I’ve been teaching political science full time at a community college for the last 18 years. And though I still love it, it’s gotten much harder. When I started, I reveled in the idea of educating young minds about the “American experiment.” Refreshing their memories (hopefully!) about basic civics but getting into the deeper and more complicated stuff, too.

I teach American politics with a passion. And part of that passion has always come from a joyful and almost patriotic presumption that my students and I were all part of the same political culture. Though we can differ greatly when it comes to policy, Americans were all grounded in certain universal givens.

Rule of law. Separation of powers. Equal protection and due process. The sanctity of our elections. Freedom of the press.  These are the pillars of the American republic.

And all have been under unprecedented attack by Donald Trump.

More troublesome have been the Americans that have sanctioned this war on these fundamental principles. The Americans pledging more loyalty to a crass and corrupt authoritarian than the ideals that connect us. The Americans acting as enablers to this president’s historic abuse of power.

With every cry of “coup” or “witch hunt” or “hoax” the president is attempting to destroy the long-established principle of checks and balances and the independence of the justice department.

With every assault on Congress and the courts he lays waste to the bedrock American principle of separation of powers.

With every yelp doubting the legitimacy of the electoral process he scorches the foundation of our democratic government.

With every tantrum about “fake news” he delegitimizes the place that journalism holds as a bulwark against tyranny.

And still, a disturbingly large fraction of the nation looks the other way. Others even applaud such behavior. They’re energized by the president’s nonsense about a “deep state” and even think that this crusade against the Constitution is somehow “draining the swamp.”

Students sitting in my classroom next semester will run the entire range of opinion about this president. Each of them will sit there attentively as I lecture about these principles. How should I do it?

As a philosopher would? “These principles are the ideals that we should strive for?”

As an historian would?  “These principles are what the nation used to value in the past?”

As a political science professor, I used to think that we all agreed that these principles always had defined what it means to be an American. Now, I sincerely don’t know.

We use the metaphor of a “pillar” to describe things -– like the pillars holding up a building –- that are structurally necessary. These democratic principles are supposed to be pillars of our republic –- necessary components in the political structure of our nation.

By supporting this president, American citizens are making a mockery of these principles.  They are proving that to them these concepts never really mattered all that much.

Pillars? For way too many of our fellow citizens, these principles are less like pillars and more like impediments. And for those who embrace these principles with passion –- some of us are even employed to espouse them in the classroom — that is nothing short of a tragedy.

The post I Guess They Weren’t Pillars After All appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The American republic is in crisis. Presidents abuse their power with impunity. Congress wallows in its dysfunction. The mechanism established by our Constitution to democratically and collectively address national concerns is collapsing.

Sound like an exaggeration? Good. Sound alarmist? Even better.

This next presidential election may be the most important in American history. The astonishingly corrupt and contentious reign of Donald Trump needs to end. But it needs to be replaced with an administration willing to take drastic action to address our most pressing problem: unrelenting and increasingly polarized politics.

That is why the Democratic candidate for President needs to pick a Republican as a running mate. Moreover, these two individuals need to pledge – if elected – to work together to put nation above either party.

Democrats naturally will hate this idea. They desperately want to wrestle back control of the White House and use executive authority as aggressively as the GOP has. Sharing this opportunity with Republicans will sound absurd. Democrats will demand their pound of flesh. And who can blame them?

But they need to resist this urge.

Everyone can agree that the parties have never been more polarized. Voters and elected representatives have never been further apart. Finding common ground has become increasingly difficult. Compromise has become almost impossible.

But we don’t live in a parliamentary system that regularly allows for “one party at a time” control. Our Constitution establishes a presidential system anchored on checks and balances and separation of powers. The President who enforces law is elected separately from the Congress which makes the law. Divided government (where different parties control different branches) is common.

Here’s why that matters. A system where divided government is common demands bipartisanship and compromise if anything is to get done. Public policy that successfully addresses the nation’s needs requires the recognition of common ground.

A Democratic administration beginning in 2021 will almost certainly be stuck with a Republican controlled Senate. Even if the Democrats pull off a miracle in 2020 and win a majority in the Senate, it won’t be a “filibuster-proof” majority. Divided government will again prevail. Gridlock and dysfunction will again abound.

Our best chance at escaping this nightmare requires the new administration putting nation above party. It involves using the “Bully Pulpit” of the presidency to advance compromise and bipartisan solutions. With a Democratic president working closely with their Republican vice-president, the White House will be able to champion proposals advancing national priorities. One party wouldn’t be able to own the policy since both parties had worked together in its creation.

Compromise would again become possible. The system, in other words, would finally work again as it was designed.

Congress would be compelled to play along and put petty partisanship aside. Representatives and Senators refusing to reach across the aisle would be labeled as obstructionists. But unlike the badge of honor that label now represents, in this new era of executive-led bipartisanship, obstructionists would be risking electoral suicide.

James Madison’s presidential system will never be replaced by a parliamentary system. And our political parties will not become less polarized anytime soon. These two simultaneous realities explain our dysfunction and the republic’s malaise.

A bi-partisan executive administration reminding us of our required need to find common ground gives us our best hope for the future. Short of this, the American experiment will continue to fail under the weight of polarized parties, executive overreach, and Congressional gridlock.

The post Why the Democratic presidential nominee must choose a Republican running mate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We need public financing. And we need it immediately.

When I began my very long-shot campaign for the Democratic party’s nomination in Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional district, I knew that my campaign would concentrate on political reform. I spoke ad nauseam whenever I had the chance about our need for fundamental reform across elections, ethics, and, in particular, the way we fund our campaigns.

I went into this campaign already convinced that money was a corrupting influence that we should not ignore. My experience across the 216 days I campaigned only solidified my already strong opinion that money is a corruption and that political reform must be our priority.

In fact, money isn’t just an ordinary run-of-the-mill corruption, it’s a catastrophic corruption. The 2018 Democratic primary in Missouri’s 2^nd District proves it.

Cort VanOstran was a fine candidate. He worked hard. He campaigned with passion and conviction. You can say he deserved to win the Democratic nomination. But you can’t say that he deserved to win by as much as he did. Nor can you say that the process was fair.

His campaign had a lot of things going for it. But the tragedy that we can’t ignore is that only one of those things really mattered: the amount of money he was able to raise – an amount that dwarfed the amount raised by this closest competitor, Mark Osmack.

By the time the August 7^th primary was held, the battle for money wasn’t even close.

Cort raised and spent a little more than $800,000. Mark was only able to raise a quarter of that.

Both Cort and Mark announced their candidacies over a year earlier –  in the summer of 2017. But after just a couple of months, the winner was already crowned. Cort had won the most important primary of all, the “money primary.”

Recall, by the way, that there was another very popular candidate in this race, Kelli Dunaway. As the only woman running for the Democratic nomination, Kelli should have been a favorite. But after just a few months of campaigning, Kelli dropped out. Chief among her reasons for her exit, “I was getting my ass kicked in fundraising.” (her words).

Those early numbers are pretty shocking. By the time Kelli dropped out (November 2017), Cort had already raised over $200,000. This included 20 donations from contributors donating the maximum amount, $2700. And 71 individuals contributing over $1000!

Compare that to Kelli. At the time of her withdrawal, Kelli had raised just 18% as much as Cort (about $38,000). That included only three maximum contributors and 10 contributions of over $1000.

Mark’s numbers at that point were even worse. Four months after starting his campaign, Mark had raised a paltry 8% of what Cort had (about $16,000). This included just one $2700 individual contribution and only two donations of over $1000.

Let’s not fool ourselves. Cort won by as much as he did because he was able to do what Mark and the other candidates couldn’t: advertise on TV and bombard mailboxes with campaign literature. Only he had contributors with that kind of money.

Two fine candidates. But only one had the finances to significantly amplify his message.  Two fine candidates. But only one had the means to thoroughly advertise throughout the district. Two fine candidates. But given these differences, only one had any real chance to win.

Three days into my campaign a Missouri Democratic party leader approached me and told me to drop out. One month later, that same party leader approached Mark and strongly encouraged him to drop out. Mark’s supporters weren’t as generous with their ActBlue donations as Cort’s. And to the Missouri Democratic party, that was a high crime that deserved impeachment.

Please don’t misconstrue my point. I know that Cort was a fine candidate who worked tirelessly. But the same can be said of Mark. Shouldn’t both men have been given an equal opportunity to make their cases?

As a candidate myself in this race I enjoyed a front-row seat to the campaigns of both Cort and Mark. They worked their rears off! They each had great ideas. And they each attracted a large number of passionate supporters to their ranks. But what I learned most from my experience is that the passion of one’s supporters isn’t important if those supporters are not wealthy. In this corrupted process, we’re fooling ourselves when we talk about passion. The wealth of one’s campaign contributors is what matters overwhelmingly.

Cort didn’t crush Mark because he was a superior candidate. He crushed Mark because he had a lot more wealth on his side. The nomination wasn’t won by Cort. It was purchased.

I pity the American that doesn’t see the tragic injustice in that and who doesn’t want to do something about it.

And let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the amount of money that you raise is a direct reflection of your hard work, perseverance, or some other heavenly virtue. Yes, you have to work hard to raise money and I’m sure Cort worked tremendously hard.

But Cort raised and spent FOUR times more than Mark. Does anyone really think Cort worked FOUR times harder than Mark? Does anyone believe that his ideas were FOUR times more popular than Mark’s? Is there anyone that can legitimately argue that Cort’s supporters were FOUR times more passionate than Mark’s? Does anyone who paid close attention to this campaign think that Cort deserved FOUR times the opportunity to win?

Most troubling is this question: How much of Cort’s fundraising superiority was a product of unique external factors – factors not available to Mark or other candidates? Factors related to Cort’s position in a prestigious law firm and his connections with Democratic party insiders? Factors that blocked Mark and Kelli from the same resources necessary to get their message across to voters? Mark and Kelli didn’t know the secret handshake. And for that, their campaigns were doomed.

The Public Financing Solution

The Democratic primary in MO-2 proved our process is tragically unfair. Nothing will change until we demand real reform. And that is where public financing comes in. I’ve never been more convinced of this.

Imagine a system where qualified candidates are given an equal opportunity to make their cases. A system that rewards candidates that work hard but doesn’t show favoritism to those that just happen to have access to wealthy contributors. A system that says that the candidate that has the support of those that give $27 contributions should be taken as seriously as the candidate that is the darling of those that can make $2700 contributions.

In such a system, each of the candidates would be allowed to prove their viability by going out and raising “seed money” – thus demonstrating their seriousness. Taxpayers would grant qualifying candidates with vouchers that would allow them the opportunity to broadcast TV commercials and to send out mass mailings.

Candidates that would want to forego public financing and raise and spend money the old fashioned way would still be allowed to. But candidates without those same deep-pocketed enablers would now be given more of a fighting chance. Public financing levels the playing field.

Imagine the 2018 Democratic primary again but under a public financing system. Mark and Kelli would probably have still been outspent – but with public financing, they would have had a much greater opportunity to compete with Cort.

Given the passion that I saw in their supporters and the vigor I saw in their campaigns, this was an opportunity Mark and Kelli deserved – an opportunity that was cheated them in our current system.

Wealthy Americans should be afforded many privileges in America. But a monopoly to determine which candidates are viable and which are not, should not be one of them. Public financing gives qualified candidates with great ideas but without wealthy connections a chance to compete.

Most importantly, a public financing system would change our political campaigns for the better; transforming them from the farces for funding that they’ve become and into the contests of character and position that true democratic republics require.

The post What I learned about Campaign Financing When I ran for Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The post Shocked, shocked to hear that Trump is unfit appeared first on Occasional Planet.