The answer is right in front of you
Nation writer Eric Alterman’s 17,000-word essay “Kabuki Democracy” is about one-third interesting points, one-third liberal whining about how all-powerful talk-radio hosts and Fox News prevented a progressive black man from being elected President (oh wait a minute, that didn’t happen), and one-third problems and potential solutions. It points out, however inadvertently, the follies of centralism from the point of view of the left.
If we have a “Kabuki Democracy” with the puppeteers being the vested interest, it’s because the powers that be are powerful and intend never to give up the strings of that power. And what makes them even more powerful is that they can focus much of their efforts in one single place: Washington D.C., where they get what they want or prevent what they don’t want from happening.
If it is true that Senators spend the bulk of their time fundraising (even with six-year terms), would not repealing the 17th Amendment be a way of correcting this problem? How much democracy can there be in a choice between two corporate puppets? If it is true that corporations have corrupted both the political and regulatory process on the federal level, would transferring such powers more and more to states, counties and townships be a way of preventing this from happening? If organizing at the local level may offer Leftists a better chance of changing the political landscape, why not more local government?
This is not to say that corporate money would eventually flow downward, because it probably will. But it is a lot easier to organize in a state senate district than across the nation all at once. A nation of thousands of small communities, counties, townships, etc. may very well provide a better check on the corporate, interest dominated central government than thinking a president can change the system all by his lonesome. The netroots got its start outside the Beltway, not in it. Perhaps if the Left can cross the Rubicon and start believing they can make more of a difference at the courthouse, rather than continually organizing marches on Washington D.C.—or thinking that they someday will control the center (which they won’t)—they might find it more productive and rewarding and also be joined by libertarians and conservatives who feel the same way. Then we can truly have a two-party system pitting the center of power against everyone else.
Excellent article.
you may be unwilling to admit that the majority of Americans are center-right, but many of the principles you advance still remain.
Judge Susan Bolton did NOT empower the authorities of Arizona, and she ignored the principles of “Of the People, By the People, and For the People…”.
This judge patently ignores the concept that powers not exclusively granted the Federal Government, accrue naturally to the local authorities.
Also, many people seem unwilling to acknowledge Arizona’s “need to know”. That is, it is the STATE’S exclusive purview to decide who votes in the Presidential elections. Thus naturally, they have an INVIOLABLE right to know who is in the state legally.
The same argument may be made, when states like Arizona are charged with providing medicaid and food stamps and other services to it’s CITIZENS.
Finally, any ruling that forces people to delay acting in their own interest, in favor of policical interests that may be choosing NOT to act for politically reasons, is inherently EVIL. An example of this is the federal government preventing local beachfront property owners from removing oil globs from their own property.
This ruling was that of an idiot ideologue.
But if for example states could implement their own immigration policies what would happen when states implement widely different policies at the same time? does that extend to say defence?
This is absurd. The only solution is to realize that money is not speech, to commandeer the public airwaves free of charge for democratic debate, and limit the influence of permanent institutional constituencies of all stripes from politics as much as possible. To say that substituting those paragons of virtue, state legislators, for the popular vote is going to solve or improve anything is ideological naivete and ridiculous. The corruption and incompetence on that level is breathtaking, and worse than it is in Washington… these are the people not good enough to make *that* low grade; almost all of them would be their, with more power and money, if they could, but they cannot. The circus that would ensue would be entertaining, but not improve the government, and more likely make it worse.
“majority of Americans are center-right”
If that is true than Obama would not have been elected and we would not have a Congress run by Democrats. Please do not use phrases that are meaningless. And he was elected by 53 percent of the vote in one of the highest turnout elections in U.S. history in case you have forgotten.
“worse than it is in Washington”
Really? Than what was the point of the essay then? We’re all screwed? Is there any level of government free from corruption? I would think at least the graft can’t be much worse at the state level and least it would be more petty than what goes on in D.C. Once again your fantasies about getting taxpayers to pay for political campaigns are just that and your dreams of controlling the center are just that, lest you wish to wait another 30 years. Better it would seem to start small and build from the ground up and better that power was more diffuse than in the hands of the vested interest.
“he was elected by 53 percent of the vote in one of the highest turnout elections in U.S. history”
As in, 90% of blacks, 56% of catholics, 57% of women, and a fair percentage of Republicans who couldn’t stomach McCain.
Yet, he only won by 53%
“Please do not use phrases that are meaningless.”
Ditto.