It is a few minutes before 3 AM and I can't go back to sleep. The 4 and 6 year old girls burst in the room an hour ago, each accusing the other of kicking off the covers or some variation thereof. Somehow, my wife and I ended up talking about the government and I kinda knew I would end up here until I got this particular gripe off my chest.
She says "that Dream Act thing passed."
"Only in the House," I said. "It won't get passed in the Senate even though the Democratic backers have a majority."
This prompted a bit of discussion on bicameralism and the role of the filibuster. Ultimately I don't know if I am in favor of this tool existing or not. It is not elegant. It is the single most blatant measure that makes the old joke "If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con', what is the opposite of 'progress'?" so funny, and painful. The fact that the action of filibustering is itself intentionally talking endlessly about nothing, specifically so the government can do nothing, only adds to the silliness of it all. But this thing gives the important tradition of majority rule with minority rights some teeth. So what can you do? The question goes back at least until ancient Rome. Maybe even Greece. How do you get a government to have the power to do what you need it to without the governing persons taking advantage of their power? Democracy, of course. Well, sorta.
When I have the nationalistic pride part of me driving, I really think it is cool that the United States has never had a monarch. George Washington really and truly could have become one but the guy declined. The people pretty much expected him to. His contemporaries would have backed him if he decided to. But the man was Bilbo Baggins voluntarily giving up the One Ring. His allegiance was to the nation alone. And he felt that, after eight years as its leader, he had done his part to set it straight. So he...retired. If all leaders were as benevolent as our first, there would be little need for democracy. But for every Washington you have many Neros. So we have this elaborate system of balancing power by playing one branch of government off another. If you suck at your job you will lose it. The problem with that is that your employer is a nation of people who are educated about you and your job by the media. Consequently, all politicians are themselves ruled by protection of their own image so that their allegiance is to that image first and the nation second. That is at the heart of the problems with our democracy. But how can you inhibit power without this nasty side effect? I don't know. I suspect that there is no way to. You have tyranny at one end of the spectrum and a dead fish at the other. My complaint is that we are too close to the dead fish end. But because I am not just filibustering, I have a solution to offer.
We need a king. That's right.
Did you know that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life? No elections. They are not beholden to their public image the way a politician is. So a beautiful thing happens at the Supreme Court - governing. You have these nine people who keep each other in line and have only their legacies to protect. Because I am not completely off my rocker, I don't mean that I want to be ruled by an absolute dictator. But a ruling family that can stay out of the public eye like the supreme court has its advantages. They decide based on their own internal politics how to intervene when congress deadlocks or the president is clearly a nincompoop. At all other times, they would be relegated to observe and advise status. How can this be designed to always work that way? Hell if I know. But consider how beneficial it could be to have a leader who is not a politician. Perhaps the true Fourth Estate should be the American Monarch. It could be like having our own benevolent superhero with the with the superhuman ability to govern based on the needs of the nation and not the needs of his or her career.
No comments:
Post a Comment