We Want a Sustainable Civilization, But There’s a Catch
According to the Writer’s Almanac: It’s the birthday of novelist Joseph Heller (books by this author), born in Brooklyn (1923) and best known for the novel Catch-22 (1961), about an American bombardier named John Yossarian. During World War II, Yossarian attempts to get out of the Army by faking a liver ailment, sabotaging his plane, and trying to get himself declared insane. It became an international best-seller, with the title entering the lexicon to refer to an absurd, no-win situation.
The concept of a Catch-22 is certainly not new around here, as it applies to so many of the issues we face on our quest for a sustainable civilization. In particular, we won’t have a sane energy policy as long as we have the undue influence of money in politics—and we can’t get rid of the money in politics because it’s the politicians who make the laws. (Pictured above: Florida Governor Rick Scott, a poster child for corruption.)
If it weren’t for this, the whole energy and environment challenge would be a piece of cake.
Thus the imperative to overturn Citizens United, a law that has handed our democracy and our law-making processes over to the large corporate interests. It’s a hurdle, but one we will eventually get across.
YES and there are a couple of great TED talks about how to get the money, and Koch billions out of politics.
If you want to link to them, that would be great.
Craig,
Joseph Heller’s anti-war novel found great appeal with students during the Vietnam war period.
The novel illustrates the problem of bureaucratic intransigence borrowing from a famous old story relating to the reasoning of 19th Century Regimental Sergent-Major who maintained that any man was free to report ill to the Medical Officer.
The catch being that the medical facility was on top of a hill, and anyone able to climb the hill, was clearly fit for duty !
When I first read Catch 22, I enjoyed the book and empathized with many of the absurdities encountered by the characters. But even in the heady days of the sixties, I felt a certain disquiet at the selfishness of Hellier’s characters. Bombardier John Yossarian is quite willing to allow others to take his place, while sneering at those willing to endure sacrifice in order to stop a ruthless and determined enemy. (there were no mission limits for Axis aircrews).
Like many of the great novels of the period, the book highlighted the problems, but offered no solutions.
I think that’s the reasoning confronting advocates opposed to the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.
The Supreme Court ruled correctly. There is no practical way of banning just one participant in any political dynamic without destroying the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
It’s difficult to see how environmental awareness would be assisted by nullifying Citizens United. Nor has any viable plan been suggested that can practically effect such a change.
I believe much of the problem arises from the absurdly short length of time served by the Federal House of Representative, and most of the State legislatures.
These short terms mean legislators are in constant election mode.
The US differs from other Western Democracies (none of which ban corporate contributions)in having such short election cycles.
I glad we share a liking for TED talks. (especially author Arthur C Brooks0. TED is a great example of how new media is replacing older media and assisting diversification and media freedom.
Thanks. I just checked this out: https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_brooks_a_conservative_s_plea_let_s_work_together?language=en. Interesting. I certainly agree that free enterprise, property rights and rule of law are good things in general. If we could simply get money out of politics we’d have a great scene here.
Craig,
The problem with money and politics, is politics is mostly about money ! It always has been, and always will be.
Since civilization began, the basis of governance has been about economic issues. Yes, other issues are important, but essentially governance is about the economic pie. Without money, all other government programs cease.
The governance of modern democracies, is all about balancing the aspirations of different stakeholders in the political/economic dynamic.
Stakeholders will always seek to represent the best interests of their particular faction. The Unions will seek to advance the cause of the members and political allies, Corporations will seek to advance the interests of their particular industry, especially against other corporations. Religious, Cultural, Ideological group will seek their place at the table/trough .
” Getting the money out of politics “, is impossible. It sounds good but in reality it’s like saying get the politics out of politics !
Nor is it feasible. It’s like those parents who give every child a prize for just taking part, so there are no losers. It doesn’t work, nor does it provide training for real life. Humans are by nature competitive. We developed a political system with checks and balances from self-interest, not for altruistic reasons.
Marco, you are very right and at the same time seem to have missed the point.
I was in high school when I realized that the main purpose of our “student government” was to allocate the concentration of “student fees” we were required to contribute. There are also managers in industry who are tasked with allocating funds but there mostly the funds are income that is generated by sales to people who make a choice to purchase.
Instead of counting bodies we could count contributions and give a bigger say in government to those who contribute more. (no “taxation without representation” turned on its head) Many corporations, under their present contributions, would then have no vote. But instead we count bodies and say that if you are a “person” who is affected you should have a say. Corporate influence in government is then justified on the basis of their being “persons.”
In industry if someone comes to a person who is tasked with such a job and offers them an incentive to make certain decisions we call it a “kickback” or a “bribe” and the process is part of what we call corruption. An employee is liable to be fired sued or even jailed for such acts. (even though it is also a common way to do business in many places.)
From an employee’s perspective they could either do their job and study what is before them or they can avoid all of that work and just take some money and listen to whoever gave them the benefit, (while ignoring the benefit of employment.) If the employee is taking the employers money and not performing the services it is then a kind of stealing.
The situation in the present US government is the same and very different. Competition has driven up the cost of running for office. Being outspent generally means you will lose the election. Attempts to limit re-election spending and contribution have constantly been under pressure by those with money and who want to buy elections. Staying with the power and privilege of elected office requires funds that are not provided as part of the job.
From this dysfunctional beginning we get all sorts of methods to give politicians money and influence government. “Speaking fees” seem to be latest on the list. It now seems as if Hillary Clinton made more in one speaking fee than Bernie Sanders made in a year of working.
So “getting the money out of politics” is just a shorthand for getting elected officials to do their job instead of taking bribes and it will require a more fundamental change in the way we do governmental business than most people realize is necessary. Government can be slow and ponderous bribes do have a way of making things quicker.
@ Breath on the Wind
In a perfect world your method of government would be excellent !
A nation of citizens with exactly equal say in governance, influence and a spirit of co-operation. A sort of happy commune.
Except human societies just aren’t like that ! Humans are a strange mixture of individualism and tribalism. Every organized society has leaders and followers, rivalries and shifting alliances. You complain about the influence of corporate influence, I argue against Trade union power, another person will claim the undue influence of organizations such as Greenpeace, Temperance, radical religious etc, is an anathema to democracy, and so it goes on.
Each of these groups make up the political dynamic. You can’t eliminate the influence of the wealthy, unless you also reduce the power of Unions etc, even political parties themselves.
It’s taken a long time to achieve a relative (not perfect)balance in the political dynamic. Starting to eliminate any participant to achieve a perfect result will end in tears.
What you are suggesting is really trying to take the politics, out of politics !
Look at history. Has corporate wealth always prevailed ? Even when the industries themselves are threatened ?
The Volstead Act was a disaster. Not because of opposition from the huge industry it outlawed, but because puritanical laws attempting to use law enforcement as a means of promoting ‘morality’, never achieve the stated aim of a ‘perfect’ society in fact to they produce the contrary.
Look at municipal government which in many instance is funded by property tax. Those who pay property taxes could argue with some justice that they alone should be able to vote. After all why should a tenement have any say in governance when they pay no tax ?
Yet we know from painful experience that the wider the participation in the body politic, the more freedom is enjoyed by all.
Governments make actions and regulations that affect all organizations as well as individuals, it’s only proper that organizations whether corporate or not, have a say in government policy. (probably corporations can claim even more justification since they’re taxpayers :).
In the case of the US, I believe that simply increasing the term of lower houses in Federal and State legislatures to 4 years would be a major method of reducing the cost of elections and reducing to pressure on legislators.
A change in terms doesn’t require the difficulty of constitutional amendments, it can happen by a simple motion in the legislature.
When individual politicians represent over 700,000 voters,
(or Senators representing tens of millions), the idea of all individual voters being able to have sufficient access to exert equal influence must be a fantasy.
It’s certainly not a perfect system, but it does reflect society. It’s difficult to see how the system can be reformed without affecting the complicated system of checks and balances that have arisen.