It's broke.
Grammar teachers, please give me a pass, because 'broken' doesn't properly reflect its state.
It's broke.
By "it," I refer to our government--in both form AND function.
Because I'm a political junkie and news nerd, this is something that I've actually thought and talked about for a very long time with a wide variety of people. Over time, I've culled a collection of ideas; some are completely mine, others I've gotten from friends, pundits, and random people at bars. But I think they're good ideas, and I'm finally ready to put them down on paper for public ridicule.
1. The U.S. House of Representatives should be selected at random.
The current process is entirely too long for such a short term. Since a Congress(wo)man only serves a two-year term, and a Congressional campaign takes about a year to execute, it stands to reason that you start raising money for the next campaign literally moments after being sworn in.
Solution? Have each legislative district put the names of all its registered voters into a hopper, and pull out one out. The 'lucky' new Congress(wo)man gets a letter informing them that they are to report to Washington in six months to perform their civic duty.
How would it actually work?
Well, we'd have to set up some sort of legislative boot camp that the newbies would have to go through. I imagine it'd take about two months of training and familiarization with the details of the legislative process, but all of that would be cheaper and smarter than what we do now. You'd tack time for that training on to the beginning of the term, so the new class would actually report to Washington a couple of months before the new session starts, and be sworn in and assume their offices after boot camp was finished. An actual 'term' would end up being 26 months, rather than 24. But even THAT would allow for more legislative time than the existing model where Reps are out on the campaign trail for the last half of their term. Leadership positions would be picked the same way they are now, by vote--or if you really wanted to reward competence, by highest scores in boot camp. If 12 strangers can pick a foreman to lead them, I can't fathom why 495 couldn't pick a Speaker.
What are the pros?
To me, there are too many to name, BUT here are some that sit at the top of the list.
• We'd have a MUCH more diverse Congress. There would be MANY more women, considerably more ethnic minorities, a wider range of careers and expertises (the current House is primarily lawyers), a wider range of social backgrounds, a wider socio-economic representation across the board, a wider age range, a wider group of political points of view, in short Congress would look a lot more like America.
• We'd have a full-time Congress. The existing Congressional schedule would barely qualify as a part-time job. This isn't to say your Representative isn't "busy," only that the majority of their time is reserved for travel, meetings with lobbyists, and fund-raising. In this system, since the entire group KNOWS it's done in two years, they can spend all 24 months of their legislative term actually legislating. PLUS, I suspect that dynamic would cause them to literally work up until 11:59:59 of their last day, because they KNOW they're not coming back, which means they have nothing to lose.
• Lobbying would have less long-term effect. Senator Obama talks a lot about the role that lobbyists play in our government. It's true, but in a sense it's to be expected. The lobbyist-politician relationship is allowed to form and mature over decades.
And in an environment where the politician needs a bottomless pit of cash to stay in office, and the lobbyist has access to a bottomless pit of cash--you don't need a Harvard Law degree to figure out the most likely form that relationship will morph toward over time.
In this plan, there would still BE lobbyists, but the relationships wouldn't have time to turn so incestuous. They would have to actually lobby, instead of bribe--which, in my opinion, would be a turn for the better.
• Interesting and shifting caucuses. One of the very interesting things about group dynamics is that people thrown into an unexpected situation form odd pairings and groups. I think we'd see some very unique alliances emerge in a randomly selected Congress. Over time, many of them might even hold over in consecutive terms.
• A randomly selected Congress(wo)man would probably be more responsive to opinions from home. In the current system, by the second or third term, a Representative’s life tive’s life has essentially shifted to Washington.
They have much more in common with their colleagues than they do with their Constituents. The ‘Party’ position often holds a LOT more sway over their votes than what’s popular at home. A person whose family, friends, and culture are still based in their home district would be more likely be sensitive to THOSE interests than any other.
• It’d definitely be cheaper.
Clearly, we’d get some duds. But hell, we get those anyhow. Statistically, we’d also find some hidden gems and discover some real leaders as well.
Next, an idea that my friend Terry first presented to me at work. I’ve modified it some from his original proposal but the core idea is his.
2. The President shouldn’t select Supreme Court Justices, Federal Judges should sorta like the way Cardinals pick the next Pope. If you think about it, this is a totally underused brain trust.
Federal Judges are highly educated and experienced, probably more in touch with what’s really going on in America than any other single group of people, and paid to be fair.
Sure, they’re partisans, but they seem to be a lot more realistic in their partisanship than their Capitol Hill or White House compatriots.
Who knows better which judges are good, which judges are great, and which judges are losing a step than other Federal judges? How likely is it that a wildly partisan judge could get a majority vote from the wider collective of judges?
Sure, the President could still “nominate” their choice, and the Senate could still “confirm” the nomination—but wouldn’t we have a better nomination; based on a recommendation from THEM, than on the simple question of whether a judge is pro-life or pro-choice, as determined by the sitting President?
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, how about populating the Supreme Court with a wider grouping of people than just judges?
What if that body was turned into a council of elders instead; and a retired businessman, or college professor, or philosopher, or respected member of the clergy could help serve the country as a Supreme Court Justice?
Wouldn’t it be kinda cool to have some views other than those of “just” lifelong lawyers? America has, and has always had hundreds of thousands of really smart people. I wonder how it would change the game if a perspective from academia, or elsewhere determined these sorts of outcomes.
I’d love to see a Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates, or Michael Bloomberg, or Cornell West, or Colin Powell, or other respected national figure on the bench.
How would T. Boone Pickens have decided Roe v. Wade? How would Billy Graham have resolved Gore v. Bush?
Sidenote: If I had to pick the next Supreme Court Justice, I’d nominate Judge Judy. Seriously. Like her or not, is there anybody who thinks she’s not fair? Is there anyone who hasn’t watched her judge in action? Is there anyone who gives a rat’s ass if she’s pro-life or choice? Is there anyone who thinks she’s not smart enough, or competent enough? That’s kinda what I want in a Justice.
I’ve got more ideas, but this is enough for a start.
Fellow news nerds, and polijunkies … thoughts?
Peace,
--Stew.
Photo:
https://blog.id.iit.edu/wpmu/newidiom/files/2008/03/uncle_sam_pointing_finger.jpg
