What Are Elections For?

Townhall.com ^ | January 19, 2016 | Thomas Sowell

[poconopundit]

Thanks.   Can't submit anything on TownHall today.   They throw up a questionnaire in front of me.   You can't even close the questionnaire to read the articles — they are asking for my name, email address, zipcode, candidate, and first born child :- ).

Sad case.   I guess TownHall has turned into click bait site for some undisclosed GOP candidate or candidates.

Sounds like they are pulling out all the stops to earn as much money as they can while the going is good.   Once Trump wins a few states, a lot of the money will dry up for TownHall.

If Trump gets the nod, many of the commentators on TownHall will find themselves mostly irrelevant.

Great, may the GOP regime change begin.

[grania]

Great, may the GOP regime change begin

Not just the GOP. First the Clintons, now Obama. They're all so into themselves that there's been no development of talent or leadership that can solve the problems we face. The Republicans have had some younger talent emerge, but it gets compromised and marginalized before they develop.

What's my point? I hope there are sane people in positions where they can make a difference who realize what bad straits we're in, both political parties. The best thing that could happen for the nation is a "time out" with four years of a Trump presidency. Let's who see who develops the right priorities, which are serving the US and not their bottom line. Let's SEE who, both political parties can work to restore the US, under the mentoring and watchful eye of Trump.

(FWIW, I'm attempting to get above the fray here. I really hope no Cruzers come in with the usual stuff they direct at those of us who favor Trump)

[jazusamo]

*PING*
Thomas Sowell

[poconopundit]

...The Republicans have had some younger talent emerge, but it gets compromised and marginalized before they develop.

Couldn't agree more.   This election cycle has really exposed how pervasive the corruption is and how influential the donor class is in setting the agenda.

True campaign finance reform would be blessing.

[rawcatslyentist]

What Are Elections For?

Theatre tickets for a political punch and judy puppet show!

[rawcatslyentist]

The biggest question in my mind is, are we looking toward a charismatic messianic leader

The Real Leader is still behind the curtain, but not for long.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” This election cycle has really exposed how pervasive the corruption is and how influential the donor class is in setting the agenda. “

They OWN the agenda, because they OWN the politicians. And the “newbies” are told as soon as they get to D.C. either go with the “program”, or we will freeze you out. We will make you invisible.

[grania]

They OWN the agenda because they OWN the pols. And the "newbies" are told as soon as they get to DC either go with the "program" or we will freeze you out. We will make you invisible.

The irony is that the Cruz campaign has shown us just how inescapable it is. It's the best argument for what I've suggested. That would be a four-year Trump presidency would be a "time out" during which there could be some real financial reform and true leadership, both parties, could emerge.

It's possible. Trump speaks out pretty strongly about Super Pacs.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Trump would fix, or at least make tolerable a whole lot of things. Nobody else comes close.

[poconopundit]

Yes, yes.   And Trump is medicine to rid the patient of its cancer.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yep. He is “Last Chance Gas”

[poconopundit]

And I would add that for a freshman senator, you've got to hand it to Cruz for taking it to the establishment.   And they have treated him like the plague.

So I give Cruz a lot of credit for fighting the good fight.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“And I would add that for a freshman senator, you’ve got to hand it to Cruz for taking it to the establishment. And they have treated him like the plague.

So I give Cruz a lot of credit for fighting the good fight. “

Yes he did.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Eric Hoffer's shrewd insight into the success of charismatic leaders was that the "quality of ideas seems to play a minor role," What matters, he pointed out, "is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world."

Perhaps in a country that has seem nothing from it's leaders but cringing before "world opinion" and stomping on it's people and culture by those same leaders "we are going to do what is best for us" is a quality idea.

[Vigilanteman]

True campaign finance reform would be blessing.

Ain't going to happen with the current gaggle of Jag-offs. Now if we had a majority of Mike Lees and Jeff Sessions in the senate, house and on the supreme court, it might happen. But we are a long, long way from that.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

True campaign finance reform would be blessing.

We have one tremendous problem: "the mainstream media." That is, wire service journalism. Not to put too fine a point on it, the AP and its membership (other wire services - and fictional "media" - merely have a similar, but lesser, effect).

Journalism generally is criticism rather than doing, since it does not imply taking responsibility for results - not in the way that an entrepreneur profits handsomely or loses his shirt, at least. Inherently, then, journalism tends to the opposite attitude to that expressed by T. Roosevelt in his "Man in the Arena" speech:

"it is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena"

does not suit journalists at all. They much prefer the exact opposite of that, as expressed first by Elizabeth Warren:

"You didn't build that.

The wire service merely homogenizes journalism so that that latter viewpoint is the only one that is recognized in journalism. At all.

Given that the First Amendment is, rightly, sacrosanct, newspapers and newscasts will persist - and even in the best case, will tend, at least, in the same socialist direction that they now do in spades. But the conceit of campaign finance "reform" is that everyone but journalists should basically shut up. Which makes wonderful sense if you are a journalist, and great sense if you are any other brand of socialist - but is anathema to any conservative who recognizes the swindle for what it is.

Journalism is not objective, and never will be. And cannot be regulated. Therefore conservatives must insist on also not being regulated.

Ronald Reagan could not have run for office in the way he did if McCain-Feingold had been in effect. And that is no accident.

[Vigilanteman]

Amen. True campaign finance reform can only exist in a world with unicorns who crap out Skittles.

[poconopundit]

...Journalism is not objective, and never will be. And cannot be regulated. Therefore conservatives must insist on also not being regulated.

You make a very good point here.   Maybe campaign finance "reform" i.e. restrictions, cannot be made to work in the real world.

But can we at least have greater campaign "transparency" to let us know who the people are (above a certain limit) who are contributing money to a Presidential campaign?   I hope so.

To my mind, it's Trump who's put the spotlight on campaign financing like it's never been done before.

So barring any new legislation, I think we should at least hire Johnson & Johnson to figure out how to bottle Trump's medicine :- )

I'm also a great lover of The Man in the Arena...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

But can we at least have greater campaign "transparency" to let us know who the people are (above a certain limit) who are contributing money to a Presidential campaign? I hope so.

Sigh . . . there are even problems with that. It sounds good, until Mormons oppose gay marriage and find themselves being harassed for it. Then, not so much. As

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights. And as Thomas Sowell put it, some truths can only be said anonymously - or posthumously. Did Americans have the right to anonymous political expression before the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Publius - the composite of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay which composed the Federalist Papers - answers the question.

I will say that foreign government money should be forbidden;

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

puts Hillary on the wrong side of the law with the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation which, even if those moneys were exclusively done to do good, still constituted an award, from foreign governments, to the Secretary of State for being a good girl in their eyes. And the huge honoraria paid to Bill by foreign governments while his wife was SecState are IMHO no cleaner.

I put it to you that it is the authority, and therefore the responsibility, of the state legislatures to expand that constitutional stricture to anyone running for POTUS or VP:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

People who have recently been getting serious money from foreign governments should not be allowed on the ballot. It would take only a handful of competitive (purple) states doing that to make it impractical to try to run if you are guilty of that.

[NorthMountain]

Mostly, elections are for choosing between arsenic and cyanide.