I find distasteful the idea that the party pleading for "smaller government," (which means nothing to me, actually, because I've never seen a meaningful example of the use of this philosophy in practice) also wants more unfettered corporate money in elections.
If you support shrinking the size of government generally, should you not also support.... first, shortening the election cycle---to the extent that is even possible (how about British-style 4-week cycles?)....and second, reducing the amount of money we blow in the electioneering business? I guess on the second point my thinking could be criticized because these are decent jobs, and all. Don't want to shirk chances of economic recovery, and heaven forbid you question the idyllic profit model. I'm just saying it's sad how much it costs to run a campaign, considering all these fiscal challenges we face. And that it seems inconsistent to want your government to do so little, but to turn a blind eye to how much had to be spent to get you there. Cause, gee, to me---that's big government, too.
President Obama's campaign, even just the image of it, inspired because of the small-dollar donations coming from more people. You got the sense that this is how it should be. That is why Citizens United seemed to sting so much; it seemed like a direct rebuke on what I found so inspiring---a direct attack on our desire to decide for ourselves with our dollars. Because our dollars are few compared with those now busting (opaquely) through the gate.
If you want small government, cool. Just stop regulating my ability to marry, then-----oops! Did I slip off topic?.......If you want small government, do not applaud that which would increase the trend toward BIG elections for those wishing to become part of that government.
No comments:
Post a Comment