The Path to Dysfunction
First, and this is not a recommended route back, a number of friends who work in Congress tell me that the absence of earmarks represents the loss of an effective disciplinary measure by which party leaders could keep members in line. The idea is that if party leaders cannot promise junior legislators some goodies for their districts in return for their votes, they hold less sway over them.
Second, gerrymandering is clearly implicated. The fact of “safe,” noncompetitive districts also robs the political process of a disciplinary force, where members could conceivably be held to task for shutdowns and defaults.
Third is new, nonestablishment money. There exists today a toxic combination between record levels of wealth concentration and the devolution of campaign finance rules such that independent and often anonymous donors have much more influence.
I can deal with these three. The question Jared fails to answer is why did we suddenly become democratic immorals since 1980? I mean, if the USA naturally devolves into oligarchy then we have a bigger problem. What could that be?
So, try and figure out something useful. You sound like Robert Reich, claiming this evil force but failing to identify it. He makes a feeble attempt:
But — and this gradual process has reached a juggernaut — it’s not just that concentrated wealth and lax campaign finance means big money can buy the politics it wants. It can also buy the facts it wants.
We are being subject to a conspiracy, long in the making, of big money to control the facts. Frankly, in the era of the Internet this is a whopper. Jared, you fail to mention the most obvious and noticeable fact about democracy, In California we have 54 Congressional Districts and only two Senators. A clearly obvious mismatch which must be dealt with in any essay concerning democracy in America. We cannot help but notice that Jared specifically skipped this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment