Good Morning, Tim
re: "People will work together to meet common goals. If you don't have parties you will have other types of groups and organizations. If you try to stamp them out then you only make it more secretive."
I repeat my earlier comment on this topic: "It is not my intention to ban political parties."
As someone much smarter than I said, "Association is natural to human beings, and is therefore an inalienable right." I agree. We align ourselves with like-minded individuals in all kinds of ways; in the American Legion, the Knights of Columbus, the Elks, the German-American Bund, the Masons, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Japan Society, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Green Party, the Italian-American Club, the Kiwanis Club, the Odd Fellows and innumerable other organizations and groups. What we don't do is give those organizations control of our government.
The problem in American politics is not with alliances, parties, groups or organizations, per se. The problem is that certain political parties have arrogated to themselves the right to control our access to our government.
That is wrong!
re: "I wouldn't usually use the word corruption to describe this process (the process of working out compromises)."
Obviously, I don't know when you would use the word "corruption" but it appears our definitions differ. Of the many nuances of the word, one that applies to our discussion is that, to me, an office-seeker who vociferously proclaims commitment to the public interest to gain election when he or she has privately committed him- or herself to vested interests is corrupt. Your view may differ.
re: "If campaign contributions to parties are corrupting (a debatable proposition) then contributions to individuals would also be corrupting."
This raises three issues:
1) the assertion that the corrupting influence of campaign contributions is debatable.
Do you see no contradiction in calling the corrupting influence debatable and, immediately thereafter, providing a link to Daniel Henninger's essay describing how the corruption is carried out? If you really believe the issue is debatable, please explain why huge commercial enterprises "contribute" multi-millions of dollars to the political parties (usually both.)
2) the corrupting effect of contributions to individuals.
You are absolutely correct. Contributions to individuals are at least as corrupting as contributions to organizations.
3) the need for contributions to individuals.
Why would individuals need contributions? Are you assuming every possible method of selecting our representatives would require campaigning? Can we not conceive a method that does not leave our candidates beholden to financial backers? Of course we can. We have the tools to do so, all we need is the ingenuity.
re: "I don't think it (a method open to all citizens who have attained maturity) would be a proper goal because I don't think the end justifies the required means and in fact I don't think the end would be achieved by implementing the means."
What an extraordinary statement!
In the first place, we already have a method open to all citizens who have reached maturity. To assert it is not a proper goal for a new method is ludicrous. In the second place, you speak of the "means" but give us no indication of the means you have in mind.
In our discussion to date, we've talked about some weaknesses in the current method of selecting our representatives and we've started to look at the goals we seek to achieve by changing the method. We may have more to do in both these areas. In addition, we need to work on a vision of what the new method would be before we start to think about accomplishing it.
re: "If you have an open election to determine the candidates than you will still have people who have the support of large political organizations (whether or not they are called parties) and these people will have an advantage, probably a big one."
and
re: "Everyone could try to toss their hat in the ring, but everyone (at least everyone who meets the criteria and that is pretty much all eligible voters) can do that now."
You are introducing methods. If you are attributing the methods to me, you are premature. If you are proposing methods to be considered, can you describe how they would work?
re: "What does your method even hope to gain?"
I have not proposed a method in our discussion. I hope we can define one that achieves whatever goals we set forth as desirable.
re: "We are all allowed to participate. We might have a 0.000000001% chance of actually winning but we already have the ability to run or to support someone else."
If you will forgive me for saying so, that's a facile statement. We are discussing a problem and seek a solution. The problem is not simple and the solution is not obvious. If I may interject a quotation: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." Bertrand Russell
re: "How could you cause that (advancing on our individual qualities) to happen?"
Now, you're at the crux of the matter. How could we cause that to happen?
We don't have the answer, but we're working on it. At the moment, we're trying to figure out what we want, and letting candidates advance on their individual qualities is one.
Do I have ideas about how it can be done? Of course I do, but they are simply the notions of one old man. My guess is that there are other, better ideas out there which may surprise us with their simplicity and elegance.
re: "You can't have a multi-way political conversation with millions of people all participating."
You may not have considered all the possibilities. Have you factored time into your analysis?
re: "Many won't care to participate ..."
Great point! This should be added as one of the goals:
The method must accommodate the fact that many people won't care to participate.
By way of discussion of this goal, the accommodation extends to those who do not wish to seek public office. It does not extend to those who don't care to vote. We promote voting as a civic obligation and that's a good thing which should be continued.
re: "Under any system politicians will have incentives to act other than honorably on our behalf."
re: "Under any system it will be expensive to get your message out to scores of millions of voters."
It seems you are rejecting any ideas we develop ... before they are presented. That's like the child that cries in anticipation, before he's spanked. Instead of asserting what can't be done, please consider what can be done. You may surprise yourself, and, if so, we'll all benefit.
re: "Its very hard to predict how people will react to anything very different than the current situation, no matter how carefully you consider the changes."
I don't think that's valid. The work of B. F. Skinner and the behavioral scientists has taught our leaders (political and commercial) to predict public reaction with great exactitude, and the growth of mass communications has provided the means of doing so. We know with some certainty that what we perceive as need can lower our moral boundaries and the absence of need raises them. We can apply this knowledge.
Incidentally, does it not strike you as odd that we protest the use of profiling in crime prevention but fail to condemn its use to record, categorize, and sell the preferences of a large portion of our citizens? If profiling in pursuit of criminals is bad, how much more heinous is the profiling of our citizenry?
Fred |
