Party Over People
As the 2020 summer and election seasons heat up amidst the most tumultuous period in America
in half a century, look for signs that the cause of the nation’s problems isn’t Democrats, or Republicans.
It is the two-party system they both protect and serve. No matter which side wins in November,
the two-party system wins, and the people lose.
I have seen this firsthand in the policy realm where proposals that would place the interests of the
general population over both political parties are met with derision and dismissed.
America’s policy making apparatus is party-interested rather than rational.
In the first case, I suggested that the way to stop mass shootings is to remove barriers preventing
entrepreneurs from developing a network of (hu)manned drones that would swarm, harry, and
incapacitate bad guys. Please do not be the person who raises engineering objections to the idea.
I swear if I said hey “let’s shrink a nuclear reactor down and use it to power a boat that can stay
underwater for months at a time” some genius would say that it is “impossible.” To paraphrase a 1970s
The problem lies not with technology but with incentives and regulations.
Members of neither party wanted to be anywhere near the idea, though, even though the drone system
could also have been used in other first response scenarios, including fires and medical emergencies.
Republicans feared its success would weaken support for the Second Amendment by reducing
incentives for people to arm themselves while Democrats disliked reducing the power of government
police forces and their public unions.
Another policy idea that went nowhere due to party politics is the notion of direct budgeting. That system
entails elected legislators establishing programs and tax levels but each taxpayer deciding how their tax
dollars are spent. Let hawks allocate their mite to military might and doves earmark their taxes for foreign
aid. Let MMTers pledge their all for current spending while debt realists apply all their taxes to paying
down the national debt.
Allow statists to spread their money about as the Deep State requests and libertarians to put all theirs
toward the Government Accountability Office, which at least sounds like a good idea. In other words,
make the budget truly democratic (except for solemn outstanding obligations like Social Security and
debt interest payments).
If you bring such an idea up in a room full of politicians, you will quickly learn that bipartisanship is still
possible, at least on the issue of you being a loon. If they engage at all, they will ask questions like
“What if people used their power to ... oh I dunno something crazy … like defunding the police?” Well,
then they would have no reason to peacefully protest, riot, tear down statues, or spread contagion for
starters because they would hold something much more powerful than the right to vote for an
But that would smack of real democracy instead of plutocratic party rule so it cannot happen, at least not
while the powers that be, be.
Another idea that harkens back to rule of, by, and for the people that cannot gain traction because it would
destroy the dastardly duopoly of party is sortition or lottocracy. Why elect rulers when we can select
them, randomly, from a pool of qualified candidates? There would be no more campaign finance rules
because there would be no more “running” for office, no more quid pro quo of promises for cash, just an
email stating that you have been identified as qualified for such and such office and asking if you would
serve if selected on such and such terms. It would be a lot like jury selection but with less coercion
(i.e., higher pay!).
The details regarding qualifications for different offices would have to be worked out but, if we are really
committed to being a democracy, it could be approved by a plebiscite before going into effect. Personally,
I’d vote “yes” to any set of qualifications that kept Biden, Trump, and Putin out of the selection pool.
As I have noted before, if the idea of selecting POTUS frightens you, work to reduce the power of the
position, which is supposed to be just the head of the executive branch of the national government,
not the CEO of the nation or the leader of the free world.
As the November elections approach and civil unrest continues, look for other plausible policy proposals
to be pronounced “dead on arrival.” Like Presidential assassins, they will be labeled insane or foreign
plots or some other damnable thing to dissuade rational debate about their (de)merits.
Progressives, the original Progressives from the late nineteenth century, the ones who managed to
reform government through referendum and recall, anti-corruption legislation, and the direct election of
U.S. Senators. We do not really need much government at all, but if Americans insist on having a large
one, they need ways to bring it, and its lapdog parties, to heel. That, though, is going to require thinking
outside of the narrow confines of party politics and policy frames.
Are we again ready to place people over party? Recent political polarization over masks and other
claims that there is NO scientific evidence that masks reduce the spread of SARS-COV-2 virus, we
do help reduce the spread, shouldn’t people be debating whether it was legal or ethical for the CDC and
WHO to value the lives of HCPs over others in the early part of the crisis, when they adamantly told
mere commoners not to wear them?
So I still think America has jumped the shark, but hope that the recent uprisings
(which I predicted back in March) shake the party duopoly enough to spur real reforms.
