Opinion: Power to the people`s republic
The July 5 New York Times
science section ran a fascinating article called, “Thirst for Fairness May Have
Helped Us Survive.” It argues that “humans have an inherent distaste for
hierarchical extremes,” and that “the thirst for fairness runs deep.” But “low
hierarchy doesn`t mean no hierarchy,” and “the basic template for human social
groups is moderately but not unerringly egalitarian.”
This view of human nature
is in conflict with our current American society, where wealth is becoming more
and more concentrated in a small segment of our population. The effect of this
concentration is felt in our political life, where the ability to spend
enormous sums on elections has become a dominant determinant of who gets
elected. The “Citizens United” decision exacerbated this problem, allowing
corporations to make political donations, not as the shareholders might want,
but as the corporate officers choose. None other that John C. Bogle, the
founder of Vanguard Funds, wrote an editorial for the New York Times on May 14
supporting shareholder control over corporate political donations.
The current effort to
amend the U.S. Constitution to say that “corporations are not people” and that
“money is not speech” rings true to our inherent human desire for fairness and
not to be governed by those with wealth. Although the amendment process is
going to be arduous, I applaud those who are willing to put in the effort.
Another interesting
attempt to amend the Constitution is floating around the Internet. The basic
demand is that people who are elected to Congress should have to suffer the
same difficulties as ordinary folks (like having to get their own health
insurance) and also that there be term limits and limits on post-service
compensation, so that ex-congress people are reduced back to being ordinary
citizens (at least to some extent). Inherent in this is the same quest for
fairness.
If we had, for example,
12-year term limits (including the time in both houses of Congress), the likely
outcome in most states would be that, after having served some terms in the
U.S. House, the representatives would vie for the open Senate seats. Thus, the
Senate would mostly consist of people in their final terms, who by definition
would be far less influenced by promises of campaign money or the threat of
losing the support of their party`s fringe elements. Then, at least one house
of Congress might be able to operate in the interests of the vast majority of
Americans, who are not in the richest one percent or at the extreme ends of the
political spectrum.
One reason Boulder is such
a great place is the efforts made to ensure that the city maintains at least
some sense of egalitarianism and equal opportunity. This has manifested in
everything from the Blue Line (that prevents the ultra-rich from building on
the mountain backdrop) to the Open Space program (that provides all citizens
the same spectacular experiences in the outdoors) to the publicly funded
recreation centers and the Pearl Street Mall (where people of all social
situations can mingle) to the campaign finance rules (which require campaign
donation disclosure and make available public funds for council candidates.)
All these qualities and
issues will show up in spades in the upcoming election. It is virtually certain
that Xcel Energy, our corporate monopoly energy provider, will attempt to
influence whatever energy-related issues are put on the ballot. This will
likely happen indirectly through surrogate organizations, whose budgets will be
funded with help from Xcel`s corporate coffers. It will be interesting to see
if Boulder`s campaign finance rules are up to the job of at least identifying
such sources of political donations.
A fascinating read is the
book “Power Struggle: The Hundred Year War Over Electricity.” There was a time
when power companies competed to serve communities. But some wily executive
figured out that competition was cutting into profits, and pushed many states
to regulate in exchange for granting monopoly status, thereby guaranteeing
secure levels of profit. This is how we got into this bizarre situation with a
huge private monopoly being regulated by an underfunded group of unelected
officials in Kafka-esque process of playing catch-up. But not all states and
cities have taken the same path — Nebraska outlawed private power monopolies,
and cities from Fort Collins to Los Angeles have municipal power. Some states
now even allow consumer choice. At least some fairness exists somewhere.