Ron Paul and Barney Frank Find Common Ground; There's A Lot More for The Right and Left to Find (Joe Rothstein's Commentary)

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.COM

When you drill down into the deepest layers of the tectonic plates that drive both right and left wing political passions you actually find a common energy source.

Simply stated, both the Right and Left agree that the average person is being screwed.

People across the political spectrum are steamed that the banks, the auto companies, the barons of Wall Street and pretty much everyone with power and money has received significant government assistance during this near-Depression, while those who lost their jobs, homes, pensions, health care and ladder rungs toward economic security have not.

Those on the Right are furious about the bailouts and the mounting national debt triggered by bigger government budgets. The Left is furious that the government---their government---didn't break up the big banks, throw out the Masters of the Universe who did so much to bring down the economy, or do more to create jobs and help people stay in their homes.

While perspectives and proposed solutions have evolved into differing political life forms, there's little dispute over what's at the heated core: both the Right and Left understand that the person without power and money has been screwed by those with power and money.

A 2010 political campaign based largely on anger and frustration won't produce an election result that changes much. What's needed is a debate over the fundamental structure of business and government, both now heavily weighted toward those with money and influence.

To really change political outcomes we have to change the way we elect people to represent our interests. The political environment has seldom been more open for that kind of political debate.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision has given new energy to substituting public money for private interest money to pay for campaigns. The Tea Party Right is pushing hard to abolish the 17th amendment, which would return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislators and end direct voter election. That's opened an important debate about representation. California's voters just approved a constitutional amendment that essentially removes political party affiliation from the selection of most office holders. And the results of the 2010 census will trigger reapportionment of congressional and state legislative seats in dozens of states.

Here is a rare opportunity to turn the 2010 campaign into a national debate about how we elect our representatives, not just about who is on this year's ballot.

Should we downplay the role of political parties, as California is about to do? Should we minimize the influence of big money and big power by underwriting campaigns with public resources? Should states appoint independent commissions to reapportion districts according to common interests (as Iowa, Alaska and others states now do) or continue to tolerate political gerrymandering? Should U.S. senators be appointed as many on the political Right believe, rather than elected?

Elevating the political process to a major campaign issue would open other important questions that have long needed to be addressed. Questions like free access time on TV and radio stations operating under federal licenses. Whether to limit the length of active campaigns, as they do in Great Britain and elsewhere. How to limit the role of foreign money in domestic campaigns. Whether to lengthen congressional terms from two to four years so representatives are not engaged in perpetual campaigns.

Process generally is not a fascinating subject to most people. But in the 2010 election environment it could be political dynamite. Many voters are ready to blow up the current system. That anger can be channeled into productive debates over what a new system would look like if we do.

But let's not stop there. How we govern ourselves isn't the only problem. Weak government oversight enabled the current economic near-Depression, but the fingerprints of the nation's deepest pocketed bankers and financiers were all over the deadly destructive weapons.

Lost in the July 4 news lull was a report by the Financial Crisis Commission that all but convicted some of the most important players in U.S. finance of self-dealing tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and then trying to keep it secret.

Clearly there's a problem with U.S. style capitalism. As Adam Smith warned so long ago, the capitalist system, unchecked, tilts toward monopoly. How do you define monopoly? How about when four major financial behemoths issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, write half the mortgages and collectively hold $7.4 trillion in assets, about 52 percent of the nation's estimated total output last year? Or when Comcast and GE are about to do a deal that brings a significant percentage of the nation's broadcast, cable and Internet channels onto one profit and loss sheet?

Concentration of power has pushed much of U.S. manufacturing into low cost foreign countries. It's been responsible for wiping out tens of thousands of small businesses. It's distorting our health costs and adding literally hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary costs to our military spending.

Most political candidates have been reluctant to talk about all of this because it invites massive retribution from entrenched and potent financial interests. But in the angry mood of 2010, why shouldn't this issue be front and center of the political debate?

Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank joined together last week to propose a $100 billion a year reduction in military spending. If these icons from the political Right and Left can do it, what's stopping everyone else?

The Paul-Frank initiative underlines my starting point. The "small people" (as the chairman of BP would say it) are getting screwed. And the small people of both the political Right and Left know it.

Wouldn't it be a refreshing change if the Left and Right found their common ground, as Paul and Frank have, and channel their anger into demands for solutions that return power to the people? Refreshing, and productive.

(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)