"When I've asked Hill staff and elected officials about this, I've gotten an interesting answer: Think about what you need to do to become a politician, they say. Rise up in your local party leadership. Raise a lot of money. Get yourself quoted in the media. Campaign effectively. You don't really need to know that much about policy. And so a lot of elected officials simply don't know much about policy. Even if they wanted to become known as problem solvers and thinkers, they don't have the chops for it, and the pace of modern campaigning means they never have time to develop those chops, either. It's a depressing thought."Yes, it is, Ezra.
We're seeing it here in Oregon, where our governor's race, among others, couldn't be more depressing. A retreaded former Democratic governor who proved only marginally effective when previously in office against the usual GOP gormless bumper-sticker who represents the triumph of belief in magic over actual thinking. Neither one can be forced to make any sort of statement that strays close to fiscal or political reality.
Both pronounce the usual crap about "prosperity", "freedom", "responsibility", and "integrity" without ever having to explain how they'll restore First World public services to the state without reworking the Skinnerbox that is the Oregon tax code or unravel the mystery that is the state government.
Hmmm. I wonder...how could it be that our "leaders" have evolved into this sort of moronic, testicle-less, money-grubbing, mealy-mouthed rodent?
Could it be that we prefer to be told these glittering lies than face the hard, ugly truths?Gee. That's a depressing thought, too.
Update 7/24: Look, let's try and clarify some things here, OK?
1. I have no brief with Ezra Klein or his technocratic bias other than sharng a liberal political outlook. I don't think that making every elected official in the U.S. a "policy wonk" is practical or would sgnificantly improve the lot of the average schmoes like me and thee.
2. But the point of posting this link was not to argue for making every elected official a wonk. It was to point out that, on the contrary, the current U.S. electoral system encourages the average politician to be ignorant of almost everything they vote on and, consequently, base their votes on lobbyist pressure, bumper-sticker politics, sound bites, and the massive influence of the affluent and well-connected.
3. The notion that "changing the primary system" or depending on wealthy "outsiders" (as if someone entering the political lists in this country as a millionaire or a celebrity could and would be fiercely determined to change the very system that produced that wealth and celebrity) will somehow change this balance away from comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted seems unduly naive.
4. And I really don't see any other "white knights" here. The combination of "good-government" socialists, liberals and conservatives, Reds, union organizers, antitrust crusaders - and a Depression - are not in view. The Democrats, what portion of them are not bought and sold, are a political mess. The GOP is, frankly, a moral and political sewer that has failed to repudiate the crony capitalist, oligarchic, and foreign-adventuring slime of the Bush/Cheney cabal. Everything else seems to fall into Naderite vanity projects and Rand Paul libertarian nutballism.
5. So what I'm saying is that this looks to me very like 1890 only without the probable chance of a TR & Co. to pull us back from corporatist oligarchy. I think the next 100 years stands a very good chance of seeing us slide slowly into political senility and social and economic desuetude.
6. Please give me some hope to believe otherwise. Without magical ponies, if you will.
You sure you don't live in California?
ReplyDeleteWe seem to have the same situation as you, and to be perfectly honest it is a choice between the devil we know and the devil we don't know.
I prefer the deep blue sea, but that option isn't open to me.
Some answers to you questions have been published in today's IHT
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/politics/23self.html?hpw
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html
As long as the electorate buys the distortions of reality that wealthy political interests throw out here, anything is not only possible, but highly probable.
We are in the mess we are in domestically and overseas because the voters swallowed BS hook, line and sinker. Now they jump on new bandwagons, or rehabilitated bandwagons with ease.
When the State of California needs jobs, does it need a Senator who eliminated 14,000 jobs as a key "accomplishment" of her executive career? Do the people of Florida, where real estate values are in shambles need someone who's wealth rises from that very disaster?
Ok, so we agree the path described is not the ideal path for achieving political office. What is the path? (or what should it be) Is it even possible to be effective in today's world of campaigning and be effective?
ReplyDeletebg-
ReplyDeleteAll in all, we are getting the best political officials money can buy. Most other qualifications are meaningless.
The fundamental problem is the inherent lack of honesty in the system. A pol can never say what they think and must always say what is expedient.
ReplyDeleteIf a pol ever tells the truth as they see it, it is almost invariably treated as a major faux pas and is often career ending.
Of course, it isn't just the pols. People who deal with them also have to lie about everything. This expands till you have whole structures of organizations dedicated to lying to themselves and each other. (see Vietnam for some well documented instances).
In a world where everything is a lie, real policy development is impossible (and even if it was done, it would be treated as just another lie and filtered like everything else.)
Real reform would have to start with enabling a system where a politician could say what they believe and if they turn out wrong, they could admit that, and learn from their mistakes.
bg: My thought would be that ALL political campaigns should be publicly funded. You get a stipend, to which you can add up to, say, an additional 25% from provate contributions. This amount is on a sliding scale, from, say, $10,000 for city council up to $10 million for a Presidential or Senatorial bid. Plus you are allocated, say, 200 minutes total of comped airtime, and some sort of similar comped ad space in newspapers. That's it for your private campaign efforts.
ReplyDeleteYou are required to answer a set of stock questions about the job you're running for which are printed in a flier which is mailed to everyone in your district, and participate in, say, three televised, unscripted debate/meetings where you are required to answer the same slate of questions (fundamental stuff like "What services should government supply?", "How should we pay for them?" "If you propose raising taxes, what should we tax?" "If you propose cutting services, what should we cut?"). In the televised forum you have to make your prepared statement where you give your answers to the questions and then take questions from a panel of voters, other elected officials, and journos.
You could decided how you wanted to spend your private money; maybe you do a one-hour infomercial about you...maybe it's 200 30-second attack ads. Whatever.
But you don't have to do much begging for contributions, and you can't spend as much as you want.
You have to state upfront what you stand for, and the voters who bother to work to learn what you stand for can find out.
Mind you, I don't think this would ever happen. Both sides - the pols and the voters - have too much riding on the current system. Forcing them to tell the truth and confront the fiscal and political realities of what they want versus what they're willing to pay for? Catastrophic.
Ah, but Canada spends three times what the USA spends on its federal electoral watchdog. (despite the fact that the American system is both larger and more complicated)
ReplyDeleteI guess you get what you pay for.
Last night, as per my usual, I was watching Maddow's show. She had reported the Sherrod affair earlier this week and did a fine piece on how Fox news does news, which did not suit O'Reilly's "humble" opinion, so he criticized her on his show, and she replied.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38372844
Well that's all fine and good, and that's not my point here. What caught my eyes and ears was the comparison of ratings and what people watch in primetime. Both she and O'Reilly regularly get beat by USA's wrestling shows, Deadliest Catch, reruns of Hannah Montana.
Not very informed about our world and the politics that affect us all, are we?
bb
It's no surprise Ezra Klein is a fan of technocracy - it's something he openly advocates. Personally, I don't believe in technocracy for a number a reasons, but I can certainly see the appeal.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've been reading the NYT archives quite a bit recently to get a window on the politics of earlier times. My sense is that what we're seeing today isn't much different from those earlier times. Modernize the language and issues and op-eds from a 100 years ago sound pretty much like those today (I particularly like this one - gotta love that old-school preacher rhetoric). Back then, though, the complaint was "machine" politics while today it's ideology. That's a change that I think is detailed pretty well in this essay which I highly recommend. Here's the core of the argument:
It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.
That's really why I don't subscribe to either party - the core ideologies of each don't make much sense to me, contain too many internal contradictions and neither comports with my particular values and policy preferences.
Personally, I think both parties are living in the past. Our government is too, actually - it operates like a dinosaur from the 1950's. Incumbency (abetted by politicians picking their constituents via gerrymandering), partisan control of all parts of the electoral process plus many other factors all inhibit our political parties from reforming.
I actually welcome these rich people running. Although they come with their own set of problems, obviously, at least we know they don't need to whore themselves to various interests to raise money. More importantly, they are a threat to the establishment, one that will, hopefully, cause the establishment to reform in order to compete. As it stands, the partisans on each side know that the great "unwashed" majority in the middle will swing back to one side or the other not because the other party is better, but because that is the only way to voice dissatisfaction with whoever is currently in control. So this year we'll see the GoP make major gains even though the GoP remains very unpopular.
So it seems to me we don't need to elect policy wonks, as Ezra Klein would like, but generally honest people who will represent all their constituents, not just the core 25% of partisans who got them the money and the primary votes to get on the ballot.
BB,
Not very informed about our world and the politics that affect us all, are we?
Or maybe most people realize that Maddow and O'Reilly (and their peers) are just a different kind of entertainment. No one with any sense watches those shows to get "informed" about the world.
"I actually welcome these rich people running. Although they come with their own set of problems, obviously, at least we know they don't need to whore themselves to various interests to raise money. More importantly, they are a threat to the establishment, one that will, hopefully, cause the establishment to reform in order to compete."
ReplyDeleteAndy, if you don't get that these "rich people" ARE "the establishment", any further discussion of the topic is worthless. These people are a threat to no one other than those of us who do not have their wealth, least of all "the establishment", which exists to further comfort the comfortable.
Once and if elected they have no reason not to continue and intensify the tilt towards oligarchy that has been returning since 1980.
As far as Klein's original post, I don't think he was coming from the point of a "fan" of technocracy or any other "ocracy" other than generic liberalism. His point was my point; that the system is, as currently constituted, designed to work against the elected "leadership" actually knowing much about what they're voting on.
And to compare the stupids of 1889 with the stupids of 2010 is to compare apples with tactical nukes. In 1889 were were just in the process of becoming a regional power. Today we are the "lone superpower". The impact of stupid goes a lot further now than it did then.
"So it seems to me we don't need to elect policy wonks, as Ezra Klein would like, but generally honest people who will represent all their constituents, not just the core 25% of partisans who got them the money and the primary votes to get on the ballot."
ReplyDeleteAnd the very point of Klein's post was that given the current system you don't get either; you get money-hungry lobbyist whores who are too busy hoovering up contributions to learn what is best for the people they are "representing".
And the point of MY post was - I don't know how the hell you change this. Public funding? Yeah, right. That's a pipe dream. Public outrage? Don't make me laugh. I just don't see a way out of this situation until the oligarchic and corporatist influence becomes SO strong and so visible that even the folks out there watching Maddow, O'Lielly and Deadliest Idol realize that, for about 70-80% of them, the policiest being enacted in D.C. are not just unhelpful but actively inimical to their best interests.
"So it seems to me we don't need to elect policy wonks, as Ezra Klein would like, but generally honest people who will represent all their constituents, not just the core 25% of partisans who got them the money and the primary votes to get on the ballot."
ReplyDeleteBut...but...the very point of Klein's post was that given the current system you don't get either; you get money-hungry lobbyist whores who are too busy hoovering up contributions to learn what is best for the people they are "representing".
And the point of MY post was - I don't know how the hell you change this.
Public funding? Yeah, right. That's a pipe dream. Public outrage? Don't make me laugh.
I just don't see a way out of this situation until the oligarchic and corporatist influence becomes SO strong and so visible that even the folks out there watching Maddow, O'Lielly and Deadliest Idol realize that, for about 70-80% of them, the policiest being enacted in D.C. are not just unhelpful but actively inimical to their best interests. And then? I honestly doubt that there would be enough political power left in "The People" to effect a change.
You're right in that I, too, see a far amount of similarity between today's U.S. political landscape and the period of a century ago. But I also see a critical difference; reform of that corrupt and oligarchic system came because a coalition of reformers; union organizers, Reds, wealthy liberals, anticorporatists...people ranging from Emma Goldman to TR...took power and pushed the agenda that eventually became the New Deal.
But it took a Depression to finalize it.
And look at the difference; here we are, in what is as close to the Depression as we can probably get. Where is the FDR? Where are the hell-raising Democrats ready to take back the power from these wealthy individuals who have been cramming down the marginal tax rates, the estate taxes, the giveaways to the financial sectors?
Don't see the pendulum swinging back anytime soon.
I'm on a number of email lists and I got this today. I rarely do anything but pitch this kind of thing, but I thought it was germane.
ReplyDeleteA Congressman was seated next to a little girl on an airplane so he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the congressman. "How about global warming, universal health care, or stimulus packages?" as he smiled smugly.
"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff -
grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
The legislator, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming, universal health care, or the economy, when you
don't know shit?" Then she went back to reading her book.
Note there was no party affiliation for the mythical congressman. Many of my friends think the same way I do.
I live in a state where Alvin Greene is the Democratic party nominee to try to take away Neanderthal Jim DeMint's senate seat. Alvin Greene! It's clear there was some kind of skullduggery afoot, probably emanating from the Republican Party, but the state Democratic Party found no wrongdoing and certified this guy as the nominee. I know South Carolina is small and unimportant in the greater scheme of things, but the Senate is of course the great equalizer. Basil, you watch Maddow. I rarely do so, but I have watched the past two nights. Saw what you reported, then tonight Maddow showed Alvin Greene's rap video campaign commercial. Oh, boy.
Been out of town and am trying to get current on our site here. Sorry I haven't provided input. I'm going to do a post this weekend about an interesting web-based back and forth I've had for the past couple of days on another blog.
Andy, if you don't get that these "rich people" ARE "the establishment", any further discussion of the topic is worthless.
ReplyDeleteYou're nothing if not consistent Chief. Over the few years that we've been BS'ing at the same internet "pubs" you've stuck to the same basic arguments on the state of our Republic. Although we often disagree, your worldview and arguments in support of it have a lot of merit. However, I think this is the second or third time lately that you've used the old, "if you don't agree with me, talking to you is worthless" argument. It's not a very convincing argument I'm afraid. I guess if your position has hardened to such an extent that you demand agreement then maybe discussion is indeed worthless. Ultimately that is your call to make.
Your comment, however, begs the question: Who is the "establishment?" Anyone who's rich? Is there a list somewhere I can consult? Some metric I can use? Personally, I don't think someone who is rich and hasn't been in public office before can automatically be placed into the "establishment" category. It's certainly possible, of course, but an indisputable fact? I don't think so.
I read Klein everyday and he is definitely pro-technocrat. Nothing wrong with that even though I personally think it's naive as a worldview. Yeah, he's liberal. Technocratic liberals are also called progressives which would put him in that category. Again, nothing wrong with that.
His point was my point; that the system is, as currently constituted, designed to work against the elected "leadership" actually knowing much about what they're voting on.
I don't think that's atypical for elected officials. Since when have politicians voted for or against legislation based primarily on utility? Politics is about mobilizing support, cutting deals and serving the people who elected you as best as possible. Policy expertise has little to do with any of that.
But...but...the very point of Klein's post was that given the current system you don't get either
I'm not saying the current system is great, or even good - quite the opposite. All I'm saying is that Klein's solution of enlightened technocratic political leaders implementing technocratic answers to this country's problems isn't going to work and is about as likely as public funding for elections. Politics is about people, first and foremost.
And the point of MY post was - I don't know how the hell you change this.
Don't see the pendulum swinging back anytime soon.
Ultimately I think it will take a crisis and I think one is almost certain in my lifetime if not within the next 20 years. The establishment can't sweep problems under the rug or kick them down the road forever.
I do hold some hope that the political parties will reform themselves before that crisis and I think we're seeing some initial signs of that. These rich "outsiders" might (or might not) be a sign - time will tell. More hopefully, it looks like there is going to be some significant primary reform which is really needed. The current system doesn't do a good job of candidate selection.
Publius,
Great joke!
Alvin Greene! There must be something in the water in South Carolina. Speaking of Greene, have you seen this yet? There's also this guy running in Tennessee.
Andy: Jesuitical twittering aside, are you seriously arguing that wealth, political and social connection have not yielded excessive political and economic influence in the United States of 2010 any less than it did in the U.S. of 1890?
ReplyDeleteThat's what I mean. If you're going to start from that position, then further discussion isn't going to get us anywhere. It's like talking about salinity changes with someone who disagrees with the proposition "The ocean is largely composed of water".
The "establishment"? C'mon. The wealthiest families in the U.S., the CEOs of the largest corporations, the biggest unions, the owners and publishers of the largest newspapers, the entertainment and infotainment combines? That establishment? The financial firms and corporations that wield the influence today that Standard Oil and the grain and railroad trusts did in the 19th Century?
You yourself said it - today feels like the 1890s, with an increasing gap between rich and poor, and with an increasing gulf between the "average" U.S. citizen and the people who "represent" us. That "establishment"
And as for these rich folks who are supposedly going to rescue us...where are these wealthy people you mention calling for a return to the marginal tax rates of the 1960s? Where are the powerful media magnates demanding a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" or the CEOs of the investment banks calling for a return of Glass-Steagall?
You're nothing if not consistent, Andy. You will always find a way to defend the status quo, the right-center (if not outright conservative) tropes of the essential infallibility of the free market, the rule of the rich, the well-born, and the able. You always seem to find a way to find "both parties" at fault somehow, as if being a gormless pack of clueless opportunists is the political equivalent as being a gang of rapacious crony-capitalist, foreign adventuring oligarch-fantasists.
Its that sort of hairsplitting he said-she said politics that let the Bushies get away with their nonsense and, since they remain unindicted and unashamed, will lead to more of the same in the next GOP administration. And primary reform? This will help...how?
I envy you your faith in the willingness of the Senate the the People to rise up against the new caesars. I'm afraid I don't see why you'd think so; the caesars fell to external enemies and internal corruption, after all.
"The establishment can't sweep problems under the rug or kick them down the road forever."
ReplyDeleteIt took how long for the Ming to collapse? The Roman and Byzantine empires? The Hapsburgs in Spain and the Holy Roman Empire?
A lifetime is forever on a human scale. Tell me - WHY do you think that this slow slide into crony capitalist/oligarchy, "led" by these clueless, neutered, campaign-o-bots, can't last another hundred years? Two hundred?
Chief,
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of limiting the amount that campaigns can raise through private funding sources or how they spend their own money, and in theory, I like the idea of public funding. But how do you decide who gets public funding? Let's say tomorrow I want to run for a Congressional seat, who decides whether or not I get public funding? Is there a civil service test and an application process? Is there a board that has to convene? Or a petition letter signed by a couple thousand of my best friends on Facebook?
Oh boy Chief, here we go again...
ReplyDeleteJesuitical twittering aside, are you seriously arguing that wealth, political and social connection have not yielded excessive political and economic influence in the United States
No, I'm arguing that is always the case to a greater or lesser degree. Has there ever been a human society where wealth, political and social connections haven't been very advantageous? It's not a question of whether those are or aren't beneficial to those who possess them - obviously they are - it's a question of degree. You think the influence today is "excessive." Well, as I've frequently stated, I agree! What I disagree with, and what I actually said, is the notion that one can automatically put individuals into these categories by simplistic metrics such as wealth. That's all. I don't view things in terms of class and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. So, my only argument here is that I'm not going to automatically assume that a rich person running for office is part of the oligarchy intent on continuing and promoting that oligarchy. You not only make that assumption, you apparently believe it is a fact so beyond dispute that it's worthless to debate anyone who would question that "fact." I'm not here to try to disabuse you of your convictions, so if my position makes debate worthless, the the ball is in your court on that.
Regarding the 1890's, I did not say that today feels like that period, but I do think there are some pretty obvious parallels. There are also some significant differences. I tend to view history as cyclical and I think we are in at the equivalent point today that we were in the 1890's.
And as for these rich folks who are supposedly going to rescue us
I never said they are going to rescue us. All I said is that I'm hopeful they might spur some reform in the party system which isn't serving us very well at all. Obviously reasonable people can disagree on that, but the fact is that outsiders can only be viable candidates if they have an independent means of financing an election bid. Because of the hold the two parties have on the system, the only way people outside that system can run is to self-finance. While it's possible, maybe even probable, that they won't be much different than the rich professional politicians we currently elect, I'm hopeful it might be different. And I say that because it's clear a lot of people invested in the party system don't like the fact that these people are running. Is that so radical a position that it's completely beyond consideration?
continued:
ReplyDeleteThis is really a gem Chief:
You're nothing if not consistent, Andy. You will always find a way to defend the status quo, the right-center (if not outright conservative) tropes of the essential infallibility of the free market, the rule of the rich, the well-born, and the able. You always seem to find a way to find "both parties" at fault somehow, as if being a gormless pack of clueless opportunists is the political equivalent as being a gang of rapacious crony-capitalist, foreign adventuring oligarch-fantasists.
Ok Chief, I give up. The gross mischaraterizations are really tiresome. From this comment forward I'm simply going to ignore them. I frankly don't have the time to continuously knock down all the strawmen you raise with my face on them, so I'll do this once more and that's it.
Read through my comments again. Where exactly am I defending the status quo? Read through my recent comments on this blog where I've stated time and again that this country is heading toward a reckoning, that our current path is unsustainable and that our current leadership and the political system that selects them is incapable and unwilling to deal with the problems that will come home to roost in the near future? I've frequently stated I'm not a member of either party because I have substantial disagreements with both of them. I've stated that I think they need to change and they are not serving this country well. Tell me how, exactly, do you interpret all that as consistent support for the status quo? I really would like to know the thought process that leads you such a wrong conclusion.
Secondly, show me one post I've made anytime, anywhere where I say anything about the "infallibility" of the so-called "free market?" Maybe you assume that since I don't drink the progressive kool-aid on that particular topic that I simply must be a corporatist free-marketer? Maybe even a neo-liberal? I can't read minds so I don't know by what mechanism you've deluded yourself into thinking I'm in the tank for things I'm not in the tank for.
The one thing you're right about is that I do find both parties at fault. There IS a pox on both houses - that the GoP is comparatively much worse doesn't mean that I need cut the Democrats any slack or believe that their solutions will be any better at solving our most pressing problems, nor does it mean I need to agree with the liberal talking points about how bad the GoP is. I have my own reasons for disliking the GoP.
part 3:
ReplyDeleteRegarding primary reform I do think it's an important step. Reasonable people can disagree on that score, but my view is that the primary system is broken. Presidential hopefuls place a bet on where to concentrate resources in a handful of states and roll the dice. Then a relative handful of mostly partisan voters in those states get to decide our candidates. That's not a system worth defending in my opinion. Given what you originally wrote above about the low quality of our candidates, I would think you'd agree. If you want to get better candidates, and it seems like you do, then how can that happen without primary reform?
I envy you your faith in the willingness of the Senate the the People to rise up against the new caesars.
Again, read what I actually wrote. To explain a bit further, and to reiterate what I've said in earlier comments, I believe our country is on an unsustainable path that ends in an existential crisis. I think the crisis can be avoided, but there is no political will in either party (nor in the public more generally) to do so. So I think the crisis will come. That crisis will bring significant change. I don't pretend to know what kind of change it will be or what the ultimate results will be. Maybe fascism, maybe the oligarchy becomes permanently cemented or maybe the people do rise up and restore accountability to the people. What's clear to me is that change is coming and I think it's coming a lot sooner than most people think. Since this is the future we're talking about I readily admit I may be completely wrong. I'm in the business of predicting the future and from personal experience it's a humbling enterprise. But, as it stands, I don't see how the crisis I see coming will be avoided regardless of which political party has the levers of power. So if I don't run into the arms of the Democrats in order to avoid the GoP, that is why.
This is so interesting blog. You are best listing knowledge provide at this site. I am very excited read this nice article. You can visit my website.
ReplyDeleteHome Health Care