Independent Caucus

Losing a Founding Principle

The previous post suggested you see the next post - this post - for how government accountability might be improved and even restored from a loss of it due to lobbying and large campaign contributions.  If you will permit me, I'm going to hold off for now on the "how".  It is coming, and will be posted soon.  There's a discussion going on  among a few friends, and for now, I'm going to table it.  However, I offer this post as more evidence that such a return to accountability is critically needed.

Newt Gingrich spoke at Johns Hopkins university day before yesterday and reminded the audience of the following founding, and at the time, revolutionary principle of American government:  that American rights and power originate with God, and from God flow directly to the people; he is referring to our inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

That was a nice concept, in fact, it was beyond nice, rather, a wholly new and revolutionary concept, that state power flows directly from God to the individual and then to the state as individuals and the electorate instruct.

The problem is that it's not working like that now. Perhaps it did then, at the time of our founding.  But, very arguably and practically, it's not working like that any more. 

We still vote, to be sure.  But do we?

Voter apathy is bad, and has been, and some are predicting is getting worse. There is a prediction reported now that conservative voters - voters who typically believe in smaller government, low taxes (since small government doesn't need large taxes), non-deficit spending, paying off America's outstanding debt, holding what debt we incur nationally instead of with foreign interests, a minimum of foreign entanglements (a general Yankee-stay-home philosophy), protection for the environment, and protection of individual privacy and liberties from intrusions by the state - shall stay home on November 7th, disgusted with current republicans and dubious that democrats are the answer.

So is the voter our guarantee of the founding principle that power flows from the individual to the state if the voter does not vote?  Even more compelling, is the voter our guarantee that power flows from the individual to the state if our vote does not significantly alter - as conservatives are implicitly asserting by staying home - how our elected representatives govern and represent us?

In short, if our votes don't change anything, then we don't direct the flow of power from us to the state.  In fact, if our votes don't substantially change national priorities and direction, then quite literally - we don't have any power.

The vote is supposed to be OUR check and balance that government representatives represent us.  But if a large segment of the populace does not vote, and if that segment is getting larger and not smaller, and if other influences on representatives trump the majority vote and will - such as seemingly the ever increasing cost of a successful political campaign, and therefore the powerful influence of those who both hold large sums of money and are willing to spend it on candidates who they fully believe will reward such contributions with favored access and consideration, if not legislative votes directly - then literally our founding principle of power flowing from the individual to the state has been abrogated.

What empirical evidence would you look for that such a thing had occurred or was occurring?  Low voter turnout?  We have that.  Since 1980, 52.3% of eligible voters have voted in a presidential election year.  But what about when it's just our legislators up for election?  The average then is 37.4%; that is, 62.6% do not vote!  A healthy majority!

What other evidence would there be?  The existence of instruments for providing very large campaign contributions and achieving other influence with specific candidates?  We have this, of course, with multi-million dollar K-street lobbying firms and 527 groups.

What else would you expect?  A low approval rating?  Definitely.  If the majority of voters don't believe their representative is representing their interests, approval would be low.  I heard on C-SPAN today that the latest Wall Street Journal / NBC News poll indicates Congress' approval rating at 16%, which is a low stretching back to at least 1997 (where my source data stopped - http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob1.htm).  Eighty-four percent disapprove!

So consider again whether our founding principle - that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness devolve from our creator, to us and then to the state as we decide - is being threatened and under attack.  And ask whether we should be as or more concerned about that assault as we are potential assaults from terrorist groups and other nations.  Because there is nothing "potential" about this assault.  The empirical indicators are there and bear it out.  If we do nothing, then we will have transformed America - more through laziness and lack of vigilance than our deliberative and decisive will - once again in a dramatic and revolutionary way, only this time back toward a state-dominated model our founders worked so passionately and faithfully to avoid.

New Vehicle for the Public to Lobby its Representative

We don't have any good way to petition our government.

As a consequence, it's money that talks and not numbers.

It's supposed to be numbers, we all know, in a democracy, where majority rules but for rights granted to the individual (the Bill of Rights, a wonderful thing).

But it's supposed to be numbers, you know, your vote and that of others.  Now voting works fine, I hope I am not naive in writing, except for what I hope are, in terms of their effect on election outcomes, rare occasions of fraud and interference.

But let's assume that voting works fine, but then after the election, how does the public, the electorate, those whom the elected representative represents, gain access to that representative and communicate to him or her its majority position on the issues?

Let's look at how different individuals and groups do this.  The first individual  votes but does not typically donate to political campaigns.

I don't have the statistics on this, but I will hypothesize that this is the largest group of voters.  If someone has the stats, please pass them along, and if I find out, I'll update this post.  But this group, to my knowledge, is far and away the largest population of voters.  And I will speak from my own personal knowledge of immediate friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, and so on, that rarely does a member of this group write his or her congressman or senator, and certainly doesn't do it on any regular basis to apprise the representative of his or her position on a current or upcoming issue or bill.  Further, there is no attempt, when they do write, to organize and pool like-minded individuals in order to add greater numbers and weight to their letter.  The only aggregation which might occur - and can sometimes be significant when the public gets sufficiently aroused - is in the representative's inbox.

The second individual votes and typically makes a small campaign contribution.  And, again, I apologize I don't have the statistics, but this is a much smaller group of voters.  These individuals are probably more likely to participate. They already donate.  They are probably more likely to write, to call, perhaps.  They are probably more likely to belong to interest organizations, e.g. environmental groups, groups like the NRA, etc.  In terms of communicating their individual issue preferences (not that of the groups to which they belong; more on them later), these folks may well succeed better than the first group in getting their representative's attention as a campaign contributor and someone clearly more interested in participatory politics than the average voter.

I'll speed this along - you're welcome.  The third and last group would be individuals or interests who make large campaign contributions.  These include  corporations, who gain access to representatives both through collective contributions much larger than an individual's, and through large payments to lobbyists, who use their personal connections with representatives to communicate the corporation's position and preferences.  This third group also includes groups generally referred to as "special interests," which raise considerable sums from members, and dole out large payments to individual representatives, to lobbyists, and make still larger contributions to the national parties through 527 groups and other legal vehicles under current campaign finance law.

Once again, I don't have the statistics, but I will hypothesize that as much smaller as the second group was from the first, that this third group is dramatically smaller than the second.

But look at their voice. Consider their access.  Both are so much greater than the first two groups, again, except for the rare issue which takes hold within the general public, and prompts a flurry of representative letter-writing.

So then is that democratic?  Is the majority view heard and communicated to the elected representative to a degree proportionate to the majority numbers?  It is not.  And the reason is there is no effective vehicle for communicating and aggregating the views of the voting majority (and, for that matter, the non-voting majority) to the elected representative.

The vehicles which moneyed voters and interests use are large contributions - which get the candidates' interest in and of themselves due to the high cost of campaigns - and personal access often through expensive lobbyists whose job it is to forge and maintain close contacts with elected representatives.  Both of these are very effective vehicles.

So group #3 is taken care of in communicating its views.  What do we do, what vehicle can we create, to give groups #1 and #2 access and influence with their elected representative which is on par with group #3, since representative and democratic government absolutely requires it?

Well, see the next post...

Debating Rules Must Change

This blog was started to place in the public arena, courtesy of the Internet, a different format and style of commentary.  That style is more easily described by what it is not - sound bites, canned phrases, doctrinaire positions, dismissive or condescending treatment of opposing positions, familiar partisan mantra - than what it is - analysis which is fundamentally multi-sided, supported by related events, histories and philosophies, and which recognizes that the best policy might well be an amalgam of positions held on the political right, left and center, or a wholly new policy altogether.

It is the style of this blog for one reason - because it teaches.

Sound bites don't teach - they declare.  It is up to the listener to decide based on intuition or faith in the source whether or not to believe them.  Sound bites don't answer "why?" and they don't suggest you ask, only that you believe, and vote that way.  Partisan essays do similarly; they provide ample reason and support from their given partisan side, but not the strongest arguments from other sides.

Sadly, somehow or another, across our country and at all levels of elected office, candidates have settled upon a style of debate which also favors speeches and sound bites instead of well-argued discourse. Candidate A has one minute to answer a question, a.k.a. make a speech; candidate B has 30 seconds to rebut, a.k.a. make a speech, but is not allowed to dialogue with Candidate A, such as to ask Candidate A a question.  After the candidates have completed their speeches on the given question, in some formats, the moderator may choose to ask a follow-up question; read that as one follow-up question.

I ask you - how many questions of any complexity were you able to resolve with your spouse, sibling, colleague, project team, etc by asking one question and one follow-up?

The debate audience is privy, therefore, to a very short-circuited debate, a very short-circuited treatment of any question.

Further, as mentioned, candidates might have one minute to address a question initially.  Again, how many questions of any complexity have you addressed or heard addressed in one minute?

So candidate debates have become necessarily and unavoidably that which is the antithesis of this blog - and I reiterate - sound bites, canned phrases, doctrinaire positions, dismissive or condescending treatment of opposing positions, familiar partisan mantra.  And what do these things fundamentally not do?  They do not teach.

More shocking but for the institution in which the following debate takes place, our Congress and Senate employ the same basic debating rules.

Listen to C-SPAN.  In Baltimore, it is 90.1 on your dial.  It is your ear to your  daily government at work.  You will hear, at the beginning of a floor debate, how many minutes of debate there shall be, followed by how those minutes shall be apportioned among Republicans and Democrats, and then you will hear debate begin.

And what will you hear?  You will hear a succession of independent speeches consuming, finally, the allotted total debate time.  You will not hear debate in a manner which you, yourself, are familiar with the term, in debates about a work strategy or retirement investing or choosing a college or university for your child to attend.

In any of those genuine debates, what would one party say to another if the one party posed an issue to, or asked a question of the other party, and the other party addressed a different issue or did not answer the question at all?  Would you recognize that as debate from your personal experience?

You would not.  But listen to your representatives debate the most critical issues of our day, affecting your lives and those of people around the globe - that is what they do.  Everyday.  On every issue.  That is how our representatives debate.  Those are the debating rules they have chosen for themselves, heretofore and now.

If those were the debating rules between husband and wife, among co-workers, among an army platoon on patrol - the result would be utter futility and failure.

So, I ask you:  given that we are government of, by and for the people, were it up to you, is that the kind of debate - are those the rules of debate - which you would choose for your representatives in government?

And if that answer was no, then why has congressional debate continued that way for so long, and why haven't I done anything, and why haven't you?

Businesses reorganize and re-strategize ever with the aim of improving upon communication up, through and around the organization.  Businesses understand their very competitiveness, livelihood and continuation depend on the right debate taking place, on lesser ideas being challenged and found wanting, on better ideas being challenged and found worthy.  And it's why business is forever changing, and Congress stays ever implacably the same.

It's a big reason why Congress' approval rating is 28% and its disapproval rating  65%.  And I ask again, why in a government of, by and for us do we allow debate in Congress that in no way resembles the manifestation of that word in our homes, our businesses or among ourselves?  And why haven't you changed things, or tried, and why haven't I?

It's as critically important as representative government.  We need to try.  If we don't try, then we don't care, and we get a government which is of that, by that and for that.  In short, we get the government we deserve, one which doesn't care about partaking of and applying the most effective communication and debate to the most pressing public policy issues of our day.  And such are the policies we shall get, as a consequence.

And if you find yourself later critical of those policies, then I shall bring you back squarely to this issue, this question, and whether or not you did anything to change political debate, in Congress, and publically between candidates and politicians in any forum.

Essay on Cooperation

[Just so you are all aware, this is more of a personal essay, less of a critical one.  I guess by writing it, I'm granting myself this privilege once in a while.]

Well, it is easy to criticize, isn't it?  Criticism and critical arguments are practically unavoidable in a public policy context, since it is the nature of such policy to have two, three or more sides opposing one another in some fashion.

But therein lies the reason for this post.  Opposition is natural, but is it helpful?  Or is there something else which would bring us as individuals, and on an international scale as peoples and nations, a greater satisfaction and a greater peace with ourselves?

Self-interest is the mother of all opposition.  So a different choice from opposition would mean elevating something else above self-interest.

The greatest, most basic self-interest is survival.  We kill for that, wantonly, if we have to.  The next most basic is security, and we kill for that, too, and wantonly again if we feel that our security lies only a few standard deviations from our survival.  The next most basic self-interest I would argue varies depending on where you are.  In some places, maybe it's leading a holy life, in others, perhaps being free from want or worry of want.  But in general, it's probably simply being free, free to pursue the life and life's work one is most honestly compelled to pursue.

It's when the above paragraph intersects for disparate peoples and nations - and even just friends and couples - that opposition rears its head.  But couldn't something else look up instead?

We've seen how opposition plays out.  Couples argue and split.  Nations bomb or threaten to bomb.  Public dollars, private dollars, and preparations address a fundamental paranoia that we are not safe.

But what could possibly trump self-interest and therefore opposition?  Well, a cooperative interest.

Could policy ever be made and motivated by a desire to at least attempt a rising of all boats, rather than a policy based on a premise that my boat should rise only if yours should sink?  Cooperative interest.

Economically, pursuit of a purely competitive, capitalistic model - the model postulated by Adam Smith and others to effectuate the most efficient allocation of resources among competing alternatives - proved without regulation to do just that, but then eventually choked itself into a recession and depression by consolidating the nation's wealth in the few and ever fewer who competed the best, each day's success having made them marginally better equipped to compete the next.

We ended up with industry and market trusts owned by a comparative few with enormous wealth, who inevitably spent some and saved much - more than had those industries been comprised of many less wealthy sellers. Rich people simply have a much higher Marginal Propensity to Save.  An oligarchy chokes off economic growth, since individually the uber-wealthy few don't spend enough to stoke the economy, and because everyone else is so devastatingly poor, they don't either.

That scenario still describes plenty of countries today.  It breeds opposition, strong-arm detentions, fences, cafe bombs and bombs just generally.

What if competition - for its proven effectiveness - were ever chosen as the pencil by which an economic development picture is drawn, but that decision on the picture itself is decided out of a cooperative interest intended to raise all boats?

And what if the competition were not pure, but, in fact, competitive?  Competitive competition.  The same thing which makes for a good tennis match, Masters tournament or baseball season.

Who besides the most cynical fan can be ecstatic that the New York Yankees vastly outplayed the Florida Marlins in baseball, when the Yankees payroll is $195 million and the Marlins is $15 million?  In the same way, what other proprietor of home goods has any shot at competing on price with WalMart?

If many sellers replaced WalMart, Kmart and Home Depot, prices would be higher from less economies of scale, but would wealth in this country be more widely distributed also?  And would higher incomes offset higher prices with personal income left to spare?  And might we have less of a concentration of wealth in this country - fewer uber-uber-rich - but a wealthier, more numerous and more prosperous middle class?

Would North Korea build a nuclear bomb - would any of us, really - if nations were motivated by the cooperative interest that all countries benefit when all countries benefit?

Would couples stay together and be happier if they did not seek their individual needs and styles and preferences, but a cooperative life that settles like a thrice twisted kaleidoscope into something of the previous two twists, but not identifiable as one or the other?

I think so.  If I could blink twice and make it so, I would give it a try.

Email to C-SPAN Asking for Answers as Well as Access

The following is an email I sent to C-SPAN today (9/3/06), following an interview and call-in questioning of Victoria Clarke on this morning's "Washington Journal."

Dear Washington Journal and C-SPAN,

I tried to call this morning on the Independent Line, as I listened on C-SPAN radio, to make the following point.

An earlier gentleman asked a very good question.  Though offering a reply of some length, Ms. Victoria Clarke, former Asst. Secretary of Defense, completely avoided the gentleman's question.  The moderator was not Brian Lamb, but another gentleman.  And he will remember this question, I suspect, if you bring it up with him.

The question went something like the following [tone and content best as I can recall]:  "When is the administration going to grow up and start acting like adults.  They hold stubbornly to a strategy which is not working, instead of getting more troops in there to protect the people on the street and to finish the job.  President Bush should replace Secretary Rumsfeld, and put in General Shinseki, who told the administration before the war that it would need over 200,000 troops to complete the mission."

Ms. Clarke answered by agreeing that people need to act like adults, and answered that just "getting out of Iraq" is not the way to go.  Now, getting out of Iraq was not the man's point!  In fact, it was quite the opposite, rather, in his view, changing course and sending in enough troops to do the job.  She also reiterated that the best course is to trust the generals on the ground, like Gen. Abizaid, who so far has not asked for a dramatic increase in troops. But again, to the gentleman's point regarding replacing Secretary Rumsfeld with Gen. Shinseki, if our policy once engaged is to trust the generals on the ground, then the key policy decision becomes deciding who is on the ground!  And the person who makes that decision is Secretary Rumsfeld.

Now, I love C-SPAN.  I listen whenever I can on C-SPAN radio.  You all do the best job, in my view, among the others out there, and it's why I listen.  But you, too, must be vigilant, and watchful, and grade yourself.  Part of your mission statement is:

"To provide the audience, through the call-in program, direct access to elected officials, other decision makers and journalists on a frequent and open basis."

If all you do, and all your moderators do, is provide "direct access", without holding and pressing your guests - many of whom, as you know, have political aims and biases even if C-SPAN does not - for answers as direct as the direct access you are pledged to provide, then once again your guests have been given but one more easy platform for spreading and promulgating what may well be an intentionally political, partial, flawed or distorted view; and your listeners once again, without direct answers, have no tool but their own intuitions for determining if what your guest said was correct or not, substantive or not, well-argued or not.

In short, what service do you provide to your audience and to public affairs programming if your call-ins succeed in spawning trenchant questions which are  evaded or heavily temporized by your guest, without recognition of this by your moderator, and an attempt to press your guest for a "direct answer" worthy of your "direct access" and larger public affairs mission?

To do this advances partisan affairs programming over public affairs programming.  In making public figures more available to the public, it emphasizes availability over usefulness, access over answers.  It measures your success based on whom you are able to get on your shows, rather than the information you are able to get from them.

You must be who you are or you will cease to be.  Better still, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, " When you cease to make a contribution, you begin to die."

If you let your guests temporize on C-SPAN, then C-SPAN is temporized. 

Limiting your stated mission to just access and not answers does not differentiate C-SPAN from many other stations, networks and media outlets.  You can't force anyone to answer, but I will suggest you add that answers are indeed part of your mission, and add something to that effect to your mission statement.  You will have revolutionized public affairs programming! - I hope you realize - if you do just that.

Sincerely,
Joseph F. Intili
www.independentcaucus.com