My Friend Easy, who has an Onion-esque blog, commented on my post about testing and politics/elections saying that it was the "representative" part of our government that is getting in the way (please correct anything I attribute to you that is wrong, Easy) and that direct democracy might serve us better.
I don't think so and I responded as much in the comments section. Elitist (Founding Father) objections relate to mob rule (which is majority rule)--we must all be aware that the majority will often trample the needs of minorities (while I guess we'd admit that the Founders also didn't want the "common" man to find a way to be equal with them!).
But argue as we will about methods of elections we will always have to confront the problem of the excessive interest of MONEY. Currently it's hard for me to tell if, say, the Koch's, who are now "exposed" as the financial engine behind much of the "Institutional" and "Fringe" Right, are simply and horribly greedy and self-serving OR if they are ideologues bent on remaking the world after a particular pattern of Xtianity. My gut says greedy and using ideology to persuade people to vote for ideology that props up their corporate interests (while undercutting the core of the ideology--or the thing that one might allow is "good" in a Xtian ideology).
(Something related but a bit on the side is this piece in the London Review of Books about judiciary recusal. Subscription is required, sorry. The gist is mostly about finding the right "test" to apply to situations where a judge might have a private interest in a particular case. Of course, one might argue a judge has all kinds of interest and we should focus on the pecuniary here as well.)
My point in the earlier post was that there has to be a way to get smaller and more focused and more honest. If the Koch's say, "our corporate interest is beneficial to X", you should be able to say "prove it" and the proof has to be factual and not market-spin concocted by think-tank ideological proof. I will argue there is zero chance of this happening. Money finds a way to infect all things.
So, Small is necessary (and beautiful!). I can't escape this conclusion. We need to shrink. We need to shut and lock the doors (and windows, and chimneys and any other opening) against the stranger representing private money. Why let money tell us what to do? Further, why let money use ideology to convince others to act against their individual interest?
Money is not speech and I'm very tired of it being allowed to bully me and beat me into submission.