| Back OpEd News | |||||||
|
Original Content at https://www.opednews.com/articles/California-Prop-14-is-GOOD-by-William-J-Kellehe-110201-393.html (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher). |
|||||||
February 4, 2011
California Prop 14 is GOOD for All States Because Political Parties are Un-American
By William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
california voters passed Prop 14 in 2010. However, both inside and outside that state, the practical opportunities the new law offers are not well understood. If activists in CA and all the other states in the US understood what the opportunities for increased self-government this measure provides, more states would want to copy it, and more activists would want to seize to opportunities they now have.
::::::::
The Fight for Liberty
The American Revolution was fought for many reasons. Among these were the desires to settle individual grievances against the King's government for the quartering of soldiers, taxation without representation, and the brutality of law enforcement, as well as to throw off restrictions on trade and thereby open up new economic opportunities. Clearly, one of the highest priorities of the colonists was to toss off the shackles of King George III, so as to achieve Liberty through self-government. Indeed, the notion that "Liberty" is self-governing is so prominent among our country's founding principles that it can be considered as the original "American Dream."
Self-governing requires the dispersal, rather than the concentration, of political power. The more that power is concentrated in the hands of a few, the less self-governing there is for the many. In other words, the concentration of power bears an inverse relationship to the Liberty of the people. Those who hold concentrated power must, to maintain their position, put their own interests above the public interest.
If Liberty is an essential element to the public interest, then concentrated power is essentially against the public interest. Thus, concentrated power necessarily results in the political denigration of the general public. The few take it upon themselves to decide what is in the best interests of the many. Conditions like this foster political alienation and political unhappiness, or frustration, among those who desire to be self-governing but lack the needed political power.
Political scientists have known, at least since the days of Roberto Michels, that the primary aim of political parties is to concentrate power in themselves. Members of political parties seek to place their leadership in the seats of government, sometimes for their own material gain, but chiefly so that the members can vicariously enjoy the pleasures of being among the dominant powers. Contrary to today's conventional wisdom, political parties are necessarily undemocratic institutions, precisely because they must put their own interest -" in taking and keeping power -" before the public interest. The dispersal of power among the people is necessary for the full realization of Liberty through self-government.
Curing the Mischiefs of Faction.
Some readers may be surprised to learn that among the most important objectives of the Framers, or authors, of the US Constitution was to fashion a government that could not be taken over by political parties. Generally, our nation's Founding Generation abhorred political parties. They regularly referred to parties as "factions."
They knew from their own experience that political parties put the party's self-interests, such as winning elections and obtaining privileged legislation, before the best interests of the people as a whole. Wary of such organizations, they sought to establish a system of government that would always strive to act in the best interests of the whole country.
Besides their concern for the public interest, they understood that party loyalty discourages independent thinking. John Marshall, who some say is the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that party politics are "despicable in the extreme... Nothing, I believe, more debases or pollutes the human mind than faction." (See Beveridge's The Life of John Marshall, page 410.)
His cousin, Thomas Jefferson , echoed the same sentiment: "[I have] never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
Hamilton was also contemptuous of parties, in part, because they could corrode an individual's sense of civic morality. He wrote that a "spirit of faction" can drive individuals to do together that "for which they would blush in a private capacity."
(Federalist Papers, no. 15)
Sounding eerily like a 21st Century observer, Madison commented, "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points " have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good." (Fed 10)
Expressing views widely held among the Framers, Madison wrote that because the Constitution separates governmental powers, balances those powers, and provides the different departments with checks against encroachment by the others, as well as giving the people a part in the political process, it is "the proper antidote for the diseases of faction." It was to this end that, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
(Fed 14, 51)
One of the most fervent beliefs of the Founders was expressed by Madison when he wrote that "no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of " the public good." (Fed 45) A party dominated government cannot do that.
In 1796, when his second term in that office was about to expire, George Washington delivered a " Farewell Address " in which he declined to stand for a third term, and in which he gave his parting words of advice to his country. He implored his listeners to "[let me] warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party"" He then said,
"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute " [Such alliances] are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."
This original wariness of political parties has managed to survive among the American people, despite the conspiracy between the media and the two parties to glorify party dominated government. In a 2007 Washington Post nation wide survey, 29% of respondents said they were "independents." When asked if there are important differences between the two major parties, 47% said no. As to the statement that the two parties represent the interests of people like me, 60% disagreed. In California, nearly 40% of the voters identify themselves as "independent."
One Party Rule
California's Proposition 14 provides a new way for the people of California to pursue the American Dream of Liberty through self-government. Prior to the enactment of Prop 14, only officially recognized "qualified" parties could conveniently run candidates in the primary election. "Unqualified" outsiders had prohibitive barriers, such as costly fees and high numbers of signatures on petitions to be placed on the ballot. Candidates in the qualified parties didn't have to suffer these restrictions.
More than three million Californians were effectively barred from voting in the primary election simply because they declined to register to vote as a member of any of the half dozen qualified parties. They could have lied about identifying with one of the qualified parties at the time of registering to vote, so that they could cast a primary vote; but because of their personal integrity they were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to vote in the primary election. They could only vote in the general election for the "left overs."
Thus, an oligarchy of a half dozen qualified parties reigned in the state primary election process. But there was an oligarchy of two parties within that oligarchy. So-called "third parties," like Peace and Freedom, Greens, Libertarians, etc had the status of being "qualified," however, in practice they held very little power. With over 125 elective offices in the CA government, third parties rarely held more than a few lesser positions. Dems and Repubs held the vast majority of CA offices. Allowing third parties the status of being qualified has never been more than a device for fooling them into thinking that the two-party system was open and democratic. Even within the CA two-party system, one party dominates the legislative branch -" the Dems.
This one-party legislature is the nightmare come true for our Founding Generation. Because they had just fought a revolution against a king, they put their faith in the legislature, rather than the executive, to represent the people. They shared Madison's understanding that in "republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." (Fed 51) Hence, the first Article of the Constitution defines the legislative branch.
The Framers of our Constitution envisioned the legislative branch as representing a multiplicity of interests, not just the interests of a dominant faction. In CA, the ills of such a legislature include a squandering of natural resources, misspent public funds, neglect of the poor and humble, and an education system that increasingly seeks more to profit from its students than to educate them. Such lousy governing need not be. Washington's ideal of a legislature as "the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests" can be realized.
Stage Three Myopia
Prop 14 is misleadingly named the "Top Two" measure. In fact, the new law creates a three stage process. The first stage offers the greatest opportunity for Liberty, but the third stage receives nearly all the media coverage. In part, the writers in the press and online are so literal minded that they focus on the title of the law, and completely miss the practical opportunities the new law provides. They are not alone in their myopia. Third party "leaders" have lamented the demise of their privileged positions, and declared that "top two" is undemocratic. Some of them have sought court injunctions to stop the state from implementing the law. After the courts have shot down their claims about being denied "freedom of association," their default argument is that the "top two" denies them the right to have write-in candidates.
But this claim only has a smidgen of substance, so long as you don't look at the rest of the three part process. Once the system is viewed as a whole, the prohibition of write-ins at the third stage becomes perfectly reasonable.
Stage One Liberation
Prop 14 is liberating for the people of California because it opens the door for a multi-party state legislature, and paves the way for the end of one-party domination. This is not a loss for members of third parties, but a liberation! Ballot access at the beginning stage has been opened up like never before. Any ambitious person who wants to run for a seat in the state legislature has only to pay a small filing fee (generally just over $900), and garner only a few dozen signatures on a petition to have his or her name placed on the ballot.
Before now, only people who had the approval of the leadership of qualified parties had any kind of chance to run for office. Now, however, the individual is free to form his or her own campaign organization in his or her district, pay the fee, turn in the petition, and join the race! Because the individual has formed his or her own party-in-the-district, if he or she wins office, the self-serving state-wide party organization will have no leverage over this legislator.
In only a few election cycles, legislating could become a process of "independents" forming their own coalitions outside the one-party structure. Then negotiation and compromise would replace the destructive self-serving strategies of the Dem-dominated legislature.
The Stage Two Campaign
No one has to be rich or famous to get started under Prop 14. Anyone who is adept at using the social media, and has personal energy, drive, organizing skills, and a network of supporters within the district has a fighting chance at winning in stage two. This stage begins as soon as the individual has met the requirements to have his or her name placed on the primary ballot. Using traditional political skills and resources, anyone, with or without party membership, can get elected. The playing field is both level and wide open.
Stage Three Understood
Because stage two may have many candidates, chances are that no one will win by a clear majority. But in a democracy, the leadership should have the backing of a majority to assure its legitimacy. That is why two candidates are presented for a final vote.
Having write-ins at this stage would allow someone to by-pass the process that the top two had just gone through. How fair is that?
The Political Goodness of Prop 14
Prop 14 is good because it puts California elections more in line with the original intentions of our Founding Generation than the two-party system ever did, or ever could. Activists in other states, who are outside the established party system there, be advised -" follow the CA example and you will increase your Liberty!
One more word of advice: a change of law is not of itself sufficient for Liberty. For as long as folks believe they are hopelessly barred from the dominant party system, they will do nothing to change their circumstances. Given such a belief, the reforms promised by Prop 14 will not take place, as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Thus, Prop 14 requires not only a change of law, but a change of minds. As the existence of the Chicken Littles in California suggest, the latter may be the greater challenge!