In the aftermath of a political season, the first act of which just ended, I am galled by a sense of unfulfilled promise and lost opportunities. So, in an attempt to lift me out of that state of regret and frustration, I will attempt to focus on a few of my pipedreams -- nice things that might happen in the coming weeks and months. In my previous two installments, I outlined my top two pipedreams: I first stated my belief that people should draft a presidential nominee whether or not that person had taken steps to pursue that goal; I proceeded to make the case for Bill Bradley as the most logical choice. In my second installment, I outlined the hope that our government might actually sign on to a believable committment to get our fiscal house in order, and set down a long-term spending plan to get us to budgetary balance by 2002; I mentioned the worthy efforts both of the Senate's Mainstream coalition led by John Chafee and Breaux, and of the House of Representatives' Blue Dog coalition, as examples of promising leadership which might yet lead to our government successfully tackling this knotty and seemingly intractable problem. (In connection with the latter pipedream, it was heartening to see the staunchly conservative Thad Cochran, the senior Senator from Mississippi, praise the efforts of Messrs. Chafee and Breaux on last Sunday's Late Edition on CNN, and then go on to call for the establishment of a clear path to budgetary balance before the precise size and parameters of a tax cut are worked out and proposed. I realize that Senator Cochran's candidacy to become his party's Majority Leader in the Senate is a long shot at best; word came out just a week ago, in fact, that his rival for that post, junior Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, a Gingrich creature, now claims the 28 votes needed to win that contest. Obviously, I hope that the reports of Cochran's impending defeat are grossly exaggerated. But it is still heartening that even Republican conservatives are not monolithic on this matter, and are not necessarily going to link arms and goosestep with the Great Salamander.)
But now let me walk you through my third and somewhat more realistic pipedream, that of
It has long been my opinion that the greatest threat to our democracy is not our failure to deal with any one particular issue, but the deeply flawed methodology we use in our approach to ALL issues. That methodology is so deeply flawed because of the way we have allowed our political process to become corrupted and subverted. Currently, the average Senator and Representative spends an obscene amount of EACH DAY going to a "non-governmental" area in Washington, and rattling the tin cup in order to finance what has become the insatiable financial appetite of the modern political campaign. The gigantic and escalating costs of today's campaigns have fostered the pernicious development of PACs (political action committees) as almost the only engine with the resources to see an aspiring candidate or incumbent looking for election or re- election through to the realization of his aspirations. In part, this has come about as a result of today's legal limit on individual contributions to campaigns, currently set at one thousand dollars. Interest groups are very aware that for today's candidate to meet the obligations of campaigning, especially the high cost of paid TV, dollars must be available in the millions, and they are more than eager to obligate current and future incumbents by providing a campaign with its livelihood through PACs.
As a result of this degrading process, politicians find themselves under almost irresistible pressure to tender to the needs and greeds of their pet interest groups, rather than the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people whom they putatively represent. After all, most politicians only need answer to the concerns of the latter for one hour every two years, -- yes, one hour; remember: most Americans only get a lousy lunch hour to vote. Unlike almost every other civilized industrialized democracy, America does not give its citizens a day off to vote; we are usually forced to squeeze what is supposedly our 'right' to vote in between wolfing down food, running necessary errands, and making that critical phone call that can't wait. On the other hand, the incumbent politician needs the attention of interest groups 24 hours a day if he is to keep his head above the electioneering waters in today's inflationary campaign universe. Only by setting himself the goal of collecting an obscene amoung of money EVERY DAY can he hope to keep the skids greased and ready for his never-ending campaign.
Is it any wonder then that so many people in our country today feel that the political process uses them more than they are able to make use of it? Is it any wonder then that cynicism and apathy have become endemic in today's electorate? Is it any wonder then that voter participation in America ranks near the bottom among today's democracies?
This must stop; this must end. Democracy cannot long endure where its participants and supposed beneficiaries become increasingly despairing of the so-called democracy's relevance or ability to minister to the needs of the people.
The core of the solution is spiritual, -- the people's faith in the ability of their government, and the good faith, sincerity, and abilities of those who would aspire to lead them, must be restored. This means not only that the currently debased political system must be reformed and cleansed. This also means that the political system must be clearly PERCEIVED as having been so repaired. One could argue any of a hundred ways in which the system could be improved or even made quite perfect. But all such attempts are foredoomed to failure if there is room for someone or some group to successfully paint the effort as self-serving or hypocritical or counterfeit or any of the other myriad adjectives now used in the political arena to easily sway an electorate currently too quick to condemn and too slow to trust. In order for an attempt at political finance reform to be successful, it must have the backing of a significant portion of all sides of the debate; in other words, a group of diverse, disparate people, unused to alliance, must be willing to jump off the cliff together.
It is in this context that I find the McCain/Feingold/Smith/Shays campaign finance reform bill currently languishing in both houses of Congress to be so impressive and inspiring. There are three provisions in this bill in particular which, in my view, are enough in and of themselves to render it worthy of support: first, the bill places voluntary limits on campaign expenditures; second, it limits the amount one can contribute to one's own campaign, critical in this era of deep pockets candidates like Perot and Forbes; and last and best, it guarantees free TV to all qualified, legitimate candidates. Obviously how one goes about defining that category would have to be worked out, and would be the occasion for vociferous and heartfelt debate I am sure. But that's nickel and dime stuff compared to the importance of the principle itself, once established. For one thing, in one fell swoop one removes the single most important contributor to the outrageous cost of today's campaigns, -- paid TV. For that one reason alone, the bill merits passage.
Currently, John McCain is waiting in the Senate for Bob Dole to live up to his vague promise that there would be a vote on the bill by Memorial Day. Obviously, that promise has not been kept, and McCain's office is now holding out the possibility that he may try to attach the legislation as an amendment to the defense bill about to be taken up in the upper house. As for the lower house, Linda Smith has been told that she may or may not be allowed to offer her bill by itself for an up-or-down vote in the House during what Dick ("4.25 today, 4.25 tomorrow, 4.25 forever") Armey has pompously called Reform Week, -- the week of July 8th. The bottom line is that due to the indefatigable efforts of these two gadflies, with able assistance from Senator Feingold, and Congressmen Shays and Meehan, the leadership of the Republicrats may be forced in spite of themselves to take steps which could go a long way to rekindle the people's faith in the good intentions and probity of that leadership. Participatory democracy is very ill in this country; good medicine for that illness is scarce to be found. Let us hope that the draught proffered by this group is seized upon eagerly by Congress before it adjourns for good this year.
Of course, you may feel that the remedy offered by McCain and Smith are the exact opposite of what we need. That's fine; either way, let me hear from you. You are cordially invited to fill out the boxes below and express yourself. Bear in mind that I reserve the right to quote statements sent to me in this manner, in whole or in part, in subsequent Musings. Also, be sure to indicate in the Title of your Message the name of the Musings, "Pipedreams III -- Yes, Another Sequel," to which you are responding. Thank you.
Of course, if you prefer to contact me privately, off-the-record, feel free to do so at
