Another Solution
Jim Sullivan
Here's
another solution to campaign finance reform. Do away with the political
campaign entirely, at least the one for U.S. president. Yes, it's
hard to imagine, but it could happen. All the proposed campaign reforms
and the attendant non changes about presidential elections that Americans
have come to dislike, indeed, to loathe, like never-ending campaigning,
interminable fund raising, uncoordinated primaries, and all the rest of
it could be eliminated some might even say exterminated. And as
a result, many citizens might just be motivated to return to the polling
booths to, once again, vote. However, where the presidency is concerned,
that might no longer be necessary because the new concept wouldn't require
it.
The
proposed solution is to privatize presidential selection. After the
last election, the country was halfway there anyway. The one with
the most votes didn't win. What's more, the U.S. Supreme Court virtually
said who the president was going to be.
Privatizing
would mean amending the U.S. Constitution, but that could be done.
The new provision would allow the Federal government, specifically congress,
to contract out to a private U.S. based corporation, like, say, Enron,
Global Crossing, or Arthur Andersen. That firm would be responsible
for appointing the U.S. president every four years. Candidate status,
primaries, money raising, and campaigning itself could and would be eliminated
once and for all. Let the company that has the contract to choose
the chief executive do so, and keep the general public away from the process
entirely.
Naturally,
the person chosen would be required to conform to the U.S. Constitution's
rules concerning eligible potential presidents: a minimum age of
35 and being a U.S. born citizen. Other than those two requirements,
all that would have to be done is to select a suitable and capable individual
to fill the job.
That
would include, but not be limited to (it is to be hoped) someone who is
healthy, highly intelligent, well educated, speaks one or more foreign
languages, studies history, understands science, knows economics, has an
appreciation of the arts and letters, comprehends theology, and is aware
of humanitarian and environmental world goals. Oh, and possess ethics
and morals, too. The president's membership in any particular political
party would be immaterial.
The
U.S. government would pay for this presidential selection. The contracted
firm could be compensated with a pre-set fee, say, one hundred million
dollars for providing the president. If the president proved worthy,
another four-year term (with a two-term limit) could be bestowed upon that
person. The firm that had selected the president could be rewarded
by a grateful American population with, perhaps, another one hundred million
dollar payment. This would still be a bargain for Americans.
If,
on the other hand, that firm didn't provide a first-rate president, he
or she could be terminated from the job at any time by a simple majority
of congress. And the firm that had selected such a person would have
to pay back half its fee. Moreover, that firm would lose its contract
to supply future presidents.
Of
course, the president would have to deal with congress, both major political
parties, and the supreme court, not to mention government bureaucracy.
The chief executive would also need to handle all matters that the currently
elected president faces: war and peace, justice for all, prudent
fiscal policies, budgeting, and what have you. But the president
would not have to work on getting elected or having to make disingenuous,
promise-the-moon pledges to constituents in exchange for votes. In
short, this person would not owe anything to anyone, not even to the firm
that hired him for the president's position. Moreover, he would be
compensated annually as are most corporate CEOs, handsomely and in the
millions of dollars.
Could
this new method of getting a U.S. president be any worse or more haphazard
than the method now in use? Just look at chief executives this country
has elected. It's difficult to see any new method and end result
that could be more disastrous than the present one.
So,
let's consider privatizing the job, avoiding campaign rhetoric and hoopla.
No TV sitcom or soap opera would have to be preempted.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution.
Cash is preferred.
Checks are accepted only by prior arrangement. Please inquire.
November 2003
Page 2 |
Frontiersman,
1510 North 22nd Drive, Show Low, Arizona 85901
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
frontiersman@ida.net |
|