We Can Change the Rules of the Game

David Ignatius from the Washington Post wrote an editorial reprinted in the Akron Beacon Journal today that is well worth considering.  While there is no single silver bullet to revitalizing American democracy, if there was this would be it:  set the rules to weaken extremists and strengthen moderates.

While Ignatius frames his analysis using conventional assertion about Democrats moving left, this is a forgivable error.  He can only tilt at one windmill at a time. 

Describing Hillary Clinton as ‘moving to the left on trade’ fundamentally distorts our political communication.  She (and President Obama) hold positions on trade today that are more accurately characterized as moderately conservative.

Putting that (non-trivial point) aside let’s focus on his larger point about setting the rules of the game so we have a chance of getting leadership that represents the views of most Americans.  Here is how he starts…

“Hillary Clinton’s move to the left on trade and other issues is a reminder of the growing power of activists on the wings in presidential nominating politics — and a corresponding diminution of the power of the center.”

Just as our support for the most fanatical elements of the resistance in Afghanistan (because we wanted to increase the costs to the Soviets for their invasion) resulted in erasing Afghan moderates and, later, the rise of Osama bin Laden…we make decisions domestically as well that make it more likely that the extremes dominate public deliberation.

“The disenfranchisement of the center is a fact of modern politics. That should be worrisome even if you think the center is an ideological muddle. As we’ve seen in recent years, in a world dominated by the political wings, the compromises necessary for passing any legislation become difficult. As the center disappears, so does governance.”

We should worry about the disenfranchisement of moderates, because this is one reason the everyday compromises that make democracy work have been missing in action for so long.

And while the middle class, defined by income, is disappearing, even conservative estimates show that the moderate middle in terms of voter perspective is larger (more than 40%) than either those who identify as strongly D or strongly R (both less than 30%).

“Yet as we head toward the presidential nominating season, the voice of this broad center is barely audible. Politics is pulled toward the left and right by campaign-finance rules, redistricting and other issues” including a journalistic preference for dramatized news, Citizens United, and corporate ownership of nearly all mass media outlets.  Ignatius cites a reform proposal—to change the rules of the game—from Peter Ackerman as one idea to consider.

“Ackerman has launched a campaign dubbed “Change the Rule” to address one piece of this puzzle of America’s political dysfunction. The rule in question is imposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which the two major parties created in 1987 to administer the televised debates that are the nexus of modern presidential campaigns. Ackerman argues that this rule, as currently applied, prevents the emergence of an independent candidate who might empower the underrepresented middle. 

The current debate rule requires that any third-party candidate must average 15 percent support in five polls taken in the two weeks before the debates begin in October of the election year. To get the necessary name recognition and support, Ackerman’s group estimates that an independent candidate would have to spend $266 million. Because of contribution limits, this effectively precludes anyone who’s not a billionaire from joining the debates as an independent. 

Ackerman argues that the entry ticket to the debate should instead be getting on the ballots by the end of April in an election year in states that together have at least 270 Electoral College votes. To avoid chaotic debates, just one such independent candidate should be added — the one with the highest number of ballot-access signatures nationwide. Such a signature drive would cost less than $15 million, Ackerman estimates, opening the field to less-wealthy candidates who could mobilize volunteers and small donations. 

Supporters are a “who’s who” of the bipartisan center: John Anderson, a Republican former congressman who ran as an independent in the 1980 presidential race; William Cohen, a Republican former senator who served as secretary of defense for a Democratic president; Lee Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman who co-chaired bipartisan commissions on 9/11 and the Iraq War; Jon Huntsman, a Republican former governor whose moderate positions vaporized his 2012 presidential campaign; and Joe Lieberman, a Democratic former senator and vice presidential nominee. Other backers include retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and retired Adm. James Stavridis. 

To bolster the case, Ackerman commissioned a survey last July by pollster Douglas Schoen. In the sample of 1,000 likely voters, 86 percent said the political system is broken and doesn’t serve ordinary people; 89 percent said they wished politicians would work together and compromise; and, interestingly, 66 percent said they thought presidential debates could do a better job of informing the electorate. 

Yet the system grinds forward with a perverse set of incentives that rewards extremism and punishes compromise. I don’t know if opening the presidential debates would fix this mess, but it might pull candidates back toward the center, where the public lives and where problems get solved.”