Who Should
Make Political Policy, the People or the
Politicians?
By William John Cox
June 23, 2016
"Information
Clearing House"
-
In the midst
of what undoubtedly will be the nastiest and most
expensive presidential campaign in American history,
it is important to remember that the question is not
so much whether a candidate is a good or bad person,
but rather what should and will be the policies,
objectives, and consequences of her or his
administration? What do the People of the United
States really want and expect their government to do
on their behalf? Who should make political policy,
the People, or the politicians they elect to
represent them?
Founded as
a republic in which representatives are elected to
administer the government for the People, the United
States has become increasingly more democratic as
the vote has been extended from a few wealthy
property owners to include most adult citizens.
President Abraham Lincoln not only established that
the United States could not be dissolved, but he
also expanded the definition of its government from
being for the People, to being of
and by the People. Thus, it is the People
themselves who have the inherent power to define
their own government, rather than being forced
to accept the kind of government offered by
competing political candidates. In a democracy, it
is supposed to be the people (demos) who
have the power (kratia), rather than the
politicians (poltikos).
The
Democrats and Republicans are currently nominating
the two candidates with the highest unfavorable
ratings in the history of presidential elections.
Before hiring their next president, shouldn’t
American voters be telling the candidates what the
task involves, rather than listening to the
candidates lie about what they will do if they get
the job?
Political Party Platforms
Currently,
political policy, on the national level, is set
forth in the platforms adopted by the major
political parties at their presidential nominating
conventions every four years. During the primaries,
the competing candidates tout their proposals about
what their party’s platform should contain. Once
they obtain enough delegates to receive the
nomination, the successful presidential candidates
take control of their political parties and the
committees that draft the platforms. Conceptually,
the American People vote for these competing party
platforms, and the presidential candidates are
supposedly pledged to follow these policies, if
elected.
In
truth—given the present merchandising approach to
political campaigns—the party platforms are
carefully designed as bait to sell the party’s
political package to the voters. Once in office,
however, successful candidates are free to switch
from their advertised promises, which they usually
do to the detriment of those who bought their
product.
Hillary Clinton’s website lists 31 key programs she
will fight for as president—from curing Alzheimer’s
disease to teaching new workforce skills. Mislabeled
as policy, these programs include improving access
to affordable health care, preserving Social
Security and Medicare, and reducing the cost of
college. Although Bernie Sanders may push the
Democratic platform committee toward adopting more
progressive positions, the ultimate result of a
Hillary Clinton presidency will be a continuation of
the pro-corporate philosophy of the “New Democrats”,
such as her husband and President Barack Obama.
This centralist orientation is largely
indistinguishable from mainstream Republican
policies in the critical areas of the economy,
environment, and militarization.
Donald
Trump’s website offers a mishmash of proposals—also
referred to as policies—including tax reform by
reducing taxes, immigration reform by forcing Mexico
to build a border wall, health care reform by
repealing the Affordable Care Act, and compelling
China to live up to its trade obligations by being a
tough negotiator. Given his erratic nature, these
proposals offer little or no guidance as to what a
President Trump might actually do when confronted
with real world problems, instead of the programming
requirements of reality television.
Even with
the best of intentions, these propositions—in the
absence of well-considered policy guidelines—provide
little direction in the event of changes of
circumstance, such as another major terrorist
attack, or increasing crime, riots, and racial
violence resulting from economic failures. Most
pertinent is the inability of political parties to
adopt policies that actually benefit the People
whenever beneficial policies conflict with the
dictates of the wealthy elite and corporations who
control the politicians in both major parties?
In many
respects, the current political policy-making
process treats American voters like children. Just
as parents quickly learn to ask their young children
whether they want green beans or carrots—rather than
telling them to eat their vegetables—the electoral
choices offered to voters by the major parties are
different tastes of the same artificially-flavored
political Kool-Aid.
Policy and Programs
The concept
of policy is widely misunderstood. Policy is a
philosophical guideline or a path to a goal or
objective. It differs from laws, rules, regulations,
and procedures, which are more mandatory. Although
often used interchangeably—especially in
politics—there is also a difference between policy,
and the programs that implement policies.
President
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the last big-picture
political policy maker. His “New Deal” included a
wide variety of government programs and lasted for
decades, as the United States enjoyed its greatest
period of political stability and economic progress.
The platforms of subsequent presidents—Eisenhower’s
“Peace and Prosperity,” Kennedy’s “New Frontier,”
Johnson’s “Great Society,” Nixon’s “Bring Us
Together,” Reagan’s “Make America Great Again,” Bush
senior’s “Kinder, Gentler Nation,” Bill Clinton’s
“Putting People First,” Bush junior’s “Compassionate
Conservatism,” and Barrack Obama’s “Change We Can
Believe In”—have been marketing slogans primarily
designed to peddle a variety of special-interest
programs, rather than broad-scale statements of
public policy. These political catchphrases are in
the same category as Donald Trump’s “Make America
Great Again” and Hillary Clinton’s “Stronger
Together.”
While one
could say that the New Deal was also a slogan, it
was much more than a label for the presidential
orders and government programs adopted pursuant to
it. In response to the devastation of the Great
Depression, the New Deal was a vision—expressed as a
policy—which proposed a new contract between the
People and their government. More than words, the
New Deal actually provided relief for the destitute,
recovery of the economy, and reform of the financial
system.
Urging the
United States to become an “Arsenal of Democracy” to
help the Allies defend themselves against fascism
and to unify the spirit of the American People,
President Roosevelt looked forward to a world
founded on the Four Freedoms of speech and
expression, of worship, from want, and from fear. In
January 1941—when Roosevelt identified these
freedoms—the world was engaged in a great war
against fascism which threatened every person on
Earth. Today, fascism is once again rearing its evil
head, and it is being fed by the fear tactics of
reactionary politicians and the militarization of
the government. Fascism is threatening an American
society made vulnerable by social, environmental,
and economic problems far beyond the comprehension
of those who lived 75 years ago. At a time when the
People desperately want peace and prosperity, they
are being told by their presidential candidates that
war and austerity are inevitable.
The
Essentials of Good Government
Irrespective of culture or national origin, from the
most ancient tribal-based settlements to the
unimaginable societies of the future, there have
been and will continue to be certain essential
organizational functions required to preserve the
integrity of the group. As basic public policy, good
government must:
• Provide
every child with equal access to nutrition, health
care, and education;
• Provide
economic security to ensure the ability of all
parents to care for their families;
• Provide
and enforce laws to guarantee equal opportunity and
individual rights for everyone;
• Provide
physical security to defend the society and its
people; and
• Provide
coordination of large-scale efforts to serve the
public good.
The
People Can Make Their Own Policy
If the
American People are capable of earning their own
living, raising their children, paying taxes, and
being emotionally and physically maimed and dying in
the defense of their Nation, aren’t they smart
enough to have a more direct say in the policies
that govern their future and the destiny of their
children? Have the money interests become so
entrenched in both major political parties that the
politicians no longer address the needs of the
People? Are the People once again being taxed
without representation? What, if anything, can be
done? The United States Voters’ Rights Amendment
(USVRA) may provide an answer to these questions.
The USVRA
is a comprehensive Voters’ Bill of Rights intended
to transform the United States government into one
that cares for and nurtures the many who elect it,
rather than benefiting the few who bribe its
representatives. Primarily, the USVRA guarantees—for
the very first time—the right of all Americans to
cast effective votes in all elections. In
doing so, it:
• defines
equal rights for women;
• maximizes
voter participation and prohibits the suppression of
voting;
•
eliminates corporate personhood and controls
political contributions;
• ensures
public funding of elections and limits the lengths
of campaigns;
• provides
paid voting holidays and hand-countable paper
ballots;
• improves
political education and public information;
•
eliminates the Electoral College; and it
• curtails
lobbying and prohibits conflicts of interest.
Assuming
the ratification of the USVRA—and the effectiveness
of its provisions to ensure the quality of
everyone’s vote and to improve the
performance and dedication of their
representatives—let us examine the policy-making
provisions of the USVRA to see just how the People
would go about making their own policy to guide
their elected representatives.
Policy Formulation Under the USVRA
In order to
finally actualize America’s representative form of
democracy—and to transform its government—the USVRA
provides the mechanism for the formulation of policy
questions, and it prescribes the method by
which the People vote on the issues.
While there
is no way that the American People could—or
should—presently trust their representatives to
faithfully identify and formulate the most pressing
political issues facing their Nation for the next
four years, ratification of the USVRA presupposes
that it’s adoption will only result from a mass,
nonpartisan political movement. Thus, the future
members of Congress will be far more disposed to pay
attention to the needs and aspirations of an
energized electorate than the present office
holders. Even so, Section 10 of the USVRA directs
Congress to solicit public comment “regarding the
political issues that most concern the People”
during the calendar year preceding a presidential
election.
Prior to
midnight on December 31st, Congress is mandated to
adopt a joint resolution identifying the 12 most
critical policy issues to be addressed by the next
president and Congress. Recognizing that Congress
might be reluctant to act as required, the USVRA
punishes a failure to act by disqualifying “all
sitting members of Congress to be eligible for
reelection.” Is there any doubt that the members of
Congress will act to save their jobs? Isn’t it far
more likely that the questions they formulate will
be more relevant to the American People than those
currently being debated in the election of 2016?
Section 11
requires that federal elections be “held on a
national voters’ holiday, with full pay for all
citizens who cast ballots.” Moreover, all federal
elections “shall be conducted on uniform,
hand-countable paper ballots and, for the
presidential election, ballots shall include the
twelve most critical policy questions articulated by
Congress, each to be answered yes or no by the
voters.”
Once the
questions have been published, there will be a valid
standard by which all political candidates in the
United States can be evaluated in determining their
qualifications to hold public office. While the
present art of politics teaches candidates to never
take a position on any question in order to avoid
losing votes, the USVRA would not only force
candidates to take concrete positions, but to defend
them as well. Moreover, enactment of the USVRA will
help avoid the intentional creation of volatile
issues intended to excite fear voting.
At the same
time—motivated by the USVRA and cognizant of the
power of their vote—the People would be far more
likely to think about the important questions facing
the future of their Nation and to arrive at
responsible answers.
Questions for a National Policy Referendum
Rather than
responding to billions of dollars in negative
advertising about the inadequacies of opposition
candidates, a barrage of slick promotional
propaganda concealing such deficiencies, and
misleading party platforms, voters in the 2016
election should have the right to decide real
issues. They should be asked if international trade
pacts should be approved; if the cap on Social
Security withholding taxes should be eliminated; if
a supplemental national retirement system should be
enacted; if solar energy should be collected in
outer space to energize the national highways in
lieu of a reliance on polluting petroleum products;
and if the crumbling national infrastructure should
be repaired and upgraded.
Those most
affected by domestic policies should decide if
everyone has a right to national health care; if
paid maternity leave is to be provided by employers;
if women have the freedom of choice in matters of
childbearing; and if everyone has the right to marry
whomsoever they chose.
Working
people and small business owners are certainly
qualified to decide if a national minimum wage
should be guaranteed; if public education should be
privatized; if the right to education should be
extended through college; if all existing student
loans should be forgiven; and if military spending
should be reduced.
Concerned
for the safety and security of their families,
everyone should have the freedom to offer their
opinion about ending the war on drugs; prohibiting
private, for-profit prisons; and if the Second
Amendment allows for the reasonable regulation of
firearms.
Irrespective of one’s own political position on any
and all of these questions, isn’t it far better for
each individual’s personal happiness—and for the
future of the Nation—if everyone is encouraged to
understand and to advocate their differing point of
view, and to vote their conscience?
Wisdom of the Crowd
Unlike
public opinion polls—in which respondents often
provide snap answers influenced by the last
political advertisement they were exposed to—the
answers to a national policy referendum would be
much more deliberative. Moreover, unlike statutory
ballot initiatives—which often produce unforeseen
and regrettable outcomes—answers to a USVRA
referendum would create policy to guide the making
of a law, rather than the law itself. For example,
the People might vote overwhelmingly for universal
health care, and then leave it up to Congress to
work out the details.
It is
estimated that more than 225 million Americans
should be eligible to vote in the 2016 presidential
election. With voter suppression taking place in
many states, unfavorable candidates, and the
possibility that millions of Sanders supporters and
mainstream Republicans will boycott the election,
the turnout could be less than 30 percent. The
result might be a president chosen by fewer than 15
percent of the eligible voters. If, however, the
People had the right and opportunity to make their
own policy and to vote for those candidates who
offer the best solutions to achieve their goals,
voter participation could exceed all expectations,
and the United States would evolve into a true
democratic republic.
Would the
policies resulting from a national policy referendum
be responsible? The answer is an unqualified yes,
and the reason is that the People—collectively—are
much smarter that the most brilliant political
candidates, or their panels of experts. The “wisdom
of the crowd” can be easily proven. If one were to
carefully count a large number of marbles and place
them in a glass jar and then ask a group of 100, or
even 1,000 people, to estimate how many are present,
the responses will vary widely as participants make
their best guess. On average, however, the crowd
working together will almost perfectly identify how
many marbles are in the jar. In the same way, 225
million voters would be much more likely to
formulate wholesome policies—than the politicians
who sell their positions of trust to the highest
bidder.
Warning to Politicians
Given the
opportunity, the American People are not only
capable of charting their own future, but they are
also smart, wise, and brave enough to seize the
chance to do so. There is no alternative—the People
of the United States of America will either take
control of their own government, or their experiment
in self government will ultimately fail.
The consent
of the People to be governed should no longer be
taken for granted.
William John Cox
is a retired public interest lawyer. He filed a
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court in
1979 alleging that the government no longer cared
for the voters who elected it, and he asked that a
national policy referendum be ordered as a remedy.
He is the author of “Transforming America: A Voters’
Bill of Rights” and can be contacted through his
website, WilliamJohnCox.com. |