I often fantasize about how I would fix everything if I were President. My fantasy is unfazed by the fact that the voting public is not keen on candidates that are unqualified, unattractive, godless, and morally bankrupt.
In my fantasy I form what I call the Pragmatic Party. All of my policies would be based on what is most practical. I would accuse my opponents of basing their policies on superstition, i.e. the belief in supernatural beings. That’s called framing the debate. It’s also why I could never be elected. Well, that plus the parts about being unattractive, unqualified, and morally bankrupt. I’d get a ding for those things too.
You need one Big Idea when you run for President. I would explain that our current system of government was conceived prior to the Internet, electronic mass media, and sophisticated polling methods. 200 years ago the only practical form of government involved voting for a small group of individuals that would pretend to represent you. Now we have better tools and we should use them. I would thus infer that my opponents are hole-pooping cavemen desperately clinging to the past. Again, that’s called framing the debate. I’d get lots of TV time because the media would consider me a loose cannon. They like that.
The Pragmatic Party platform would always mirror the majority opinion of the country. When the majority opinion changed, so too would my platform. I would be immune from accusations of flip-flopping because change would be built into the platform. I would say that electing a candidate that is unwilling to change is the same as electing a lamp post. During the first debate I would turn to my opponent and say, “Senator, explain to the people how you are different from a lamp post.” That’s the only sound bite the media would play all the next day.
Although my party’s platform would mirror the majority for all “mature” issues, as President it would be my job to protect against the potential evil whims of the majority. I would rarely need to use this power to thwart the majority, and when I did I would explain it in pragmatic terms.
Example: “I know that the majority of you voted to kill all flute players and divvy up their wealth, but I think that doing so would be a bad precedent. Remember that every one of you is a minority of some sort.” People would understand the reasoning even if they really hated flute players. It’s hard to hate the practical.
There would be situations where the public’s knowledge would not be adequate for the decision, such as national defense situations, especially ones that develop quickly. I’d make those decisions, consulting with Congress and the relevant experts, and explain to the public later. At some point, when the public is up to speed, they can get involved. That’s practical.
I would explain that the President shouldn’t be leading the people, especially in moral questions. Presidents don’t have a great track record of obeying the laws and keeping their trousers up. I say let the people decide what is moral. Getting your moral direction from politicians is like getting health tips from Keith Richards.
As President, I would refer to myself as the Chief Flashlight. I would shine light on whatever the citizens needed to know to form their opinions. I’d order the government to publish on the Internet continuous debates on all important issues. And I’d let the proponents of each side manage their sides of the debate. I’d order a team of independent researchers to attach links to any factual claims so you citizens can see for yourselves who is trying to hoodwink you. Both sides would be free to make any claims they like. But the independent team would always point the reader to the facts. Over time, the compulsive liars would lose all credibility and be pushed aside by their own people.
As President, I would rarely take sides on the major issues. My job would be to bring the best arguments on all sides of every issue to the citizens and help them make up their own minds. My administration would make it a top priority to improve how the government communicates with its citizens. And that might require making the information more entertaining or at least easier to digest. As a general rule I would say that if the citizens don’t understand both sides of all important issues, I have failed as President. If the people need simple charts and graphs, I’ll provide them. If they need puppet shows, I’ll stick my hand in a tube sock and hide behind my desk. Whatever it takes.
My administration would not employ a Whitehouse Spokesperson. Speaking to the press about American policy is the President’s job. And I’d have a press conference daily. It wouldn’t be difficult because virtually all of my policies would be based on the majority opinion. When people asked me why I had a certain policy, I’d point to the poll numbers and say “Duh.” If I did something to thwart the majority, as the President occasionally must, I would point to the majority of experts that advised me, and explain to the citizens how they can read up on the reasons for the decisions. I’d invite them to get involved when they are up to speed.
When the press tried to make me say I was 100% sure about my positions, I would say I wasn’t. I’d explain that only an idiot is 100% sure of anything.
I would also keep a Top 25 list of the biggest threats to the country. Threats would be categorized by both current and future potential. That list would form the basis for resource allocation policies. Even my budget proposals would be subject to direct input from the public. I’d insist on a running opinion poll for every major expense category. Those polls would not be binding, but Congress would have to explain any deviations from public opinion. Those deviations would be one of the main foci of the Big Flashlight.
As President I would support unlimited campaign contributions from any domestic source. But I would make it easy for citizens to see both the source of the contribution and the voting record of the recipients. I would fully expect the lobbyists to influence votes, and I’d condone it as long as the informed citizens preferred it to be condoned.
I would also publish all terror risks and natural disaster alerts on an ongoing basis. In the short run, there would be panic every time the government said “Osama is targeting your town.” But in the long run the citizens would see that there are so many threats that they can’t judge them all to be real. And if some people want to leave town for a low-level threat, I say that is their right. I would help the citizens by requiring that all threats be given a ranking for likelihood. If you think a 2% risk of getting nuked is too high for you, it’s your right to know that and to leave town.
I would do away with closed door meetings, at least as far as the President is concerned, with the exception of defense issues. If the citizens can’t see the thought process leading up to a decision, they have a legitimate reason to be concerned.
I would push for a constitutional amendment that allows two-thirds of the states to fire the congressmen from any other state. This would get rid of the guys that are crazy, flagrantly corrupt, or excellent at screwing the entire country by inserting pork benefit for their local constituents.
I would spend no time campaigning after being elected the first time. My methods would speak so loudly for themselves that there would be nothing to add. If the citizens wanted another four years, they know exactly what they’d be getting.
That is my fantasy.