Fixing the American Government

Posted on by
6

When people learn that I’ve studied American politics more than forty years, one question they often ask is what I would change to begin improving the state of American politics, and the answer is actually quite simple; remove money from the equation.  Stop allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to have so much control over who wins party nominations and, ultimately, elections.  Last year $1,312,110,914 was raised for the presidential races alone (yes, that is over a billion dollars).  Another $1,035,693,928 was raised for the 435 House of Representatives seats (again, over a billion dollars) and $787,814,300 for the 33 vacant Senate seats.  The grand total raised last year was…a whole bunch of money.

Here are a few interesting facts.  In 2016, a little more than 70% of all donations of more than $200 came from .5% of the population, .08% gave all donations greater than $2,700,  and 100 individuals or organizations contributed at least $2,272,500 or more EACH.  Interestingly, 30,677 individuals or organizations donated to both parties, apparently hoping to gain influence regardless of the winning party.

What are the consequences of these huge campaign donations? There is honestly no way to be absolutely certain, but it is reasonable to assume that large donors expect to gain access and influence.  And even if the connection between money and influence cannot be conclusively proven (I doubt many elected officials will actually admit that their decisions are based on donations), it certainly seems obvious that it could be a corrupting influence.  If those capable of contributing huge sums are in fact receiving favors that you and I don’t enjoy, I would argue that this contradicts the notion that everyone’s vote should count equally, enunciated in a number of Supreme Court decisions.

A related problem is campaign money’s chilling influence on the notion of fair and competitive elections.  Members of Congress and other elected officials can raise huge sums of money, even in non-election years, and keep that money in their “war chest” (bank account) to use in future elections.  In 2016 fifty members of Congress had at least $1,313,688 in the bank (Paul Ryan had $9,098,873).  Let’s say that Professor Dave decided to run against Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) in last year’s election (he actually represents a different district and I’m offering no critique of his effectiveness; just go along with me here).  Then I learn that Representative Luetkemeyer has $1,858,861 in the bank (which he did), and  I know he can begin spending it when a serious challenger appears.  Professor Dave looks at his bank account (which has MUCH less than $1,858,861) and decides that he will pass on the opportunity to run for this office.  It happens.  I know it does because I know very intelligent and capable people who chose to not pursue an office because of the amount of money required.

How did we get to the point that money is so important that the two 2016 candidates for District 19 of the Missouri Senate, for example, raised $3.6 million to win a seat that pays the winner about $36,000 per year?  In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that money equals speech, and speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.  The Court thus ruled that limits on the amount people  can contribute to an election are an unconstitutional denial of their speech.  In a 2010 case the Court struck down limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions, ruling in essence that these groups could spend an unlimited amount of money promoting candidates as long as the money wasn’t given directly to the candidate’s campaign.  Money, money, and more money.

To change this requires ether 1)  The Supreme Court to have a change of heart and reverse it’s interpretation of the Constitution, or 2) a Constitutional amendment reversing the Court.  I’m not optimistic.  My ultimate solution would likely be unpopular with many (most?) folks, but I’d like to find a way to follow the British model that limits the amount spent by providing public and equal funding for Congressional and presidential campaigns.  I am a dreamer, but until we remove money as the motivating factor in American politics we will not be able to effectively address all the other issues facing our political system such a gerrymandering, healthcare reform, protecting the environment, or improving our infrastructure.

 

The Neil Gorsuch Nomination

Posted on by
18

In general, The Constitution may be interpreted in one of two equally valid ways. “Originalists” believe the document should be interpreted narrowly and focus on the strict meaning as intended by the Framers. This approach is not necessarily tied to traditional “liberal” or “conservative” camps, but refers more to an interpretive approach. The second approach is viewing the Constitution as a “living document” that must be shaped over time because of evolving social and economic forces. Article V of the Constitution provides for an amendment process, but those who espouse this second approach find that formal process too slow and unwieldy to deal with a rapidly changing society, and they offer the scarcity of amendments (27 since 1791) as evidence.

Both approaches are valid and easily defended. Both also have faults. A problem with originalism is that the Framers wrote the Constitution 230 years ago and could not possibly have envisioned me composing this document on a word processor or you reading it online. Nor could they have envisioned America’s developing social structure, the consequences of industrialization, a need for a rapid response in military crises, or using dogs and helicopters to find illegal drugs. In other words, expecting legislators and judges to apply a 230 year old document to modern issues is problematic.

Considering the Constitution a living document is also perilous. At what point is the Constitution stretched too far? How closely should governmental decisions be tied to the original text? What is to stop judges from being legislators themselves and interpreting the Constitution so broadly that it becomes a meaningless piece of paper?

For a number of reasons I won’t explain here (maybe in a later post) because the explanations would consume quite a bit of space,  I’ll just say I tend to accept the second approach. In Gompers v United States (1914), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes succinctly summarized this approach by stating “Provisions of the Constitution of the United States are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form, but are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is not to be gathered simply from the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth”. Like Holmes, I believe judicial decisions are not formulaic and must sometimes shape the Constitution to contemporary circumstances.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, is an originalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia. I disagree with his approach to interpretation and, consequently, with a fairly large number of his decisions. However, he should absolutely be confirmed by the Senate unless some currently unknown moral or ethical shortcomings are discovered. His resume is impeccable and his experience is noteworthy. He graduated from Harvard, Columbia, and Oxford. He clerked with two Supreme Court justices. He served in private practice with a highly reputable law firm. He was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by unanimous Senate voice vote in 2006. After his confirmation I will almost certainly complain about his votes on the Court and criticize opinions he writes, but he is highly qualified for the position.

I know there are those who argue that the Senate should have considered President Obama’s nominee, Garland Merrick, during its 2016 session, and I agree. However, I disagree with holding up the appointment of a qualified jurist simply because of retribution or petty partisan politics.

In some future post I’ll probably offer arguments regarding the proper role of American courts and Constitutional interpretation, but my purpose here is to argue for Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.

A House Divided

Posted on by
3

In 1858  Abraham Lincoln voiced what was at that time a controversial prophesy of America’s future. Reflecting on America’s division caused by slavery, Lincoln stated that “A house divided against itself cannot long endure”, a phrase attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and echoed by philosophers through the ages. Though not facing any specific issue as urgent as was slavery, today’s America is deeply divided. Can we long endure?

The causes of this division are debatable, but its reality is fairly clear. A few examples should suffice:

  • 46% of Americans say things in America are going very well or fairly well while 53% say they are going pretty badly or very badly. I assume both sides accurately assess their stations in life.
  • 86% of Americans believe America is more politically divided than at any other time in our history (even more divided than during the Civil War?!). What is worse, most folks don’t expect it to improve in the coming years.
  • The division between rich and poor has grown to the point that today those in the top .10% possess more wealth than the combined wealth of the bottom 99%
  • Economic opportunities for ethnic minorities remain elusive. According to Forbes (2016), “It would take black families 228 years to amass the same amount of wealth white families have today, if average black family wealth continues to grow at the same pace it has over the past three decades. For the average Latino family, it would take 84 years to catch up.”
  • We are divided politically. In the 2016 presidential election Donald Trump received about 46.1% of the votes and Hillary Clinton 48.2%, but 42% of America’s eligible voters did not vote. Further, 28% claim to be Republicans, 25% are Democrats, and 44% are independents.
  • Only 51% view the Democratic Party favorably and 47% view the Republicans favorable.
  • 63% of Americans disapprove of the job Congressional Democratic leaders are doing and 50% disapprove of Republican leadership. Congress has a 19% approval rating (and I honestly wonder what that 19% is seeing that the rest of us are missing).
  • 45% think President Trump is moving too fast in addressing America’s problems, 10% say not fast enough, and 35% say he moving at about the right pace.
  • For 39% of our fellow citizens football is their favorite sport but only 1% claim tennis as favorite (I’m finally a one percenter!)

The list of our differences is quite lengthy. Americans are divided over hot-button issues such as abortion, gun control, environmental protection, education policy, healthcare policy, the best breed of dog (Boxers), and crunchy v creamy peanut butter (crunchy!). Is this new? Absolutely not.  Our Framers were divided over state v federal power, the role of the courts, agrarianism v industrialization, and which bird should become our national symbol. We have been divided throughout our history, so what has changed?

Character (or lack thereof) and mass media. We’ve always had those who behaved in an uncivil manner or who accepted outrageous ideas but, as with today, they were the minority and we could largely ignore them because their reach was limited. Now those people have an easy voice and are willing to use it.  They can disrupt social media with their repulsive ideas or snide remarks, they can spew hate because news websites open stories to comments, they can gain national media attention by staging a demonstration regardless of the cause, and they can attack others whom they’ve never met from the comfort of their living room easy chair via the internet. Because this has become pervasive, a segment of society has now seemed to accept as commonplace politicians being disrespectful to each other (and to those who do not support them), media personalities and others spreading false information which followers accept at face value, and the notion that attacking others verbally is socially acceptable.

How can we change this? One person, one civil response, one opinion based on reason and fact at a time. The pace of change may be glacial, but with this “us v them” mindset which currently divides our house, we cannot long endure.

Today’s Sources:

Introduction

Featured

Posted on by
5

 

There is no scarcity of political and social commentary these days, but the scarcity of CIVIL political and social commentary is troublesome. I hope this blog can help fill that void. If you have grown tired of reading vitriolic commentary where people tend to shout (well, e-shout) and call each other names, this might be the blog for you.  If you have grown tired of finger pointing, blaming, scapegoating, and mindless commentary, this might be the blog for you.  If you want the opportunity to read ideas that contradict your own, but in a civil manner, this might be the blog for you.

I’m a political scientist (don’t judge) and administrator at a liberal arts college in the American Midwest, and I’ve been in academia since 1978 (you can read a brief personal bio in the Basic Information section). My liberal students think I’m conservative and my conservative students think I’m liberal.  The truth is that traditional liberal and conservative labels no longer work, but we keep holding on to them as if they are sacred.

I start from the premise that very few public policy decisions are based on objective data; most are just written on a whim to satisfy the constituent of the moment or in response to a specific event (gun control after a school shooting, environmental laws after an oil spill, etc.). It seems obvious to me that policy choices should be somewhat clear when science or data DO support a conclusion, and that could happen much more often than it currently does .

Here are the basic rules for my blog:

  • I will offer ideas, often controversial, and will cite objective data (when available) supporting an argument.  Other times I will offer a personal view and defend it.  You may then offer counter arguments or ideas.  Be assured that you may change my mind because I know I have not yet cornered the market on political truth.
  • No responses may attack an individual, use coarse language, or be otherwise belligerent or hostile.  If you cannot post a comment without using such terms as libtard, extra chromosome, stupid, snowflake, wingnut, loser, Hitlerian, moonbat, conservatard, Neanderthal, or mouth breather, please find your idea fix elsewhere. In fact, I think the discourse will be much more thoughtful if we don’t even refer to “left-wing” or “right-wing” ideas.  They are just ideas.  The question is whether the ideas bear scrutiny.
  • Uncivil posts will not be approved for publication (Sorry. I do not like censorship but I dislike discourteous conversation even more).

I do understand that these rules will eliminate a segment of society, people who enjoy being rude and who refuse to engage in civil debate, and I’m perfectly fine with that. I’m fairly certain most of you look forward to debate without those folks as well.

My goal is to post ideas at least twice each week, but posts may be more frequent as public events unfold. Some posts will be long (hopefully not too long), and others will be shorter. I will always provide sources when I cite statistics or other specific information, but I don’t plan to bother with formal citations unless my academic colleagues reprimand me.

I hope this endeavor will be successful because I’m weary of the current state of political discourse.  If you enjoy reading and participating I hope you will let others know so we can try to spread this radical idea of civility. If you don’t enjoy it, keep it to yourself!!