August 10, 2007
I've taken a little vacation this week. I had to do some work on my car, which I did near and partly in the garage for the shade. It's been 100 or more every day this week, with heat advisories out because the heat index had been over 100 every day.
While at this I had a radio tuned to NPR, and had some reactions to what I'd heard. The one that really got me started was the issue of early primaries. Analysts believe they could start yet this year if states keep trying to move theirs ahead of others, prompting others to leapfrog them.
This is just another example of the problems we have to live with because of the competitive nature of our society. But this one has a simple solution. There's nothing in the constitution about presidential primaries. That's because the founding fathers didn't imagine having a presidential election. Direct election of the president isn't provided for in the constitution because the founding fathers thought that would be a bad idea.
It still is a bad idea. One of its primary functions is to maintain the power of the two major political parties. And anyone who thinks there's a substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans has let the shallowness of our political process fool us into thinking the ideas we hear are all there is.
There's a very large world of ideas and democratic approaches that never get a hearing in our country primarily because these ideas and approaches would dilute the power of the two major parties.
But I'm not on a crusade to abolish the two parties or even to form a significant alternative (as John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader have failed to do before).
But we should completely abolish our confused attempts at direct election of the president. No man who has the ego and power to get considered for the office is even remotely qualified for it. Nor, in a country as large as ours, is it possible for voters to get to know candidates well enough to make an informed decision.
For these reasons and others the founding fathers provided for a set of electors to be chosen by states. These electors would gather to choose the next president and vice-president. The names on the ballot would be those of the electors.
The electors would be elected in the same way that congressional candidates are chosen. Two would be chosen on a statewide basis, and each voter would also choose one for his or her congressional district. The same rules of residency would apply, and sitting congresspersons would be ineligible.
This would be one step toward divorcing government power from money (with strict no-contact orders in place). Nobody would run a national campaign. In fact it ought to be law that anyone who was named in any third-party political advertising would be barred from the office of president unless she could prove, in court, that the third party in question willfully acted to bar them from office. It might even be appropriate to not even allow that exception, since anyone who has made enemies who would sabotage their chances like that probably doesn't deserve to become chief executive.
George Bush commented on the economy yesterday. He said he focuses only on "fundamentals." It doesn't take much mental effort to read into that, "I'm only concerned with the really rich." And when he said, "The fundamentals of our economy are in good shape," an astute listener heard, "The wealthy are doing just fine, thank you. To h*** with everyone else."
This helped me get a clearer picture of why King George the Second has adopted policies which seem bent on bankrupting our nation. It has been suggested that George and his ilk have been attempting to bankrupt the government so it would be forced to terminate all entitlement benefits for citizens.
That does have a ring of truth to it, but the fuss yesterday about a French bank that closed action on accounts invovled in sub-prime mortgage lending raises another possibility.
I said years ago, after the Enron crimes were revealed and largely unprosecuted, that George's real constituency was the nation's investors. Now that the investors' greed has caught up with them and the sub-prime mortgages they so willingly issued in hope of profits are being largely foreclosed, they need a safer place to put their money until the destablizing effects of this idiocy have settled ("I don't mind creating economic havoc, just don't expect me to pay up when my actions cause harm to others.").
What better "safe" investment than government bonds? Why did Bush want to privatize Social Security? Because the trust fund supports a significant portion of the government's debt. If the trust fund is dispersed to individuals, the government will be forced to issue many new bonds, causing their price to fall and hence their yeild to increase.
Why is George prosecuting the war in Iraq years after he declared, "Mission Accomplished"? And why does he refuse to remove our troops when it's clear all they can do is trash our country's reputation overseas? Because the war costs money; lots and lots of money.
You might argue that our president wouldn't endanger the lives and future productivity of our soldiers just to protect the money of the rich. Sounds like you actually believed him when he called himself a "compassionate conservative." The strongest antonyms you can think of for "compassionate" aren't strong enough to describe this man's disdain for anyone who isn't at least as rich as he has been.
Yes, he will send soliders to die or be permanently maimed and not care about it at all. Yes, he will lie about it. No administration in recent memory, not even Richard Nixon's, has been as obsessed with secrecy as this one. This need for secrecy provides the all the indication we need that lies are routinely being told. I sometimes wonder if George could tell the truth, even when it would benefit him.
"Well, he'll only be in office for another year and a half." Is that really your attitude? How many American soldiers will die or be seriously injured in those 18 months? How many Iraqis will die, leaving their blood on our hands because we've occupied their country? How many children will face fewer options in their lives because of inadequate education, non-existent health care, and financial hardship?
If you can consider those people and still not be determined that Mr. Bush should leave office right away then you share with him his lack of compassion. Sorry to be so harsh, but if the message applies, ignore the messenger and take appropriate action.