The Anti-Candidate
The most intractable problem faced by humanity over the past ten millenia has been our inability to govern ourselves. If you examine all other areas of human endeavor, you will see a tale of evolutionary progress. Think for a minute about the advances we've made in agriculture, industry, transportation, medicine, religion, ethics, and human rights just to name a few. Modernity is a wonderful thing. We've graduated from a Hobbesian world ruled by tooth and claw to a life of relative ease. And yet that thing we call "good government" still eludes us like a mythical beast. Government is still about how the few control the many, and therein lies the problem.
The significance of the Magna Carta was that it was the first document specifically designed to put limits on government. The Founding Fathers of the American Republic followed up by creating a system of checks and balances providing for limited government based on the rule of law. They were wise and prudent men who understood human nature. It was a good step in the evolution of self-government, but in my opinion not enough.
I was very dissatisfied with the results of the last election. I was deeply offended by political ads which were nothing more than a mud-slinging contest. There was nothing in anyone's message to make me want to vote for them. By the end of the campaign season I would have been content to see the candidates settle the matter with flintlock pistols at ten paces. Allow me to offer you a new paradigm: The Anti-Candidate.
The anti-candidate does not seek office. He or she is drafted in a communal nominating process. Desire for office is grounds for automatic disqualification. The selection mechanism is based on a two step process. The candidate will state all the reasons he doesn't want to serve, and issue a list of solemn promises about the things he won't do if elected. The candidates' debate will consist of a series of speeches in support of the opposition and reasons why the other guy is more qualified to serve. Voters will rate the candidates based on a scorecard that includes the following: sincerity, humility, veracity, common sense, clarity of thought, etc., etc. The results of the election will send the loser to serve in Washington for four years, with a maximum of two years off for good behaviour.
There you have my modest proposal. I nominate Dave Carter. And I'm only half kidding.
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Americans definitely need to get into a habit of petitioning non-politicians to run for office, rather than allowing the political parties to choose for us. We already have leaders from various industries and walks of life. We just need to convince them that our need justifies the sacrifices they would have to make to run for office.
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
I'm down for the movement to draft Dave Carter for Congress. He would be the perfect candidate -- he doesn't want to be a Congressman, almost every one of his posts is the basis of a great stump speech,and he can drive his own bus.
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Man, but I wish you'd written that 48 hours ago. That way I'd have been able to quote you when I interview Matt Ridley, author of "The Rational Optimist." Ridley is simply superb--just superb--on the material and even moral progress humankind has made. But he really has no answer to the horrors of the twentieth century. You do. Governance--governance is the truly intractable problem.
Nov '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Here's an anology: democracy is like a laser printer. Let me explain. The printer can go through ream after ream of paper, flawlessly. Then one day it jams. The usere freaks out! "What the dang heck (that's a paraphrase) is wrong with this thing!" And I say "If you knew how it worked, you'd be surprised it ever printed at all." And that's democracy. It's not surprising when it doesn't work, it's suprising when it does. And I'm not saying democracy isn't the way to go. I'm just syaing that when you put government in the hands of the people, you are really asking for trouble.
Nov '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
The issue at hand is that government is inherently a compromise; man gives up some of his freedom to guarantee the rest. The essential nature of compromises is that nobody is ever completely satisfied.
But more on topic: I would love a government of reluctant Washingtons as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, it is rare that the type of person possessing the profound abilities requisite of the Presidency is not also the type actively seek a challenge.
We have to accept that the members of our government, regardless of their politics, will by-and-large seek to expand their own power. They may have every altruistic intention of selflessness and a desire to do good, yet it naturally follows that they will look to augment their ability to carry out this good. As Madison argued in Federalist 51, we must accept our leadership's motives, and embrace a structure of government which bends these forces to the benefit of the common liberty. Namely, the checks-and-balances structure of our Constitutional government.
Oct '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
I think your idea was shared by Americans in the early republic when candidates never ran campaigns to get elected because it was shameful. It was always done on their behalf by someone else leading the effort to draft them to run. I'm reminded of Benjamin Frankline saying that elected office should be neither sought nor refused.
May '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
I've posted my solution to this problem at the Members' Feed....to avoid the 200 word limit.
Suffice to say here that one reason that I am a Christian is that the underlying principles of Christianity provide a thorough and coherent answer for the reason for the problem. Man, as we know him, does not represent the creature he was intended to be. We are, to use the theological term, fallen. We retain enough of the 'imago Dei' that we recognize that we aren't what we ought to be. But we lack the essential ability to become what we ought to be. Thus, any system that gives one man power over his fellow men will be corrupted by that fallen nature. The genius of the Founders was creating a system that took that fallen nature into consideration and built in some curbs to avarice.
Check out my solution in the Members' Feed and let me know what you think.
Nov '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Tom Lindholtz: Thus, any system that gives one man power over his fellow men will be corrupted by that fallen nature. The genius of the Founders was creating a system that took that fallen nature into consideration and built in some curbs to avarice.
· Nov 20 at 12:20pm
The founders went further than just curbing negative tendencies; the reason that checks and balances actually work is the self-interested nature of representatives motives them to actively check others. The brilliance isn't in curbing; it's in designing a system that makes lemonade out of the proverbial lemon.
May '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
I tend to disagree. This idealistic stuff only works where benevolent, perfect (in other words, non-human) leaders run the process.
I have a friend who is big into John Stuart Mill and rational process, voter panels, optimization, etc. He thinks that leads to the best outcomes- of course, the process has him preparing the material for panel consideration- and applying his own bias to the presentation of the alternatives.
Nothing is really great- that is why the messy, free, democratic screens that allow both an Obama and a Rubio to push to the top, despite the errors and inefficiency, is still the least bad way.
Are there ways we could improve this? Sure- institute term limits, and conservatives buy NBC, ABC, and CBS so that it is harder to turn decent people into moronic monsters (Megyn Kelly instead of Katie Couric).
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
So let's see, no one was killed in this last election trying to cast a ballot. Power in the house sifted from Democrats to Republicans and no one seems to be contemplating calling out the army or putting John Boehner under house arrest. Yet, you, ~Paules, think we have made no progress in ten millennia, and you look to a foundational document, the Magna Carta, for evidence of our lack thereof. What is the argument here? That we, the people, have not exerted control over our political systems, or that we have not given over control to you? Conversely, let me ask, is this irony that you are writing? Because if it isn't you are indulging yourself by treating Ricochet readers to your fit of pique.
Edited on Nov 20, 2010 at 12:47pmMay '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Peter, governance is the *key* problem to me. What I want is total control for me. Since that is not possible, I want to have a system that gives others the least control over me and gives me the maximum ability to consent.
Paules, I am not sure I like your solution. The problem is that leadership takes a willingness to lead. Forcing people that don't want to lead into leadership roles is a disaster. Trying to screen out the people that want is makes no sense. Actually, I think the "Enemy Within" episode of Star Trek makes this point. What makes Kirk a good leader is also part of what makes him a scary.
Our system is designed not only to keep leaders in check, but to try to keep us in check too. The mob is just as dangerous as the ruling class. Too weak a government will not protect us from each other.
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Peter Robinson
Man, but I wish you'd written that 48 hours ago. That way I'd have been able to quote you when I interview Matt Ridley, author of "The Rational Optimist." Ridley is simply superb--just superb--on the material and even moral progress humankind has made. But he really has no answer to the horrors of the twentieth century. You do. Governance--governance is the truly intractable problem. · Nov 20 at 11:42am
Sorry, gentlemen but I humbly disagree and prefer to look at it on the flip side if you will: The most amazing progress and achievements in science, medicine and contributions in the arts by humanity over the past ten millennia occurred when we took upon the responsibility to govern ourselves. Most of the horrors of the twentieth century were a result when the freedom of self-governance was taken away. Elections are indeed messy things. But I will take them over the alternative.
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Modernity doesn't create the advances in agriculture, industry, transportation, medicine, religion, ethics and human rights. It's the other way around. These advances create "modernity" (if by modernity you only mean it in a positive way...because modernity has also created weapons of mass destruction as well and as efficient ways of exterminating millions as the Nazis have shown).
For the most part the advances you speak of have been a result of free societies that created the conditions for people to create, invent, innovate, explore and barter with one another without the threat of punishment or through coercion at the barrel of a gun. Free societies that held elections.
Is self-governance perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Should we always be on the lookout for scoundrels and charlatans? Absolutely. But we should also be on the lookout for well-educated, well-grounded, humble visionaries as well and understand that not everyone who desires leadership hungers for power.
Edited on Nov 20, 2010 at 3:00pmMay '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
I don't see how a consumer product-style survey of candidates who are required to wallow in angst while moaning that the office to which they aspire sucks will produce better governance. Paules, I always like your ambition but I think this post is just a tad overwrought, my friend (as is my prior sentence).
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Allow me to refine my post by offering George Washington as an example. He didn't lobby his fellows to become first president. He declined both titles and honors once elected. He didn't lack for willpower or toughness, yet he was both humble and pious. He left the office voluntarily after eight years. Washington was a man of immense character. What I'm suggesting in my post is that we need to look closer at character and be suspicious of personal ambition. History tells us that republics are short lived experiments in self-governance. Despite our best efforts, we continue to fail in this one specific area of human endeavor. The problem to my mind lies not in the system of government we choose, but in ourselves.
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Heading to Mount Vernon now with a pick and shovel and a DNA extraction kit. Will be on a flight to South Korea where we can begin the cloning process. Oh...uh...keep it under your hat.
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
It's not Our system of government.
What needs to change is Who is allowed to vote.
18 year olds? Coming out of Our "education" system? Obamacare considers 26 year olds as kids.
Edited on Nov 20, 2010 at 4:49pmJun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Jimmy Carter: It's not Our system of government.
What needs to change is Who is allowed to vote.
18 year olds? Coming out of Our "education" system? Obamacare considers 26 year olds as kids. · Nov 20 at 4:48pm
Edited on Nov 20 at 04:49 pm
Can't accept your premise of "What needs to change is who is allowed to vote." Not only is this a dangerous thought, but none of us have the expertise on all the issues that a government may pass legislation on to qualify as an "educated" voter. Who gets to say who should vote under these circumstances? Simply by asking the question you join ~Paules in elitist, I-know-better-than-you thinking. Democracy means we take the good with the bad and hope the good outweighs the bad if not on every issue, at least, on the important issues. This, of course, does not mean that democracies cannot make mistakes, we're living through one big blunder presently.
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Cas, should six year olds be allowed to vote?
May '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Brian Watt
Heading to Mount Vernon now with a pick and shovel and a DNA extraction kit. Will be on a flight to South Korea where we can begin the cloning process. Oh...uh...keep it under your hat. · Nov 20 at 3:43pm
Brian, our US-based DNA cloners are better than the ROK cloners. Remember- that big case there turned out to be academic fraud.