Obviously, my proposal will fall largely on deaf ears, as do most unusual proposals – at least in the beginning. Most people are creatures of habit. So getting them to break old, comfortable habits will take a lot of effort by a dedicated few. As those few become many, the task becomes easier but first things first: I have to explain why (according to the title I picked) an anti-incumbent movement is the “only viable U.S. reform strategy.”
The only reason the DC establishment runs roughshod over its constituents is, they have job security. Most incumbents get reelected on a routine basis. And even if (for instance) a certain number of Congressmen get swept from office due to voter anger, that only represents a momentary wobble of the systemic gyroscope. Balance is soon restored, the first sign being a softening of the rhetoric once the newly-elected Reps assume office. The new guys want to get reelected too, so they won’t want to appear too radical.
In any event, in spite of occasional turns of fortune by one party or the other, the Two Party System itself remains entrenched. That is the source of its power over us, and that is the source of our frustration.
If, however, We-the-People were to send a message that we will not tolerate incumbency, that will set the stage for independents to get elected. Think about it: If an elected official knew there was an anti-incumbent tide rising throughout the land, he’d be less likely to automatically fall in line with whatever the party leadership has in mind. He’d, instead, be more mindful of the voters.
My message to him? “It won’t matter what you do, for once you’re elected, you become the new incumbent. So you will be voted out of office after only one term.” Sounds rather brutal, but (as I’ll explain) this uniform approach to all incumbents will be necessary for us to maintain.
The Fear Factor
I will refine my proposal:
Vote against all incumbent officeholders. If you love Democrats, vote against them anyway if they happen to be the incumbent. If the Republican you vote for wins, then (obviously) he is the new incumbent against whom you should vote in the next election. If you think such a strategy risks anarchy, then don’t vote that way in local elections. Focusing only on the US Congress will be good enough to force a sea change in our national politics.
Anarchy inspires terror. And the Establishment will try to use this as a Fear Factor to urge people to vote the straight-and-narrow (that is, to vote according to whatever motivated them in past elections).
However, there are two good reasons not to fear anarchy, at least not as induced by anti-incumbency:
· Even if we were to be 100% successful – that is, in unemploying all incumbents in all future elections for the next dozen years or so – the Elite which really runs this country would not allow a legislative breakdown to threaten the smooth day-to-day operation of this country’s business-as-usual. No matter who gets elected, the Elite will be able to bring sufficient pressure to bear (even by death squad actions, if necessary) to whip newly-elected Congressmen into line.
· We are already living in a state of anarchy, but our downward slide is so gradual (slow but sure like a glacier) that few notice how surely legislative gridlock and kicking-the-can-down-the-road will induce a societal breakdown – and much sooner than we realize.
A bit later
To repeat one of my earlier statements: “Next time you cast your ballot, vote against all incumbents, even those you think are good candidates. [I’ll explain that a bit later.]”
So why should you vote against someone you “know” is a good candidate? By analogy, when a doctor scrapes out a cancer, sometimes he has to remove good cells. But I believe the real answer is, there are no good candidates because they all, to an unavoidable degree, are victims two irresistible forces:
· Lobbyists; and
· The leaders of their own party who can demand at least occasional adherence to the party line – or else.
Besides, even the so-called “good” officeholders fail because they’re habitually tied to the Two Party System. Even Ron Paul, in spite of his unorthodox positions as a Congressman, never came out and said: “We need independents in Congress, since only they won’t be swayed by the demands of their party or by lobbyists.”
More on Ron Paul and Third Party possibilities
Ron Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party once, having resigned from the GOP. Back in 1988, he was even the LP presidential candidate. However, Ron rejoined the GOP, which I think was a mistake – he should have seized the Bully Pulpit as a Congressman in order to promote the Libertarian Party. Instead of promoting the importance of an alternative to the Dem/Pub options, Paul decided to assume the role of resident curmudgeonly crank. “Dr. No,” his colleagues ended up calling him for his routine “no” votes on “unconstitutional” legislation.
Now, apparently, his strategy might change. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination this time around, there’s talk he might try a third party run. Ah, a third party! Apparently none of Dr. Paul’s supporters realize you can’t have a viable third party which only manages to elect one candidate to national office. Even if that office happens to be the presidency. The other two parties would close ranks to oppose such a president.
Activists have spoken for decades about the need for a third party. They are mistaken, since only a Congress full of non-party independents can successfully govern. Instead of a Two Party or even a Three Party System, we need a Zero Party System. Moreover, we need term limits to protect us against the pernicious influence of lobbyists. Since incumbents will never vote for term limits, it is up to us as voters to “vote” for term limits by routinely voting against incumbents.
It’s time to break the programming, people
We are mercilessly hammered with propaganda 24/7. All of which serves to program us. The only reason the Two Party System is so dominant is due to the efficiency of this programming. We can successfully rebel by doing this little: Stop being so damn predictable! If the Elite can anticipate our reactions to their agenda, they can tailor-make their long-range strategies by pushing our buttons with a lot of little steps along the way.
Or, equally as effective, just change the faces of the players. Case in point: If George Bush had suggested a “surge” in Afghanistan, he would have been roundly denounced. But when President Change-You-Can-Believe-In issued those orders, no problem. Sure, his supporters were disappointed, but so what? They surely wouldn’t vote for his GOP opponent in the next election.
But I feel that people don’t like to be played or made to feel they have no real choice. Right now, we’re at an ideal stage to push this anti-incumbency campaign. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. The GOP has shown itself to be a far-from-loyal opposition – sinking as low as petty and non-ending obstructionism.
And the beauty of this particular moment in time? We don’t even (much like the Occupy Wall Street crowd) have to present a coherent plan of action such as, “If elected, we will do (this, that, or the other thing).” Instead, we can merely assert that only a Congress of non-party aligned, loyal Americans can put their heads together and come up with practical solutions that work. And this assertion will resonate with voters who are tired of legislative gridlock, rule by supermajority (for instance, the filibuster), and the unending spectacle of each party that’s out of power trying its best to undermine the party that’s in power.
The Founding Fathers never intended for us to be governed by a class of professional, life-long politicians. Their ideal was for men of means (established pillars of the community) to take time out of their business affairs, spend a couple of years of public service as legislators, and then return to their former lives. Or perhaps retired gentlemen of means would like to give a few of their sunset years to such community service. Since the lengthy travel time of the early 1800’s would mandate long absences from home, it was expected that few would even be tempted to serve for more than two or three terms at most.
So our challenge is actually very simple: Just remind people of what they already know – the system isn’t working; we need answers fast; and incumbents under the current set of rules, who have managed to insulate themselves from the wrath of the voters, aren’t sufficiently motivated to create the practical system of laws we need to get our country moving forward again. But we have to remind them more than a few times. Remember: We have quite a wall of propaganda to break down!
Some examples of successful propaganda
Look at the recently-concluded Iowa caucuses. As observed by the Huffington Post*:
QUOTE*:
The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent.
:UNQUOTE*:
I had tried to promote (on this blog) the idea of cross-over voting to skew the primary results. In this case, given the low turnout, it would have been easy for independents and Democrats to have voted in the GOP caucuses for (say) Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman. Sabotaging the GOP primaries is a potent weapon, especially since Obama’s supporters can cross-over because their candidate won’t need their support since he’s running unopposed.
But…nobody crossed over. We have been so successfully programmed that we completely overlook obvious and potent strategies to convey our dissatisfaction. Instead, we have completely bought into the notion of how “important” Iowa and New Hampshire are to legitimizing the candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire? Give me a break. These two states are far from representative of America. However, that’s not the point. These two states were chosen on purpose to make it that much harder for a candidate to obtain traction. You don’t think it’s merely a coincidence these two vote first, do you?
It takes a lot of money, time, and trouble to campaign in these two atypical states. So only the best-financed can afford to engage. And “engage” they must, for failure to do so would allow the media to conclude these states were “written off.” That’s a charge that’s hard to beat.
Of course, the purpose of the long build-up to primary season (and the lengthy season itself) is to focus voter attention on this one particularly ridiculous notion:
What matters most – which one man ends up becoming president.
By focusing our attention on one man, the media and the System itself succeed in diverting our attention from what really needs fixing: The Congress itself. But we’re used to this type of mindset: After all, when a major league baseball team isn’t having a winning season, we expect the manager to get fired in order to “shake things up.” But this view is in violation of our constitutional model. After all, Article I of the Constitution set up our national legislative bodies; Article II, the Presidency; and Article III, the Judiciary. These, I feel, were set up in order of importance.
It’s about time we reasserted that order of importance, insisting that Congress is of the utmost importance – not the Imperial Presidency.
End note:
If we ever reached a point where incumbents had no hope of being reelected (at least, not as Democrats or Republicans), there would be one immediately daunting outcome: Without a seniority system, how would committee assignments and chairmanships be determined? As I’ve written before, I feel that our Congress should consist of coequal members serving without being forced into a hierarchy by a committee structure. We have no problem expecting our president to be knowledgeable on all of the issues (or at least to have his own reliable sources as consultants). So why shouldn’t we expect our Congress to consist of (dramatic pause) – 435 presidents?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“There’s nothing like a loss of job security to throw the fear of God into our arrogant party animals” – Steve.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html
No comments:
Post a Comment