Earlier this year, I read Common Sense by Thomas Paine. In this short work of revolutionary reason is a passage in which its author presents a hypothetical scenario imagining the pristine development of government, with the suggestion that any rational government would preserve similar principles. I was shocked to find that the American system of government today falls far short of these principles.
Paine imagines a small group of people who find themselves isolated “in some sequestered part of the earth” in a “state of natural liberty.” It isn’t long before they realize that they need to help each other out if they are to survive. Thus, they become a society. At first, this society is harmonious, but inevitably disputes arise and government becomes necessary for laying down the law. While the colony is small, everyone can participate as a rule-maker, but eventually their society grows and there are too many people, so they have to elect representatives. The idea is that these representatives come from the people, legislate in the interests of the people, and will before long leave government and return to the people, allowing new representatives of the people to step in—so that “the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS.”
Paine says that this is the origin of government and that “the simple voice of nature and of reason will say it is right.” I do think it makes sense, but the form of American government today does not closely resemble the fraternity described by Paine in certain key aspects.
Paine’s hypothetical situation allows for anyone and as many people as possible to get into government, but today you must be rich. In recent years nearly half the members of Congress have been millionaires. What’s worse, only those with the weight of vast amounts of money behind them can get the ear of the government. We all know about the lobbyists that course through Washington’s halls of power and how presidents appoint fat cats to key positions, but the American political process is disgusting with money. An example: As part of his 2012 campaign, President Obama plans to have intimate dinners with ordinary citizens . . . who pay $38,000 for the honor.
Another characteristic of the government described by Paine is the regular turnover of the elected, yet in our government, the elected often stay in for decades. A couple obvious examples are Strom Thurmond, who was Senator for South Carolina for 49 years, and Ted Kennedy, who served nearly 47 years as a Senator from Massachusetts. Our politicians are professional politicians who, once they get in, do everything in their power to stay in until retiring time. Even if they did at some point spring from the people, they have little intention of ever returning to them. We should not be surprised then if Washington’s interests are not those of the rest of the country.
In Paine’s proto-government, everyone participates, either as a voting member of the government while the colony is still small, or as a voter once the community must rely on elected representatives. Yet, in America today, large portions of the population face obstacles to voting. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that the working class . . . has to work. The working class often cannot take time off, even for sickness, without some difficulty. Absentee balloting is available, but registering beforehand is just another obstacle in a process that should have very few.
All of these problems have what should be easy solutions: establishing campaign spending limits, setting term limits, and making election day a national holiday. Many modern democracies have exactly these practices in place. The primary obstacles to instituting such policies here are political—our politicians don’t want to do anything that would make them less well off, hand voters to the opposition, or put them out of a job.
We don’t have to do something just because Thomas Paine said it was a good idea, but we should if what he says makes sense. And tell me, doesn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment