To me, it's not a choice. I'm very much in favor of both. But this article from Slate makes a convincing argument for favoring the latter over the former. I encourage you to read it, as I agree (for the most part) with the argument that it makes. I would just add three additional arguments in favor of the thesis it advances, and emphasize one of its major points.
First, because the substantial damage to campaign finance reform has come by way of decisions from the Supreme Court, the damage can only be undone by amending the Constitution to permit the reinstatement and even expansion of the provisions that have been overruled. Amending the Constitution, to put it mildly, is no easy task. In the 224 years since the ratification of the Constitution, it has only been successfully amended 27 times. Amendments must be approved by supermajorities at the national and state level, and in a country as fractious as ours, supermajorities are few and far between. In contemporary America, a country that cannot even come together on the issue of child refugees, they are all but non-existent. For this reason, any forward movement on this issue will have to travel a long road, with much patience being required of those who travel it. As the Slate article shows, redistricting reform can be accomplished far more easily at the state level, as was the case in Florida.
Second, even though most progressives are reluctant to admit this, the truth is that we have our deep pockets as well--and those pockets cancel out much of the influence of the Koch brothers of the world. It's worth noting, even though the mainstream media has largely ignored it, that the IRS flagged as many applications (if not more) from progressive groups as it did from conservative groups seeking tax protection in the aftermath of Citizens United. We shouldn't be ashamed of this: it simply reflects our success in the marketplace of ideas. Liberals have money because liberalism sells. And we shouldn't be ashamed or afraid to show conservatives that we can beat them on any playing field they choose.
Third, and related to my second point, liberalism's popularity in this county is due in no small part to the fact that it takes a more flexible, more local, more practical and less ideological approach to addressing the needs of Americans. This is why, contrary to almost every piece of right-wing rhetoric you've probably ever heard,
the Democratic Party has never been a mirror-image of progressive parties in Europe. And this is probably why, in 2012, Democratic candidates outpolled their Republican counterparts by a million votes. The simple fact of the matter is that the current House Republican majority is not a natural majority--it is a gerrymandered one. Take away the gerrymandering, and allow Democratic House candidates to continue tailoring their messages to their communities, and you may never see a House Republican Majority again.
Finally, as even the article concedes, this effort must be joined at the hip with Congressional action to fix the Voting Rights Act, which has also been damaged by the Supreme Court. And that effort must also be joined by a greater effort by the Democratic Party to recruit minority candidates. These things must be done to address the concerns of African-Americans who seek gerrymandering as the path to political power, through the creation of "majority-minority" districts. They may lead to the election of minority officials, but they also dilute the power of the minority vote to join with other voters and elect officials who can set a progressive agenda for all Americans.
So read the article, and consider my additional thoughts. And then, get out their and work as hard for redistricting reform as you do for progressive candidates. Achieving the one is the key to electing more of the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment