The Economy: No more mega-corporations
With regard to "too big fail," one of the deficiencies of our economic system has been in allowing some corporations to metastasize. As we enter a new era of regulation, a goal must be to break up the mega-corporations so that we can never again be faced with a situation in which the fate of the entire economy is jeopardized by the fortunes of one company.
The Auto Bailout: Save Jobs and Benefits and Restructure the Auto Industry
The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism makes the following sensible proposals about the proposed bailout of the auto giants:
Visit the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism at http://www.cc-ds.org.
The unfolding crisis of capitalism is fraught with pain and suffering for working people. Job losses, declining wages, plant closings, shuttered small businesses, plummeting government resources for public services and physical infrastructure, all remind us of the Great Depression of the 1930s.Should it transpire that bankruptcy is to be the fate of the big three, it's worth keeping in mind that bankruptcy needn't be equal to shutting down the industry. The typical corporate bankruptcy is a structural reorganization that, in this instance, could include the imposition of government approved management and the suspension of certain financial obligations, such as dividends. If it is decided that the industry must receive public assistance, how about this?: the government takes over management of the companies' pension plans and guarantees the benefits -- if we're going bailout anyone, let's make it working people -- and offers former and current auto workers complete health care coverage until the time, supposedly near at hand, when health care is provided as a right to all Americans.
The first eight years of the 21st century have been marked with the "normal" economic crisis of capitalism: over-production and declining rates of profit. The crisis has been deepened by eight years of war and the largest military spending since World War II. Government polices of craven tax cuts and shrinkage of government services have led to a dramatic redistribution of wealth from the many to the few.
Key sectors of the US economy are in financial crisis. First, banking and investment houses, stock and bond markets, and various new financial networks designed to increase the riches of the wealthy began to collapse.
Now, CEOs from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler claim that their companies are near financial collapse. Congress voted a blanket $700 billion bailout to the financial sector in October. Auto executives have just completed the first round of their appeal to Congress for an additional $25 billion to save the auto industry from collapse.
The American people are faced with a contradiction. Capitalism which is based on the exploitation of the working class, demands that the working class bail it out. Yet, if the working class says "no bailout" to key sectors of the capitalist system, they will suffer the most.
Arguments from right wing circles are that UAW wages, claimed to be $75 an hour, are the problem. There is no truth in this assertion, as the UAW itself explains that huge concessions on wages and benefits have reduced the autoworkers" share of the value they create to the same level (or less) in comparison with the U.S. non-union auto worker sector (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.). This can only lead to further erosion of wages and benefits as workers in the non-union sector are forced to accept a new round of the downward wage spiral.
Anti-union company campaigns have defeated several UAW attempts to organize the non-union auto assembly plants. Outsourcing of jobs to non-union plants, increased productivity and moving production to other countries has reduced active UAW membership from 1.5 million in 1979 to 460,000 in 2007. The "jobs bank" that provided a measure of job security for laid off autoworkers was negotiated in the mid-1980s in lieu of wage increases and other benefits. Now the UAW is faced with mounting pressure to give it up.
It cannot be denied that if Congress refuses to act in support of some kind of bridge loan and allows the auto companies go bankrupt, there will be catastrophic pain and suffering far beyond the UAW membership. United Auto Worker (UAW) president, Ron Gettelfinger, estimates a loss of 3 million jobs, substantial cuts in pension and health benefits for 1 million UAW retirees and their dependents, and increased drains on public services at the same time as the tax base declines.
In testimony Nov. 19th before the House Committee on Financial Services, UAW President Gettelfinger called for a $25 billion loan "conditioned on stringent limits relating to executive compensation, as well as provisions granting the federal government an equity stake in the auto companies in order to protect the investment by taxpayers."
The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) agrees with the UAW, and adds the following for consideration:
The loan guarantees must be coupled with requirements that the industry immediatelya. Pursue the production of new energy efficient, environmentally friendly low-cost automobiles;Additionally, we call on Congress and the White House to move aggressively to take over idle auto production facilities and utilize them for an expanded public transportation authority for building high speed rail and other mass transit systems.
b. Promote the development of a single payer health care system (HR 676) to guarantee health care for all, regardless of employment;
c. End the outsourcing of production of new vehicles to non-union plants;
d. End the drive to cut UAW negotiated wages and benefits and support the drive for unionization and livable wages for all workers in the industry;
e. Guarantee current and retirement benefits;
f. Radically reconfigure CEO salaries to the levels of CEOs in other auto companies;
g. End the threat of bankruptcy proceedings, particularly as they might relate to breaking union contracts.
Lastly, but importantly, the workers who make the cars have poured their skills, their knowledge, their sweat and their hopes for the future into the auto industry. Their experiences make them best able to counter the greed and incompetence of the industry's owners and CEOs who have brought the auto business to its current disastrous condition. The auto industry should be restructured to give its workers controlling equity and a strong democratic voice in meeting the enormous challenges that it faces.
Visit the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism at http://www.cc-ds.org.
quote unquote: Huxley on Capitalism
“Armaments, universal debt,
and planned obsolescence–
those are the three pillars
of Western prosperity.”
—Aldous Huxley
and planned obsolescence–
those are the three pillars
of Western prosperity.”
—Aldous Huxley
quote unquote: The Federalist No. 51 on the necessity for government
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments -- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (The New York Packet 1788-02-08)
The most important politician in America?: It's not Barack Obama
It is the junior United States Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Obama presidency will be measured by the success or failure of the next congress in delivering universal health care. Not only will national health incalculably improve the lives of most Americans and rescue literally millions of retiring baby boomers from spending their declining years in poverty, but also it will change forever the nature of the debate over the proper role of government.
Republican balderdash about the dangers of "socialism" has traction only because Americans think they have no experience with it. If you want an idea of what it will be like when our medical system is "socialized," ask any die-hard Republicans over 65 two questions: First, what is their opinion of the proposal to establish national health coverage? In most cases, mention of national health will lead to railing about the predations of big government and the imminent arrival of Fidel Castro. Then, after the spittle stops flying, ask them what they think about Medicare? Socialist medicine, you will discover, is not so bad after all.
If the Obama administration indeed inaugurates a new progressive era, it will because real health care reform was delivered during its term. In the House of Representatives, health care is a done deal; all that needs to be worked out is whether it is single-payer or if some portion of overhead will be reserved to guarantee the profits of insurance companies. But the Senate is another matter. I am second to none in my admiration for Ted Kennedy; but in a lifetime in Congress, he has failed to deliver national health -- not without good cause, but there is little reason to think that the addition of a few moderate senators to the majority will be enough to make a difference.
As Kennedy is fully aware, the Senate needs someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, clout, expertise and ambition to make the passage of universal health care a certainty (see, Ted Kennedy asks Hillary Clinton to head Senate healthcare team). Once she wins the health care fight, who thinks she won't run for majority leader, and win.
It's hard to see that Clinton has any particular qualifications to be secretary of state, other than her travels. Please don't think I'm advocating this, but if Obama wants to appoint a strong woman with lots of foreign policy expertise, why not choose California senator Dianne Feinstein who has displayed keen interest in foreign affairs, trade, defense and security matters throughout her congressional career. There are thousands of others in government, politics, business and academia who also have more executive experience and far more knowledge about international affairs than Clinton.
On the other hand, there is no one in political life who has thought longer and harder about health care.
It isn't hard to figure out what Obama is up to. By choosing Clinton, he neutralizes a possible rival power center; offers a gesture of conciliation to those Hillary supporters still unreconciled to his victory; sidelines Bill Clinton; and makes an appointment that will be greeted with general approval (except, maybe, in New Mexico).
But what can Hillary be thinking? Politically, she will be much weakened -- cabinet members are not called secretaries for nothing. In the Senate, still hidebound by seniority, she is known to be frustrated by that junior business. But if she doesn't like standing a few steps behind Chuck Schumer, wait'll she has to take instructions from some junior aid in the west wing.
Getting something done in the Senate will require hard work. But she made a promise to the people of New York to work for them. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Some wags are saying she wants to complete the collection of visited countries she started as first lady, but come on. Was she so busy running for president that no one had time to fill her in on junkets? She could legitimately visit every country in the world that delivers national health, which, come to think of it, is pretty much all of them.
The rap against the Clintons is that they have always put their own interests ahead of People and Party. During her run for senator, she was charged with being motivated by no more than ego and ambition. Were those of us who favored her election as senator naive in believing that she truly wanted to serve? If she still does, she should stay in the Senate and fight for single-payer universal health care. She will make a difference in our lives in a way no one else can; she will give support to an administration every patriotic American hopes will bring real change; and she will alter the future forever.
Today she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York. Tomorrow, does she really want to be Madeleine Albright instead?
The Obama presidency will be measured by the success or failure of the next congress in delivering universal health care. Not only will national health incalculably improve the lives of most Americans and rescue literally millions of retiring baby boomers from spending their declining years in poverty, but also it will change forever the nature of the debate over the proper role of government.
Republican balderdash about the dangers of "socialism" has traction only because Americans think they have no experience with it. If you want an idea of what it will be like when our medical system is "socialized," ask any die-hard Republicans over 65 two questions: First, what is their opinion of the proposal to establish national health coverage? In most cases, mention of national health will lead to railing about the predations of big government and the imminent arrival of Fidel Castro. Then, after the spittle stops flying, ask them what they think about Medicare? Socialist medicine, you will discover, is not so bad after all.
If the Obama administration indeed inaugurates a new progressive era, it will because real health care reform was delivered during its term. In the House of Representatives, health care is a done deal; all that needs to be worked out is whether it is single-payer or if some portion of overhead will be reserved to guarantee the profits of insurance companies. But the Senate is another matter. I am second to none in my admiration for Ted Kennedy; but in a lifetime in Congress, he has failed to deliver national health -- not without good cause, but there is little reason to think that the addition of a few moderate senators to the majority will be enough to make a difference.
As Kennedy is fully aware, the Senate needs someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, clout, expertise and ambition to make the passage of universal health care a certainty (see, Ted Kennedy asks Hillary Clinton to head Senate healthcare team). Once she wins the health care fight, who thinks she won't run for majority leader, and win.
It's hard to see that Clinton has any particular qualifications to be secretary of state, other than her travels. Please don't think I'm advocating this, but if Obama wants to appoint a strong woman with lots of foreign policy expertise, why not choose California senator Dianne Feinstein who has displayed keen interest in foreign affairs, trade, defense and security matters throughout her congressional career. There are thousands of others in government, politics, business and academia who also have more executive experience and far more knowledge about international affairs than Clinton.
On the other hand, there is no one in political life who has thought longer and harder about health care.
It isn't hard to figure out what Obama is up to. By choosing Clinton, he neutralizes a possible rival power center; offers a gesture of conciliation to those Hillary supporters still unreconciled to his victory; sidelines Bill Clinton; and makes an appointment that will be greeted with general approval (except, maybe, in New Mexico).
But what can Hillary be thinking? Politically, she will be much weakened -- cabinet members are not called secretaries for nothing. In the Senate, still hidebound by seniority, she is known to be frustrated by that junior business. But if she doesn't like standing a few steps behind Chuck Schumer, wait'll she has to take instructions from some junior aid in the west wing.
Getting something done in the Senate will require hard work. But she made a promise to the people of New York to work for them. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Some wags are saying she wants to complete the collection of visited countries she started as first lady, but come on. Was she so busy running for president that no one had time to fill her in on junkets? She could legitimately visit every country in the world that delivers national health, which, come to think of it, is pretty much all of them.
The rap against the Clintons is that they have always put their own interests ahead of People and Party. During her run for senator, she was charged with being motivated by no more than ego and ambition. Were those of us who favored her election as senator naive in believing that she truly wanted to serve? If she still does, she should stay in the Senate and fight for single-payer universal health care. She will make a difference in our lives in a way no one else can; she will give support to an administration every patriotic American hopes will bring real change; and she will alter the future forever.
Today she is Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York. Tomorrow, does she really want to be Madeleine Albright instead?
Politics: They're still the Democrats after all
"Lieberman keeps Senate chairmanship" - Reuters headline
Bet he learned his lesson.
See, Canards: Joe Lieberman is a "good Democrat" (Impractical Proposals)
Bet he learned his lesson.
See, Canards: Joe Lieberman is a "good Democrat" (Impractical Proposals)
The Franchise: Making every vote count
The long lines at the polls become even more puzzling when you consider this:
According to Curtis Gans,
Although a greater interest among voters concentrated in particular precincts -- areas with large populations of black voters or students, for example -- might have created enough congestion at those polls to satisfy the media's expectation of a big turnout, isn't it more likely that the impact of the electoral college, leading as it does to the disenfranchisement of minority party voters in non-competitive states and the focus of campaigns on a handful of constituencies, led to longer lines in those few locales where voters knew their vote would count. I know people in California and New York, for example, who stayed home because they felt their choice for president was moot.
Some of the advance voting problems can be attributed to the limited number of polling places in most jurisdictions. Nevada, an exception, allowed voting in some grocery stores -- it would be helpful to know how that worked out, but most states required early voters to travel to some remote county office or isolated post office to drop off ballots. If unprecedented numbers of people voted in advance, it must have eased the pressure on election day; and repeated warnings over many months of an impending deluge of ballots gave election officials plenty of opportunity to get ready; so it still seems odd that there were the number of problems there were on voting day.
Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to sign on to the theory that there was a plot to depress the tally. But it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what did happen this time. Even if it was only a matter of increased turnout in districts where voting mattered, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming elections.
In any event, if it is not going to continue to distort campaigns and alter outcomes of elections, we have to get rid of the electoral college. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally.
According to Curtis Gans,
Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004....The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party's share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980.Increased absentee voting. Increased early voting. The Democrats up a little. The Republicans down a little. But overall, only a marginal increase in the number of voters. So why the long lines?
Although a greater interest among voters concentrated in particular precincts -- areas with large populations of black voters or students, for example -- might have created enough congestion at those polls to satisfy the media's expectation of a big turnout, isn't it more likely that the impact of the electoral college, leading as it does to the disenfranchisement of minority party voters in non-competitive states and the focus of campaigns on a handful of constituencies, led to longer lines in those few locales where voters knew their vote would count. I know people in California and New York, for example, who stayed home because they felt their choice for president was moot.
Some of the advance voting problems can be attributed to the limited number of polling places in most jurisdictions. Nevada, an exception, allowed voting in some grocery stores -- it would be helpful to know how that worked out, but most states required early voters to travel to some remote county office or isolated post office to drop off ballots. If unprecedented numbers of people voted in advance, it must have eased the pressure on election day; and repeated warnings over many months of an impending deluge of ballots gave election officials plenty of opportunity to get ready; so it still seems odd that there were the number of problems there were on voting day.
Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to sign on to the theory that there was a plot to depress the tally. But it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what did happen this time. Even if it was only a matter of increased turnout in districts where voting mattered, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming elections.
In any event, if it is not going to continue to distort campaigns and alter outcomes of elections, we have to get rid of the electoral college. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally.
Dept. of No Comment: Factoid
Number of House members who voted against invading Iraq: 133
Number of senators who voted against invading Iraq: 23
Number of senators and representatives who voted against invading Iraq who are being considered for the Obama cabinet: 0
Number of senators who voted against invading Iraq: 23
Number of senators and representatives who voted against invading Iraq who are being considered for the Obama cabinet: 0
God must love the Clintonites...
...he made so many of them.
From the apparent intention to drag every Clinton administration veteran back to Washington from the lobbying company, law firm, brokerage house, or outpost of the academic gulag where eight years of exile were endured, to the perplexing consideration of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as secretary of state, President Change has become President StatusQuo more swiftly than you can say, Yes we can.
The absence of a strong set of political beliefs was part of candidate Obama's appeal. It allowed every supporter to project his own ambitions for the country on the blank face of "change." But now, that same absence of political agenda is enabling the center-right coalition that has run this country for its own benefit since Reagan to seize control of the next administration. Call it Clintonism with a new face.
The incoming White House chief of staff is Rahm Emmanuel, who was a staff assistant to President Clinton (and, not incidentally, as head of the last several Democratic House election efforts, the hatchet man who systematically undermined the candidacies of progressives in the Democratic primaries). Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta is in overall charge of the transition team. Overseeing the selection of the foreign policy corps is former Clinton secretary of state Warren Christopher. And staffing defense is up to former senator Sam Nunn, not a Clinton intimate, exactly, but as head of the Senate armed services committee in the Clinton years intimately involved in crafting the militarized foreign policy of that era. The first important picks after Biden and Emmanuel: Clinton's impeachment attorney Gregory Craig as White House counsel and Ronald Klain, a former lobbyist who was a lawyer on Al Gore's vice presidential staff, as the new veep's legal adviser.
Bowles, Ian; Mathews Burwell, Sylvia; Campbell, Kurt; Cunningham, Nelson; Danzig, Richard; Downey, Mortimer;
Garvey, Jane; Gensler, Gary; Hochberg, Fred; Johnson, James; Lake, Anthony; McGinty, Kathleen; Ness, Susan; Rice, Susan; Sperling, Gene; Steinberg, James; Talbot, Strobe; Thompson, Mozelle; Witt, James Lee; Zoellick, Robert...the nice thing about this return of the politically undead is that lobbyists won't be compelled to waste a lot of energy updating their speed dialers. If he didn't throw out his old business cards, Lawrence Summers is really set; treasury under secretary Clinton, and partly responsible for our current economic mess, he is likely to get the same job from Obama.
Then there are short-list names one prays are no more than the latest examples of the Obama crew's mastery of political symbolism. John Kerry or Hillary Clinton at the state department (and what happened to Bill Richardson, anyway?). Al Gore as secretary of interior. Bill freaking Clinton at the UN. Excuse me, but wasn't getting rid of the Clintons the whole point of the rush to endorse Obama on SuperTuesday?
It's not that many of these people are not admirable in their own right, it's just that in their massed numbers, and in conjunction
with other appointment rumors -- retaining defense secretary Robert "The Surge Is Working" Gates; bringing back former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as treasury secretary; putting GOP stalwarts Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar in charge, respectively, of defense and state (no, really, what did happen to Bill Richardson?); sending Jane Harman, the scary Democratic representative from Venice CA, to homeland security; giving education to Colin "Mea Culpa" Powell, as if he doesn't have enough to apologize for already -- they make it seem increasingly likely that the only change we're going to see is the kind that is confusingly difficult to distinguish from la même chose.
We thought we were throwing the bums out. Silly us.
From the apparent intention to drag every Clinton administration veteran back to Washington from the lobbying company, law firm, brokerage house, or outpost of the academic gulag where eight years of exile were endured, to the perplexing consideration of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as secretary of state, President Change has become President StatusQuo more swiftly than you can say, Yes we can.
The absence of a strong set of political beliefs was part of candidate Obama's appeal. It allowed every supporter to project his own ambitions for the country on the blank face of "change." But now, that same absence of political agenda is enabling the center-right coalition that has run this country for its own benefit since Reagan to seize control of the next administration. Call it Clintonism with a new face.
The incoming White House chief of staff is Rahm Emmanuel, who was a staff assistant to President Clinton (and, not incidentally, as head of the last several Democratic House election efforts, the hatchet man who systematically undermined the candidacies of progressives in the Democratic primaries). Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta is in overall charge of the transition team. Overseeing the selection of the foreign policy corps is former Clinton secretary of state Warren Christopher. And staffing defense is up to former senator Sam Nunn, not a Clinton intimate, exactly, but as head of the Senate armed services committee in the Clinton years intimately involved in crafting the militarized foreign policy of that era. The first important picks after Biden and Emmanuel: Clinton's impeachment attorney Gregory Craig as White House counsel and Ronald Klain, a former lobbyist who was a lawyer on Al Gore's vice presidential staff, as the new veep's legal adviser.
Bowles, Ian; Mathews Burwell, Sylvia; Campbell, Kurt; Cunningham, Nelson; Danzig, Richard; Downey, Mortimer;
Garvey, Jane; Gensler, Gary; Hochberg, Fred; Johnson, James; Lake, Anthony; McGinty, Kathleen; Ness, Susan; Rice, Susan; Sperling, Gene; Steinberg, James; Talbot, Strobe; Thompson, Mozelle; Witt, James Lee; Zoellick, Robert...the nice thing about this return of the politically undead is that lobbyists won't be compelled to waste a lot of energy updating their speed dialers. If he didn't throw out his old business cards, Lawrence Summers is really set; treasury under secretary Clinton, and partly responsible for our current economic mess, he is likely to get the same job from Obama.Then there are short-list names one prays are no more than the latest examples of the Obama crew's mastery of political symbolism. John Kerry or Hillary Clinton at the state department (and what happened to Bill Richardson, anyway?). Al Gore as secretary of interior. Bill freaking Clinton at the UN. Excuse me, but wasn't getting rid of the Clintons the whole point of the rush to endorse Obama on SuperTuesday?
It's not that many of these people are not admirable in their own right, it's just that in their massed numbers, and in conjunction
with other appointment rumors -- retaining defense secretary Robert "The Surge Is Working" Gates; bringing back former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as treasury secretary; putting GOP stalwarts Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar in charge, respectively, of defense and state (no, really, what did happen to Bill Richardson?); sending Jane Harman, the scary Democratic representative from Venice CA, to homeland security; giving education to Colin "Mea Culpa" Powell, as if he doesn't have enough to apologize for already -- they make it seem increasingly likely that the only change we're going to see is the kind that is confusingly difficult to distinguish from la même chose.We thought we were throwing the bums out. Silly us.
Democracy: It's still not one person, one vote
I'm taken to task for holding the electoral college in insufficient regard. I don't deny it. The mechanism of this political relic acts as a brake on democracy and, for that reason, has to to go.
Because of the distortions caused by the electoral college, campaigns focus attention on whichever states have electoral votes up for grabs, effectively disenfranchising almost the entire rest of the country. This time, the voters in New York, California, Texas and Illinois, along with those in a large majority of the 50 states, were unable to affect the outcome of the election because polls indicated that unbeatable majorities in those states favored one candidate over another. In reaction, voters who preferred the minority candidates in those locales could be forgiven if they chose to stay home on election day.
With the impediment of the electoral college removed, no one's vote will be irrelevant or diluted any longer. The ballot of the Republican in Massachusetts or California will have the same impact on the choice for president as the ballot of the Democrat in South Dakota or Texas. Everyone's vote will be equal. No one will be disenfranchised.
It is argued that the small states will be disadvantaged by direct election of the president; but at least since Appomattox, if not since Philadelphia, we have been Americans first and only incidentally Vermonters or Virginians. The president is the leader of all the people, and there is no reason the small states should have a thumb on the scale. It is unfair that any American who happens not to be a supporter of the local party in power -- again, the Rhode Island Republican and the Idaho Democrat, alike, should -- like the voters in all the states that under the present accounting are indelibly red or blue -- be unable to cast an impactful vote for president.
It is said, also, that retiring the electoral college will merely skew the contests in a different way: campaigns will be motivated to focus exclusively on the big cities, because, as robber Willie Sutton said about banks and money, that's where the votes are. Leaving aside the antidemocratic assumption underlying that argument, as a practical matter it ignores the fact that all the states, including those that house large cities, are purple. Any campaign with a chance of winning will have to compete everywhere. Such a campaign of necessity will be more centrist than is true now, because it will focus on national issues, no longer be able to get by with satisfying parochial concerns in a handful of battleground states. Energy policy, say, will become a matter of what does the most good for the most people instead of being unduly influenced by a glut of corn in Iowa.
Will the electoral college be tough to get rid of? Sure. The power elites and special interests in the lightly populated states will be loathe to support a constitutional amendment that may cost them privileges. Some never will. But this is a fair country, and once the unfairness of the current system is widely understood, it will be difficult to argue that it isn't time to put this wretched antique out by the curb.
The Founding Fathers were talented politicians, advanced for their day. But their canonization makes it very hard to correct their mistakes. Wouldn't we honor their achievements more by moving closer to realizing the democracy they dreamed of than by setting in concrete the compromises they were forced to make along the way. Until our votes are equal, we don't have the democracy they fought to establish 250 years ago.
As another step along the road they set us on, the electoral college has to go.
Because of the distortions caused by the electoral college, campaigns focus attention on whichever states have electoral votes up for grabs, effectively disenfranchising almost the entire rest of the country. This time, the voters in New York, California, Texas and Illinois, along with those in a large majority of the 50 states, were unable to affect the outcome of the election because polls indicated that unbeatable majorities in those states favored one candidate over another. In reaction, voters who preferred the minority candidates in those locales could be forgiven if they chose to stay home on election day.
With the impediment of the electoral college removed, no one's vote will be irrelevant or diluted any longer. The ballot of the Republican in Massachusetts or California will have the same impact on the choice for president as the ballot of the Democrat in South Dakota or Texas. Everyone's vote will be equal. No one will be disenfranchised.
It is argued that the small states will be disadvantaged by direct election of the president; but at least since Appomattox, if not since Philadelphia, we have been Americans first and only incidentally Vermonters or Virginians. The president is the leader of all the people, and there is no reason the small states should have a thumb on the scale. It is unfair that any American who happens not to be a supporter of the local party in power -- again, the Rhode Island Republican and the Idaho Democrat, alike, should -- like the voters in all the states that under the present accounting are indelibly red or blue -- be unable to cast an impactful vote for president.
It is said, also, that retiring the electoral college will merely skew the contests in a different way: campaigns will be motivated to focus exclusively on the big cities, because, as robber Willie Sutton said about banks and money, that's where the votes are. Leaving aside the antidemocratic assumption underlying that argument, as a practical matter it ignores the fact that all the states, including those that house large cities, are purple. Any campaign with a chance of winning will have to compete everywhere. Such a campaign of necessity will be more centrist than is true now, because it will focus on national issues, no longer be able to get by with satisfying parochial concerns in a handful of battleground states. Energy policy, say, will become a matter of what does the most good for the most people instead of being unduly influenced by a glut of corn in Iowa.
Will the electoral college be tough to get rid of? Sure. The power elites and special interests in the lightly populated states will be loathe to support a constitutional amendment that may cost them privileges. Some never will. But this is a fair country, and once the unfairness of the current system is widely understood, it will be difficult to argue that it isn't time to put this wretched antique out by the curb.
The Founding Fathers were talented politicians, advanced for their day. But their canonization makes it very hard to correct their mistakes. Wouldn't we honor their achievements more by moving closer to realizing the democracy they dreamed of than by setting in concrete the compromises they were forced to make along the way. Until our votes are equal, we don't have the democracy they fought to establish 250 years ago.
As another step along the road they set us on, the electoral college has to go.
2008: Voting delayed is voting denied
Small thing, but the long lines at the polls, problem enough when we thought there had been substantial leaps in the numbers of citizens registering and voting, become even more puzzling when you consider this from Curtis Gans, director of the non-partisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate:
Possibly. It may be that, like the rest of our infrastructure, the mechanisms of voting are so creaky that the slightest stress overcomes them. But I doubt it. I think the problems are endemic. I blame the electoral college.
Our method of choosing presidents assures that the franchise is meaningful only for voters who reside in states where the outcome is in doubt right up to election day. In this year's contest, as in 2004, especially long lines were generated in those places where voters were told their votes would count. Some people in California, for example, have said that they skipped voting because they felt their choice for president was moot. Leaving aside districts with large African-American populations (who were doubly motivated to vote), because of the barrier of the electoral college it mattered whether you voted or not in only the few purple states.
Still, given the high numbers of people who cast ballots in advance -- which must have eased the pressure on election day -- and the repeated warnings over many months of an impending ballot deluge, it seems odd that election workers weren't better prepared. Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to conclude that the inconveniences were intended to depress the tally. Besides, most of the documented efforts at voter suppression were aimed at keeping voters away from polls with threats or frauds or purging them from voter rolls altogether. By comparison, exasperating them with long waits hardly seems worth the trouble.
Nonetheless, it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what happened. Even if the delays were nothing more than the result of increased turnout in particular districts, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming contests.
And, whatever is discovered about the causes of long lines this time, we have to get rid of the electoral college. In election after election, the continued use of this relic of two-hundred-year-old political compromises disenfranchises minority voters in electorally non-competitive states and focuses campaigns on a handful of constituencies. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally: Big thing.
Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.Increased absentee voting. Increased early voting. And, finally, only a marginal increase in the actual number of voters. So why the long lines? Could such a small overall bump be enough to jam the system on election day?
Possibly. It may be that, like the rest of our infrastructure, the mechanisms of voting are so creaky that the slightest stress overcomes them. But I doubt it. I think the problems are endemic. I blame the electoral college.
Our method of choosing presidents assures that the franchise is meaningful only for voters who reside in states where the outcome is in doubt right up to election day. In this year's contest, as in 2004, especially long lines were generated in those places where voters were told their votes would count. Some people in California, for example, have said that they skipped voting because they felt their choice for president was moot. Leaving aside districts with large African-American populations (who were doubly motivated to vote), because of the barrier of the electoral college it mattered whether you voted or not in only the few purple states.
Still, given the high numbers of people who cast ballots in advance -- which must have eased the pressure on election day -- and the repeated warnings over many months of an impending ballot deluge, it seems odd that election workers weren't better prepared. Not being much of a conspiracy theorist, I'm reluctant to conclude that the inconveniences were intended to depress the tally. Besides, most of the documented efforts at voter suppression were aimed at keeping voters away from polls with threats or frauds or purging them from voter rolls altogether. By comparison, exasperating them with long waits hardly seems worth the trouble.
Nonetheless, it would be useful to the proper management of future efforts of this sort if we knew what happened. Even if the delays were nothing more than the result of increased turnout in particular districts, there might be ways to prepare for such eventualities in coming contests.
And, whatever is discovered about the causes of long lines this time, we have to get rid of the electoral college. In election after election, the continued use of this relic of two-hundred-year-old political compromises disenfranchises minority voters in electorally non-competitive states and focuses campaigns on a handful of constituencies. It's past time for every citizen's vote to count equally: Big thing.
Recovery: The New New Deal
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposes investing in infrastructure:
When the Senate reconvenes of November 17th, I intend to fight for an economic recovery program that is significant enough in size and scope to respond to the major economic crisis this country now faces. If we can commit more than $1 trillion to rescue bankers and insurance companies from their reckless and irresponsible behavior, we certainly should be investing in millions of good-paying jobs that rebuild our nation and improve its economy....The rest of the story: The Road to Economic Recovery by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Huffington Post, 2008-11-7)
This economic recovery package should first improve our crumbling infrastructure by improving our roads, bridges and public transportation. We need to bring our water and sewer systems into the 21st century. We need to make certain that high-quality Internet service is available in every community in America. Not only are these investments desperately needed, every billion dollars that we put into these initiatives will create up to 47,000 new jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
