Editorial:
Impeach
This
12/24/98
Adam J. Smith, DRCNet Associate Director As the nation holds it collective breath in anticipation of the next wave of absurdity from Washington, the questions are being asked, over and over again, by pundits, reporters and anyone else with an interest in sex, er, politics: "what does all of this mean for the future of our country? To the office of the Presidency? To our system of government?" As we commoners sit, aghast, and watch the tawdry and partisan proceedings, knowing full well that there is more to come, these have become serious and highly relevant queries. Here we have an institution, the American Presidency, which represents the pinnacle of power in the known universe, disgraced first by the President himself, and now being dragged through the muck by the corrupt denizens of the second most powerful institution in the world, the United States Congress. Our elected representatives to that body could not, of course, take the President to task for his most destructive acts: the auctioning off of the power of the United States Government to the highest bidder in the campaign fundraising game, as on that count they are as guilty as he. And so we are down to sex, and lying about sex, which, it is becoming apparent, many of our legislators do as well. Though not under oath, save perhaps to their spouses. But when we consider the taxpayer-financed spectacle that these power-hungry cretins are making of our nation, we must be careful to remember that the future of the country is a wholly different matter than the future of either the Democratic or the Republican party. Look carefully, if you will, at our Constitution. Nowhere, you will note, does that proud document specify anything about a two-party monopoly on power. And although both parties have done their best to institutionalize the status quo through difficult ballot-access requirements and acts of political perversion performed on large corporate donors, there is nothing in either our laws or our traditions that assures the existence or either party. If anything, we are all watching the best argument against it. And the parties, in addition to providing ample rationale for their demise, are also unwittingly providing the means. One by one over the past year, in an effort to make their constituencies more relevant in the choosing of a standard-bearer, the majority of states have opted to move their primaries to dates earlier on the political calendar. Now, with all of the fighting to the front of the line accomplished, both parties will have chosen their next presidential candidate in March of 2000, almost eight full months before the actual election. This stroke of genius will have two significant ramifications. First, and most obviously, by shortening the primary season, the parties have made it nearly impossible for any but the most well-financed front-runner to win the nomination. That insures that the candidates will be insiders in the extreme, people with well-oiled connections, party support, and established political organizations behind them. Which leads us to the second point: in a political cycle wherein both the donkeys and the elephants have made asses of themselves, how excited, exactly, will the American people be about the prospect of a choice between two men (yes, they will be men... this is still Washington, D.C.) who personify the sordid mess that appears before us now on C-Span and the evening news? Given this, and an interminable eight month campaign, couldn't we assume that Americans, including those who are stuck covering the campaign in the media, will have both the time and the inclination to look for an interesting alternative? And isn't it conceivable that the right individual could come to the fore (General Colin Powell springs immediately to mind), with a message that would capture the large runoff Republican vote, some of the moderate Democratic vote, and inspire large numbers of people who would not have otherwise voted? Given that potential base, the message would likely be economically conservative -- with an eye toward creating real opportunity for people and reigning in corporate power by disentangling money from government; as well as socially libertarian - reasserting the liberty of the individual to make personal choices without being controlled or persecuted by the state. Sort of Libertarian Light. In this scenario, the American people could, for the first time in living memory, elect a leader from outside of the stagnant cesspool of the major parties. At the least, given a strong effort to recruit statewide candidates behind a well-known national ticket, we could see a significant number of governorships and Congressional seats stripped from both parties. In 1992, Ross Perot, wealthy and steadily showing himself to be insane, proved that at least 18% of the American people would vote for a cucumber if they knew who the candidate was, and he offered an alternative to the two major parties. And in 1998, Jesse "The Governor" Ventura rode the reform party's ballot access in Minnesota to win the state's highest office on a policy platform very much like the one described above. Many of the people who voted for Ventura had previously given up on the system, or had never voted before. Many others cast their ballot in sheer defiance of the establishment candidates who had publicly ridiculed the idea of "wasting votes" on one who was not a member of their political club. What Ventura's victory showed is that there is at least a plurality, if not a majority of potential voters who yearn for something more real than professional politicians, addicted to power and disdainful of sovereignty of the individual. There are Americans, lots and lots of Americans who, dared to do it, will think, and even vote outside the proverbial box. The behavior in recent months of our elected leaders shows that they do not take this threat seriously. But given the traps they have set for themselves, they might very well find that the folly is theirs. There is, you see, the potential for a good result to come of this madness. The Republicans and the Democrats have become so alike in their corruption, in their arrogance, in their disdain for their constituents as to have become joined as one at the heart. And in the blindness born of their power-lust, they are unable to see that in gouging at the jugular of the co-sanguine other, they are bleeding themselves to death. It must be remembered, when contemplating the current mess, that the fortunes of the United States are wholly separable from the fortunes of the current political establishment. That separation, in fact, might be vital to the survival of the nation.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
