What if the solution to the current political impasse would be to ignore party bosses and work with those with whom we disagree on so much? After all, we don’t disagree on everything. Click on over to Townhall.com, for this week’s Common Sense foray into political strategy. And back here, for more reading.
William Easterly looks at the inherent callousness at the heart of modern talk of “development.” His starting point, below, is the big difference in ideas between 1974’s dual winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Gunnar Myrdal and F.A. Hayek. Myrdal supported a double standard. Hayek did not.
Myrdal also promoted a huge assumption we still live with today: that of the benevolent dictator, the one who gets all the credit for progress. The common folk, you see, are just pawns in the dictator’s hands.
On May 17, 1973, televised hearings regarding the Watergate scandal began in the United States Senate.
On May 16, 1843, one thousand pioneers from Elm Grove, Missouri, set off for the Pacific Northwest, blazing what became known as the “Oregon Trail.”
Can the American people squeeze out the middle . . . like popping the world’s biggest zit?
Ralph Nader thinks the answer is Yes, if by “the middle” we mean the political center, where the Republican and Democratic Party higher-ups want to be, and where most folks in Congress find themselves.
Huge swaths of the American people, he says, are ready for some big changes. But the ruling insider class stands in the way.
What is needed? A coalition of progressives and libertarians and other independents willing to work together on issues like
Nader thinks a coalition like this is, as the title of his book has it, “Unstoppable.”
His book hasn’t been getting the attention it deserves. (Even from me: I’m at Disney World as I write this, and somehow reading of books hasn’t exactly taken over my schedule.) Nader, one of the most influential activists in American history, has hit a nerve, but not a lot of media outlets. I’m told he did chat with the folks on Fox Business News’s The Independents, but he could use more readers and more listeners.
Interestingly, Nader tips his hat to my day-job outfit, Citizens in Charge, as “already at work” doing what needs getting done, putting citizens (not well-connected businesses and pressure groups) at the center of the government.
By working for greater ballot access and initiative rights everywhere.
So, join us. (And I promise: no more pimple-popping metaphors.)
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
There is nothing in the world, where a government is, in any degree, limited and restrained, so useful for getting rid of all limit and restraint, as wars. The power of almost all governments is greater during war than during peace. But in the case of limited governments, it is so, in a very remarkable degree.
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the 49-year, 25-term congressman representing bankrupt Detroit, made big news. According to the Wayne County clerk, Conyers failed to gather enough voter signatures to earn a spot on the Democratic Party Primary ballot this Fifth of August.
Still, I stand by my Townhall column’s prediction: the congressman will be on that ballot. Conyers ran afoul of a law requiring petition passers to be registered voters. It is unconstitutional. The ACLU filed suit on Monday to overturn it.
Conyers only had to manage a mere one thousand signatures, which hardly seems too tough for a seasoned incumbent. Conversely, Michiganders petitioning for a statewide ballot measure must secure 258,087 voter signatures — 322,609 for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment.
Conyers isn’t alone in flunking Petition Drive 101. Two years ago, Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter resigned after several staff members falsified signatures on his petition.
Michigan’s policy, making major-party politicians gather a small number of voter signatures to obtain ballot status — independent and minor party candidates must often collect much larger numbers — is not a mere useless hurdle. If adopted universally, it could provide a large number of examples that our powerful politicians actually have surprisingly weak support.
Moreover, making politicians petition might stir their sympathy for the struggles citizens face in gathering signatures. Working my day job with Citizens in Charge, I witness constant attacks on the initiative petition process from legislators, who claim it’s “too easy” to put issues on the ballot.
Which, of course, means that those politicians haven’t ever tried.
Politicians often tell us how important “experience” is.
Give them some.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention instructed its Continental Congress delegation to propose a resolution of independence from Great Britain, paving the way for the United States Declaration of Independence.
It never ought to be forgotten, that, in every country, there is “a Few,” and there is “a Many”; that in all countries in which the government is not very good, the interest of “the Few” prevails over the interest of “the Many,” and is promoted at their expence. “The Few” is the part that governs; “the Many” the part that is governed.
Like many countries with a young democracy, Panama constitutionally term-limits its president. And like many such countries, Panama has endured a president eager to dispense with the irksome restriction.
Too often, deleting the term limit comes too easy. All it takes is a few cooperative lawmakers of the ruling party or a few cooperative judges; at most, a national referendum, if the officeholder is popular . . . or ruthless enough to rig it.
In Panama, though, Martinelli — who must sit out the next two terms before running for the presidency again — has been hitting a brick wall.
Amending Panama’s constitution is easier than amending our own. But it still requires the co-operation of two separate legislative bodies. He could not obtain it.
A referendum was also a non-starter. Martinelli proved less popular toward the end of his term than he was at the beginning, and Panamanian voters showed little inclination to lengthen his tenure.
He tried packing Panama’s supreme court so that it would determine the constitutional term limit to be unconstitutional. But mass protests forced a retreat there as well.
Finally, the incumbent tried the hand-picked-successor gambit — “re-election in disguise” — ardently campaigning for José Domingo Arias and Arias’s vice presidential candidate, Martinelli’s wife. On May 4, though, Juan Carlos Varela won a three-way contest for the presidency with a 39 percent plurality.
The result is not a permanent victory for term limits or democracy; such victories are never permanent. But it is a victory, and a big one.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.