About McCain, Eisenhower, and real change

John McCain, republican presidential hopeful for the US elections of 2008, has just won the State of Florida primaries, leaving him well positioned for "super Tuesday", a key event in the presidential race. I am very happy about this.

First of all, because I just think that he is one of those rare exotic species: the honest politician. Of course, I don't really know, I can't know for certain, what is in his mind, what his true motivations and intentions are. However, I do believe that a person's eyes are a window into their soul, and that if you pay attention, you can see a lot through them. What I see, is honesty, selflesness, and the drive to do what is right -not too scientific, but I think that intuition, when balanced by analysis, is a powerful tool.

Second, because he is one of the very few -certainly the only one this close to the top- who feels strongly about finance campaign reform, which in my opinion is the single most important issue in US politics. Why is this issue so important? The answer is clear when we look at the "achievements" of the current administration in light of president Eisenhower's farewell address speech, and we realize that his worst fears expressed almost five decades ago, have become true. I am convinced that Mr. McCain wants to change this. Can he actually make campaign reform happen, return sovereignty back to the citizens, even as president? It certainly would be an uphill battle, perhaps it would be wiser to attack the issue on a second term, after accumulating political capital and popular support. In any case, knowing that he wants to tackle the worst problem in our political system, and knowing that he went for it, when he could have ignored it just as the other candidates did back in 2000, speaks better of him, in my opinion, than any speech writer could possibly dream of doing.

Unfortunately, and paradoxically, the consequences of eight years of catastrophic leadership in the Republican party at the hands of the Bush administration will prove a far worse enemy to senator McCain than the Democratic candidates could ever hope to be; I believe that as american voters have finally awaken to the truth about the Iraq war, and the "legal corruption" within the administration, they will be driven away from the Republican party, stacking the odds in favor of a Democrat.

Interestingly, a democratic win will almost certainly place a member of a minority in the oval office for the first time in US history. While this fact in itself would be a boost for both the country's self-image, and for its reputation abroad, I think we still need to vote for the right candidate, regardless of race, creed, or gender, and while I think both Clinton and Obama would make capable leaders, I doubt either one would bring real change -I hope they prove me wrong.

Direct democracy

Limitations of Representation
Have you ever thought to yourself, “if I was president, I would handle this issue this way” or “drastic changes are needed in this area now” or “this important issue is being ignored”? As individuals, our direct influence on the policies and actions of our nation are limited at best. So we settle for hoping that the people in office don’t upset things too much for the rest of us, and perhaps -dare we hope- actually make things better. And yet this system -representative democracy- is the best practical system of government us humans now have. By best, I mean a system that maximizes the ability of the society and individuals abiding by it, to thrive and achieve their potential.

An intrinsic problem of political power is that for the most part –there are of course, exceptions to the rule- the kind of people that are good at acquiring it, are not the best choice for wielding it. If you crave power above all things, you probably shouldn't have it. By the same token, I believe the same set of virtues that would make individuals excel at wielding that power, would also make them averse to the process of acquiring it.

So while it is probably better for the people with the most political savvy, the most funding, and the most support to be in charge, than say, the people with the most military might, it is still not ideal. But how do you define ideal? Good question, but dangerous ground because what is best for the governed body, and what that same governed body wants, are not necessarily the same, a point often used by supporters of totalitarian systems; but we can probably agree that the ideal government follows as closely as possible the will of its citizenry, in the most efficient way possible within the parameters of a constitution.

Let’s go back to the issue of having the right individual in power. Just because we have found an extremely wise, acutely intelligent, unselfish, dedicated, and visionary individual, doesn't mean she or he wants the job, or the kind of action needed to obtain it. So, save exceptions, we are left with those that want the job and have managed to make their way into it. For most of us this does’t make for an appealing leader. Yet for the most part those are the people we elect as leaders, because the choice has been narrowed down to what a handful of interests consider acceptable, and for the rest of us, some choice is better than no choice. Thus representative democracy goes on. Not because it is ideal, but because it’s the best system we have.

Potential

So what happens next? Is this the best we can do? Do we have better feasible alternatives? It is said that a political system can only be as good as the society it emanates from. Assuming we continue to progress as we have in the past few centuries, we will continue to become more educated, and will have better sources and access to information. Slowly but surely, we will become more aware of the political environment. Today an election can be won or lost over circumstantial issues. A charismatic candidate can briefly talk about “traditional values” or “social justice” without really saying anything of substance, and turn those words into votes. I believe that as society advances and becomes more enlightened, it will become harder and harder to obtain votes in that manner. Campaign funds will steadily loose vote-purchasing power as people are less influenced by campaigns or misinformation, and more inclined to make decisions aligned with their personal values, and based on facts and figures, rather than emotion. Little by little, political power should shift away from interest groups, and towards individuals.

Now, let’s assume that we do evolve and continue to advance as time goes by. In this hypothetical future, we would reach a near ideal representative system, driven by an enlightened citizenry. Let’s ponder this hypothetical wonderland for a moment: a government without corruption of any sort, where office-holders are selfless individuals driven by a passion to serve, working together for the common good, in an efficient and cooperative manner. Elected by individuals who are balanced, knowledgeable, and believers in the greater good -yet diverse in their thinking, as humans will be. As good as that sounds, it is nothing revolutionary, just a description of how the system that we have today should actually work. Nothing more. The problem with that picture, is that a representative system has built-in flaws that prevent it from reaching that idea -nevertheless, let's assume that we do get there somehow: is that it? Will we reach a dead end in our sociopolitical evolution with an ideal version of what we have today? I believe history and human nature hold the answer.

Looking Back

In small enough societies, such as pre-colonization native-American tribes, the naturally occurring structure of government was usually a direct democracy. A council of elders with a leader chosen by consensus. It seems obvious that we favor direct democracy as the natural way of governing ourselves; but civilization became an obstacle for this kind of government. With large numbers of people, making decisions in this fashion becomes difficult at best. In spite of this, the ancient Greeks managed to rule themselves through direct democracy. Of course, citizenship was significantly restricted by today’s standards, but it shows that it is indeed practical and can be incorporated into our daily lives. If you are still not convinced that we do have a tendency in that direction, think about how any of us reacts as soon as someone tries to tell us what to do, or how to manage our own affairs. The point is this: to rule ourselves directly is in our nature, a representative system is just what we settle for.

Why

We have talked about our instinct to govern ourselves directly, but we have lots of instincts, unfortunately not of all them good. We need to have a valid reason to put it into practice. In what ways would a direct democracy actually benefit us, and to what extent? Let's name a few:

Special interest groups severely weakened, or rendered powerless

Minimizing government corruption

Better decision-making

Efficiency

The Obstacles

OK, we have agreed -hopefully- that a direct democracy would be in our best interest. But can it be done?

The obstacles between us and a direct democracy are social, political, economic, and technological. When people are starving, they don’t have time to think about politics. Ironically, prosperous societies also tend to be unfertile soil for seeds of political change. Even if we had the collective will, we lack the means for a secure, inexpensive voting system –though the Internet today would be an adequate vehicle for the legislative and voting processes, access to it is still far from universal. Additionally, those in the best place to lead the way -the politicians- may not feel compelled to change a system in which they have a privileged status –and in which, even those with honest intentions, find themselves in a herculean struggle simply to correct its flaws. Lastly, we need to have a voting body that will not decide to increase spending one day and vote off all taxes the next -or at least conscientious enough to legislate without catastrophic results -and most importantly, we need to get a majority of people to get involved and participate actively.

How long will we have to wait until we can overcome these obstacles?

You could argue that we have already started down this path. Many countries, cities, and provinces consult their citizens directly on key issues via referendums on a regular basis. With all circumstances being favorable, a strong political will and an above-average citizenship, perhaps a small and progressive nation could implement some form of direct democracy in as little as a half a century from today; but even that seems unlikely now. A safer conjecture is that as time goes by, perhaps in a century or two, a combination of factors will lead gradually closer, in stages, to the point where it occurs naturally. Just as the advent of the printing press eventually made possible the spread of ideas that eventually led to the French republic and the modern democratic state, the current wave of media democratization as we see on the internet, a continuing advancement of access to more and better education, the constantly improving communication and information distribution technology, may provide the means for a direct democracy. With instantaneous, ubiquitous communications and information management tools beyond anything we have today, staying abreast of all significant events related to a particular area of human activity may not need to be a full-time occupation –I imagine a prominent citizen participating in a legislative or judicial debate, while in a photographic expedition in Antarctica, or perhaps while attending to the care of a child at home. In this true global village, an average citizen-legislator may have an active, involved role in government, without having to sacrifice personal pursuits or ever visit a hall of government. Thus freed of the need to be tied to a particular schedule, desk, or city, we may see the tasks of government become appealing to the population at large.

Taking Action

But how do we make this vision a reality? A change of this magnitude I think, can only happen in one of two ways: as a gradual process, where it is adopted by lower hierarchy entities or portions of government, where the system and infrastructure can be streamlined and the bugs worked out with a smaller impact, until adoption at the highest levels becomes the next logical step -or by a new society or state being created from scratch, as in the birth of a new nation, or perhaps a relatively isolated scientific outpost, where undoing the previous sytem is not the largest obstacle. Either way, we can help ease the way by creating a blueprint of how such a system could work. So how do we make most people interested in participating actively in government , and have a system that works efficiently? First, let's divide these challenges into three areas: the system itself, its integration into our daily lives, and the infrastructure to make it possible.

1) System: A new set of instruments and governing bodies to replace the functions of our current executive cabinets, legislatures, judicial bodies, etc. so they can be performed directly by all of us, citizens, instead of elected/appointed representatives.

2) Infrastructure: communication and information-processing tools to enable the new system, adequate to handle the billions of simultaneous exchanges, and sort out massive amounts of information in an efficient and user friendly manner, instantaneously and ubiquitously.

3) Integration: the most important piece; for the system to be appealing enough for most of us to participate, it has to enable us to perform these functions without giving up most of our time or becoming professional politicians, so that our political lives can merge with, and enrich other aspects of our lives, rather than take away from them.

TED

For the past month or so, it seems that as soon as I get a free moment, I find myself watching yet another fascinating talk at TED. Soon I'll run through all the archives and will have to do with just a couple a week. Delirium tremens looms.

Saturn

Perhaps the most beautiful solar eclipse in our system. This breathtaking picture was taken by the Cassini spacecraft. Besides the stunning views of Saturn's ring system, our planet can also be seen as a tiny blue dot, a billion miles away.

2008

Happy New Year, world!