A New Civic Engagement?

 

http://j.mp/KVJgPm

 

In this article, Eric Liu advocates for more robust civic engagement, that is, regular "every-day" citizens taking more responsibility and exerting more direct control over their political and social institutions. In other words, Liu seems to be saying that we should move away from organizing ourselves as a republic, wherein elected officials conduct the public's business, and toward direct democracy. Such a move would certainly help people feel that they have a more direct and meaningful role in their self-governance. It would also make political and social institutions answerable directly to the public. People could not complain that their votes were not meaningful or did not count.

 

But in our very large and complex government, direct democracy may not be workable or any more meaningful than a system of elected public officials. People would have to vote on each regulation or bill. To provide for meaningful debate and comment on ever matter, town hall meetings would need to be held almost nightly. Perhaps this would work at first, but the general public would quickly tire from such a routine. After a while, only the people with the most time would be able to show up to the debates and to the polls. Or, people with the most money could send representatives on their behalves. Eventually, those already with the most power would have the most influence. Such a state would not seem much different from today's. 

 

The difference would be that the powerful who are controlling the decisions behind the scenes would claim that the decisions made were more justifiable than today's, because it was regular citizens who made them. Without question, Americans should be more involved in their government, especially at the local level. On that point, Liu is right. But is direct democracy the way to go? Must we go back to our roots in order to move forward? Instead, perhaps it is time for us to innovate once more, to recognize that the political institutions that have served us well previously can no longer do the job. We've done that before (see the American Revolution). We can do it again.

 

On Banking, Rhetoric, and Academic Advocacy

The following article appeared on the US edition of FT.com today, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fed87d52-20c3-11e1-816d-00144feabdc0.html

I find this article's appearance as curious for a couple of reasons.

First, when I hear "confidence trick," I of course hear "rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric." But, then, what's new?

But, second, this understanding of the US's credit-based system of currency is also not new. So why is it appearing in the FT now? Bankers in both the US and the UK should know this about our system, shouldn't they? How is it that the FT, one of the most respected financial journals in the world, for whatever that's worth, thought it important to reproduce one of the most basic aspects of our financial system?

One guess is that they want to remind the "masters of the universe" (investment bankers, hedge fund managers, traders, CEOs of top companies--those who have the financial power to make decisions about our financial systems) that our whole system is predicated on "confidence," which, again, I read as "rhetoric." So are they trying to remind the bankers and hedge fund managers to step-up the confidence-inducing rhetoric? This piece might've been useful to every-day, regular citizens, so that they can empower themselves with knowledge of the system and make more intelligent choices about who they want in power or about how they approach money qua power in their own lives. But this piece won't reach those folks. I, with my tech savvy, had to subscribe to this feed, click through a bunch of stuff, save it, then distribute it. I have the privilege of leisure to read it, process it, think critically about it, then engage someone else similarly situated in order to contextualize it. Lots of folks don't have the time or the practical know-how to do all that. (Not that they couldn't, of course.)

The only other guess is that FT and the author are trying to take seriously the idea that because the system of confidence is government generated, stability and longevity of the system must be government supported. So it may be a call for the Fed to step up their game. But then I have to question whether this is the most effective forum for this argument. Maybe it's my skepticism getting the best of me, but I hardly think that most folks in Congress are going to take this piece seriously, if they even read it, unless they already agree. It just isn't strong enough to be convincing to someone who disagrees that government has a meaningful role to play here. If this piece is an answer to a David-Harvey-esque call for academics to get out there and start talking, I'm dubious of its efficacy in that regard...

 

A New Blog

Welcome to my new blog! I hope to share here my thoughts regarding current events, news, legal issues, and anything else that I think folks would be interested in engaging with me via this forum. Please feel free to comment on anything! I look forward to hearing your perspective!