240 years ago Patrick Henry and his fellow founding fathers talked a lot of trash about the British Empire, and rightfully so. “Taxation without representation” wasn’t just a complaint, it was the rally cry of an entire revolution. But a funny thing happened on the way to independence. The more we distanced ourselves from England’s oppressive policies, the more we seemed to embrace them. For example, no sooner had we immigrated here to escape religious intolerance, than we began to burn women at the stake. Ironically, though, as time passed, England began to embrace the ideals we aspired to, while we gradually lost sight of them.
Today, England views war as a last resort, while our last five presidents have called for invasions and bombings like some sort of first responder to a burning building. England offers free healthcare for all permanent residents, while Americans struggle to pay premiums, then have to declare bankruptcy when faced with a catastrophic illness. Over the pond, violent crime is almost nonexistent, even though police routinely don’t carry weapons. On the other hand, there are more guns in America than there are Americans, yet we wonder why people are killing each other. But perhaps the most obvious disparity between us and the Motherland, is the way we go about electing our governing bodies.
In England, the campaign season usually runs for one month, which is about 23 months shorter than ours. British politicians cannot advertise on television, while our candidates saturate the airwaves. In England, the political parties cannot spend more than $29 million dollars, while over here, Hillary Clinton alone will raise close to a billion dollars. There’s also a big difference in what the down-ballot candidates can spend in our respective countries. In England, local candidates can’t spend more than $60,000, while here in America, congressional candidates are free to raise as much money as they like.
Last month, the Senate Leadership Fund spent $8 million dollars on TV ads for Senator Richard Burr. And while Burr’s opponent Deborah Ross is keeping pace, other congressional challengers aren’t faring as well. According to OpenSecrets.org, second district congressman George Holding has raised $2 million dollars while his opponent has only raised $26,000. The scenario in our 5th district is similar, with incumbent Virginia Foxx ahead by over a million dollars. And then there’s the D.C. super PAC that poured $1 million dollars into Ted Budd’s 13th district campaign, which assured him the GOP nomination, and gives him about a million advantages over his Democratic opponent Bruce Davis.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress could tackle campaign finance reform, but it won’t, because elected officials in both parties don’t want to kill the golden goose. In contrast, the political system in Great Britain has successfully evolved without involving big corporations and lobbyists who expect quid pro quo.
According to Matt Badcock of Leeds Beckett University (and adjusting for inflation), British politicians now spend less than half per vote than they did in the 19th century. That’s progress. Meanwhile, Justin Fisher of London’s Brunel University described America’s political system as, “the worst of all worlds—focused on raising money and not about getting ideas across.”
If you doubt that assessment, then just watch a few campaign ads, or catch a few minutes of a debate. Trump and Clinton mainly talk about obscene speech and groping. McCrory and Cooper spar over bathroom protocol. And Burr and Ross just want to talk about sex offenders. To paraphrase Mr. Fisher, the more money our candidates spend, the less they actually say.
Our only hope is to create impartial re-districting commissions, strike down Citizens United, and elect representatives who favor term limits. In the meantime, I’d like to see local broadcasters impose a cap on political inventory which would be a de facto move to limit campaign spending. I’d also like to see a joint FEC/FCC commission established to impose hefty fines on any candidate who airs a false statement.
Of course, if all else fails, we can always ask England to take us back. But it would be much easier and far less embarrassing if we simply tried to embrace the ideals that brought us here in the first place.
Time to Emulate the Empire
240 years ago Patrick Henry and his fellow founding fathers talked a lot of trash about the British Empire, and rightfully so. “Taxation without representation” wasn’t just a complaint, it was the rally cry of an entire revolution. But a funny thing happened on the way to independence. The more we distanced ourselves from England’s oppressive policies, the more we seemed to embrace them. For example, no sooner had we immigrated here to escape religious intolerance, than we began to burn women at the stake. Ironically, though, as time passed, England began to embrace the ideals we aspired to, while we gradually lost sight of them.
Today, England views war as a last resort, while our last five presidents have called for invasions and bombings like some sort of first responder to a burning building. England offers free healthcare for all permanent residents, while Americans struggle to pay premiums, then have to declare bankruptcy when faced with a catastrophic illness. Over the pond, violent crime is almost nonexistent, even though police routinely don’t carry weapons. On the other hand, there are more guns in America than there are Americans, yet we wonder why people are killing each other. But perhaps the most obvious disparity between us and the Motherland, is the way we go about electing our governing bodies.
In England, the campaign season usually runs for one month, which is about 23 months shorter than ours. British politicians cannot advertise on television, while our candidates saturate the airwaves. In England, the political parties cannot spend more than $29 million dollars, while over here, Hillary Clinton alone will raise close to a billion dollars. There’s also a big difference in what the down-ballot candidates can spend in our respective countries. In England, local candidates can’t spend more than $60,000, while here in America, congressional candidates are free to raise as much money as they like.
Last month, the Senate Leadership Fund spent $8 million dollars on TV ads for Senator Richard Burr. And while Burr’s opponent Deborah Ross is keeping pace, other congressional challengers aren’t faring as well. According to OpenSecrets.org, second district congressman George Holding has raised $2 million dollars while his opponent has only raised $26,000. The scenario in our 5th district is similar, with incumbent Virginia Foxx ahead by over a million dollars. And then there’s the D.C. super PAC that poured $1 million dollars into Ted Budd’s 13th district campaign, which assured him the GOP nomination, and gives him about a million advantages over his Democratic opponent Bruce Davis.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress could tackle campaign finance reform, but it won’t, because elected officials in both parties don’t want to kill the golden goose. In contrast, the political system in Great Britain has successfully evolved without involving big corporations and lobbyists who expect quid pro quo.
According to Matt Badcock of Leeds Beckett University (and adjusting for inflation), British politicians now spend less than half per vote than they did in the 19th century. That’s progress. Meanwhile, Justin Fisher of London’s Brunel University described America’s political system as, “the worst of all worlds—focused on raising money and not about getting ideas across.”
If you doubt that assessment, then just watch a few campaign ads, or catch a few minutes of a debate. Trump and Clinton mainly talk about obscene speech and groping. McCrory and Cooper spar over bathroom protocol. And Burr and Ross just want to talk about sex offenders. To paraphrase Mr. Fisher, the more money our candidates spend, the less they actually say.
Our only hope is to create impartial re-districting commissions, strike down Citizens United, and elect representatives who favor term limits. In the meantime, I’d like to see local broadcasters impose a cap on political inventory which would be a de facto move to limit campaign spending. I’d also like to see a joint FEC/FCC commission established to impose hefty fines on any candidate who airs a false statement.
Of course, if all else fails, we can always ask England to take us back. But it would be much easier and far less embarrassing if we simply tried to embrace the ideals that brought us here in the first place.