Imagine you were transported back to the early days of the Republic and you are a member of Congress. George Washington's second term as President is ending, and a new presidential campaign is underway. All the members of the Federalist Party are meeting in one room while you and the members of the Democratic Republicans are meeting in another. What is the purpose of these meetings? Why, it’s to nominate the candidates for the next presidential election.Who did your party nominate? Why, no other than Thomas Jefferson. Who did the Federalists nominate? John Adams. Two of our most esteemed presidents were selected by Congress? How did that happen? Find out by reading Carl Jarvis's book, The United States of Dysfunction. In it, he traces the history of how candidates for public office have been nominated and the effects of that nominating system on our governmental institutions, public policies, culture and leadership. With our current two “presumptive nominees” there could not be a better time to read this book. As moderns of the 21st century, it’s difficult to imagine anything other than our current primary system, but Carl Jarvis's book traces the three main systems from the days of George Washington up to the modern direct primary. Along with that, he points to many ills resulting from our current nominating system. As far as solutions, he does not recommend that we go back to the time when Congress nominated our presidential candidates, but he does have some very good ideas. Jarvis argues that the country was much healthier politically when we used the Indirect Primary System. His book is carefully researched and full of insights. Did you know that our country existed for over a 100 years without money contributions during the primary season? That there was a time that PACs and paid lobbyists did not exist? That we actually had another body of elected citizens who served and acted as a liaison between the candidates, the office holders, and the people? These delegates provided another body of representation of government by the people, for the people, and of the people. These elected "delegates" attended the party convention to debate issues, find qualified candidates, and nominate the best qualified people for all elected positions, not just President. Picture your primary ballot containing names of your neighbors to go serve and figure out who would best represent the community in a general election. Do you think we would have better qualified candidates than we have today? One point he argues well is that our current system encourages the wrong types of personalities to run for office, perpetuates incumbency and bureaucratic power, and erodes our respect for law. Conservatives will find his research and conclusions compelling. The better system, the indirect primary system, Jarvis explains, began with the election of Andrew Jackson. The indirect primary system was in use from 1824 to 1912 with the election of Woodrow Wilson. Is that a surprise? How did it work? Ordinary citizens' names appeared on a ballot. They were your neighbors who were not pledged to any candidate but were members of a political party. At the party convention, the delegates through discussion and discernment selected a list of candidates. Then, they voted on candidates until there was a plurality. I am going to bullet point some of Jarvis’s conclusions about the Indirect Primary System. He argues that presidents elected before 1912 were:
And now there are two (er, three?). Did it matter which? After watching the debates, it seems being AGAINST Liberty is now a campaign technique. And the winners are . . . (not the Bill of Rights).
Target date is 2030
Take a failed issue. Give it a righteous new name. Get people begging for government salvation. Ram the details through in secrecy. Paranoid indeed.
A must read: on the surface it is about the people who work behind the scenes for Trump. More deeply, it is an expose on the way the world really works. How are we brought to believe what we believe?
FIA acquired emails document favorable treatment for favorable treatment
How do banks keep fees high and rates they pay low despite "Competition"? They're all owned by the same people.