I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little. Remember Rootstrikers?
From MayDay.us:
> The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom and get it back.
This analogy only works if the campaign funders also see themselves as holding democracy hostage. But guess what? They don't see themselves that way.
The moneyed elites see themselves as exercising their right to free speech on the issues important to them. And they have the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives in agreement with them on this issue.
And this is where Lessig errs. As his diagnosis for what ails our democracy is wrong, his treatment cannot be successful.
----
Lessig sees our political system as a small cabal of wealthy black hats thwarting the will of the people while he fights on the side of the white hats trying to revive small-d democracy in America.
But how do the "black hats" in this scenario see it?
They'll see it as this other moneyed interest group trying to stifle their First Amendment right to free speech. And they'll fight like hell to prevent Lessig's group from being successful. They're not going to just "accept the ransom" and slink back to their mansions.
And because of the terrain Lessig has chosen to fight this on ("Fight money in politics with more money in politics! Embrace the irony!") we're back to square one: One group of moneyed interests fighting another group of moneyed interests. Exciting, right?
Only now, the "white hats" face a distinct disadvantage. The "black hats" can raise $5 for every $1 raised by the "white hats." Sheldon Adelson can drop tens of millions like that. How do you like them odds?
----
What's my suggested fix? Well, to quote The Wire: "The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play."
Stop trying to beat the wealthy at their own game. Change the game entirely.
Look around, people. The whole system is beyond repair and has been for years. We're way past the point where a SuperPAC will fix a goddamn thing.
Nothing short of wholesale, violent revolution and a complete re-structuring of our society and economy will suffice. We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.
Congress has an 80% disapproval rating. The President rains death from above via flying robots and secret kill lists. The Supreme Court routinely stacks the deck in favor of the powerful. Inequality keeps rising and more and more people keep falling behind.
> ... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control.
You mean like how the United States itself was founded?
> What could possibly go wrong?
Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.
> You mean like how the United States itself was founded?
Or maybe the Khmer Rouge? When was the last time that a violent upheaval turned into a peaceful democracy?
[edit: Let's also be honest with ourselves here. The American Revolution did not overthrow a government. They didn't overthrow the British government. They drove them out from occupying a far-away land. I think that the American Revolutionaries would have had a much harder battle if they were attempting to overthrow the entire British government, even with the support of France.]
> Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.
The only downside to a violent revolution is 'parades in 240 years?' If you want to think that a violent revolution of the United States government will turn out all ponies and rainbows, that's your prerogative, but at least be honest with yourself about the risks of ending up with a less than desirable result.
Some less than desirable results:
* Skinheads or some radical fundamentalist Christian group use the chaos to seize power.
* Revolutionaries take a "either you're with us or against us approach." Conscientious objectors like the Quakers or the Mennonites are slaughtered wholesale for refusing to take part / take sides.
* Witch-hunts abound as 'revolutionaries' search out "1%-ers" to hold public executions. Anyone drawing parallels to McCarthy-ism, Nazism, or the Salem Witch Trials is branded a sympathizer and executed as well.
* The US is divided into several smaller nation-states each controlled by groups with competing interests. Years of war, bloodshed, cease-fires, broken cease-fires, border-skirmishes, etc ensue.
* Disruption of the government leads to disruption of the supply-chain feeding modern society with food. Mass starvation ensues.
* The revolution is successful, but the disruption of the US government leads to global economic depression. Foreign-relations suffer severely as the new government, spear-headed by the leaders of the revolution, is viewed as the cause of the depression, and scapegoat for all their suffering. Perhaps said global depression triggers a new, global wave of nationalism & isolationism, global relations nose-dive as a result.
Good points on all. Thanks for taking the time to engage, at any rate.
You're right: I'm too sanguine on the possibilities of what "wholesale, violent revolution" could look like.
I felt after bashing Lessig, it would only be fair to offer my thoughts on the matter. But I probably should have sat it on overnight and given more thought to the last third. C'est la vie.
If I could re-calibrate my "suggestions," I would disavow the violence while still emphasizing that reformers put themselves at a disadvantage when they try to play this incremental, inside game on the elite's turf.
But, I guess we'll see. I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
Well, depending on how you define violent - we had tanks pointing at the building where the government was, but they surrendered pretty quickly, without any real confrontations - I believe our revolution 40 years ago would classify: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
If you think The People are apathetic enough not to care about campaign finance reform, then what chance do we stand at actually committing to a violent revolution? Particularly any time in the near future?
But can you blame their apathy? It's hard to get fired up about making tweaks at the margins that ultimately might produce a few better outcomes down the road.
I say give people something bigger to aspire to and maybe they'll be meet the challenge.
I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little. Remember Rootstrikers?
From MayDay.us:
> The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay the ransom and get it back.
This analogy only works if the campaign funders also see themselves as holding democracy hostage. But guess what? They don't see themselves that way.
The moneyed elites see themselves as exercising their right to free speech on the issues important to them. And they have the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives in agreement with them on this issue.
And this is where Lessig errs. As his diagnosis for what ails our democracy is wrong, his treatment cannot be successful.
----
Lessig sees our political system as a small cabal of wealthy black hats thwarting the will of the people while he fights on the side of the white hats trying to revive small-d democracy in America.
But how do the "black hats" in this scenario see it?
They'll see it as this other moneyed interest group trying to stifle their First Amendment right to free speech. And they'll fight like hell to prevent Lessig's group from being successful. They're not going to just "accept the ransom" and slink back to their mansions.
And because of the terrain Lessig has chosen to fight this on ("Fight money in politics with more money in politics! Embrace the irony!") we're back to square one: One group of moneyed interests fighting another group of moneyed interests. Exciting, right?
Only now, the "white hats" face a distinct disadvantage. The "black hats" can raise $5 for every $1 raised by the "white hats." Sheldon Adelson can drop tens of millions like that. How do you like them odds?
----
What's my suggested fix? Well, to quote The Wire: "The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play."
Stop trying to beat the wealthy at their own game. Change the game entirely.
Look around, people. The whole system is beyond repair and has been for years. We're way past the point where a SuperPAC will fix a goddamn thing.
Nothing short of wholesale, violent revolution and a complete re-structuring of our society and economy will suffice. We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.
Happy Fourth :)