Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:38:28 CDT
From:         Good but Harmful <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      A reply to Val's reply to me

(History of Presidential Mudlinging deleted)

>I would suggest that most campaigns have an amount of dirt in them,
>it's the apparent nature of the human animal to root out the dangers
>they perceieve in their leaders, and trumpet them throughout the
>land. If you can stand your candidate after that level of exposure,
>that person is a survivor, and you vote for them. Like others, I
>wish that more of the folks I know who are competent would try their
>hand at leadership.

I just thought I'd mention the late Claude Pepper's Senate fight in
1948(?), when his daughter was proclaimed to be a "known thespian"
and other wonderful, misleading names. I personally find Senate
campaigns and even local campaigns to slip into dirty politics
more often and deeper than presidential campaigns.

The "pressure cooker" aspect of the presidential campaign was mentioned
by every reviewer and interviewer for Ben-Cramers _Race for the Presi-
dency_ (or something of the sort). I think it serves to keep out many
good candidates, but after 9 months of straight campaigning, the
Oval Office should be a snap.

>I recall during the term limit's discussion that this was one of my
>philosophical arguments about the political structure of this
>country. Up to perhaps Eisenhower's time, political office could be
>a sinecure, but often gifted citizens rose within the process, served
>a few terms, and made way for others. The citizen-politician, serving
>for a period of limited terms, seems more desirable than the
>careerists, who would appear in a muddle of security and indecision.

Unfortunately, government has grown to such a point that the kind of
skills necessary to run a government are only available at the top
of the business ladder and within government, and considering the
attacks made against H. Ross ("think of how much money I could sell
*this* company for!"), I don't think that many would accept those
whose qualifications come from that end of the spectrum, leaving
political lifers.

>I believe change has to occur from the bottom. Folks have to come
>together on what they believe the philosophy and positions of a third
>or fourth party ought to hold, and create that movement. That, too,
>has occurred here before - the Know Nothings, the Populists, the
>Progressives, the American Party of George Wallace. I suggest that
>three or four "parties" might serve better than the current two.
>Ideology needs better representation. But, term limits, public
>financing (you are allowed to check off, and designate, up to $20 on
>your tax return to the completely publicly financed election process
>at the Federal level), changes in terms are necessary reforms, it
>seems to me. What's gathered by a certain cut-off date
>every four years is what gets spent - no more, no less.

I agree with your statement about the importance of the grassroots.
While I think a larger "party base" would be interesting, I personally
see no chance of any third party ever becoming as big as the other two,
because the first two tend to suck issues out of the third parties as
they become bigger, thus killing the party.

I disagree strongly with term limits but am sympathetic to the other
reforms. I *STILL* think that the most effective term limit is the
one when the voters no longer want you around. I think that the best
thing that could be done for american politics is the None of the
Above (NOTA) vote. I also like the idea of Motor Voter and other
registration-enhancing legislation (although I am sympathethic to
the "crooked registration" attacks that are the only negative things
about registration enhancement) and I wish that sample ballots were
mailed to everyone and that the voting day was on a day that people
don't work.

Seems to me that much of this "Term Limits - Kill the PACs" talk
is based on an idea that politics is not worthy of anyone's time.
Although I understand the problems with the "beltway mentality,"
I think that politics should be a perfectly acceptable vocation.
If politics is to be a hobby and not acceptable of full-time status,
what does this say about the governed? Remember, government is a
verb. Someone has to *do* it.

>But, I'd try to ram through Congress and the states a change in the
>term of Congress to four years, limit on terms to six, or four in the
>Senate, or any combination up to 24 years, excluding the Presidency.
>(I'd love to see a one term at a time of six year's Presidency,
>wherein a person could run again only if they sat out a term, and
>they got 10% of the signatures of voters in the last election to
>agree to put them back on a ballot again). I'd adopt the English
>system of limiting time of election and the amount of TV time in
>elections. Unlike the GOP, I do not agree that Congress and the
>Presidency need be controlled by the same party, historically this
>has rarely occurred.

Actually, considering the large amount of legislation proposed in
Congress, if gridlock was cut, think of the amount of new laws!
Lawyer Heaven!  B)   Hell for everyone else.  B(

>                     It allows for not only "gridlock," (which may be
>politically healthy on occasion), but for a "body of opposition" to a
>headstrong executive, which has been marked by four strong Republican
>wielders of executive power - Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush (with both
>Ford and Bush heavy users of the Presidential veto) - and one strong
>Democrat (Johnson), one weak Democrat (Carter), and one symbolic
>Democrat (Kennedy) since 1960. The counter-weight of Congress versus
>President is more useful than harmful, it would seem.

I agree strongly.

>>We have to do more than just elect a new president if we truly want
>>to change this country. --Vice President Dan Quayle

>This is probably true. What is hard for me to accept is that probably
>none of the reforms I outlined will occur, and this at a time when
>the citizenry COULD be re-engaged into the process by creating a
>fairer, more participatory process that excited them into believing
>that they mattered to the health of the political entity known as the
>United States. I'd want to see the most participate, not the least,
>as has been the trend since at least 1972. A last thought - D.C.
>ought to be a state, maybe Puerto Rico, American Samoa too. I often
>wonder if California broke into North California and South California
>if the two constituencies might be better served.

I am amazed and actually honored that you actually commented on a
.sig line. While I agree that on a fairness level, the above states
should get statehood, I think that two more senators to represent
mostly urban people is unnecessary and would tilt the balance farther
away from the rural areas where I live and most of my family lives.
I'd put DC under Maryland just like Alexandria went to Virginia due
to the War between the States.

>In closing, I expect to be lambasted heavily for some of this. But, I
>suggest to all of you, a dialogue on what might happen MIGHT produce
>results one day, so it seemed worth the effort to me to spark some
>conversation on some of these issues.

I respectfully disagree. I try not to lambast. At least on this list B)

>VMS

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.
              --Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics