Thursday, August 18, 2011

America the Oligarch

The past few weeks have exposed the shortfalls of representative democracy in this current political environment. Politicians feel compelled to go onto TV networks and debase each other in the hope that it ends with multiple networks using their clip. For instance, Republican Joe Wash posting a YouTube video telling President Obama that he should be 'ashamed' of himself. Then subsequently appearing on the networks saying that Obama isn't taking the debt debate 'seriously.' I mean, come on. How can one support a politician as overtly disingenuous as this guy. But obviously his constituents do, or his backers do.

Voters need to be aware of the parties past and present objectives. At one time, parties existed to primarily play to the voters. In other words, the parties gave their representatives the flexibility to give they're constituents what they want regardless of what the party agenda as a whole was trying to accomplish. Now, the political party's objectives are to push their own agenda through supporting candidates who will succumb to the party's position with their wealth of party cash.

Yes, this is oligarchic. Anyone who argues that this country is a democracy will be hard-pressed to defend their view. This explains Obama's dealings with Wall Street and the Financial Sector. This is why the Financial Reform bill changed the financial sector very little and has had little influence. How can a President do what is right for the country when there are so many significant donors that were crucial to their get elected?

The problem with our government isn't just incompetence. It is a combination of incompetence and the political environment. How can you do the right thing where campaign donors want you to do the other? Its less of incompetence and more of incapability. Politicians are incapable of using their independent judgement mixed with public opinion because they have to worry also about their campaign finances. If independent judgement tells a congressmen or women that increasing revenue mixed with responsible cuts in entitlements is the right thing to do, but can't, something is wrong with the system. But how do you get around a Supreme Court ruling that deems corporate spending a form of free speech. Is it possible? It is, but is it likely?

It doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future, for we have the most conservative Supreme Court in our nations history. More liberal judges would have to be appointed. But this also raises the question of judicial accountability. Every other sect of our government is accountable in some form, except the judicial branch. Yes, Presidents have the authority to appoint justices, but afterwards, the justices are immune from all accountability. And I understand the justices have to interpret the Constitution as objectively as they can and rule to what they think the documents' intentions are, but common sense tells us that spending in this environment towards political campaigns isn't a fair form of free speech, and thus shouldn't be allowed. I am a proponent of consistency in the law, as most nations and people are, but sometimes independent judgement and common sense should be the formula for decisions in certain cases, like this one. 

No comments:

Post a Comment