Arthroscopic Politics
Reforming government from within. A proposal for a non-political political party
No question. In recent decades, the United States Government has accomplished a number of commendable things. The Feds have reduced pollution, provided financial security for the elderly, furnished medical care to the needy, stimulated scientific research and technological development, and pioneered space exploration. Alas, these same folks have been capable of doing a number of monumentally stupid things as well.
Witness the current financial crisis. It would be unreasonable to place the entire blame for the debacle on the Federal Government, but the evidence unambiguously points to its involvement at several levels. Even in the absence of evidence, suspicion would understandably focus on government as one of the codefendants if for no other reason than its record of past fumbles. It seems that whenever and wherever anything goes seriously wrong in this country of ours, you can bet the government is somehow implicated. Failed policies and inadequately funded projects lie strewn across the fruited plain be it farming, forestry, social security, health care, ethanol production, disaster relief, public housing, education, veteran’s affairs, finance, and on and on.
Perhaps an even more serious indictment of government could be made as to what it has failed to do. Glaring problems have been allowed to fester year after year: the poor performance of our schools, the Byzantine complications of our income tax regulations; the overly expensive, overly fragmented, and grossly inequitable health care system; the unending, counter-productive war against drugs; and the impossibly-large shortfall in Medicare funding that lies ahead.
The circumstances behind each governmental disaster vary, of course, but they all stem from a common cause: democracy itself is inherently error prone. By definition it is susceptible to public opinion that, all too often, is emotionally immature and wrong-headed. And when public opinion is not leading the country astray, one can be confident that administrative mule-headedness, party politics, and/or special interests are. And if those negatives are not enough to undermine democracy, there is always the opportunism on the part of lawmakers themselves who tend to be more dedicated to their own incumbency than their responsibilities as public servants.
There is, of course, nothing new in these allegations. The government of the United States was probably just as ineffectual one-hundred years ago as today, but it was incapable of missteps on so grand a scale by virtue of its smaller size and narrower scope. Compared to past administrations, what we have now is a fire-breathing behemoth striding down Main Street of every town in the country threatening to wreck everything in sight.
Not surprisingly, then, as government has grown, so has the number of special interest groups, advocacy councils, nonprofits, think tanks, political analysts, and the like endeavoring to resist its expansion or, at least, channel its activities to better purposes. But no matter how well informed, how competently staffed, how well intentioned, how articulate, how well funded, and how badly needed these organizations may be, their actual impact on legislation is, perforce, limited. For one thing, they run the gamut of political opinion and thus, to one extent or another, tend to cancel each others’ output. Additionally, their very numbers tend to dilute whatever arguments any one of them can make. And finally, many are held suspect on account of their biased sponsorship. The bottom line is that Washington’s multitudinous organizations, bray as they might outside the hallowed halls, are not heard clearly enough by our legislators to meaningfully alter their decision making.
The question arises then, can anything be done to reform the Federal Government directly-that is to say, from the inside. I believe there is.
* * *
What if there were twenty members of the House of Representatives who, having no political affiliations and no ideological preconceptions, considered each piece of pending legislation in an entirely rational, impartial manner. Free to back some proposed statutes and oppose others solely on the basis of their relative merits. Would they not fundamentally alter the workings of Congress? You bet they would.
In four out of five congressional elections this decade (the 107th House through the 110th) the numerical difference between the two major parties varied from 11 house seats to 31, with an average of 24. (the 2008 election was a blowout for the Democrats giving them a margin of 79) And since most votes do not follow strictly along party lines, very often the difference between the “ayes” and “nays” is much closer than the 24 votes suggested by the statistics. Thus were our twenty hypothetical independent congressmen to vote as a block, their support for, or opposition to, a particular measure, could well be decisive.
In practice, the influence exerted by those indy-congressmen would, in all likelihood, be far greater than their numbers might indicate. For example, the sponsor of any new legislation would no doubt be motivated to sound out the block’s attitude before throwing it into the hopper. In many cases, therefore, they would not only have a strong voice in the ultimate outcome of bills, but in the bills’ authorship. Alternatively, nothing would stop the indy-congressmen, in the country’s best interest, from initiating statutes on their own.
One caveat, of course, is that the indy-congressmen would be under no legal obligation to vote with their fellows as a block. On the other hand, since defections would greatly weaken the block’s political power, they would, presumably, be rare. In any case, the indy-congressmen would be honor bound to support the block by their campaign pledges. Which brings up the political question of how to inject this band of twenty or so worthies into a fortress-like institution zealously guarded by savvy, heavily-armed incumbents.
* * *
Advocated herein is a new type of non-political, political party. Let’s name it the “Pragmatic Party” (or Prags) as a working title and imagine what it might look like.
The Prag’s stated position would be that, as a matter of principle, they would not endorse any given set of predetermined policies-that is to say, the party would commit itself only to the adherence to democracy’s uncontested “universals” such as honesty and transparency in civic affairs; protection of life and property; fiscal responsibility; rule of law; equal rights and freedom for all. Other than these core principles, the Prag’s platform would be that it had no platform.
To defend this seeming apostasy, the new party would point out that platforms in the past have proven to be little more than cynical attempts to win elections and to be pigeonholed thereafter. Indeed, if party platforms played any lasting role at all, it was a negative one. Flat commitments to this or that policy had the effect of inhibiting creative thinking and making compromise more difficult. In addition, from a political standpoint, changing circumstances often turned what looked like a sure vote-getting policy into a crushing handicap a few months later. The Prags’ position of neutrality would avoid these difficulties while blunting criticism headed their way. On the issue of abortion, for example, neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers would have much to gain by quarreling with a party that had nothing to say on the subject.
Rather than locking themselves into predetermined positions, Prag candidates would advertise the positive side of their position-that is to say, the methodology by which they intended to arrive at their legislative decisions. The first step in their analysis would be verification of the assumptions underlying the proposed piece of legislation before them. Next would come confirmation that the bill was consistent with existing law, that it furthered the public good, and that it did not violate their core beliefs. Assuming a particular measure met these basic qualifications, the Prags would focus on a follow-up regimen to track its impact on the real world-a common sense precaution normally ignored by Congress. In this connection, the Prags would demand that, whenever possible, a feedback clause be added to the proposed bill that would measure the law’s efficacy after its enactment and either automatically limit or expand its scope accordingly. And last would come a critical examination beyond that of the bill itself regarding any untoward consequences that might be lurking within its provisions. In short the Prag members of Congress would apply sorely needed disciplines to the chamber’s normally discordant operations.
* * *
No doubt the very mention of a minor party elicits skepticism on the part of the reader. And for good reason. In recent years, the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Progressive Party, Independent Party, and, of course, the perennial Socialist Party, have all attempted to break into the rigid, two-party-dominated political scene with little success regardless of the merits of their respective causes. Would not the Pragmatic Party automatically suffer a similar fate? Not necessarily. Not if they avoided the blunder committed by all the others-that is to say, engaging the established political parties on their own turf where every factor is heavily stacked against unwelcomed newcomers. Let’s look at each of these factors and consider how the Pragmatic Party might overcome them.
LACK OF FUNDING: The most obvious disadvantage faced by any minor party is inadequate financing. Past elections have been David-and-Goliath contests in which David had nothing more lethal to fling than wads of paper and Goliath was armed with a belt-load of hand grenades. Needless to add, the Prags would find these odds uninviting and would, instead, run in only as many congressional districts as they could successfully compete. Assuming a million dollars is required to run a respectable contest for a House seat, then a five million war chest in a given election would limit them to five campaigns. They would expressly avoid, of course, any money-wasted attempt to run statewide, let alone nationwide candidates. (It goes without saying that the Prags would not qualify for federal funding-politically speaking, a point in their favor.)
This is not to say that the Prags would be bereft of financing. Whereas they would have no legislative favors with which to entice potential contributors, they would be in position to attract millions of thoughtful, idealistic voters who are dissatisfied with the major parties and would welcome the chance to donate to a truly independent party. Thanks to the Internet, which offers an easy way for such voters to express their preferences, it is safe to say, I believe, that enough funds could be solicited by early sympathizers to get the Prags’ ball rolling.
Helping the Prags hold their own, even when their war chests were somewhat less commodious than those of their competitors, would be their disavowal of the expensive, inane, insulting thirty-second political commercials that clog the airwaves with emotive messages devoid of any meaningful content whatsoever.
Notwithstanding the number of Prag members elected initially, it would be hoped that their demonstrated integrity and rationality would enhance the party’s image and lead to future success and an enlargement of their delegation in later election cycles. Eventually, by this evolutionary process, the critical number of twenty to thirty seats would be reached and the country embarked on a sounder legislative course.
MEDIA INATTENTION: Right along with the issue of funding, the disproportionately stingy amount of publicity trickled out to third parties was a crippling factor in past political campaigns. The media was simply too preoccupied by the big fight in the center ring to give anything but token attention to the skirmishes going on in the side rings. For all practical purposes, third-tier parties were shut out of normal news reportage, televised political debates, and editorial comment making it virtually impossible for them to get their message across through traditional channels.
There is every reason to believe, however, that the novelty and the legitimacy of the Prag agenda as outlined above would attract considerable local radio and newspaper attention where it would be needed. And, again, the Internet opens up a host of nontraditional channels that Prags, thanks to their technological leanings, should be able to hold their own.
ORGANIZATIONAL HANDICAPS: The two major parties have the wherewithal to maintain a permanent core organization prepared, in election years, to rapidly expand into an extensive propaganda and get-out-the-vote machine. Third parties do not have that option. But just as army tanks, no matter how powerful, are ineffective in rough mountainous terrain, the Prags can neutralize the major parties’ political juggernauts by choosing to compete in districts containing large universities. In such academic surrounds, they should be able to enlist large numbers of young, independent-minded student activists disillusioned with Washington’s political wrangling, bald-faced posturing, and gross ineptitude. And the Prags’ unique, principled stand should also appeal to universities’ faculties who would be drawn to the party’s unbiased and scientific approach to governmental decision making.
VOTER APATHY: The very structure of the electoral battlefield is, unfortunately, designed to thwart third parties by its winner-take-all outcomes. In parliamentary governments, a party garnering say 4% of the vote could expect to gain a proportional number of seats in the governing body; in the US, 4% of the vote would earn no more than a footnote in the annals of the Federal Election Commission. Not surprisingly then, many voters conclude that a vote cast for third party candidates is a vote wasted and therefore see little reason to inform themselves what those candidates stand for. Even if sympathetic to a minor party’s agenda, voters are understandably reluctant to “throw away” their votes as opposed to furthering the major party they believe is the less reprehensible.
Unlike other minor parties, Prags should be able to largely escape this lethal syndrome. They will be able to argue that, one, they engage only in contests in which they have a reasonable chance of winning and, two, once in office, they can play a meaningful, even decisive, role.
IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT: Third parties arise when groups of hard-core believers feel strongly enough about a set of fixed principles to take political action. Whereas such philosophical fervor is necessary to give a nascent movement the momentum it needs to gain a foothold in the national arena, it can also saddle it with an Achilles’ heel. Obviously, the more radically its views are expressed, the more readily those views can be attacked by the major parties’ experienced politicos and their pliable henchmen in the media. Even if a third party attempts to portray itself as a model of moderation, the major parties can find ways to extrapolate its position to some hypothetical extreme and then excoriate the straw case they’ve invented.
As already suggested, an uncommitted Pragmatic Party could only be attacked for its wont of principle, but such attacks, I believed, could be turned to the party’s advantage by wrapping itself in the virtues of its impartiality.
BURDENSOME RED TAPE: If one were looking for a classic case of collusion between government and special interests, he would be hard put to find a better one than our government’s favoritism toward the two established major parties at the expense of third parties. The sinister forces of governmental protectionism have erected a regulatory wall that obliges third parties to plow through a myriad of state and national rules that place on them a disproportionately heavy financial and time-consuming burden. Thanks to what has been called an “arcane, bizarre, and outrageous” system, third parties face formidable legal obstacles that, not infrequently, force them to initiate ballot access lawsuits. Then, once on the ballot, they have to interpret for themselves how the contradictory rules apply to their special situation-again having to resort to legal opinion in the process. And as if these obstacles were not impediment enough, our good legislators have made matters worse by their campaign contribution laws.
True this morass of burdensome regulation is applicable to the major parties as well, but the weight of the law falls far more heavily on poorly staffed third parties than the well-oiled machinery of their two major competitors. As far as the Pragmatic Party is concerned, they too would face the same discriminatory circumstances, but presumably their focus on fewer campaigns would lighten the cost of their compliance.
* * *
To sum up, I believe that by overcoming the traditional third party handicaps and by the offering an alternative to the decidedly lackluster performance of the two major parties, the Pragmatic Party could emerge as a constructive force in American governance.
* * *