message tampered with. We have the technology. We only need to establish an autonomous forum which can validate the electorate. I would suggest that we could make it work by using this free forum where potential candidates could have a voice or else promote someone and then through the incorporation of multiple elections where candidates debate issues and gain support through runoffs which would culminate through the process of elimination which would in due time (and process) derive an electronically elected winner. I am sure that this would be a somewhat problematic process, but I am convinced that the ingenuity of the American people could make it work.
Works Cited
"Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History : Documents." The National Security Archive. June 1, 1999. National Security Archive. 5 Jul 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment