Eccentric Flower:199811/we the congress
From Eccentric Flower
«November 1998 «Eccentric Flower
 |
five eleven navy blue we the congress I can tell that those of you masochistic enough to read regularly do not really like the political discussion, because you've been silent. Actually a reader I expected to hear from viz. the rants below is on a business trip - I may get a delayed flame from her when she comes back. Let me do a little defusing in advance, just in case. I got a scathing email from REM and a gentle one from Ranjit. They were both absolutely correct, but the thing is, I knew they were correct when I wrote the postcards. Somewhere in there, my tone of sarcasm got lost - a bad error for a writer to make. Although it's obvious, for example, that I'm really unhappy about this campaign-finance initiative, it's less obvious that I realize my "solution" won't work either. So in case you missed that: It won't. I said it as a combination of spite and wishful thinking. As REM noted, it runs afoul of freedom of speech. Political contributions are a form of free speech. You do not want to be in a position where someone is told he/she can't give money to his/her candidate. Of course, the ideals and the reality do conflict - small contributions from individuals barely mean anything in current campaigns, and it sometimes seems silly to be worried about the ten bucks Joe Voter gives at a rally, when it'll be invisible next to the ten thousand from the lobbyist. But the exceptions prove the rule. David Duke, an execrable man but an absolutely hypnotic speaker, financed his campaign twice, start to finish, solely on the basis of those $5 and $10 contributions from rallies. No big backer would come near him. And, because the campaign-finance laws in Louisiana were made truly rigorous (partially as a response to Duke's money-gathering methods), he had to report and itemize all of them. Which he did. A determined man, Mr. Duke. Also intelligent. I so badly wish he were on the side of the good guys. But I digress. My contempt for the legislator's-salaries item may not have been clear either, although I did call it "simplistic," which is not a complimentary word when I use it. In Texas the legislator's salaries are enshrined in the constitution. Read Molly Ivins to find out how well that hasn't worked. It's a bad idea for a number of reasons, some obvious, some not. I admit I voted for the salary-tie item. And I did it out of malice. I believe the public which goes for the simple solution gets what they deserve, and if they want to make their own bed, I'll help them lie in it. Isn't that a horrible, elitist attitude? I'm ashamed of myself. I don't really believe that. Can we say I voted for it out of whimsy instead, or is that even worse? Speaking of whimsy .... This occurred to me on the way to work today, eclipsing other events (such as watching people load what appeared to be a small Zamboni onto the subway train with the aid of a metal plate - weird). What if there were no political campaigning at all? What if legislators on the state and local levels (forget national for a moment) were selected from among registered voters by a process akin to the lottery for jury duty? You'd get a letter in the mail, etc etc. The only difference is that opt-out would be voluntary. You wouldn't even have to give a reason. You could just say "I don't want to," and that would be that. The job would have to pay well, enough that the compensation would make up for a year of missed work - because it would have to be fairly long-term; you can't legislate well when the faces change every two weeks. And no employer is going to give you a year's paid leave. In fact, the employer might have to be given compensation too, as an inducement for you to still have a job waiting for you when you're done. This is, of course, completely impractical and unworkable. No question. I present it not as a viable idea but more of a thought experiment. Say it could be pulled off. Assume that no one will be scared to accept the position because of work-related concerns. They may, however, have other reasons for declining - tedium, apathy, worry that they won't be able to understand the matters being discussed, etc. What would happen? What would this fictitious legislature look like? What would be its median intelligence, racial composition, career sector, et cetera? And would it make better or worse laws than what we have now? OK, I'll shut up about politics for a while.
© columbine |
