First of all, let me say that I enjoy reading Dr. Larry Moses’ columns, as does my spouse. She and I are future residents of Moapa Valley and currently receive the Progress by mail.
Although I’m a bit younger than Dr. Moses (I was only one year old at the time of the 1948 election), and my political views are probably as far left of the center line as his are to the right, I do appreciate his abilities to present his point of view in a well-stated manner.
Despite my leftwardness, at times I find myself in agreement with his positions. That happened most recently with a column published on February 10.
Like Dr. Moses, I bemoan the loss of the “…down-to-earth pragmatic leaders in both parties…” We seem to be in an age where extreme ideology trumps even the good of the country and few of our leaders on either side of the aisle seem to be willing to engage in compromise of any kind. So it may, of necessity, fall to “We, the People” to engage in the civil discourse needed to restore the democracy that the Founding Fathers wished us to have.
I agree with the first assertion that some of our democratic processes are “…far from democratic.” It is regrettable that our political system has become so entwined with the two primary parties that it is nearly impossible for anyone with a third point of view to be heard. This situation has only increased as the two parties have become more and more radicalized. I believe that we may have reached the “course of time” to which Washington referred and now have a government run by the cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled of both parties. Yet what are our alternatives? Could we develop a true multi-party system as exists in many other countries? This is unlikely as the majority of those are based on the parliamentary model. Should the election rules be amended to give minor parties more ability to engage the voters? Again, it is unlikely since neither major party would be willing to relinquish their control over the ballot box.
But there is one area that can and should be changed. It has been said that money is the “mother’s milk of politics.” In our current age of mass communications, those with the most money have the loudest voices. It can hardly be representative of true democracy when two individuals are willing to spend nearly a billion dollars in order to drown out opposing points of view. The Citizen’s United decision has, in my opinion, gone further to undermine democracy than any other made by the Supreme Court. The argument in the majority opinion that corruption requires a blatant quid pro quo is an insult to our intelligence. Under that definition, very few of the worst third-world despots could be charged with corruption. I believe that control of election financing is firmly in the public’s interest.
Therefore, I suggest that revoking Citizen’s United would be a major step toward restoring democracy.
As for Dr. Moses’ second step, I am not a dedicated scholar of History as he is so I do not know the Founding Fathers’ reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. But, in any case, I agree with you that the institution can subvert the will of the voters. Should this occur, it doesn’t matter which party is victorious; it still represents a loss for our democracy.
So I propose that his idea of amending the Constitution should include both elements, direct elections of the President and Vice President and recognition that the regulation of political contributions is within the public interest and such regulations do not conflict with the First Amendment.
In addition, I would incorporate one more item into the list, the prohibition of gerrymandering. I may not be a student of History but I am an expert in computers having worked in that field for over 45 years. I know how much personal information is readily available including political leanings. For a computer program to parse that information into districts that are advantageous to one party or the other is extraordinarily easy. I am quite certain that the programs have already been written and have been in use for some time. The proof is in the statistic of how few elective offices are actually competitive these days. In many districts across the country, the results are often known well before the elections even take place. This, to me, is the most flagrant subversion of democracy imaginable with the exception of the Jim Crow laws.
The Constitution as originally written was an extraordinary, but not a perfect, document. That is why the authors included an amendment process. They recognized that things would change over time. Since our political leaders seem to be abandoning their responsibilities to serve the nation, might I suggest that individuals like us, who may fundamentally disagree on some issues, nevertheless reach our hands across the divide and work together to help ensure that
“Government of the People, By the People, and For the People shall not perish from the earth.”
-John Soltesz
