I realize I'll probably get downvoted in this thread for saying this, but allowing more money into politics is actually giving people more choice in elections, and Lessig is becoming a victim of the problems with the system before Citizens United. Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President. We have more choice than ever. Why? Because these individuals can afford to do so, and don't need to rely on getting mainstream media attention to find donors they need to finance their campaign. Lessig, on the other hand, is running a campaign to fix campaign finance, and is running into issues with what hobbled the system before - media gatekeepers who aren't giving his campaign any attention. Yes, I understand that allowing the free flow of money into politics favors the wealthy, but at least now there is some sort of counterbalancing force to the media basically deciding who becomes our President. I don't know what would be a true democratic equalizer (maybe eliminating political parties), but Lessig's way of doing things had more problems than many want to acknowledge.
Larry Lessig: I'm All In
71–80 of 167 posts
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sanders' self-claimed biggest issue is climate change, which in my opinion trumps campaign finance reform.
I think the point is, until there's funding reform, climate reform doesn't stand much of a chance. Similarly, once the funding reform is done, climate reform will get promoted.
The problem is, everyone has his personal list of priorities topped by "something without which everything else does not make sense".
* campaign reform: "how can you discuss anything when your counterpart is crooked?"
* climate change: "how can you discuss anything if your house is underwater?"
* fracking: "how can you discuss anything when people are causing earthquakes?"
* poverty: "how can you discuss anything when people are dying of hunger?"
* etc etc
One should be humble enough to support the candidate that is the closest to one's personal pet argument, but who also has a chance to actually get elected. Lessig has no chance whatsoever, simple as. He wants hard to be a Nader but clearly lacks even the moderate mainstream popularity Nader had.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#73I admire Mr. Lessig's convictions and his ideas, but frankly the concept of a self-resigning President is half-baked. It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the Presidency in United States politically and socially and image it projects to the world at large. The United States isn't a startup. You can't have a Minimum Viable Presidency focused on a single issue.
> It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the Presidency in United States politically and socially and image it projects to the world at large.
Your comment is ironic to the core. The role of POTUS is not to serve the current system of contributors after the fact. That's the nature of the problem. The idea that POTUS is sancrosanct or even in a different class (projects to the world at large, lol) shows how far we have diverged from the concept of a public servant. POTUS is just a man and deserving little more than cursory protections and respect. The political system has been corrupted to make it a MONUMENTAL effort to get someone in the office. This does not make the station special. We have had real need for reform and this backward thinking that POTUS is elevated is part of the cultural shift that needs to occur to break the corruption cycle. It won't, of course. Partly because people are too stupid to break their own socialization (nobody will acknowledge it's so broken that anyone elected is unqualified, so you get lip service to "fight corruption") and partly because statistically, no large democracy has ever even accidentally broken the cycle before a catastrophic decline.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is more a problem with vote distribution. The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different. Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats. This is not the case in all d…
I suppose you have a valid point. I have one question, though: aren't political TV ads actually illegal in most European countries?
European political campaigns are usually cheaper than US ones, but they're by no means cheap in absolute terms. We have corruption scandals here too... before '92, a lot of political parties were almost entirely funded by either the US or the USSR; they've been economically struggling ever since.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…
> Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. I'd argue it has been destructive to our country. Specifically with the way healthcare reform was passed. All democrats by the slimmest margin. Absolutely no wider support for one of the biggest changes in our country in a long time, as far as domestic policy goes. The result? More fighting than before.…
Huh? 60% support in Congress plus the support of the President plus the support of the Supreme Court (when the ACA was tested there) plus the overwhelming support of the American people wasn't good enough for you? Under what circumstances, then, WOULD you be able to accept that health care reform was a good idea and a good thing to pass?
The constant infighting caused by Republicans is a result of their corporate masters not wanting any health care reform passed, ever. And the gridlock they have created is a result of their endemic racism and inability to accept a black President. They stated, out loud for God's sake, from day one, that their admitted goal was to block Obama from doing anything at all.
Sorry, have to disagree. The amount of support for the ACA was plenty. Asking for even more support for that, in a country where we have Fox News around to brainwash a significant portion of Americans, just really amounts to insisting on permanent gridlock.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is more a problem with vote distribution. The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different. Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats. This is not the case in all d…
I suppose you have a valid point. I have one question, though: aren't political TV ads actually illegal in most European countries?
We have Party Political Broadcasts in the UK, which are scheduled and appear in tv listings one party at a time. They are usually after the news, but not always, and regular programmes are shifted by 5-10 minutes to accommodate them.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance. The most likely way to impro…
Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…
And yet, I doubt you can point to any actual harm that occurred when Democrats did briefly hold both houses of Congress after Obama was elected. BTW, there never was "total control", at least not if you meant control of all three branches; the Supreme Court remained a solid conservative majority during that period. And the Republicans of course still had the filibuster, which is plenty of power to represent any "legitimate points and interests" that they sought to advance. And they were able to complain enough about Obamacare to flip the House back almost immediately in the next election.
If people vote for one party to control everything, maybe, just maybe, they had a good reason to do so. I see no reason to assume this would be automatically destructive to the country.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#78I realize I'll probably get downvoted in this thread for saying this, but allowing more money into politics is actually giving people more choice in elections, and Lessig is becoming a victim of the problems with the system before Citizens United. Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President. We have more choice than ever. Why? Because these individuals can afford to do so, and don't need to rel…
I disagree. Do you want "more choices" that are paid and pre-selected by the same 200 richest families? Or do you want actual choices supported by the People, who get their money not from few large donations, but from many small ones.
In the latter's case, you can have serious campaign finance reform, without restricting your real choices. What we want is for the money "vote" to be an equalizer just like the regular vote. If 200 families can pick a "winner", despite millions of other people actually wanting someone else to win, then something is seriously wrong with that democracy, and the money vote is way too skewed in favor of a few.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#79Lessig should do something useful and realistic, instead of this grandstanding and pretending that he can go from zero-to-President in 2.4 seconds as if politics were some sort of Tesla. It's embarrassing.
To wit: he should run for the House, or Senate, or he should support candidates who are in favor of overturning Citizens United (i.e., Democrats).
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#80Lessig should do something useful and realistic, instead of this grandstanding and pretending that he can go from zero-to-President in 2.4 seconds as if politics were some sort of Tesla. It's embarrassing. To wit: he should run for the House, or Senate, or he should support candidates who are in favor of overturning Citizens United (i.e., Democrats).
Uh, the PAC he started does the candidate support, but he can't be associated with it while running as president.