Mudslinging and More
As far as mudslinging goes it is useful to recall that in these latter days of the American Republic, mudslinging is a lost art form. Rarely if ever, unlike the heady days of when the Republic was fresh do opponents in races accuse the other side of corrupting infants or worse … stealing them.
Mudslinging, machine politics, and the rest came of age in the first few elections, notably I think when Mr Arnold almost stole an election in New York by virtue of good organization. Very quickly the high minded concepts of Madison and the rest of the Constitutional convention designers had in mind were thrown aside by the rough and ready actualization of their political structure.
Step back for a moment, and examine the political process. Consider the skills and virtues (and vices) required to win an election. Set that aside and consider the virtues and skills we wish a leader to possess. We’re getting leaders who excel at “spin” and the 6-12 second sound bite. Who looks good in makeup and can memorize talking points effectively and is talented at delivering speeches teleprompted speeches written by somebody else. Well, is a person who excels at that … likely to be the wisest among us? We get blathering fools, pretty empty suits, ex-military heroes and hockey moms because … that’s what rises to the top of our particular process. If you don’t want that … too bad. It’s what our system is designed to produce. That’s a natural consequence of our Constitution for better or worse. The best way of making those esteemed knuckleheads less relevant is insisting that they become less relevant.
When comparing Thomas Payne and John Adams it is useful to remember that while both excelled at tearing down the old (the Colonial system) only one, Mr Adams did the hard work of building a new system. This is why, here, one finds often essays not just on what is wrong, but on the importance of “localizing” politics and political decisions and power. Why? Because within the system it is the only way there is which might see us clear which will preserve the American ideals and way of life. Changing the Constitution is very difficult … but localization could be enacted within the framework of our current Constitutional system. A certain amount of legal precedent would have to be overturned, but no Constitutional dicta would have to be let go. The difficulty with my notion is that it has to be a groundswell insistence … because as is well known the default instinct of the government is to govern more … rarely, if ever, less.
Just yesterday I mused that anti-trust legislation should not just guard against monopoly, but mere size as well. It was proposed that if a company got “too big to fail” then that’s problematic enough because it requires a bailout and therefore that corporation no longer needs to be competitive. Likewise with government programs. Government programs don’t “have to be good” or compete in the market of ideas because they “are too big” to fail when at the federal level. Localization means that if a village or precinct is royally screwing things up … people will leave (recall that one of the primary freedoms that the “higher level” county/state/federal systems need to guard is the freedom of people to choose their locale and thereby their associations). We should fight for your right to be enslaved and jailed … as long as the door remains open.
Filed under: Mark O. • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!