Grassroots + Power III: Debating Reform

Just a quick post here. Now that I've talked about the current problem, and the direction the debate needs to go, I'd also like to briefly talk about what the new direction of the conversation could look like. I bring this up because I happened to read an article that addresses the sort of problem I'm thinking of properly.

The article is here, it's a discussion of the House of Lords, and how to better structure the House of Lords. The opening two paragraphs:

Since it is widely believed by those outside the House of Lords itself that it should not, in its present form, continue to exist, and since the only models of reform suggested – appointment, election, or a combination of the two – are open to compelling objections, the case for total abolition is strong. But the Lords also does invaluable work, particularly as a revising chamber and in the work of its specialist committees. To bring that contribution to an end without replacing it would adversely affect, in a serious way, the quality of government in this country. Time and again, not least in recent years, we have had cause to thank providence for the House of Lords, which on occasion seems more closely attuned to the mood of the nation than the popularly elected house. If the Lords were abolished, could it be effectively replaced?

I think it could, by establishing a body which – for want of any better name – I shall call the Council of the Realm ("the Council", for short). This body would differ from the House of Lords superficially in that membership would involve no outdated pretence of nobility, and it would differ fundamentally in having no legislative power. It could not make law. It could not (save in one respect which I shall discuss shortly) obstruct the will of the Commons. There would be no persisting democratic deficit.

From there, he goes on to lay out more details about his proposed structure for the House of Lords. The content of his argument isn't really the point of why I'm bringing it up (although his logic seems rather sound). I just want to point out how he's thinking about the problem: practically.

In the United States, our government was reformed in waves and waves ever since Andrew Jackson first introduced the concept of America as a Democracy, and usually the reforms have been aimed at making things "more democratic." Some of these steps were clearly good ones--steps toward universal sufferage. However, not everything done in the name of Democracy is necessarily a good thing -- the Republican aspect of our government is equally important.

This is the sort of discussion I'd like to see more often: how power will actually be worked, case scenarios of abuse.

Economic Plan

Key points:

1) It is CC Licensed. That's not part of his plan, but it is hugely important to me... not just because it means I can drop it into my blog. It is important because it means he's taking open government as part of an approach to a free culture.

2) He begins by linking the statistics to the actual social impact of statistics. Thats exactly the sort of empathy and good priority I've always seen in him.

Now the actual plan:

3) Investing in Federal Infrastructure: This stuck out to me as being a little odd for being thrown into the "key points of my economic plan" speech... it saves money, and makes jobs, and I don't doubt its a good and necessary step, but he makes it sound like a priority.

4) Investing in Transportation Infrastructure: This is also clearly necessary, but I'm a little disappointed by the means. Handing money to the states/communities with a "use it/lose it" dictum is a good way to promote use of the money--but it also promotes short-term planning and waste. The National Highway System was a big investment, but it was already centrally planned. Why not a National High-Speed Rail System, like Joe Biden is probably for?

5) Investing in Educational Infrastructure: Well, when I'm coming up with these headlines, these bullet points make a lot more sense than the first time I heard the speech. Anyways, fixing school buildings is great, necessary, and I particularly like the shout-out to the broadband initiative. This, like point 1, means that he's listening to his old friend Lawrence Lessig in all the right ways.

6) Investing in Health Care Infrastructure: This is not part of the overall health care reform, but it is part of it. He's clearly in favor of a single electronic health file that can follow patients wherever they go. And in this moment, he's going to finally piss off civil libertarians who knew he wouldn't be their favorite President, but wanted him more than the wire-tapping/no-Habeas-Corpus Republicans. Privacy, privacy, privacy. I'm also confused as to how Obama will make this practice standardized amongst a whole bunch of independent bodies.

Still, I like what I hear. He is starting on the long process of distilling the word "Change" into a bunch of concrete, actionable reforms. Best of luck to him.