01-12-08

Cardboard Cutouts Part One
Subsidizing Tammany Hall
I seem to have allowed things to get away from me again.  I've missed Iowa and New Hampshire.  I meant to write this before any primaries occurred because this is the only real political rant I expect to write this year.  Oh, sure.  I'll still write about Washington's ongoing war against the people they're supposed to be serving and protecting, but, I've already stated and restated my standing on the main issues enough times to paper the walls of my house in words.  And I find myself unable to form any real opinions on the candidates in the election.

Seriously, look at these people dispassionately for a moment.  Giuliani and Clinton seem to be the same person (with the exception that Giuliani is much less likely to fly off the handle if things don't go his way).  Obama and Thompson are nice guys, but neither has any experience in leading...well anything.  Edwards and McCain are the kind of slick, huckstering salesmen that beg to be transformed into squirrels.  And Huckabee is, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, completely insane.

And yet, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of this coming November, we will be asked to choose between two of these six people the man (or woman, or squirrel) who will lead the United States for the next four years.  The person who will, presumably, lead us out of Iraq and...err...well I'm not entirely sure what else they plan to do.  They're all more or less agreed that we will bring our troops home during the next administration, but beyond that...?  Sure Hillary's still waving around the ragged remains of the old National Health thingie she worked out back in the 90's, and Giuliani would like to continue the war on terror (whatever that means), and Edwards and McCain would both like to make all of the illegal and unethical things they've done even more illegal and unethical so they don't look quite so bad, but there's not a whole lot else on anyone's plate, is there?

Of course, this early in the game (early?  haven't they all been campaigning since last May?) nothing is set in stone.  They're all just simmering the minor issues in a pot, waiting to see what rises to the top as the defining issue of 2008 (in 2000 and 2004, the primary issues were, respectively, whether the nation wanted someone smart and boring or dumb and funny in the Office, and who was padding the 20-year-old entries in their resume, and whether anyone actually cared (no)).  And, anyway, I don't want to discuss any issues at the moment.

I want to talk about our electoral system and why it's broken.  Most specifically, how we're destroying our way of life by undermining our own Constitution in the very election of those individuals meant to "protect and defend" it against "al;l enemies foreign or domestic."  I'll focus on three major problems which, if corrected, will open up the electorate and repair a badly broken system.

And the first, silliest part of that is the Primary System.  I don't know when, but at some point we, as a nation decided it was okay to subsidize political machines.  That's what the National Parties are:  machines to enable lobbying and control political power.  With the possible exception of Massachusetts, the only difference between the National Parties and Tammany Hall  is the noticeable lack of drunken Irish enforcers at the party headquarters.

Don't get me wrong, here.  I'm not suggesting that all National Party leaders should be indicted on corruption charges.  For one thing, unlike Tammany Hall, the Republican and Democratic Parties have both been good at condensing widely disparate public opinions into more easily grasped platforms that have little or nothing to do with lining the pockets of Boss Tweed. 

But should we be giving them a free ride?  It only takes an endorsement of some kind to get on a state primary ballot for the Big Two, and, if you win the primary, you get to run for office.  Everyone else has to go out and collect a number of signatures on a petition (numbers vary, depending on the state), even those who had a strong enough showing in their party's primary to represent a popular surge (if not a full mandate) must go through this process if they want to continue their candidacy.  Primary winners, on the other hand, do not., which gives them a huge advantage coming out of the gate.  By the time of the conventions, the persons who get the nod from the major parties have received millions of dollars in free press, a slot on the ballot in every state in the Union, and the endorsement, money and clout of a pair of political machines so entrenched in the US landscape that we cannot think of American politics without thinking in terms of these two parties. 

But who pays for this decision-making process?  Sure, the candidates themselves have to pay for campaign ads for each primary they've entered, but who pays for the process by which they are selected?  Who pays for the voting booths and the rent on facilities, who buys the cards or pays the light bill, who operates the massive tabulating computers and the results collection process?  Is it the private organizations that use this process to select their favorites?  No, it is the states, the cities, the towns.  The entire process from the first ballot in Iowa and New Hampshire to the last hanging chad in.—I don't know where, by the time the last state votes, we pretty much know who won—the whole process is paid for by you and I.  Even if you're independent.  Even if you've never actually voted in an election, you still get to pay for the primary system.

It's extremely funny because the Major Parties have no official standing in our political system.  Parties are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, or any foundation documents.  Not only that, but the Founding Fathers, with very few exceptions, hated the two-party system.  They had already seen its effect on the English Parliament where it polarized the nation and made way for counter-productive compromises.  And yet, we willingly, gladly subsidize this system that is the exact opposite of the system that gave us the strength to survive for two hundred years. 

It's amazingly funny in that, when you vote in a primary, you're not voting for a candidate, you're voting for a slate of delegates to the National Convention, and what they do, far beyond picking the candidate, is set the Party's platform for the next four years.  They decide if subsidizing foreign industry under the moniker of "Free Trade" is a good idea, they decide that the Patriot Act is a horrible crime against American Liberties, but not so much so that it should be repealed or modified, they decide which way the wind blows.  Because that's how machine politics works:  a few power brokers determine among themselves where the power is going to go.

Mind you, I'm not entirely against political parties.  Look at the mayhem that occurs in nations where there is no power collection and brokerage system.  I'm just questioning whether the political and social desires of private organizations should be subsidized by the public.