Options
Cat Nip From the Egotists
· Thursday, January 5, 2012
WASHINGTON -- An underlying theme of our times that has gone unperceived by the high and mighty in media, government and other locales where the politically alive come to roost is the thumping failure of an increasing number of counter-productive, old progressive reforms. Once they were beheld as prodigies from the minds of superior citizens -- such stars of yesteryear as Robert M. La Follette and Woodrow Wilson. Now they are revealed as hollow shams or, at best, curiosities. Surely soon they will be seen for what they are: catnip from the egotists.
In a political year, progressive reforms from a bygone era are all around us, assumed by the high and mighty as the way things should be. Is there too much money in politics? But of course! Are the pols being bought off by the vested interests? For a certitude, the giant corporations, the fat cats, the vested interests are flooding the halls of Congress and lesser political venues with cash (never in this list is included the unions, particularly the public-sector unions).
What shall be done about this vast influx of money into politics? Well, though Americans spend more on dog food than on elections, our troubled reformers have a solution. Cut donations to politicians from large donors. Alas, every time they do so, the clever pols -- often, clever reform pols -- find new ways to fund their campaigns.
Most recently this process began with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which unconstitutionally limited corporate and union freedom of political speech. So ruled the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision. The eventual result was ever more accountants hired by campaigns and the advent of today's super PACs, which is to say, the political action committees of the present moment that raise and spend large amounts on politics but claim not to be in cahoots with any of the politicians that they favor. Consequently, there is even less accountability by super PACs.
The campaign finance reformers will now go after the super PACs. Some fanciful reform of them will be dreamt up. The pols will again thwart the reform, and the process will continue.
But maybe enough is enough. In truth, the only reform necessary is transparency. If the electorate knows the origins of donations and the direction in which they go, they will know enough about the candidates to cast a sensible vote.
Which brings us to the absurdity of the caucuses and the primaries. Bring back the smoke-filled room! Or at least a room full of Democrats and Republicans who are truly representative of their parties.
Progressives once saw the primary system as the latest advance in the democratic process: Thrust the party bosses aside and let the citizenry vote for the presidential candidates. The consequence is that the casual voter overwhelms the committed party member -- often the one-issue voter overwhelms the committed party voter with several issues and the good of the party in mind. Large amounts of money go to local media to coax out the casual voter once or twice in an electoral cycle. The result is that a transient mob -- and sometimes a very small transient mob -- gives us our presidential candidates for the general election: Barack Obama for the Democrats, probably Mitt Romney for the Republicans. In neither case is the candidate a typical Democrat or Republican.
Under the present system of caucus- and primary-voting, the great states of Iowa and New Hampshire are given disproportionate voice in who will be chosen for the presidential race. Frankly, I like the galoots from Iowa and New Hampshire. From all I can tell, they look and think pretty much like me, especially on politics. Yet there is something wrong here. I think that way back before the progressives were ever heard of, state conventions made a lot more sense than the present system. As I see it, most Americans are coming to agree.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Constitutional Scholar Dr. Alan Keyes reads The Patriot Post: "The Patriot recalls the noble tradition of our Founders. 'Publius' would have admired and endorsed The Patriot Post, as do I." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Ole Prof
Hear! Hear! Preferential primaries have fundamentally debased our election process. They result in selections made by a voting minority which may dominated by ideological zealots, poorly informed, or dazzled by press coverage more suitable to a prizefight. The flaws in this system have been worsened by the ridiculous competition by states to hold the earliest primary. Before preferential primaries came to dominate the process, selections were made in convention by committed and knowledgeable members of each party who understood the gravity of their task and were committed to choosing a candidate who could appeal to a broad electorate.
Posted January 5, 2012 at 9:14:18 AM
Dave Scoggins
Mr. Tyrrell - You said;
"Or at least a room full of Democrats and Republicans who are truly representative of their parties."
How about a room full of Representatives who are truly Representative of their Constituents?
Posted January 5, 2012 at 2:20:21 PM
Howard Last
Mr. Tyrell, they are representative of their parties. Their sole goal is to get reelected, even if it means abolishing the constitution.
Posted January 5, 2012 at 11:10:07 PM
Mike Schuerger Sr.
I think the whole subject of so-called "campaign finance reform" is nothing but limits on our freedom.
I agree we should try freedom with transparency.
I suggest only donations from non-Americans should be outlawed.
Other than that, donations of say $20 and up should be posted to a public website within a reasonable period of time, which would need to be defined. "In-kind" donations as well. No limit.
No limt for businesses or NGOs, either.
No "government" funding at all.
Freedom. How radical is that?
Posted January 5, 2012 at 11:32:15 PM
A.R. Nash
How about a rule that bans contributions by unions of federal workers? They are funded by tax-payer money and that money has no business being applied to partisan political efforts.
As to how candidates are selected, it doesn't matter if all the candidates are duds. Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, etc. Where are genuine leaders of men with strength and vision, ideas and character? There are no perfect packages and that is a recipe for great contention and conflict when it gets down to the wire of choosing a candidate. In the end it will probably devolve to what it usually ends up becoming, and that's a beauty pageant.
Posted January 6, 2012 at 5:56:24 AM