Blessings of Liberty - Part 2

Yup, that's me to the left. Aside from mysteries, I've written and perform a one-man play based on Ben Franklin. It's called (drum roll please): BEN FRANKLIN: AN INGENIOUS LIFE.

Franklin said, in a speech to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that there are two passions that govern the affairs of men, ambition and avarice. The love of power and the love of money. You can read the rest of his wise words on the graphic.

Because he feared the corrosive effect of money on the process of governing, Franklin believed that representatives should serve without compensation. That was a time when Congress did not pretend to meet year round, only convening periodically to conduct the people's business.

In part one of this "Blessings of Liberty" theme, I noted that members of Congress spend more than 4 and 1/2 times what they will earn during a two-year term in office in order to get elected. They have to raise several thousands of dollars each day toward their re-election. What's wrong with this picture?

I spent the last thirty years of my career working for non-profit organizations. In addition to working for Boards of Directors, over the years I also served on several non-profit Boards, even chairing three such Boards. I witnessed many discussions addressing the future of those organizations, and I saw people coming together time and again (often after serious debate) to agree on the way forward. And I've seen situations where a Board would hold off making a decision because three or four people (out of eighteen, for example) were opposed. Clearly these were people of good will, anxious to find a plan that the vast majority could support.

I'm of the belief that it is possible, on our most serious public debates, for the United States to chart a course on which the vast majority (65 to 70 percent) could agree. To achieve that, compromise is the order of the day. But what we have now is public policy held hostage to the interests of those few in our society that finance political campaigns. Our nation has always had spirited debate on policy disagreements (as I know from my research on Franklin), but what is troublesome now is that there isn't even a good debate going on about to make our governance more effective.

I'm of the opinion that only by moving to a more representative democracy can we wring the disproportionate influence of money out of the political system. Here are a few of my ideas for how we can have a more representative democracy, but I'd like to hear yours.

1) Return to smaller Congressional districts, so that our representatives are more in touch (Yes, I know that would mean having a lot more of them, but it could be worth it.).

2) Insist that Congress meet in Washington for only a few weeks at a time, perhaps as many as four times a year. (Video conferencing could make committee work just as productive while keeping representatives in their districts and more in touch with the needs of the electorate.)

3) Rather than traditional "elections," in the spirit of true representative democracy, groups of citizens (perhaps consisting of 1,000 people) could caucus in high school gyms/auditoriums every two years and select delegates, who would then meet with other delegates (from within a defined Congressional district) to choose the person to represent that district in Congress.

What do you think? Are you happy with governance in America? Do you worry that the same gridlock that has affected our national legislature will soon overtake State Houses as the cost of those campaigns become more and more expensive? This is the kind of conversation I think we need to have in our country.