Are you surprised that a septuagenarian Socialist firebrand and Senate backbencher is drawing huge and enthusiastic crowds to his presidential campaign rallies? The supporters of Bernie Sanders who show up to these rallies, and increasingly in the polls, must make for a very unpleasant surprise to Hillary Clinton. She's seen this all before. She begins her race for the presidency with all her ducks in a row. She's lined up the support of all the most important power brokers in all the key States, she's got all the money behind her campaign any candidate could wish for, and all the biggest donors on her side, but then the wheels somehow fall off the Hillary train. In 2008 it wasn't policy differences that swung the race. The same goes for this race. Bernie Sanders may call himself a Socialist, but Socialism is pretty mainstream these days in the Democratic party even if it so rarely claims the name. The real difference between Hillary Clinton and Senator Sanders comes down to communication. When Hillary speaks she appears to be pandering and equivocating even on those rare occasions when she's not. Bernie ,on the other hand, appears to mean everything he has to say. He may be a fire breathing , class batting, populist warrior, but at least he does it with winning sincerity.
The parts of his campaign that best resonate with the left of the party decry the ildistribution of wealth; too much at the very top, too little everywhere else. College ought to be tuition free just as primary and secondary education are. There is too much money in politics, too many wealthy folks buying influence with too many politicians.
There is not much in the Bernie Sanders program for a conservative or libertarian to love except that last point about the corrupting influence of vast sums of money in politics. The further to the right you are the more maddening and unacceptable you consider this situation, the very same goes for the left, and no, that isn't paradoxical. Anyone can see that the never ending campaigns, the hours spent each day by politicians begging for money, pressuring lobbyists for contributions, then making laws tailored to benefit the financial interests of the few at the expense of the many, this whole ugly spectacle in all its glory, is unworthy of a great republic and detracts from all of our lives in significant ways. Naturally this deplorable situation is going to look most deplorable to the people who are paying closest attention. The more politics and world affairs matter to you, the more likely you are to gravitate to the edges, leaving the broad squishy middle to occupy the broad squishy middle.
Consensus on the seriousness of the problem unfortunately does not always lead to consensus toward a solution. On this issue left and right ,as you'd expect, call for diametrically different prescriptions. I may not be the best person to present Sanders proposals to limit money flowing into politics . I think he offers greater government intervention in our lives rather than less. He would have us reduce our first amendment rights, passing a new amendment to get there. I may be in a better position to make the right wing case since I agree with it.
For the libertarian right the fundamental problem is always going to be too damn much government. The too much money in politics problem exists because there is too much government in everything. In our perfect Eden you have the private sector and the public sector. The last is very small and exists to serve the other. Why is it so small? Because it doesn't have all that much to do, and we don't give it all that much to spend. In the real world it's enormous, spending enormous amounts of money, employing enormous numbers of people, and able to make or break industries and businesses through taxation and regulation without hardly trying. Naturally, business interests that have already succeeded seek to turn those powers against upstart competition. The term for that is crony-capitalism. Companies , unions, and non -profits buy the support of politicians through campaign donations in order to gain contracts and favors or create a more favorable regulatory environment for themselves alone. More often the politician is not so much bought off as chosen and funded based on their leanings. Either way, the deepest pockets get to do the choosing.
Reduce government in size and you reduce its ability to do harm. Madison designed a government structure accommodating the clash of competing selfish interests then channeling that energy to the best results for the most people. That design became the constitution. We've wrecked that system without putting anything in its place, but it can be restored. Reduce, recycle, repurpose (in this case the institutions of government), and you've solved the too much money in politics problem by slashing at its roots and not ineffectively pruning the tips of a few branches.
You may see the problem with this approach. It has limited appeal. We are accustomed to solving the problems that government creates by adding a little more government to them. That sort of problem solving has gotten us into the mess we're in today . With 47% of us either on the government payroll, or receiving government benefits, we're not likely to reach enlightenment soon. It's a pity that so many of us would love to reduce the endemic corruption of Washington, and many a State House and municipality too ,but can't agree on how to get there. The future looks cloudy with a chance of campaign inflation, and the long-term forecast is calling for much more of the same.
The parts of his campaign that best resonate with the left of the party decry the ildistribution of wealth; too much at the very top, too little everywhere else. College ought to be tuition free just as primary and secondary education are. There is too much money in politics, too many wealthy folks buying influence with too many politicians.
There is not much in the Bernie Sanders program for a conservative or libertarian to love except that last point about the corrupting influence of vast sums of money in politics. The further to the right you are the more maddening and unacceptable you consider this situation, the very same goes for the left, and no, that isn't paradoxical. Anyone can see that the never ending campaigns, the hours spent each day by politicians begging for money, pressuring lobbyists for contributions, then making laws tailored to benefit the financial interests of the few at the expense of the many, this whole ugly spectacle in all its glory, is unworthy of a great republic and detracts from all of our lives in significant ways. Naturally this deplorable situation is going to look most deplorable to the people who are paying closest attention. The more politics and world affairs matter to you, the more likely you are to gravitate to the edges, leaving the broad squishy middle to occupy the broad squishy middle.
Consensus on the seriousness of the problem unfortunately does not always lead to consensus toward a solution. On this issue left and right ,as you'd expect, call for diametrically different prescriptions. I may not be the best person to present Sanders proposals to limit money flowing into politics . I think he offers greater government intervention in our lives rather than less. He would have us reduce our first amendment rights, passing a new amendment to get there. I may be in a better position to make the right wing case since I agree with it.
For the libertarian right the fundamental problem is always going to be too damn much government. The too much money in politics problem exists because there is too much government in everything. In our perfect Eden you have the private sector and the public sector. The last is very small and exists to serve the other. Why is it so small? Because it doesn't have all that much to do, and we don't give it all that much to spend. In the real world it's enormous, spending enormous amounts of money, employing enormous numbers of people, and able to make or break industries and businesses through taxation and regulation without hardly trying. Naturally, business interests that have already succeeded seek to turn those powers against upstart competition. The term for that is crony-capitalism. Companies , unions, and non -profits buy the support of politicians through campaign donations in order to gain contracts and favors or create a more favorable regulatory environment for themselves alone. More often the politician is not so much bought off as chosen and funded based on their leanings. Either way, the deepest pockets get to do the choosing.
Reduce government in size and you reduce its ability to do harm. Madison designed a government structure accommodating the clash of competing selfish interests then channeling that energy to the best results for the most people. That design became the constitution. We've wrecked that system without putting anything in its place, but it can be restored. Reduce, recycle, repurpose (in this case the institutions of government), and you've solved the too much money in politics problem by slashing at its roots and not ineffectively pruning the tips of a few branches.
You may see the problem with this approach. It has limited appeal. We are accustomed to solving the problems that government creates by adding a little more government to them. That sort of problem solving has gotten us into the mess we're in today . With 47% of us either on the government payroll, or receiving government benefits, we're not likely to reach enlightenment soon. It's a pity that so many of us would love to reduce the endemic corruption of Washington, and many a State House and municipality too ,but can't agree on how to get there. The future looks cloudy with a chance of campaign inflation, and the long-term forecast is calling for much more of the same.
No equivocating from me. Its a great occasion that your columns are now available on your blog. Hopefully you'll archive all of them. Congratulations.
ReplyDelete