Primary voters have, again, been persuaded to cast votes in favor of change. Change is a bipartisan word. Candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are desperately claiming the mantle of change.
Campaigning against the establishment is not new. In fact, it is the oldest campaign trick. How many reform promises have we heard? How many times has our government been reinvented? How many candidates over the years have pledged their trustworthiness?
Too many to count.
Do you really want change? If so, we should be demanding specifics. Here are a few suggestions. They are taken from a new book by Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia. Sabato’s new book, A MORE PERFECT CONSTITUTION, suggests 23 structural changes to our current government. Here is a sampling:
1. Establish term limits in the House and Senate.
2. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
3. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term.
4. Limit some Presidential war-making powers.
5. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges.
6. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system for Presidential party nominations.
7. Mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.
For a complete list of Professor Sabato's suggestions see: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/index.htm
Though we cannot endorse any, these would be specific changes. Thus far, Obama and other candidates have gotten away with shallow words, but no details.
When, if ever, will these candidates who promise change back up those words with real political innovations?
Nothing has changed if they don’t.
And if that is the case, the Emperor’s new clothes are nothing to cheer about. Shame on all of us.
(From CitizenU.org)
4 comments:
Republican or Democrat, every candidate in every election, presidential or otherwise, runs on a platform of "change" to a very great extent. As for Prof. Sabato, I agree with a lot of his points, but I don't think a Balanced Budget Amendment will work. Times change. Federal Laws are easier to change than constitutional mandates, and besides, a balanced budget is just a liiiiiiiitle hard to get. As for the war-making powers, they're fine as they are. The President needs to go to Congress every sixty days to re-up deployments anyway. Also, in this day and age, we don't have time for all this Formal-Declaration-Of-War nonsense. Things just happen too fast. As for the different term, if we don't like a president, we would have to put up with him for two additional years. Two four-year terms or one six-year? Same difference to me. As for the regional lottery thing, I say just do a national primary and then maybe a runoff election.
Candidates don't want to get too specific in their promises for change because not everyone's idea of good change is the same. Fewer/lower taxes? Energy independence? GLBT rights? Nationalized health care?
If they're vague, they don't have to worry about alienating possible voters. I predict that it's not going to change anytime soon.
I don't think that Obama, Clinton, or Huckabee will accomplish many of the changes they have talked about in their speechs.
But nevertheless here are the changes I'd like to see made in the Constitution:
Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
Limit some Presidential war-making powers.
Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges.
Make the Federal Government more powerful.
Of course they are going to run on change, the current White House situation is clearly nothing to hold on to. But yes, the fact that they are all talking about the same valance issues with little specifics is frustrating; I suppose their is a line where they need to balance their ideas with what the country wants to hear, which is sad, but they are trying to get elected.
One specific change, however, is Obama's focus on young voters. Although this isn't a policy promise, his campaign has been pretty key in getting record numbers of kids involved in the political process (especially in Iowa). I would say that is a change for the better.
Post a Comment