Mr. Zucker's talk made me think that U.S. politics has simply not yet begun to evolve in the way other areas of U.S. popular culture have. When you vote in the U.S., as evidenced by Mr. Zucker, you still have to buy a political party's whole "album" to get that one "favorite song" (in his case, an aggressive anti-terrorist stance) I say that it is high-time that politics in the U.S. take on the more customer-directed focus that has begun to pervade in industries such as music (MP3 downloads), investments (online trading) and retail (online grocery shopping). Sure this may turn U.S. politicians in to nothing more than "voice-boxes" for the voters of their country, state or district: ie., "I am U.S. Senator Smith and I represent the will of the people of Rhode Island in 2024: strong national defense, free marijuana, 200 MPH highway speed limits and an Equal Rights Amendment..." But, voter-directed, "voice-box" politicians may truly provide a complete expression of an electorate's political will and keep voter's, such as Mr. Zucker, from having to sacrifice one issue or issues to secure another.
(Taken from www. Usedcarsalesman.com, "The Surprisingly Honest Opinion Blog")
Edited: LI
Article comments
1 - Natalie Davis
Interesting theory. If only it were possible.
2 - chris franklin
"Yes" to Number 1, wouldn't it be nice if it were possible?
I think you'd almost have to take the "person" out of the equation and elect an "electronic device" as your member of congress (probably not going to happen for a long while, if ever, I hope).
Or, you'd have to elect an individual who literally had no recorded personal feelings or track record on paticular issues and simply was an outstanding trial attorney and fighter for the rights of others. An attorney/actor almost.
Or, perhaps, you elect an individual to congress who was formerly a beaureucrat/lawyer employed by the Federal government; he or she would be accustomed to not taking the side of any political party (in accordance with the Federal Code), but rather to simply carrying out the will of those in power during a given electoral term. In a change of position, I suggest, perhaps, that bureaucrats become the "politicans" and the people assume the directing political "power," the bureaucrats (who have now become the elected politicans) carrying out or otherwise fight for the collective will of their respective electorates.
So we still have representative democracy, but the background and or nature of the representatives changes. It's almost like the legislative branch takes on some of the chracteristics of the judicial branch, thus becoming a legislative courtroom with 535 lawyers simultaneously arguing for 535 seperate electorates. The president becomes the representative of the biggest US electorate of all and he effectively becomes representative 536; of course, despite his "election," this is the U.S. President as a Prime Minister, really.
Of course, I don't intend to advocate anything seditious, just political changes to better reflect the evolutions that have occurred in the daily lives of the U.S. body politic in the last 10, 15 years.