KHH1

E******n 2016: Dumbing down American politics, Lawrence Lessig, and the Presidency
Donald Trump and the Amen chorus of Republican p**********l aspirants may have appeared to monopolize the capacity to make fantastical claims about what’s wrong with America and how to fix it. But a rival has appeared on the scene, outlining a very different fantasy plan to run for president on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig looks meek—a dead ringer for Mr. Peepers—yet is anything but. Lessig built an impressive career in legal scholarship on the regulation of cyberspace, and the mild-mannered, soft-spoken academic became a cult hero among libertarians fearful of increasing legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and the electromagnetic spectrum. But Lessig’s t***sformation into a political activist was spurred by his personal revelation that money in politics is the root of all our governing problems. Eliminate the dependence of elected officials on private donors and the formidable obstacles to constructive policymaking will crumble. Simple but searing t***h, or a caricature of a complex governing system shaped by institutions, ideas/ideologies, and interests?

Lessig became a whirlwind of energy and organization to promote his new values and beliefs, leading efforts to “Change Congress,” convene a second constitutional convention, raise awareness of corruption in politics through the “New Hampshire R*******n,” and start the “Mayday PAC,” a super PAC designed to end all super PACs. He wrote the bestselling book Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and A Plan to Stop It, delivered a series of popular TED talks, and tirelessly traveled the country with his PowerPoint.

With none of these enterprises yet bearing fruit, Lessig has decided to raise the stakes. He has announced that if he receives $1 million from small donors by September, he will seek the Democratic p**********l nomination, running as a “referendum candidate.” His single-issue platform, built around the concept of “Citizen E******y,” consists of “true” campaign finance reform supplemented by e*******l reform (to weaken the influence of gerrymandering) and v****g rights. His goal is to use the e******n to build a mandate for political reform that will cure our democratic ills. Lessig will apparently have nothing to say about anything other than political reform, insisting that his issue should be and can be the number one priority of v**ers in the 2016 e******ns. If nominated and elected, President Lessig will serve in office only long enough to enact the Citizen E******y Act and then resign, turning over the powers and responsibilities of the office to the vice president. Recently he generously informed the Vice President that he would happily enable a third Joe Biden term by selecting him as his running mate.

The hubris of the Harvard Professor is breathtaking. In virtually every respect, his strategy is absurd. Lessig’s political reform agenda is stymied by Republicans, not Democrats. Why not direct his energies where the opposition resides? All of the current Democratic p**********l candidates support the thrust of these reforms. But saying that this is their highest priority is likely to harm, not boost, their candidacies. Why would even the most ardent supporter of the three pillars of Lessig’s reform agenda cast a b****t solely on this basis? Big and important issues divide the two parties today and the stakes of public action or inaction are huge. We don’t have the luxury of using the e******n to try to build a mandate for a set of political reforms that would have no chance of passing in the face of GOP opposition and would be of only incremental utility if they did.

Campaign finance does play a corrosive role in our democracy and I have invested much of my career grappling with it. There is no doubt that money in e******ns facilitates the t***sfer of economic ine******y into political ine******y, and the spectacle of several hundred plutocrats dominating the finance of our e******ns should be a target of serious reform efforts in the courts and the Congress. At the same time it is foolish to imagine that campaign finance is the only route for private wealth to influence public policy or that its reform will dramatically t***sform the policy process. Money did not prevent the major legislative enactments of 2009-2010—including the stimulus, student loans, the Affordable Care Act, and financial services reform. Nor is it likely to be the critical factor on c*****e c****e, immigration, infrastructure or jobs and wages; which party wins the White House and whether control with Congress is unified or divided is key. If anything, the Lessig campaign is likely to weaken the forces for political reform by demonstrating just how small the relative priority for this action is.

Trump offers the country his outsider status, success in building his personal wealth, an outsized personality, a brashness in asserting how easily he can solve the country’s problems, and a hearty appetite for and sk**l in stoking the anger and fears of a segment of the country. He feeds the notion that a strong, fearless, wily leader, inexperienced and mostly uninformed in politics and governing, can be the man on a white horse saving a great country losing its exceptional status. His claim that all politicians are bought by private interests—a claim Lessig eagerly embraces—fits well with his grandiose claims that he alone can fix what ails the country. A significant segment of Republican v**ers, presumably not well versed in the American constitutional system are attracted to him, at least enough for him to be a factor in this e******n campaign.

Lessig is a far less commanding presence but his ambition burns no less than that of Trump. The notoriety, celebrity, and adoring audiences are heady stuff, even if on a much smaller scale. Lessig told Bloomberg that Trump’s candidacy is evidence that his reform message is taking hold. Lessig said, Trump “strikes people as credible when he says all these people (politicians) are bought—I used to buy them …Trump is saying the t***h.” Lessig will be a minor figure in this e******n and the causes for which he fights are unlikely to advance from it. Both Lessig and Trump, despite their differences in visibility and importance in the e******n, will have contributed to the dumbing down of American politics, a reality that will bring tears to the eyes of civics teachers and political science professors across the country.

KHH1

Both Lessig and Trump, despite their differences in visibility and importance in the e******n, will have contributed to the dumbing down of American politics, a reality that will bring tears to the eyes of civics teachers and political science professors across the country.

Trump is leader for the right...Lessig is just a small player on the left.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I wonder how many people worry about what civics teachers and political science professors think.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

:lol: :thumbup:

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

The Left has been dumbing down the e*****rate for years, beginning in K-12 and advancing into the educational (indoctrinational) system of higher learning.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Such true words but KHH1 can't understand what you said. I doubt if professor Lessig can either.

Orrie

Not many!

KHH1

So I guess that is the right's excuse for avoiding education and keeping the red states last in all educational measurement indices...

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Are you talking about measurements provided by left leaning sources? I thought so.

KHH1

No..the Dept of Education that measures school performance......

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

That would be the NEA controlled group and the NEA is about as far left as one can go.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I wonder what the Dept of Educ might suggest regarding the schools in places like NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Camden, Newark, et al as compared to the schools in the so called red states.

Along with a true comparison, one might want also to look at the split of v****g between so called uneducated red states and the implied higher education of these paragons of public education - I bet you'd hardly find a red state v****g 80% or better Democrat - and suspect you'd find each of these "highly" educated v**ers well about 80%

KHH1

The higher educated v**ed for Obama...and the higher you go up the educational ladder...the wider the margin was for Obama.......go figure..

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

That is an article of faith to some - if it works for you great - but the anything I've ever seen written about it suggests that educated people v**e 80% one way

KHH1

The stats are the thing I guess...........