Yesterday we buried my grandparents at a small graveyard in Canton, South Dakota. They now lie near generations of their forebearers atop a small, windswept hill surrounded by farm fields. Two people who lived and worked in some of the remotest and far flung corners of the globe have returned to rest beneath the blue sky and broad vistas of the prairie. It fits perfectly.
I love the prairie. It is harvest time and the fields are golden and tan. Traveling beneath a bright cobalt sky dotted by swiftly rolling clouds conveys a sense of timelessness. I find it hard to feel sad as I think of my grandparents lying quietly year after year as the seasons march over top. Maybe I would feel different if I stood atop the hill in the dead of winter but yesterday it was golden and it felt inevitable and right.
The prairie always feels inevitable. It can be easy to forget just how vast this country is when you live in a city. The prairie and its open horizons are a necessary correction. After 9/11 I remember scanning the horizon thinking about a hijacked plane flying toward the building I was standing in. Those fears drained away a few weeks later as I was driving west. These plains are too large. No act of terrorism or war endangers them. They cannot be destroyed by anything short of a global catastrophe. That recognition brings me peace. My grandparents will lie undisturbed for all time.
Peace is acceptance. I have struggled to accept the loss of my grandparents. While they were by no means young, the loss of each seemed premature when the time came. Despite that longing, I felt peace yesterday. Not because I have come to terms with their departure but because the land has welcomed them home. They have come full circle back to the endless horizons that watched the beginning of a great journey and now watch over a well-earned rest. I believe they are at peace. I am.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
My Idea For the 99 Percent
Over the past week the Occupy Wall Street movement has started to gain some real momentum. Commentators are talking about it spreading like the Tea Party movement did a few years ago. Today, Occupy Wall Street came to Minneapolis.
It is too early to tell if this is the start of a broader social movement. I certainly hope it is. America's most recent gilded age gave rise to the Tea Party which energized the Republican party. Somehow, people who were angry about government spending on behalf of banks threw their support behind a party that believes the rich should be paying less and not more. Meanwhile, government programs that support those too poor to benefit from tax cuts are being starved of funding.
My hope is that Occupy Wall Street is the start of a populist movement that will serve as a needed corrective. Sites like the We Are the 99 Percent make me believe that it can be.
As the Occupy Wall Street movement has grown much of the criticism from commentators centers around the fact that there is no central demand that the movement has put forward. Rather, it is a loose collection of demands. Most of these demands center around anger at the economic fortunes of the elite (symbolized by Wall Street bankers) and frustration over the economic pain being inflicted on the rest of the population. The problem for the Occupy Wall Street movement is that there is no consensus around a solution - whether that be taxes on the rich, economic assistance for the poor, nationalization of the banks and so on. As such, it is easy for the media to latch on to the further fringes of the anger and portray the movement as purposeless.
This messaging problem has led some to offer their own proposals as to what Occupy Wall Street should be demanding. On Sunday, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times offered his proposal. Thus, I have decided to offer my own proposal. Of course, no one will actually read my proposal but I am convinced it is superior.
I believe Occupy Wall Street should be demanding that Congress and the states pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting any contributions, direct or indirect, to any politician from anyone who is not a registered voter. I believe the constitutional amendment should restrict the amount of money that any one individual can contribute. Finally, the constitutional amendment should make it clear that, for purposes of contributions to politicians, corporations are not citizens and do not have rights under the First Amendment.
So why is this the one demand that Occupy Wall Street should have? Because I believe if it was written properly it would pull much of the corrupting influence of money out of elected politics. More importantly, it would break the cycle of the political system serving the few at the expense of the many. Politicians should be responsive to voters not to corporations. By limiting contributions and prohibiting groups like corporations and unions from contributing to campaigns, politicians would be far more attuned to the needs of individual voters.
Such an amendment would undo the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United and would amount to a mutual disarmament of the political parties. The political parties could be restricted from running ads that supported candidates and, more importantly, could be restricted from raising funds from corporations and unions. This would, in turn, make the politicians and the parties less beholden to the agendas of the financiers.
Erecting a barrier between everyone but citizens and the politicians would make politicians reliant on individuals for contributions. A cap on the amount of a contribution would limit a politician's reliance on any one individual. As a consequence, the focus would be shifted from those with the most resources to those with the most support.
To give an example tied to the current financial mess, Goldman Sachs would be prohibited from funneling any of its billions in profits to any politician, either directly or through a lobbying group. Similarly, Goldman could be restricted from running issue ads calling for a bail out of large banks. Goldman could attempt to persuade its shareholders and employees to ask their politicians for a bailout. But the weight of each shareholder or employee would be limited by the contribution cap. Thus, a politician with a district consisting of a large number of shareholders and employees of Goldman may still be persuaded to spend public money for the good of Goldman but only because it was the will of a sizable number of constituents.
Corporations and unions are very good raising money. In fact, corporations were created for the purpose of raising money. Unfortunately, the rise of modern media has so intertwined money with politics that corporations and unions have acquired an over-sized hold on our democratic institutions. For our democracy to survive and flourish that influence must be paired back. To do that, under the present interpretation of the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court, requires a constitutional amendment. There is simply no other way to counter the weight of money that can be brought to bear on a politician.
If Occupy Wall Street were to obtain such a constitutional amendment it would ensure that politicians would listen to the 99% before the 1%. The voice of the people would at least be heard above the din of special interests and their money.
It is too early to tell if this is the start of a broader social movement. I certainly hope it is. America's most recent gilded age gave rise to the Tea Party which energized the Republican party. Somehow, people who were angry about government spending on behalf of banks threw their support behind a party that believes the rich should be paying less and not more. Meanwhile, government programs that support those too poor to benefit from tax cuts are being starved of funding.
My hope is that Occupy Wall Street is the start of a populist movement that will serve as a needed corrective. Sites like the We Are the 99 Percent make me believe that it can be.
As the Occupy Wall Street movement has grown much of the criticism from commentators centers around the fact that there is no central demand that the movement has put forward. Rather, it is a loose collection of demands. Most of these demands center around anger at the economic fortunes of the elite (symbolized by Wall Street bankers) and frustration over the economic pain being inflicted on the rest of the population. The problem for the Occupy Wall Street movement is that there is no consensus around a solution - whether that be taxes on the rich, economic assistance for the poor, nationalization of the banks and so on. As such, it is easy for the media to latch on to the further fringes of the anger and portray the movement as purposeless.
This messaging problem has led some to offer their own proposals as to what Occupy Wall Street should be demanding. On Sunday, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times offered his proposal. Thus, I have decided to offer my own proposal. Of course, no one will actually read my proposal but I am convinced it is superior.
I believe Occupy Wall Street should be demanding that Congress and the states pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting any contributions, direct or indirect, to any politician from anyone who is not a registered voter. I believe the constitutional amendment should restrict the amount of money that any one individual can contribute. Finally, the constitutional amendment should make it clear that, for purposes of contributions to politicians, corporations are not citizens and do not have rights under the First Amendment.
So why is this the one demand that Occupy Wall Street should have? Because I believe if it was written properly it would pull much of the corrupting influence of money out of elected politics. More importantly, it would break the cycle of the political system serving the few at the expense of the many. Politicians should be responsive to voters not to corporations. By limiting contributions and prohibiting groups like corporations and unions from contributing to campaigns, politicians would be far more attuned to the needs of individual voters.
Such an amendment would undo the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United and would amount to a mutual disarmament of the political parties. The political parties could be restricted from running ads that supported candidates and, more importantly, could be restricted from raising funds from corporations and unions. This would, in turn, make the politicians and the parties less beholden to the agendas of the financiers.
Erecting a barrier between everyone but citizens and the politicians would make politicians reliant on individuals for contributions. A cap on the amount of a contribution would limit a politician's reliance on any one individual. As a consequence, the focus would be shifted from those with the most resources to those with the most support.
To give an example tied to the current financial mess, Goldman Sachs would be prohibited from funneling any of its billions in profits to any politician, either directly or through a lobbying group. Similarly, Goldman could be restricted from running issue ads calling for a bail out of large banks. Goldman could attempt to persuade its shareholders and employees to ask their politicians for a bailout. But the weight of each shareholder or employee would be limited by the contribution cap. Thus, a politician with a district consisting of a large number of shareholders and employees of Goldman may still be persuaded to spend public money for the good of Goldman but only because it was the will of a sizable number of constituents.
Corporations and unions are very good raising money. In fact, corporations were created for the purpose of raising money. Unfortunately, the rise of modern media has so intertwined money with politics that corporations and unions have acquired an over-sized hold on our democratic institutions. For our democracy to survive and flourish that influence must be paired back. To do that, under the present interpretation of the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court, requires a constitutional amendment. There is simply no other way to counter the weight of money that can be brought to bear on a politician.
If Occupy Wall Street were to obtain such a constitutional amendment it would ensure that politicians would listen to the 99% before the 1%. The voice of the people would at least be heard above the din of special interests and their money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)