Self-service before public service

Context

The group Americans Elect (AE) recently held an online vote to begin its process to select a presidential candidate for president. Unfortunately, no single candidate received enough votes to qualify for the group's June online convention. AE was impressive in what it did accomplish by, e.g., getting a new political party qualified in California. That's not trivial. AE also suffered from flaws in its execution and communications and those appear to have contributed to the disheartening outcome. The group is trying to figure out what to do next. California Moderates CM has an idea for what's next in California and that is being vetted with them. There is too much promise in the AE concept, i.e., a direct attack on the two party system, and its accomplishments to simply walk away.

A central theme of California Moderates criticism of two party politics is that it has failed in part because most (nearly all?) players with power and influence serve their own personal interests before they serve the public interest. By players with power and influence, CM means people like elected politicians, wealthy business people and other great pillars of respect in the community. That's CM opinion based on cold, hard evidence, not simple ire over some slight in the past (which BTW doesn't exist).

The following is some evidence that this is not just made up. CM doesn't make its content up. Its all out there if one cares to face it for what it is.

The evidence

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 (two days after AE suffered its setback), the Los Angeles Times had the following to say:

"Why couldn't Americans Elect land a better-known candidate? It tried. Darry Sragow, a canny Democratic campaign strategist from Los Angeles, led a nationwide talent search to persuade top-tier names to jump in. Sragow says he talked with about 50 current and former officeholders, including incumbent senators and governors, but nobody was willing to take the chance.

 

"Everyone agreed that the system is broken," Sragow said. "The problem is that their risk aversion was too high. There's a fear of retribution if you break with your party."

Retribution? Sure. Not like in Syria, where dissidents are shot, or Russia, where they're merely jailed. But in Washington, a failed third-party presidential candidate could become a pariah — no Cabinet job, no ambassadorship, no consulting clients, no seats on corporate boards."

According to one source, the reluctant pillars of the community included centrists such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Olympia Snowe.

That's not all there is: There is other current evidence, e.g., the story surrounding San Diego mayoral candidate Nathan Fletcher, his betrayal of the two party system and the two party's planned punishment for that treason. Evidence pops up from time to time in all sorts of contexts.

Conclusion

In the LA Times story, note the statement "everyone agreed that the system is broken". That sounds a lot like a public service issue that needs attention. Also note the implied scope and reach that the two parties have in matters that should extend beyond their reach, e.g., seats on corporate boards. Different people will come to their own conclusions, but that explanation is solid evidence that the serving public really isn't a big motivation of people in politics. There is too much personal risk in serving the public. 

Defenders of the status quo will no doubt disagree and artfully spin their poison to create another, better, reality for themselves and public consumption. The question is what you choose to believe - evidence or self-serving spin. Its your choice.