Justin Schuck | JustinSchuck.com/blog: The Castration of American Democracy

Over the last two centuries, members of congress from across the political spectrum have forged compromises that elevated our civil debate, moved our country forward, and gave the world a model for democracy. Sure, at times we did not live up to our highest ideals, but never in my lifetime have I seen such a sustained effort to undermine the function of our government. Government doesn't possess all the answers, but to say that a government has no answers is to fundamentally misunderstand the definition of democracy. When Americans work and sacrifice together in the battle for a better future, we solve tremendous problems.

CONSERVATIVE GRUMBLINGS
Led at its core by the vociferous anti-government rantings of conservative politicians and pundits, Americans' distrust of Washington has hardened the fringe elements of both parties, obliterating comity.

What remains in the crater of goodwill is a depression of courage. We, the American people--not the Republican people or the Democrat people--have systematically hacked off our head and limbs. No longer have we hands for the shaking or legs for the crossing of aisles. No longer have we a head filled with reasoned thought, engaged spirited debate. All that remains is a thrashing stump drenching the public discourse with venomous hate.

CHANGE IS NIGH
What will the U.S. Senate and House resemble after the 2010 mid-term elections? Vultures looking to amplify their stature in order to secure lucrative post-congressional lobbying positions are likely to vastly increase their numbers. These creatures are not interested in serving the greater good; the louder the voice the more lucrative the offers that come their way.

Tea baggers and their allies have such a fundamental distrust of government institutions that they will proudly elect vultures incapable of compromise, and vote out the few members with proven bipartisan track records.

The coming change is the final death blow to reality. Already hardened political lines will be pushed further to the fringes, offering more peril than reward for defying base ideology. The coming change is an even less productive congress, a more feckless administration, and a further weakened trust in public institutions.

WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?
I have worked for the last four years as an independent political strategist serving mostly Republican candidates. Although I am proudly a registered Democrat, I see value in productive and constructive opposition. I maintain a dim hope that sensible forces within the American right will survive the coming congressional massacre to help guide America through our time of national crisis.

When I was 15 I was really excited about the '96 Dole-Kemp campaign--yes, I was excited about Bob Dole and Jack Kemp--my political philosophy guided by a sense that government entitlements desperately needed reform, and in some cases, elimination. Social Security needed massive changes, preferably with full privatization for young workers like myself.

In 2000 I enthusiastically supported Sen. John McCain in his Republican presidential primary bid. He demonstrated that bipartisanship was a badge of honor, earned with decades of honorable service to our country. I worked for "McCain Youth 2000" in Long Island, New York, making signs, organizing rallies, handing out palm cards, and performing hundreds of other tasks. John McCain was the first presidential candidate to use the internet as a grassroots organizing tool, a fact for which he receives little credit. The forces of hate and political destruction now afoot are using tactics learned from this and subsequent campaigns to mount their attacks.

McCain was indeed a maverick in 2000. He rightly voiced his opinion and fought for comprehensive reforms that helped remove special-interest money from political campaigns. Yet McCain now faces the toughest reelection battle in his political career simply because we was willing to make hard compromises and work with Democrats. That is the poison of the tea bag.

POLITICAL GROWTH SPURT
Even though I had been leaning in the direction for some time, in 2003 I officially changed my registration to Democrat from Republican because the Democratic Party best represents core American values of hard work, justice for all and courage in the face of tyranny.

Seven years later, America is at a dangerous crossroads with peril lurking down every road. With the election of Barack Obama, I, like many Americans, believed that we were entering a period of broad cultural healing, and that he was the one leader who could successfully navigate the ship of state on its treacherous journey. I am not so naive to think that rainbows and unicorns were going to descend from the heavens and sprinkle fairy dust over Washington, replacing distrust and division with peace and cupcakes. However, what I did not expect was that the anti-government movement would be so successful in carrying their message of intolerance to facts and ignorance of history to the forefront of American debate.

Civil discourse is as lost an art form as the hand-written letter. Sure, people still write with their hands, but eloquent words on stationery are replaced with incoherent messages on poster board. The ingenuity and tenacity of the tea party forces has deeply confounded educated progressives, producing victories for dubious agents of change. This clearly presents the fundamental flaws of progressive political strategy.

The right responds most effectively to emotional messages which pull at their heartstrings. (This is why I enjoy working for Republican candidates.) The left, on the other hand, seeks to engage in a professorial debate of the facts. Throughout our history, Americans have never been concerned first and foremost with facts because facts ignore the notion of faith. The most direct route to winning the mind of a voter is through the heart.

Barack Obama wasn't elected president because he presented logical reasons for his election--though he did. He was elected president because the idea of a black president with a soft, palatable, progressive message fundamentally appealed to the hearts of Americans who wanted to believe that racism and segregation were ghosts of the past. While Obama was by far the best choice in 2008, America needed to seat 535 more Barack Obamas in desks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to effect real change in Washington. Sadly, there is only one Barack Obama.

MR. SMITH RUNS FROM WASHINGTON
As radical elements dip their tea bags in the well of America's future, they sit on the face of moderate members of congress with the solitary goal of preventing progress. These fundamentalists chase away the few good men and women left in our government. As retiring Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said in his surprise retirement announcement Monday, "I do not love congress." How could anyone love congress when every day is an election, and no real work can commence?

Mr. Bayh is not the first politician, nor will he be the last, to run from the poisoned game of congressional politics.

SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
For years I have advocated change in how we elect our representatives in Washington and how they perform their duties. Unfortunately, the current system prevents real progress from occurring because no congressional majority would vote to change the rules of the game.

Here are a few common sense solutions that would truly change the way Washington works:

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives should be elected to a single six-year term

Members of the U.S. Senate should be elected to a single eight-year term

U.S. Supreme Court justices could serve no more than a single 15-year term

Members of congress would be prevented from working as a lobbyist for 10 years after they complete their term

Presidents would be elected to a single eight-year term

Eliminating the senate filibuster and instituting majority rules

Judiciary positions would not be elected, rather appointed by the chief executive of that government level

All federal, state and local campaigns would be 100% publicly financed, and corporations would be barred from advertising, endorsing or supporting any candidate

Swift implementation of these ideas would by no means solve all of our country's myriad problems, but they would go along way to improving its function and restoring public trust.

GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY SOCIAL SECURITY
Since 1995 I have paid into this broken system--and likely will continue to do so for another 60-70 years--to receive a sharply negative return on my investment. By contrast, the de facto 0% interest rate I receive for any overpayment in my income taxes (tax refund) is a far more sound investment than any contribution to Social Security. Why should anyone have such an outrageous return on investment forced on them for a program that will eat up the largest share of our GDP in the decades to come?

As a long-time self-employed individual, I have paid a significantly higher percentage of my income to the federal government when compared to salaried individuals with similar compensation, but I don't have the benefit of social safety nets. There is no unemployment insurance for me to collect when business dries up; I can't afford health insurance premiums for myself or my employee-contractors; and my access to credit started shrinking in 2007 and early 2008 before the economy took a complete nose-dive. Like many other casualties of our broken system, I was forced to close my business and lay-off workers. Where was my bailout?

These sentiments are a large part of what is fueling the harsh rhetoric of the tea party movement. My greatest concern with the tea baggers is not that they are thoughtfully voicing the concerns of people like me, but that they are supporting candidates who have no interest in actually improving the function of government. These candidates engage in public temper tantrums reminiscent of the ineffectual anti-Iraq war movement, rather than debate the specifics of an issue. This repulsion of civil discourse is not going to usher in an age of better government; it will only make rational citizens less inclined to tune in to their message.

CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN
With no end in sight to the perverted dialog, these are among the many changes we shouldn't expect to see in the future:

The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Marriage equality for all

Comprehensive climate change legislation

Social Security and Medicare reform

Education reform

Broad and inclusive employment non-discrimination legislation

Restoration of balance to the American system of taxation

Making pay-as-you-go rules a constitutional amendment

Instituting a robust single-payer public health care system

A coherent national energy, infrastructure and technology policy

The strongest impediment to American progress is the political stagnation of the perpetual campaign. Without fundamental change to the idea of how the governement operates, we can't expect to place new people in a broken system and somehow expect different results. With the departure of centrist, reasonable individuals from the halls of political Washington, it's time to wave the white flag of our castrated democracy.

Justin Schuck is an independent political media strategist, and served as a senior policy adviser to the 2006 Scott Rolle for Attorney General campaign in Maryland. He was the founding editor of PoliticsAside.net and the executive director of The Center for Independent Dialog in Washington D.C.