Thou Shalt Not
Reelect
This
year, 2006, is widely described as an
election year. I think it would be more accurate to call it a
reelection
year. This time the
future of our nation will be at stake, as they say.
The voters
are really angry. They are angry at both parties, at the president, and at
Congress. They are sick and tired of the status quo war, high taxes,
corruption, runaway spending, soaring gasoline prices, and poisoned spinach.
Theyre mad as hell and theyre not going to stand for it
anymore. They are demanding change in Washington. And in a democracy like
our own, the voters are sovereign.
So, this
November, the voters, in their awful fury, are going to rise up and send the
incumbents back to Washington. Thats what they always do. This is
how a vibrant democracy works.
Is there any
cure for it? Yes. Thats why Im writing. When the voters have
made such a hash of democracy, the only hope lies with the nonvoters.
Superficially,
the nonvoters would appear to be the brainiest part of the electorate: the
elite 50 per cent or so who are too sensible to bother thinking about whether
to elect Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum. So they leave us at the mercy of
those who imagine they see crucial differences between the two candidates
clones who pretend they are diametric opposites.
Then
Tweedle-Dee gets elected, and then reelected, and reelected again, per omnia
saecula saeculorum. He becomes what we now call a career
politician, something that would have horrified the Founding Fathers,
who hoped for frequent rotation in office.
The obvious
solution is for nonvoters to start voting, or for a few voters to get smart.
The rule should be simply this: Never vote for an incumbent. Always vote for
the challenger, even if he looks worse than the incumbent.
This would
achieve several things. It would put an end to the career politician, it would
nullify the power of money in elections, and it would weaken both major
parties. Reelection Day would be a thing of the past.
![[Breaker quote for Thou Shalt Not Reelect: A simple way to reform]](2006breakers/060926.gif) If
only a tenth of the vote regularly
went against the incumbent, we would have rotation in office
and the advantages of incumbency would be wiped out. The ability of
politicians and, especially, their parties to accumulate power would be
severely reduced. This would also mean that few politicians would be worth
bribing, directly or indirectly.
After all,
most elections are decided by less than 10 per cent of the vote. The regular
defeat of most incumbents would be a healthy development. Let
Tweedle-Dum rule for one term. Then throw him out too.
Even now,
voters are by no means entirely dumb, though they are usually confused.
Many of them realize instinctively that voting means choosing the lesser evil
and that government is most bearable when neither party has a monopoly of
power. Gridlock, with both parties frustrating each other, is
the nearest approximation we have to constitutional government.
An incumbent
is a man who already has more power than he should. As a rule he should be
replaced at the first opportunity. The few exceptions dont matter
enough to modify the rule.
The American
political genius has always lain in its instinct to limit government, to divide
and disperse power. The powers of the Federal Government are listed,
defined, specified; some are denied to it, some are positively assigned to the
states, some are distributed among the three branches. At the state level,
we have similar divisions, along with county and municipal levels and their
specific jurisdictions. And then there are courts and juries.
Power can
always be abused, tyranny can never be entirely done away with, and some
people will always see the increase and concentration of political power as
progressive or at least advantageous to themselves. Maybe
the best we can do is to cultivate the habit of resistance.
And one way
to achieve this is to keep reminding ourselves that keeping a political office
is not a sort of property right. The seat now held by Senator Tweedle-Dee is
not his seat. If the people have any political right, it is the
right to change their rulers, and they should exercise this right as often as
they can.
Again: If only
a tenth of the eligible voters determined to vote against every incumbent in
every election, American politics could be peacefully revolutionized.
Joseph Sobran
|