Out with the old -- in with the new!
The American public has a well-deserved reputation for discarding
shopworn institutions that have ceased to serve any useful purpose,
and to replace them with imaginative and appropriate innovations Thus
passenger railroads were replaced by the airlines and private
automobiles, and daily newspapers by television, which is likely, in
turn to be supplanted by computers and the Internet.
In the same spirit , The Gadfly proposes that we abolish
elections and replace them with auctions.
Clearly, the polling statistics show that the public has lost
interest in elections. The Congress has no prospect of adopting
campaign finance reform. Furthermore, studies have shown a high
correlation between campaign spending and electoral success. Finally,
in the Buckley decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that "cash is
speech," thus effectively nullifying citizen equality at the ballot
box in favor of the "free market" principle that an individual's or a
corporation's political influence is properly proportional to one's
wealth.
We Americans are realists, after all. So why not simply
acknowledge the obvious facts: that public offices serve private
interests, and that legislators' votes are bought and sold by
bidders, politely referred to as "contributors." If this is the way
things are, and the public is too apathetic and alienated to care
about it, let's bring the practice out into the open. If elections
are relics of simpler and more naive times and public offices have
become commodities, let's treat them as such, honestly and
openly.
Consider the Advantages:
The auctions could become a public celebration of "the free
market," just as elections were at one time celebrations of the
archaic notions of "citizen democracy" and "public interest." The
biennial national "auctions" would be televised, with
Rather/Jennings/Brokaw as auctioneers. Throughout the realm,
stockholders would sit spellbound by their TV sets, cheering on
the CEOs as they bid for preferred Congressional treatment of the
viewer's investments.
"Conservatives" constantly complain about "tax and spend"
government programs. If our proposal is adopted, proceeds from the
auction might replace taxes. Furthermore, corporate complaints about
spending might subside as government, now a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the corporate bidders, spends at the behest of those who "bought"
it.
Nor is this the end of opportunities for "revenue enhancement."
Just think of the advertising space available on our currency, as
portraits of E. F. Hutton, Dean Witter, Donald Trump and Bill Gates
replace those of the dead presidents.
Still more opportunities: Recently, corporations have taken to
buying the privilege of having their names placed on major-league
stadia. So why not adopt the same practice for government buildings:
"The Archer-Daniels-Midlin Department of Agriculture," "The
Smithsonian/Boeing Space Museum," "The Prudential Securities Treasury
Building," "The General Motors Environmental Protection Agency."
With the privatization of the government, we would see an end to
political hypocrisy and public cynicism about government. With no
further pretense of representing "the people," politicians may now be
openly identified by their correct designations: e.g., "Congressman
Bliley from Philip Morris," "Senator Heston From NRA," and so on. For
purposes of identification, the logos of the corporate sponsors would
appear on the jackets of all members of Congress, and on the front of
the podia during their public appearances. On the nightly newscasts,
the anchors would announce, "this congressional bill brought to you
by the good folks at the National Manufacturers Association." And the
tobacco companies, relieved of the embarrassment of the health
warnings on the cigarette packs, can replace them with the label
"proud owners of the United States Government."
Finally, the efficiency managers of USA Inc. can go to work
and "downsize" the government, most notably by eliminating
redundancies. It has long been noted that federal regulatory agencies
are eventually "captured" by the private interests that they are
supposed to regulate. Now this "capture" can be openly acknowledged,
as the Securities and Exchange Commission merges with the New York
Stock Exchange, and the Federal Communications Commission, the
Federal Aviation Agency, etc., become trade associations of their
respective industries. And of course, with the privatization of
government, the distinction between corporate lobbyists and members
of Congress will disappear entirely, as lobbyists officially and
openly become legislators and vice versa.
Radical? Not at all! This proposal and all its nuances
follow directly from the "conservative" doctrine that "society" is
nothing more than a market place, and thus that all social problems
can best be solved through privatization and the free market. We have
privatized the Postal Service, and soon the schools will follow. So
why not the government itself?
If, on the other hand, we wish to keep our system of free
elections, perhaps we had better take another look at a campaign
reform law, keep sending the Buckley Case back to the Supremes until
they get it right, and call the soi-dissant "conservatives" by
their right names -- i.e., "radical anarchists." Finally, we might
entertain the notion that, as citizens of a free society, we are, and
deserve to be treated as more than mere customers, that our
polity is more than a marketplace, and that the most important
political document to appear in 1776 was written, not by Adam Smith,
but by Thomas Jefferson.
