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 :
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Duane - South Korea was mentioned precisely for a hoped for comic effect. Obviously I failed.
May '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
I haven't read the Magna Carta recently, but wouldn't it be more accurate and more vivid to say that the MC established the principle that the King must obey the laws too?
Sep '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
George Washington is the best, and only, example that I know of in American history that did not want office. He did not seek it and he humbly served. Since then it has been dog eat dog.
One of our problems is a biased media. Had they properly vetted Obama, he wouldn't have won the nomination. We would probably have President Clinton now, but I think she would have made a better president.
Before we had primaries, we probably had a better shot of drafting a reluctant candidate to run than we do now, but that system was saturated with corruption, as the good old boys decided who would run based on favors owed, etc.
Should we limit the eligibility of voters? The egalitarian in me says no. The pragmatist says yes. Where would the line be drawn? Age? Property? Employment? Education? It seems to me that most of the groups one would want to disqualify do not vote in most elections. So would it really change?
The best solution is to educate the public better than we do now, but don't count on our education system to do that. Sounds like a project for the tea party.
Re: The Anti-Candidate
So I'm driving through West Virginia, having been dispatched from Charlotte, NC, to Wisconsin (evidently because my dispatchers think this is the best way to get me to Florida for Thanksgiving) when I get an email from Diane telling me that I've been nominated for something or other. I knew something was up because several other drivers had already signalled that I was number one as far as they were concerned. But having just read through your post, Paules, and the ensuing comments, while devouring some chicken strips and onion rings the size of truck tires, I feel I can politely respond to your nomination and your thoughts generally. Regarding your kind nomination, ummm, please step away from the glue, or whatever controlled substance you've neglected to share with the rest of us. I remain convinced that the one thing a Congressman's office has in common with a bordello is that both are furnished with thick cushions, and largely for the same reason. I am not anxious to enter either one of them. I retired from government work and declined to go civil service after my military career because I find the example of a Cincinnatus, or Washington a high ideal, i.e., do one's duty and move on. My contributions were on a minor scale, but nevertheless, I much prefer to live out the remainder of my days as a member of the productive sector. I view my participation on Ricochet, in part, as a continuation of the fight for our country, and do not hesitate to engage on those terms. Now, to your thoughts generally: (Cont)
Re: The Anti-Candidate
(Cont) Paules, the problem of governance you highlight is both a macro and micro issue. Not only do we imperfectly govern ourselves in the public realm, but our lives are often fraught with battles to govern our own private impulses. How much "evolutionary progress" have we made in checking our pride, or jealousy? Have we evolved beyond the sort of base lust for power that has characterized all of recorded human history? Shakespeare is timeless because human nature itself is timeless. Regardless of one's religious belief, it's hard to escape the conclusion found in scripture that indeed, "...all have sinned..." Madison was right of course; if men were angels, they wouldn't need a government. And the government, composed of men, requires a constitution to rein in those ancient impulses. The model you envision, of citizen patriots rising to the challenge of leadership, actually seemed to take root in several precincts this time around. I'm heartened by that. Besides, even your formula would be subject to human vices. The more I protest and decline your nomination, the more likely I am to get it. The power hungry would perforce protest the loudest, no? No sir, I would respectfully counter that between Madison and Adam Smith, our structure is about as close to perfect as an imperfect race can get. We just have to stay true to the founding principles.
Re: The Anti-Candidate
By the way, Paules, something you said reminded me of a distinct impression I got at the close of the 2000 presidential election. From George Bush, I got the impression that he would survive a loss just fine. The sun would rise, and he would press on. From Al Gore, I got quite the opposite impression. It seemed his whole life had been geared toward that election, ...that it was his reason for being. That alone disqualified him in my view, apart from the thousands of other disqualifications of course. But I think that impression underscores your larger point. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a big drive tomorrow and need to inspect the inside of my eyelids.
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Now we're playing how low can you go. So let me ask you should thirty year-olds who have no political knowledge be allowed to vote?
Aug '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Let's reverse some of these earlier arguments. Without modern governance , few of the accomplishments cited would have been realized .
Aug '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Dave Why do you think they chose Gore to be the kid with the "Golden Ticket "? That's a whole passelfull of moolah !
Jun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Dave, you answered as I knew you would. Thanks for that. Yes, indeed, those who get the offer are the same people most inclined to refuse it. You saw the next step as well. Those who protest too much are the very people who would manipulate the system for personal advantage even as they deny their motivations. Let's take the next step together.
I didn't mean to set you up, but I anticipated your response based on your profile and other things I know from your posts. You're a military man. It was a fair bet on my part, nearly certain really, that you would respond based on your sense of honor and duty. I salute you for that. (Cont.)
Edited on Nov 21, 2010 at 4:36amJun '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Honor and duty rank amongst the virtues. They are but two in a long list. I'm suggesting that we elect our politicians based on character, at least as much as we're able to discern. I don't care much for policy positions because they shift with the wind in the halls of Congress. You might know a book by the late, great Jeff Cooper. It's called "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth." The title says it all. I haven't been able yet to coin a word based on "rule by the virtuous," The best I can come up with is the overused "aristocracy" which translates from the Greek as "rule by the best." That doesn't mean I won't keep trying. I'm not even looking for a complete list of virtues in our leaders. I'll settle for two or three in any given individual.
I'm all for the rule of law as a check on human frailty, but I'm looking for something more. We can do better. It might be idealistic of me to believe that, but I won't stop trying.
Edited on Nov 21, 2010 at 4:33amSep '10
Re: The Anti-Candidate
The only thing that will create a better form of government than the one we have now is when everyone lives according to the Spirit that is in them. By that I mean the light and spirit that is given to every man and woman from our Creator. If we are one with Him, then we will be one with each other. Maybe that is what you are looking for?
However, besides giving us His spirit, He also gave us the agency to do with our lives whatever we want. That is the rub. I applaud your high ideals, but I believe it is only through a collective submission to God that those ideals can/will be realized.
Re: The Anti-Candidate
Paules, I've spent all day driving, and thinking about your comments. Your goal is laudable, of course, but I think the issue of compulsion is, practically speaking, insurmountable. Persuasion would be the only practical recourse, as far as I can see. As for me, I see you brought the nomination thing up on another post, ...sort of like whack-a-mole, eh? I did what I could to defeat the resident statist in Florida's 2nd District, and help elect Steve Southerland to replace him. It worked, and I was delighted to meet Representative Elect Southerland while I was home for Veterans Day. The guy hasn't even been sworn in yet, so I'm not exactly itching to challenge him.