is...trading (occasionally), trying to improve our political system (persistently) and just hangin' out.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That's OK, Shelly.
I made a mistake, once.
I think it was on a Thursday.
Fred
I use Dial?
Don't you wish everyone did?
Fred
And I don't --- which does that make me?
Fred
What terrible news!!!
I, too, had the privilege of visiting Phil at his home. I'm terribly saddened to hear he's gone. First Marie, now Phil. Awful.
Fred
Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs us that, when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic power blocs[1] that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend the will of the people.
Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it does not foster government by the people. It gives no voice to the non-partisans in the electorate and results in government by a small fraction of the people. For the people as a whole, the flaws in party politics are devastating. Their cumulative effect victimizes the public by the most basic and effective strategy of domination --- divide and conquer.
Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders, financiers, candidates and elected officials, but the significance diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power grows. Most people are on the periphery, remote from the centers of power. As outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the political process.
The challenge of representative democracy is not to divide the public into blocs but to find the best advocates of the common interest and raise them to positions of leadership. To meet that challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an effective electoral process must examine the entire electorate during each election cycle, seeking the people's best advocates. It must let every voter influence the outcome of each election to the best of their desire and ability, and it must ensure that those selected as representatives are disposed to serve the public interest.
Support For A More Democratic Political Process
The following citations step outside the common assumption that our political system is adequately democratic and offer critical analysis and justification for considering an alternative that will better serve society. They
* provide a philosophical rationale for understanding that the Practical Democracy process will have a significant impact on those who participate;
* offer academic support for exercising care in the selection of candidates for public office;
* show that political parties, themselves, recognize their inability to represent the people; and
* describe the oligarchical nature of political parties.
1) Edward Clayton, "Alasdair MacIntyre", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2]
* Human beings, as the kind of creatures we are, need the internal goods/goods of excellence that can only be acquired through participation in politics if we are to flourish. Therefore, everyone must be allowed to have access to the political decision-making process. The matters to be discussed and decided on will not be limited as they are now; they will extend to questions about what the good life is for the community and those who make it up. Politics will be especially concerned with the virtues of justice and generosity, ensuring that citizens get what they deserve and what they need. And it is an important requirement of this new politics that everyone must "have a voice in communal deliberation about what these norms of justice require" (Dependent Rational Animals 129-130). This kind of deliberation requires small communities; although not every kind of small community is healthy, a healthy politics can only take place in a small community.
* MacIntyre believes that politics should be a practice with internal goods, but as it is now it only leads to external goods. Some win, others lose; there is no good achieved that is good for the whole community; cheating and exploitation are frequent, and this damages the community as a whole.
* If politics were a practice with the possibility of internal goods and virtues, this would not be the case; but since it is currently not a practice, and therefore has only external goods to offer, it is. Anyone who has read The Prince cannot read MacIntyre on this point without recalling Machiavelli's advice to the prince about the need to be adaptable and the only relevant standards being those of success or failure; MacIntyre would certainly agree that the modern world is characterized by its Machiavellian politics.
2) Jane Mansbridge, "A 'Selection Model' of Political Representation"[3]
* As trust in government plummets in most developed democracies, citizens routinely call for more accountability and transparency. These demands are implicitly grounded in a model of political representation based primarily on sanctions, in which the interests of the representative (in economic terms, the agent) are presumed to conflict with those of the constituent (in economic terms, the principal). In such models the principal must invest in systems that monitor the agent closely, reward good behavior, and punish the bad.
Another possible --- and sometimes conflicting -- approach is based primarily on selection. This approach works only when the principal and agent would have similar objectives even in the absence of specific incentives and sanctions. That is, the agent is already internally motivated to pursue certain goals -- goals that in politics include both a general political direction and specific policies. If the representative's desired direction and policies are the ones the constituent desires, and if the representative also has a verifiable reputation of being both competent and honest, then it makes sense for a constituent to put that representative in office and subsequently spend relatively little effort on monitoring and sanctioning. As a general rule, the higher the probability that the objectives of principal and agent may be aligned, the more efficient it is for the principal to invest resources ex ante, in selecting the required type, rather than ex post, in monitoring and sanctioning. If these objectives are well aligned, citizens will be better served by a constituent-representative relationship based primarily on selection than by one based primarily on monitoring and sanctions. From a normative perspective, the selection model also tends to focus the attention of both citizens and representatives on the common interest.
3) The Report of the Commission on Candidate Selection (a board composed of the leaders of five large political parties in Great Britain) that investigated why parties are not representative of the people.[4]
* The public's ideal of representation, if seldom articulated clearly, can differ from that of the parties and political professionals. Voters seem to prefer candidates who are prepared to adopt a consensual approach to political behaviour in Parliament, the council chamber and media studios while selectorates and party professionals are more attached to an adversarial approach.
After quoting statistics showing the 'underrepresentation' of various minorities, The Report says:
* These figures add up to a picture of a narrow group of representatives selected by a tiny proportion of the population belonging to parties, for which ever fewer members of the public vote and for whom even fewer people have any feelings of attachment.
* In most cases .... selection is in the hands of parties, and their relatively small groups of members. Voters themselves have to choose between candidates picked by these small groups, and, under the first-past-the-post system, the outcome in the vast majority of constituencies is a foregone conclusion.
* Party selectorates often expect candidates to have gone through traditional hoops (almost rites of passage) --- length of party service, door-to-door campaigning, service as a local councillor and fighting a "hopeless" seat. These are commonly seen as a prerequisite for selection as a candidate in a winnable seat. Such criteria --- and evidence of personal commitment and party loyalty --- are important. But they should not be the sole criteria, especially if they discourage people with local credentials and a background outside mainstream party politics from becoming candidates.
* The whole thrust of our report is against uniformity of candidates and in favour of diversity. Quality can take many different forms in a political context. If we wish candidates to be truly representative of the communities they are elected to serve, we must recognise that there will (and should) be all sorts of candidates with a wide variety of backgrounds.
* The Commission has had to consider whether the ways in which candidates are selected should any longer be regarded as purely internal matters of no concern to the wider public.
The Report contains a good description of the waning public interest in parties ...
* Party memberships consisting of just over one elector in a hundred are unlikely to be representative of the population as a whole.
The attitudes of the electorate are shown.
* There is an apparent paradox that people feel less and less affinity with conventional party politics, yet many of their most important concerns remain very political.
* Ordinary people not involved in politics are either indifferent to internal party feuds or can react negatively to the priority which politicians and activists place upon party loyalty. It is loyalty to the constituency as a whole that the public wants to see in candidates ...
* When people are asked to rank the characteristics they value in their elected representatives, honesty is rated highest, followed by trustworthiness, accessibility and competence. Fewer than a quarter cite experience as one of the three most important attributes in an elected politician, which suggests that the long apprenticeships valued by many party activists do not make much of an impact on voters. Other desirable attributes include independence, understanding, personality, intelligence, availability and integrity. Saints, please apply.
The closing sentence, "Saints, please apply" implies that people of "independence, understanding, personality, intelligence, availability and integrity" do not exist. That is not only disparaging, it is untrue. We don't lack people with those qualities, we lack the means to select and elevate them to positions of political leadership.
4) Robert Michels, Political Parties[5]
* Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. The mechanism of the organization, while conferring a solidity of structure, induces serious changes in the organized mass, completely inverting the respective position of the leaders and the led. As a result of organization, every party or professional union becomes divided into a minority of directors and a majority of directed.
* It is indisputable that the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a matter of technical and practical necessity. It is the inevitable product of the very principle of organization ... Its only result is, in fact, to strengthen the rule of the leaders, for it serves to conceal from the mass a danger which really threatens democracy.
We will do well to look beyond the platitudes that harness academic inquiry to existing political structures; it is time to consider the benefits that will flow from making politics a project shared by the entire community.
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
Method
1) For each election, divide the entire electorate into groups of
three randomly chosen people. (see Footnote on Group Size)
a) The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two
people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a
triad in any of the five most recent elections.
b) At any time up to one week before an election, people may
declare themselves members of any party and may create a
new party, simply by declaring membership in it. People
that do not declare party membership are automatically
assigned to a set of people with no party affiliation.
Triads will be created from members of the same party, as
long as more than two members of a party exist. When less
than three members of a party exist, the party's remaining
candidates are merged with the no-party candidates.
c) For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments
shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum
extent practical, subject to the foregoing restrictions.
2) Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one of
the three members to represent the other two.
a) Selections will be made by consensus. If consensus cannot
be achieved, selection will be by vote, in which case,
participants may not vote for themselves.
b) If a triad is unable to select a representative in the
specified time, all three participants shall be deemed
disinclined to participate in the process.
3) Divide the participants so selected into new triads.
4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is
reached.
Selected
Randomly
From
Full Over Prev. Total People People
Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Unchosen
1 13416 4472 0 0 4472 4472 8944
2 4472 1490 2 1 1491 1491 2981 (1)
3 1491 497 0 0 497 497 994
4 497 165 2 1 166 166 331
5 166 55 1 2 56 56 110
6 56 18 2 1 19 19 37
7 19 6 1 2 7 7 12 (2)
Level Start Report Days
1) 07/07/10 07/12/10 5
2) 07/14/10 07/19/10 5
3) 07/21/10 08/02/10 12
4) 08/04/10 08/16/10 12
5) 08/18/10 09/06/10 19
6) 09/08/10 09/27/10 19
7) 09/29/10 10/25/10 26
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. Without disparaging it, I must point out that there are a multitude of ways to justify almost any point of view. The fact is, your feeling about capital to the contrary notwithstanding, many of our corporations are too large for our good.
Corporate growth is good, and healthy, and desirable. We want to give our entrepreneurs the freedom to grow. That is the way they enrich our lives. However, when a rogue grows beyond an economically justifiable size, we need a tax that acts to protect the public interest without additional regulation. We need a progressive corporate tax on annual gross receipts, less amounts paid to external vendors in which the corporation has no managerial, directorial or financial interest of any amount or kind.
Taxes are an expense. They increase the cost of doing business, and that cost is added to all other costs to determine the price of the enterprise's goods and services. In other words, taxes are always passed on to the consumer.
If, by the nature of its business, a company must be large, it is not injured by a gross receipts tax because all competing businesses must attain a similar size. However, when an entity grows to a size that exceeds its value to society, the tax acts as an umbrella, increasing the rogue's cost of operation and giving its competitors a cost advantage which prevents their suffocation. Such a tax would enhance the viability of competition, immeasurably.
The tax is absolutely even-handed. It makes no judgment about the excesses of an enterprise. It is absolutely and totally objective in its application, and in its effect. It harnesses the pursuit of self-interest in a productive way.
An intended side effect of the tax is that it makes inflation unacceptable. The evils of inflation are reserved for those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. Making it counter-productive for comporations would benefit the economy.
Unfortunately, this avenue is closed because our venal politicians would corrupt the attempt and despoil the process before it could work. Until we learn to seek out and elect our best people as our representatives in government, something like this can never happen.
Fred Gohlke
I wasn't commenting on that, Red. I was just trying to understand why they are so intent on delaying the reverse split. I've been looking forward to it.
Fred
owhatanassiam
I couldn't understand why YRC was avoiding the reverse split like the plague. It is simple, it is logical, and it is inevitable. It doesn't change the facts --- it just changes the appearance of the facts. Why play this silly dance-of-death?
Because, Dear Fred, they're sitting on a loss.
What, right now, is an innocuous penny a share loss for the second quarter balloons to an unpleasant 25-cents a share after a 1-for-25 reverse split. Sure! The amount of the loss is the same --- but (.25) just looks so much worse than (.01).
In the same way that I've been anxiously awaiting the reverse split because it will make the profit numbers look so much better, they are afraid of restating the past earnings --- and terrified of the possibility that they'll fail to record a profit in this quarter, too.
OOoooo, I hate being so slow-witted.
Fred
Referring to the immense entities that dominate our existence as 'tiles' is a mis-characterization. They are enormous parasites. The larger they grow the more they take from our economy and the less they contribute to the commonweal. As they grow, they target the wealth of communities and suck it out, leaving an empty husk. They are rogues that believe their best interests are attained at the expense of the community rather than in harmony with it.
As Mr. EC pointed out, big business slashes payrolls and cuts wages. They focus on 'reducing head count' to improve their profits, regardless of the effect on the economy:
Company Net Income per Employee
IBM 33,612
Intel 54,749
Microsoft 210,787
Exxon Mobil 238,910
Who says errant children can't be reclaimed ...
Does no-one remember when Churak spent more time in jail than Bernie Madoff?
And, now, Praise iHub, he has been reborn as a productive gadfly.
Will wonders never cease????
Fred
Is it not documented that the largest percentage of fresh ideas are spawned by small businesses? Is it not also documented that the largest percentage (by far) of hiring occurs in small businesses?
Why, then, do we hear no call to break up the enormous corporations that dominate our existence?
We can, and probably will, keep shutting our eyes --- but we don't lack the information we need to turn things around.
Fred
In time, this era will be known by its proper name:
The End of the Age of Greed
At the moment, the government is having difficulty deciding which parasite to succor, but that will pass.
I'm old enough to have enjoyed many cups of coffee for a nickel. It doesn't taste one bit better at prices well over a dollar. How many of us have benefited from the change?
Tom Donlan's editorial in this week's Barron's, describing the destructive effect of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, Federal Home Loan Banks and the other federal institutions that protect grifters at the people's expense helps show the depth of the problem.
Fred
Personally, I miss Marie
She was a treasure.
Fred
I haven't seen any of them, but I doubt they have MidAmerica Truck Stop, Liberal, Kansas in the 50's. It was on highway 54, on the west side of Liberal. It was T-H-E truckstop, because the main east-west truck route in those days was via 54 through Kansas to Guyman, Oklahoma, Dalhart, Texas, and pick up 66 at Tucumcari, New Mexico ... missed Oklahoma City, Amarillo and the other cities on 66. 9th gear westbound and flying eastbound.
Ahhhh, the good old days.
Fred
Personally, I find it amazing that these intellectual types who can tell us all the reasons for unemployment can't see the obvious link between so-called operating efficiency and employment numbers. What I see are ever-growing parasites.
As investors, I'm sure you're pleased with the increasing 'Net Income per Employee'.
Good for corporations (and, maybe, investors) - bad for humans.
Fred
Ahhhhh, the voice of reason
Fred
My fairly useless guess is that we're seeing the 'sell on the news' phenomenon.
This earnings report seems to shelve the possibility of immediate bankruptcy, at least for the time being.
As long as cargo doesn't dry up, the share price will slowly work its way north.
The reverse split will provide a more appealing-looking earnings report, if (when) earnings go positive.
Fred
Good Morning, Quasi
Thank you, again, for your wonderful suggestion.
My grandson came by yesterday and did all the necessary. I now have a brand new keyboard --- and what used to be the Caps Lock key is now the Control Key. It would be hard for me to exaggerate what a blessing that is for me.
Thanks,
Fred
Edit: The important thing is that it relieves my mind for the future. I've worried about this problem for years and had bought two extra keyboards to protect myself. Last week, the second one went kaput and my nerves jangled. flg
And that's just one of 'em.
Fred
A society with no penalty for greed is flawed.
The problem, obviously, is identifying greed. We can't. All we can do is look at absolute gross receipts and add a tax burden to those that are excessive.
Fred
Personally, I think we should use that great metric --- gross receipts per employee --- to solve the problem.
The greater the gross receipts per employee, the more parasitic the company.
A progressive tax on gross receipts per full-time employee would reduce the incentive to dump the humans.
But --- as long as big money controls our nation's politics, it ain't agonna happen.
Fred
I remember that. Matter of fact, I was a tail-gunner on a Remington Rand for about five years.
Of course, typewriters didn't have control-key functionality. When I made an error, I tore up the page and re-typed it so my output was always pristine.
Fred
Thank you, very much, Quasi
I had no idea it was possible or that such a product was available. That will do the trick.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Fred
Because I use WordStar (and have since about 1978) and can maneuver, navigate and manipulate text quickly and without thinking about it. WordStar is heavily control-key dependent but much faster and more powerful than Word.
And --- it has a blow-away Thesaurus!!!!! (when I look at the one in Word, I'm amazed that such an important product has such weak writing aids.)
Fred
KeyTronics used to have a keyboard with switches so you could set the control key above the shift key. I've just spent some time on their site trying to find out if that option is still available. It doesn't appear to be.
Do you know if I can get a keyboard with the control key above the shift key? If so, where?
Fred
Yeah, but ...
When do you have time to eat?
Thank you for this. I suspected the likelihood of the problems you describe so I rarely download anything. The basics work just fine for me, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate your helpfulness and your thoroughness.
Best Wishes (after a long, long time)
Fred
Deflation is bad for insurance companies and banks. They take in money at par and pay back inflated 'money'. They've been sucking our blood this way for a long time.
Deflation is good for humans. They put money in insurance companies and banks and get back fresh blood of greater value.
Unfortunately, the circumstances that create deflation are usually bad for humans --- at least the ones who have to work for a living.
Fred
Pretty good idea, actually.
Never mind decrementing the person marks, just display both, side-by-side. It would give a pretty good indication of the poster's value to iHub.
It might even have a positive effect, at least on the few who care how others see them. Bobby Burns had it right (O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!). iHub could help by supplying a mirror.
Fred
Get thee behind me, Satan
Fred
Good Morning, northam
I said in an earlier message to nlightn that I learn the most from those who disagree with me. What I've learned from you is that you will be no help in conceiving a workable method of solving our country's problems.
One of the very nice things about my homeland - America - is that you can express your opinion ... and you have done so.
Fred
Because, as I said, the use of the word 'democracy' is common, if not always precisely accurate.
I am not trying to annoy people. We have severe problems in our country and I'm trying to focus on the causes and how we can correct them. I'm looking for answers and I don't care if they come from liberals, conservatives or independents, as long as they make sense.
As far as I can see, our most fundamental problem is the way we select the individuals who represent us in our government. These are the people that enacted the laws and conducted the policies that led us to our present circumstances. Our laws can be no better than the people who enact them. If we want to improve our government and our society, the first step must be to change the way we select the people who represent our interests.
Fred
Good Afternoon, Alex
re: appears to be yet another "tea party" organization that all of a sudden discovered that deficits matter
they want to "take their government back"
but they were very happy with it until Jan 2009
what's wrong with this picture?
Really? I wonder how you know they were 'very happy with it until Jan 2009'. Perhaps you'd be good enough to tell us 'what is wrong with this picture'. What I see is some folks trying to make a difference. In my opinion, that's a lot better than scoffing.
Fred
Good Afternoon, Ziggy
re: "I think many of the sheeple are getting totally fed up with the ways in which our government works ..."
I'm not inclined to denigrate 'the people' since we have no choices except those offered by an obviously flawed system. I'm more inclined to wonder what exactly we can do to change things. Many folks have dropped out but I think we can do better than that --- if we are willing to work for it.
re: "And they are looking for something that makes sense and are now willing to get active to be a part in seeing that the needed changes begin to get done."
I hope you're right. We have an awfully long way to go.
re: "One of my favorite people is Peter Schiff ...
I hadn't heard of him, but that doesn't mean much. There are a lot of bright and able people I've never heard of. We need an electoral method that lets us seek them out and raise them as our representatives.
re: "As the decades go by, and if the country is still intact, I'm hopeful that people of my generation will replace the career politicians that have no problem taking "bribes" from lobbyists in return for a vote that goes against the common good."
And the first step in that direction is for the young folks to believe that change is possible --- it just takes courage and energy, and the good sense to rely on reason rather than violence.
re: "GOOOH's plans to put good people into Congress will ultimately fail if no changes are made ..."
I'm inclined to think the change we need is to break the vice grip the parties have on our political infrastructure. When we allow political parties to usurp the power of governing our nation by their control of our elected representatives, it is foolish to imagine that we retain the power bestowed on us by our Constitution.
Fred
Hi, nlightn
re: "it would have to be established that we are either under a Democracy or a Republic or Other as the Law of the Land."
In the U.S., we are a Republic. So, that makes a good starting place, even if I don't consider it a critical point.
re: "there is a practice in the legal world called Color of Law."
There is also, I believe, a 'Color of Right'.
re: "would you be willing to accept the reason that 'folks' aren't willing to accept your interpretation is because they see a *different color of the law* than you do?"
Sure. That's my starting place. In this particular instance, I acknowledge, up front, that the idea might seem radical. What I'm wondering is how to get past the automatic rejection such ideas inspire --- in all of us, including me. I'm hoping those who see a different 'color of law' will describe their perspective.
re: "would you be willing to accept the >possibility< that you don't have all the information you need to make an accurate assessment of the subject which you posted on and are part of the "folks" that need to think about i ?
Absolutely. That's why I raised the topic. I found out, many years ago, that I learn more from those who disagree with me than from those who don't. If those who have a deeper insight than I will speak up, we'll all benefit.
This question about voting has been on my mind for a while, so I've gotten past the initial shock of such a radical notion. Now, the more I think about it, the more important it seems.
Fred
Good Afternoon, kismetkid
My questions did not address our form of government. They were about what voting means in terms of 'government by the people'.
re: "so far as i know, all the oaths sworn by incoming elected officials are 'to uphold the law of the land', and not to represent first the voters who elected them."
Doesn't that ignore how 'the law of the land' is promulgated? The people have a vital interest in 'the law of the land'. If we are to have 'government by the people', our laws should be formulated by representatives chosen by the people, not representatives chosen by the elites that control our political parties.
My question is this: If we think our present system (in the U.S.) is the best implementation of democracy, are we not justifying the existence of a political elite that will formulate the issues and select the candidates we'll be allowed to vote on? Is not devising an electoral method that lets the people choose their own representatives a more sensible approach to 'government by the people'?
Fred
Good Afternoon, northam
Thank you for the link to 'An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic'. I've reviewed the article.
Use of the word 'democracy' is common, if not always precisely accurate. Even so, the intent of the author is usually clear. To the greatest extent possible, I'd like to focus on the topic under discussion and avoid undue attention to semantics, except when there is a danger of misunderstanding.
In general, when I speak of an existing Democracy, I'm referring to the government of the United States. When I speak of making our government more democratic, I'm thinking about improving the 'by the people' clause of Abraham Lincoln's famous speech.
If, in the material I post, you find my use of the word 'democracy' (or any other word) unclear in a specific instance, please call it to my attention and I'll clarify my meaning.
Fred
I'm glad to see you've joined GOOOH, ziggy (if that's too familiar, I apologize.)
GOOOH is the first organization I've seen that has a real chance of making a difference. It will be a slow, hard process, but it can work. In a recent primary election here in New Jersey, a candidate with the backing of an active group that spent a mere $19,504 unseated a party politician who spent more than $200,575. Let's work for more of that.
I only hope Tim Cox and the other principals of GOOOH are able to stick with it because I think it will be a tough row to hoe.
Fred
re: Too many people to let all have an input.
Only as long as we think of the electorate as an amorphous mass rather than a pool of talent from which we can select the best.
Lobbies are a different concern. They are an important part of our political system that we must learn to handle.
In a representative democracy, such as we are supposed to have in the United States, we elect people to be our representatives. We do not require them to have any special knowledge or training. We elect them because we believe they can assimilate the information necessary to make sound decisions in the best interests of the American people.
Since the laws passed by our Congress apply to all our citizens, we anticipate that all interested parties will present their arguments, for and against, pending legislation. We expect our representatives to weigh the information presented to them objectively and to enact laws that benefit our nation and reject laws that are harmful to the American people.
As an example, we do not expect our representatives to know the science underlying the alleged ecological threats we face. Instead, we expect citizens who do have the knowledge to present it to our Congress for consideration. The houses of Congress schedule hearings to allow these presentations. Since the hearing rooms will not hold the three hundred million people who might be affected by a law, the interested parties designate agents, called lobbyists, to present the information to Congress for them.
That's the theory, and it's a good one, but it doesn't work quite like that.
I functioned in the role of lobbyist in the mid-1950s, lobbying against The Transportation Act of 1958 --- which passed, in part because the lobbyists for the large trucking firms (aka The American Trucking Associations) had greater access to the Senators on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee than those who opposed the legislation --- like me.
In those years, I still believed our representatives were worthy of our trust. Gradually, I came to realize that the problem is not lobbying, it is that lobbyists are allowed free access to our representatives. They donate huge sums to the representative's party, they wine them, dine them, provide them with exotic vacations, hire members of their family, promise them future employment and, by more subterfuges than I can relate, guarantee their fortunes. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, our representatives do what the lobbyists ask, not what's best for our nation.
It is the free access lobbyists have to our representatives that undermines a truly great system.
From time to time (quite frequently, actually), a Jack Abramoff shows up and we have a brief flurry of interest in the problem of lobbying. New laws are proposed, considerable lip-service is paid to cleaning up the mess, toothless legislation is passed, and then the whole thing dies down --- until next time.
There is a solution --- but do we have the stomach to demand it?
Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term --- just like members of our armed forces --- and like members of our armed forces, they should be kept at a government installation. When I went in the Air Force, I reported to an air base and that became my home. The arrangements for our elected officials should be similar.
The facilities at the installation should be as palatial as need be, with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and entertainment facilities, but access to our representatives should be restricted. Those wishing to affect pending legislation should present their arguments, publicly, in the hearing rooms provided for the purpose ... and that should be the absolute limit of their interaction with our elected representatives.
Nothing short of such an arrangement will prevent the corruption that permeates our political system.
Fred
Of course not --- that's the point of what nlightn said.
Our governmental system is defined by our Constitution, and nothing in our Constitution expresses or implies the need for political parties. They are an extra-Constitutional invention, devised to advance partisan interest.
Those who seek good government need not tolerate the corruption of party politics. We do not need partisanship, which sets one person against another; we need independent representatives who will think for themselves and reach intelligent decisions on matters of public concern. In other words, to improve our government, we must change the way we select our representatives.
We have the technological ability to support a more democratic method; the big hurdle is to get people to acknowledge the problem. Many fall victim to the common malady of believing our press clippings. We've been told so many times through so many years that our political system is the best in the world, some of us can't admit it is a cesspool of corruption, funded by special interests that buy the laws we endure.
Most Americans assume political parties are legitimate centers of power under our Constitution. That is untrue. Nothing in our Constitution authorizes, institutes or enables political parties.
The difficulty lies, not in our Constitution, but in our will. We must want to build a political system that puts public interest above partisanship, a method that responds to vested interests but is not controlled by them.
Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Until we learn to harness our own nature, we can improve neither our politics nor our society. There is no Constitutional bar to devising a more democratic process; the only impediment is ourselves. Since we can not divorce our political institutions from our own nature, we must make virtue a desirable attribute in those who seek political advancement. That may be difficult ... but it is not impossible.
As nlightn said, "but moreso we need, as a society, to welcome innovation and use our personal energy to promote that innovation to create a a better functioning society for all.
it's unfortunate that a lot of effort/energy is going into keeping things in the status quo column by the self-elected elite."
Fred
Thank you, Northam
I will probably respond on this topic again, after I've had an opportunity to study the link you posted.
Fred