My definition of an Ideologue may, or may not coincide with Webster's, but I think it is a reasonable description of one; especially as it pertains to American politics. An ideologue is best described by example. Here are a couple examples, one from the right, and one from the left.
An uncompromising libertarian who believes any and all government is inherently evil almost to the point of being an anarchist; and a uncompromising socialist who believes all private enterprise is inherently oppressive almost to the point of being a Marxist. These examples are a crude description of what I believe to be American political Ideologues.
I am not going to tag any individuals or political blocs here with the over used word extreme or label them Ideologues. What I hope to do is present a strategy for lessening the influence of hyper-ideology in our political discourse.
The quickest way to even out the Ideologues disproportionate control of political debate and legislation is : Change the way they are able to fund campaigns! Because far from center positions do not reflect the views of any substantial number of the electorate. They can not fund their campaigns or legislation with contributions from the average voter. They need money from large interests and the very rich..
Because so many politicians fund political careers with the money from wealthy donors; (Including themselves) and large organizations. Their influence is disproportionate to their support among the people. Rich people can only vote once and organizations can not vote at all. Why should they have more say in politics than a voter who works in a factory? I am for a limit on what an individual can contribute to a candidate (including themselves ) and an out right ban on any money from any organization of any kind. That would include any national party organization, (they could recruit candidates but not fund them). Ban any money from outside the jurisdiction they do or would represent. The obvious exception a presidential election, but with all other restrictions applied.
Many would say that would be an infringement on free speech. I could not disagree more, and I will tell you why. Suppose I were to take all the funds I have been given by 1000 average individuals who live within my district and rent a space in the park for 2 hrs.and build a small stage..Let's say 5000 people showed up to support my run for state senate as an Independent candidate.
Then suppose a very wealthy individual decides he will run for the same office. He drops a million dollars into his campaign fund and encourages 3 wealthy friends from out of state to contribute. He then makes calls to three large political organizations and the head of his national political party. He makes promises to them all..They agree to support him without consulting anyone else, and contribute. He then hires a political hack to dig up dirt on me. In total including his wife 10 people support his campaign for state senate, compared to the 5000 who support me.
The wealthy candidate then buys air time on all the local tv and radio stations and produces commercials explaining to the voters how dangerous, corrupt and extreme I am. He then leaves for vacation and comes back to campaign a month before the elections.. This may sound incredible but something like it is played out over and over in our current system. The way we allow political campaigns to be funded limits free speech, and is inherently unfair. To allow anyone to contribute other than individual voters is a corruption of the process..To not set a limit on how much any individual voter can contribute is to limit the free speech of those who happen not to be wealthy, or refuse to make promises to individuals or organizations.
NO contributions allowed from outside the jurisdiction of the people being represented!
NO contributions allowed from any source other than an individual voter of that jurisdiction!
NO contributions allowed over a set amount; so not to limit the free speech of the poor!
NO contributions allowed by any organization of any kind for any reason period!
Anything less than this in my opinion, is a form of political tyranny.....In interest of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican who believes himself to be a moderate, Conservative..If you believe this idea has merit, please feel free to share it with others. Thank You
No comments:
Post a Comment