Will Stronger Parties Fix Washington Gridlock?

United States Capitol

United States Capitol (Photo credit: Jack in DC)

In his National Review article, “Why We Need Stronger PartiesReihan Salam asserts that giving parties more central control over candidates’ ability to stray from party lines and also the financing of their campaigns will solidify the views of each party and prevent fracturing of party alliances that are allegedly behind government gridlock.  This is, of course, a very fascist view of politics, as any move to centralize power always is.  Doesn’t matter whether you are Progressive or Compassionately conservative.  Both sides tend to advance the fascist agenda.

As for whether such a move could end government gridlock, I suspect that he is correct on that point, since, once no persons in the party are allowed to have a dissenting opinion, it will be much easier to ram through much more statutory bull roar on our quickening march to One World under Banks, with liberty and justice for none.  As for its ability to lead to meaningful legislation that could actually fix the country, I would have to voice and unqualified “no”.

Government gridlock is not caused by politicians any more than freeway gridlock is caused by idiot drivers.  It is true that idiot drivers make life more difficult on the roadways.  But the real culprit is that the traffic structures simply have too many cars occupying them.  (Flow experts have told me that increasing highway speeds allows more throughput in the same time frame and would virtually eliminate gridlock without any upgrading of capacity.)  Similarly, the real problem with the government is that there are simply too many regulations to allow smooth traffic flow of governance.

Obamacare, as an example, has already translated to hundreds of thousands of pages of implementation procedures.  No one, absolutely no one, can possibly have a clue as to how it should be implemented in all cases.   And Obamacare is just one of 8000+ pieces of legislation by which this country is to be governed.  Consequently, there are literally millions of pages of legalese that have to be navigated every day.  Each on applies to everyone in some way, but no one can really know how it applies to him.  Fortunately, there are millions of lawyers, accountants and paralegals to help sort it all out.   But they are all trumped by the bureaucrats that are charged with administering the laws, none of whom can possibly even know the section of regulations for which they are charged.  These bureaucrats are, of course, highly partisan in themselves, which leads to constant flip-flopping on interpretations of legislation at the local level–a constant source of frustration and expense for those who are subject to their political whims.

It seems to me that we could go a long way toward easing the sting of bureaucracy run amok by removing partisan politics from local and regional bureaucratic positions, even if this does nothing in the short run to unjam Washington.  How we would do this might be a little tricky.  However, suppose we would, for example, mandate that the EPA must craft its policies through a national referendum, instead of through the Congress or Executive Branch.  It may sound a little daunting to ask the general public to weigh in on these issues.  However, it provides a safeguard against these quasi-legal agencies making unilateral decisions and it removes the ability of the party in power from constantly altering the rules and denying the citizenry the the ability to make long-range plans without constant fear of losing property or rights.  Since national referenda cannot be crafted quickly or without considerable care, this would allow much greater time to the people to digest what is going on and come to a reasonable decision as to how to proceed.

Actually, the idea of a national referendum could help Washington as well, since the will of the people could be known if major shifts in public policy (quasi-law) needed such a mandate.  Some might question why, then, we would even need politicians in Washington.  But, someone has to craft the referenda!

Again, the real problem is the mass of quasi-legal legislation that has been allowed to go on the books since Roosevelt created the Corporate United States less than an hour after presenting the “emergency legislation” to the congress, almost none of whom had a chance to read it.  It is not the American people who have gone bankrupt, but rather this corporation, which was funded by the Federal Reserve.  The real solution, then, to government gridlock is to force a closure of the United States Corporation.  Immediately, all the tort laws that govern it would be null and void.

In the short fall, it would fall to the states to regulated themselves in all matters not covered by the constitution.  The Congress would have to meet immediately to re-establish and regulate the military in the absence of the Department of Defense (an extra-constitutional corporate quasi-governmental apparatus).  The congress would need to cancel all federal reserve notes, declare the national debt null and void re-issue new treasury notes based on a fixed standard, such as gold and silver.   They would need to establish a new budget dealing with only the military and those federal functions which are not reserved to the states.  This budget would then be apportioned to the states based solely on population.  Many states would see their contributions to the federal government rise substantially, given that they would receive no subsidies in return.  However, this would be more than offset by the fact that all monies once collected from the states by the federal bureaucracies would now remain in the states, effectively reducing drain on the revenues of the states and their respective citizens substantially.

All states would once again be considered sovereign within their respective borders.  States would have immediate power to expel anyone not legally within state boundaries.  All states would immediately become responsible for their own policing and welfare programs.  All federal debts would immediately be cancelled.

Many will call this a pipe dream.  That is exactly how most people saw it in 1776, when a few brave men had the audacity to iterate it the first time.   Much was sacrificed to make it a reality, but a reality it was.  It certainly is much less of a pipe dream than ever thinking that more centralizing of power could ever fix the mess we have made.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Law and Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s