JANUARY 6, 2020 – You might think Trump’s a disaster for the country, perhaps the world. But turn to the “duke-out” among the surviving field of Democratic candidates for president, and you see how off track we really are.
I’m not talking about the qualifications of one candidate over another. Each Democratic contender has at least one “positive” (cognitive ability vastly superior to that of the incumbent); each has “negatives.” What I’m focused on is the system and how outmoded it is given the complexity of our country and the scale of our issues.
For example, consider the sheer volume of information that besieges a sitting president—plus the synthesizing, decision-making, and policy implementation associated with that mountain range of information. Yet unrealistically, the single proverbial buck across a mind-boggling spectrum of complex subject matters still stops at the same old desk in the same old office of a single individual whose day is only 24 hours long.
By way of another example, California has almost five times the combined population of the 10 least populous states and contributes a full 14% of the nation’s annual GDP. This underscores the grossly disproportionate representation of small states in the U.S. Senate.
Why, then do we cling to the anachronistic division of the country into 50 “states,” established long before (a) a national annual GDP of $20 trillion, half of which is attributable to just 10 states (and not to the least populous!); and (b) a national population of 330 million people, 80% of whom are urbanized, concentrated in just nine states.
Finally, consider (a) the impossible voter task of understanding “how things actually work”; and (b) the extent to which voters are ill-informed and influenced by staggering amounts of campaign spending, simplistic spit-balling, and the promise of simple solutions.
All of which prompt two questions: 1. Do we need to overhaul our political system? and if so, 2. How do we do it? OR . . . should we abide by the Hippocratic Oath—“Do no harm”—and let “nature” take its course, be it over the cliff and into the sea or down a slippery slope into conflagration, for fear that major reform will blow things up before we reach cliff, slope . . . or Nirvana?
I don’t advocate revolution, but I urge a healthy, informed debate about structural reform of our political system. We need to re-examine how that system identifies, prioritizes, and tackles the most serious and complex issues that confront us . . . before they consume us. In the process, we need to understand too what matters are beyond the scope of government, either by way of principles (e.g. think Bill of Rights) or because non-governmental approaches are more effective.
Reform won’t happen simply with the election of a “progressive” candidate for president or by a slew of executive orders, legislation from the proverbial sausage factory or via “enlightened” decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. And reform might well require more than amending the Constitution.
Who among our aspiring leaders will join the conversation? We should be asking.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2020 Eric Nilsson
