A Time to Talk and a Time To Listen

Anything worth doing is worth doing right, unless you can afford not to. Nowhere is this adaptation of the old adage more appropriate than in the discussion of American government. Rife with powerful interests both industrial and social, the American political landscape is one of peaks and valleys, with those of means upon the peaks and the mass of the American population in the valleys.

Now as far as what is right, who is to say? Ideas and beliefs held throughout the ideological continuum almost all have points of validity to be sure, and when discussing the concepts of lobby and influence, there is a great deal of positive things to be said about the ability to redress grievances and promote particular values within government. Moreover, the Constitution guarantees us the freedom to say what we please and to promote the causes which are dearest to us. However, in our century’s long experiment with government by popular consent, this nation has lost something in the way of its proper function and has in turn, given rise to a new breed of activists and insiders which to our profile, stands to pose the gravest threat to our popular sovereignty since the days of King George.

As our economy, technology, multi-nationalist business presence and internal wealth have grown, so have the efforts to secure controlling interests in the bodies which govern them. In times gone by, a simple visit to the home of a government official by an interest for a chat and a handshake was often enough to secure their desires. Modern influence peddlers however, have stepped up their game, using the massive fund raising and marketing tools at their disposal to sway elections and buy legislative preference after the fact. While there are countless examples to choose from, none goes as far as demonstrating the modern practices and inherent dangers in this than the military industrial congressional complex.

While this moniker is at least familiar to most, the specific wording posed here presents one of the first steps taken to secure the power of the complex against public rebuke through the use of clever politics. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower issued a stern warning against the continued establishment of what he dubbed the “military industrial complex.” While this is well known to any who pay attention, what is less discussed is the drafting of the address and the changes made for political purposes.

Initially named the “military industrial congressional complex,” Eisenhower was met with apprehension by his staff for the inclusion of the term “congressional.” Stating that such a reference could endanger the party’s chances of holding onto power and could alienate the legislature for future administrations, the word was removed from the final version of the address. For decades to follow, the true dangers of collusion between the defense industry and government went both passively acknowledged by those who understand what this means and completely misinterpreted by those who don’t.

Much akin to other industries which have grown around civic needs, such as prisons, medical care, telecommunications and energy, the defense industry has made an art form of lobbying and influence. From stacking the regulatory deck with industry insider appointments to lucrative employment offers made to various government employees who play ball, the temptations of wealth and power are but the tip of the iceberg in regards to what drives the influence in Washington. However as Defense is an industry entirely built around an element of the state, the means they’ve devised to secure their will are outright brilliant.

Having diffused their labor and production bases throughout the country and various congressional districts, their ability argue for expensive projects which often serve no practical purpose in light of modern security threats, are enhanced by their ability to control employment figures in the respective areas they operate in. When this is then coupled with the enormous amounts of money both donated to current campaigns as well as that promised for reelection efforts, the comprehensive scope of dependency which the industry creates within government and individual politicians becomes clearer.

When one proposes a cash cow weapons platform which is to be built in separate parts throughout the country, or demands a no-bid contract to provide logistical services to military elements in theater, the efforts to secure these desires are aided by the ability to threaten the economic stability of a district through “necessary down-sizing,” as well as exert the always productive pressure that campaign funding arrangements can create. Between these and countless other strategies which the titanic industrial forces use to exert their will in government, it is no surprise that the very nature of the very contracts themselves operate in such a curiously generous manner. Enter the no-bid, cost-plus-fee contracting system.

Imagine you decide to tile your kitchen floor. Now the average sensible person would take bids from given contractors, determine the best value presented and award the job to whichever company or professional posed the most attractive offer. This is not only a sensible business practice, but one of the more virtuous aspects argued in favor of capitalism altogether. The biggest bang for your buck.

Now consider the following in contrast. Instead of bidding out the job, you instead give it directly to a company who previously helped you out in the past, whether financially or in some personal endeavor. Such arrangements are not totally outlandish, or ethically questionable, but then add to this the demand by the company that you pay for every cent spent by the workers during the tiling of your kitchen, up to and including their wages, the price of their lunch, insurance for their private vehicles, the rent or mortgage they pay and reimbursement for every mile driven while under contract, in addition to the fee they’ve demanded for their service. Then consider what it would mean if the tile company had the final say on what tile would go in and how. Starting to sound bit like the only decisions you have to make regarding your own kitchen is what is for lunch tomorrow.

This is but one small part of a larger problem we face. With this gaming of the system rooted in the support structure which corporate America provides for elected officials and the stranglehold they have on the US economy, the very serious matters of, in this case war and in other cases medical care, communication, energy production and so on, all become marketplaces in which the benefits and risks posed are not measured to fit public good, but rather that of the profiteers who run the game. But the corporate world is not entirely to blame for slanted policies or narrow minded legislation.

Quite to the contrary, its traditional opposition, the grassroots activist, also has a hand in this perversion of popular sentiment. While activism was originally the core method for a redress of grievances or a call to action by the population to the government, its modern form is more akin to commercial public relations and marketing than that of action born of civic virtue or proper cause. As the ever increasing entrenchment of the partisan divide continually plays out in the media and popular discussion, many issues of concern ranging from taxation to environmental protection, have been co-opted by private firms in the efforts to convert them from valid causes to simple political ammunition.

Throughout our modern history, social interests pushed by entities such as organized labor, antiwar movements and various groups promoting social values such as traditionalism or social justice, have often made up the bulk of political activism in the US. While these same groups and messages still do exist in mainstream debate, the manner in which they are promoted has changed dramatically since the days of flowers being placed into trained rifle barrels. With countless public relations firms and political consultancies having opened nationwide, many formerly organic grassroots style movements have now become professionalized campaign and lobbying strategies, implemented using the same techniques at work in the corporate sector, which the core supporters of popular movements once decried.

And while the successes of progressive social legislation under Democrats and the steps to institutionally preserve traditional social values under Republicans do stand as a testament to the effectiveness of these new strategies, the end results of these actions within the voting blocs themselves, have only served to further enhance the phony popularized political differences. Voters are by manner of popular association, cast in one of two absolutist camps politically, which in turn both make single issue voters out of many and serve to bolster the bipolar nature of their political options. Then media then steps in and the explosive and generally hyperbolic fringe differences of opinion then become the norm, leading not only to a loss of intelligent discourse, but a challenge to up the ante regarding the controversial and vitriolic.

These polarizing, professional marketers carve up the body public like a Thanksgiving turkey and make out like bandits for doing it. Through vicarious self associating policy demands, slanted polling, an intentional blurring of contexts and focus group tested rhetorical argument, these professionals have turned what was once the only effective avenue that average citizens had to challenge their government with, into just another commercial marketplace, with the political equivalent of Walmart drowning out the sounds of ma and pa activist, who are screaming for help. The options are scaled down until elections are nothing more than the Pepsi challenge, just short a blindfold and a refreshing beverage.

So now, constructs and political machinery have taken over. The often absurd fights between activists come to embody willful popular debate and America’s national business interests dictate the uses and needs of our collective resources. Once every two years, the public is given a set of options and once every two years, they fail to recognize the players at work who are dictating what those options will be.  If they do recognize it, they either throw their arms up in surrender, figuring there is no real fighting it, or scream at the top of their lungs until their voices mesh in with countless others and are promptly shouted down by the privatized establishment.

And so what can be done?  Some would say nothing. The machinery is too powerful, the people too divided and the game too well rigged for anything to effectively counter the problems which plague our system.

Others would say we must fight with every ounce of strength and with every breath we take, lest we passively approve of what we know to be wrong. They’ll cite the rights of redress and the US Constitution as all we may need to protect ourselves, but what if a true solution lays in a violation this very doctrine in pursuit of a greater good? What if what we need is a time to talk and a time to listen?

It’s a dangerous idea and a potentially slippery slope to be sure, but it is still one which demands honest consideration. Our elections are how we establish our government. Our government is what establishes our law. Our law is what keeps and protects us from the savagery of anarchy and the oppression of tyranny.

In light of what we face today, amidst the evolved corruptions and throws of power, we must consider reformatting of our elections and political system entirely. The special interests have cheated their way to the heights of power as weeds overtake an untended garden, and it is now time to dig out the roots once and for all.

To start, private political election campaign financing must be eliminated completely. From the major corporate donors who bankroll both sides of given elections, to the individual contributions made via internet, telephone, check, money order, cash and credit, every private cent donated detracts from matters of policy and backs the matters of flash. And while pomp and bluster will always have their place in politics, the abilities they have to distract us are solely dependent on the financing available.

A standardized election financing scheme utilizing set dollar amounts of public funds deters this and when coupled with mandates that election advertising and debate structure maintain a policy orientation with fact checking made available prior to and after given ads and debates, it provides an environment where as opposed to career politicians, true statesman have a chance to win the day. Added again to this, a more defined primary period in which any registered party with a certain number of active registered members, can qualify for ballot status. In this, the United States will for the first time in decades, have a genuine chance to abandon the intellectually dishonest bicameral partisan system and its limited options regarding her future.

But what then of the PACs and issue campaigns which infest our airwaves, mailboxes and doorsteps constantly during each and every election and in some bizarre way, sway the body politic towards whichever candidate has the most pizzazz? What is to be done with them? Herein lies the true problem, for in addition to curbing the monitory expression of individuals and private enterprises, this proposal also requires a direct prohibition on public free speech.

In order to restore popular sovereignty and return power to the people from the hands of the interests described in this essay, sacrifices will need to be made. In this case, the sacrifice is the near absolute freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. For in this proposal, it is would be required that at no time during the designated federal election periods, which themselves are to be standardized into four year increments, thereby reforming the terms of congressional offices, that no PAC or private political campaign may promote specific goals or ideas by use of the postal service, public airwaves or solicitation of citizens at their homes, so as to ensure the validity of debate and statesmanship in given elections.

These groups and campaigns will of course be free to hold demonstrations to promote their ideas, so long as they are not held on public land and will not be restricted from internet campaigning, as this remains a private endeavor. Furthermore they will also be free to solicit and campaign at their will freely, during anytime other than the designated campaign and election season for federal or state offices. The freedom to express one’s grievances and concerns is both a basic natural right and a fundamental necessity to a free society, and it must be protected.

However as the inequities which exist between the free people of this nation and powerful interests have pushed the balance of power out of the hands of common citizens, our statesmen have become nothing more than television spokesmen. Steps must be taken to ensure that this imbalance is corrected. In light of these facts, there appears no real alternative but to take into serious consideration the radical actions such as are proposed here.

Though highly controversial, these proposals would not only give further legitimacy to our elections by ensuring a policy oriented debate, but would also effectively eliminate all outside election season influences from the narrowly focused interest lobbies, who skew public debate into absolute hyperbole. While questions about endangerment of free expression are unavoidable in the most honest and objective thinking on this, the greatest danger posed by a proper and thorough adoption of regulations like these is really only boredom in the absence of an expensive dog and pony show.

Between a complete elimination of private campaign funding, a regulated and transparent election process and a careful management of interest lobbying efforts, this nation can once again become the land of government by popular consent which it was intended to be. While the Constitution was drafted to protect popular political sovereignty, it is the popular will of people of the present day to govern themselves as they see fit, which truly defines the concept. For as the alternative is to do nothing but complain, blame our partisan counterparts and to allow inaction to remain our default disposition, real political change will remain the as much a pipedream as transparent government and functional democracy are today.