When you have an impasse. it is time for war. War is a large term that can mean anything. It is not just killing people, but often in human history, that is how things eventually get settled.

War, (and as usual, between Steve and I , we’ll spin it into it’s really core definition,) is simply the all out pursuit of a target, until something is decided….

A cantankerous divorce situation = all out war.
A drug dependent child = all out war.
Fighting City Hall = all out war.
Fighting crime in Gotham City = all out war.
WWII = all out war.

So how do we address the political stalemate we preside over today.

One side has to win overwhelmingly so we all can see that rebuttal is pointless and we can move on.

So, we need either to vote all Democratic. Or all Republican.

Now here’s what we forget. Democrats and Republicans are just people like us, who are just doing jobs they are told to do. Which sort of explains how we can scream and vicariously hate either a Republican or Democratic Speaker of the House, yet sit down a social function with members of the opposite party, and love the human beings they are when politics are completely out of the universe of the occasion. Wow, what an awesome person we think. We’ll have to have dinner again.

This explains why we can work with our local governing officials, who are as removed from the viscousness of party politics as they are from the governmental policies of Tajikistan. We go to them, saying “here is my problem; can you help me” and they say ” I think so; how about if we do this” and we say “yes, that will work” and things get done….

They’re great guys.

Why does this not happen on a national scale?

Did you ever have a mother in law?

Mother in laws can break up a relationship meant to last forever. They know each one well. So when one person does something the other person would accept as one of those tiny differences they just have to accept and live with, the mother in law rephrases that, approaches the other party with the news piece, then demands to them, so what are you going to do about that?

She then takes that piece of info, to the other party, starts out with a “did you know….” and eventually builds to the crescendo of “so, what are you going to do about that?” She skillfully drives the wedge and eventually, discord, hate, vitriol, and murder and death.

That fuckin’ mother in law… is money. Everyone fears it. The press does it’s bidding… (they need readers). The Democrats can ill afford to affront their money. Nor can the Republicans.

So, all three have to play the part, of contentious politics upon the national stage.

Occasionally, occasionally (and this is the proof of this theory), this affects local politics. When someone with a lot of money gets affected by local decisions, the partisans come out in force. Without the influence of money, they never leave the shadows… Local school board elections being a recent example.

So, if the root of all political evil is money, what do we do about it?

Money is a universal force. Even I, am subject to its pull. You are too. There are certain things in your day that you have to do, and don’t really like spending the time doing them, because of money….

It just is.

So just what is the right balance?

I’ll argue that you can’t wipe out all corporate or business influence. For if you do, then you have a population that may enjoy all the protections they’ve bestowed upon themselves, but have no capital with which to grow.

I’ll also argue the opposite, that you can’t have corporate or businesses as the only influence, for then you have a business class with plenty of privileges, but not enough human economic capital to sustain the economy. It would be as if the South couldn’t export cotton in the early 1800’s. You’d have a profitable slave economy, with cotton just sitting on the docks. Who would buy it? But had the slaves been paid living wages, they, could in turn buy that cotton to make their own clothes or start a textile factory that could sell to themselves…

If you study the build up to the American Civil War, and instead of focusing on whether the issue of human slavery as morally wrong, then focus on whether the employees (slaves) at that time should be paid living wages for their work, you see that issue is the same we have right now. From this historical example, shouldn’t workers be paid sufficient wages, so they not only cover their bare minimal living expenses, but also have enough disposable income with which to make choice purchases, thereby driving the economy forward?

Now substitute the word “workers” with “middle class”… and bingo, you are right where we are today.

(The North won, btw, so if you are looking for an indication on which way we should go)…

So we need not to pull money from politics, but manage money in politics.

A complicated formula that might correct today’s aberration, might be to restrict campaign spending depending on ones income level. If you are a member of the top one percent, all of you together can only be responsible for one percent of the campaign expenses. The bottom 99% then shares the burden for the rest.

Obviously the bottom 10% cannot afford to pay anything. So that drops spending by 10%. The influence of that 1% at the top is then enhanced by that margin that has been zero’d out from the bottom. So it reflects real life, where the top one percent actually has more influence, and since they own the money, they should have their representation of that money, represented…

Ahhh, but that is getting far too complicated.

The easiest way to do that is to limit donations to actual people. I’m sorry, it is so simple that it works. If you want to give $1 million to a campaign, you have to find a 1000 people willing to cough up $1000 each to the candidate you want to move forward. In this day and age, that can’t be hard to do. But, if for some reason you can’t, perhaps because of something creepy in your platform, then the problem takes care of itself. The money represents the feelings of real people. Not the overwhelming feelings of one misanthropornagraphic person.

So, getting rid of all outside money is a start.
Limiting all contributions to $1000 per person is a finish.

It is where we need to go, to get people talking to each other as human being to human being, and not cardboard cutout to cardboard cutout….