Recently, we’ve all been treated to another cycle of threads in which the libertarians among us make the general claim that most of the goals of governmentally run social programs and regulatory agencies could be accomplished more efficiently by market forces and personal charity. Here’s my problem, and the reason I’m starting this thread: whenever I try and discuss, in these threads, the relative merits of libertarianism over our present system, I find that, rather than being provided with specific explanations of the mechanisms by which markets can attempt to tackle social problems, I’m subjected to examples of the perceived failures of our present government, or given a lecture on the ethic of non-coercion as the only justifiable concern of government. When asked for specific ways in which that ethic can be applied in actual situations, libertarians complain that all us statists are being unfair by insisting they explain “every hypothetical situation” in terms of libertarian thought. When asked to present evidence for the marvelous efficacy of libertarian philosophy, they say “Well, there are no real world examples, but here’s an example of a market-based solution for blah-blah that worked,” never acknowledging that their example “worked” (not always true) in the context of a regulated marketplace and may not work in an unfettered market.
Now I’m all for improving government and allowing “peaceful, honest people” to exist without fear of coercion from the government or from their fellow citizens. However, since I don’t have the patience to deal with utopian ideals and unworkable non-coercive forms of government, and since most of the incisive criticisms of our present system have come from the people who DO advocate those ideals and forms of gov’t, I seem to be frustrated in my desire to see pragmatic ideas for effective improvements. So I thought and I thought, and I came up with a brilliant idea! A short time ago, in one of those threads I mentioned above, (here if you must have a link), a remark was made (by Kimstu) about how welcome a “political discourse where people are actually interested in having calm, critical discussions about practical ways to improve the present government” would be. I expressed support for this sentiment and was promptly invited (with gentle irony) to start such a thread. Good idea. I’ve decided it’s time to do that.
First, though, I’d like to establish the boundaries of this “discourse.” The idea behind this thread is to discuss and make argument in support of specific and practical ways in which the present US government could be made to better represent the best interests of US citizens. I will entertain notions from people of any and every political persuasion or geographical location, HOWEVER this is NOT an invitation to:[list=a][li]suggest dismantling the US government in favor of some radically different government,[]argue the merits of a radically different government,[]deliver any pointless rant enumerating the many flaws in the US system of government, orhijack the thread in order to present the reasons why your political party should determine how the rest of us think[/list=a]Please be prepared to support your suggestions with rational argument. Please also try and refrain from rhetoric. Please provide links to or verifiable quotations from any reference sources from which you cite.[/li]I’ll start us off: I submit that the main cause of poor representation of our interests is the fact that a large percentage of elected officials are poorly qualified, morally ambivalent or self-serving, and look no further than the interests of their more “financially expressive” constituents. My suggestions would deal with what I consider to be two of the main enablers for these types to reach office, namely the manner in which the candidates for public office are supported and presented. (Suggestions dealing with selection and qualification of candidates are heartily invited.)
Suggestion #1
I would put a spending cap on privately funded political ads. In addition, I would supplement campaign ads with public funds and provide equal space and time in all news media for candidates to present themselves in any way they choose. (Obviously, public funding being limited, the scope and number of the ads would have to be limited as well.) The only prerequisite for public funding (besides qualification as a candidate) would be to provide a full position paper for each issue addressed in the proposed ads. These position papers would be published in all print media side by side with the position papers of the other candidates for the same office. All private political endorsements would remain unregulated, of course, including all sponsored radio and television shows, Op/Ed pages, etc. The only aim would be to promote equal dissemination of each candidate’s ideas rather than media “blitzes” by the most well-funded candidate.
Suggestion #2
I would put a cap on the total amount of money each candidate could spend in their campaign. A candidate could be entirely self funded, or contributions could come from PAC’s, corporations, individual contributers, etc. As long as major contributers to each campaign are reported (along with the amounts contributed), I would put no limit on individual contributions, up to the cap. The spending cap would be determined by the political office being sought. National campaigns would have a higher limit than would state or local campaigns. No limits would be placed on the amount of voluntary support any candidate could receive, as long as the support was not financial in nature.
Please feel free to critique my suggestions and provide reasons they would not work or would be bad on practical, constitutional or ethical grounds. I’m not emotionally attached to these suggestions, but, barring good critical analyses by others, I think they’re workable and would effectively address the cynical truism that “the candidate with the most money wins.”
(I’m still smarting from your anger with me… I’m a Melancholy, y’know.)