1hundredsixty8

The prevailing theme of our politics has been reduced to visceral manifestations of anger. Angry working-class whites formed the core that carried Donald Trump to victory; angry at that victory, shocked progressives have taken to the streets in protest. The election marked the end of eight years of Republican obstruction of President Barack Obama’s agenda, an unprecedented approach to governance that left many disenchanted and frustrated with government. After gaining control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, the Republican approach had the effect of exacerbating the anger and frustration people felt with a national government that seemed to accomplish nothing (which may have been the GOP's purpose). To be sure, beginning with the Tea Party uprising in 2009, most of the anger emanated from the right, but, as the surprising success of Bernie Sanders’ campaign against Hillary Clinton showed, there were vast pools of resentment on the progressive left as well. 

Since Trump’s election, a recurring meme has been that 2016 was a “change” election, a euphemism excusing the ascension of an incurious, narcissistic outsider to the most important political position in the world. This characterization is disputable, given that the overwhelming majority of Senators and Representatives were returned to the Congress. In the Information Age, this country has accomplished something incredulous: We have produced an electorate with a large cohort of low-information voters. Many factors contributed to Hillary Clinton’s defeat, but one was certainly the desire of many people to swing the wrecking ball at political institutions they felt did not work for them. Of course, their stunning ignorance of the workings of our national government led them to direct their anger at the top of the ticket, at the office of President who they erroneously perceive as having the perquisites of a monarch, vituperatively rejecting an awkward technocrat and deciding a petulant braggart would lead them to some vague Promised Land free of immigrants, gays and other non-Christian types. The installation of Mr. Trump in the Oval Office has not caused their anger to abate: Discarding their own ungracious treatment of the nation’s first black President into some amnesiatic miasma, the so-called “deplorables” have unleashed their own brand of political correctness, criticizing protestors as “whiners” and “sore losers”.  

We are at the beginning of Mr. Trump’s term and serious questions are emerging for both major parties and their supporters. In control of all branches of the Federal government, Republicans face the unenviable task of having to govern after going to great lengths to avoid doing exactly that during Mr. Obama’s second term. And they must do so with the easily-distracted President Trump as their leader. Conflicts between the White House and the Congress have begun to emerge only days into the new Administration. There will be more.

On the left, in light of the turnout for the Women’s March Saturday, the question is what should be done next. Pragmatic voices note that the passion of the protests will be eroded if the energy is not transformed into political action. And, yes, running for office, being involved in a campaign and, most importantly, voting, are necessary.

But I would like to propose a new movement, a political action not dependent on protest marches. I am naming it with the hash tag, #NoIncumbents. This is a movement which will appeal to those who yearn for term limits. It should attract support from both right and left. All that is required is that voters, when casting their ballot, whether in a local or in a national election, do not vote for the incumbent. The result would be, for the Congress as an example, that all four-hundred-thirty-five members of the House and one-third of the Senate would be replaced every two years. For we citizens, the task is simple- do not vote for the person already holding the office. For those reluctant to cross party lines, primary elections could serve as the venue in which to exercise this choice. If the current two-party system survives, majority control of the Congress and the Presidency would swing back and forth between the parties at a much more rapid pace than it does now.

This is not a completely tongue-in-cheek proposal, if only because the potential consequences are so enticing. It would eviscerate the professional political class. It would put an end to the incessant fundraising which occupies more of our legislators’ time than doing the people’s business. After several cycles, it would likely attract those who want to spend only part of their life in public service, whether it is the young seeking a prelude to another career, or the old willing to lend their experience to governance after leaving a previous occupation. The most obvious attraction would be the creation of a government of amateurs rather than professionals. Farewell career politicians.

There would be issues, especially on the national level. The complexity of governing a nation of three-hundred-thirty-million people requires a technocratic approach. Since the legislators will rarely have the technical expertise required and little time to accumulate the experience, there is the danger that actual governing power would accrue to Congressional staffs or to the bureaucracy. This where the role of the executive comes into play: It would be the Administration's job to manage the executive branch on one hand, and to work with Congress to formulate policy on the other. Passing laws and appropriating funds- the sausage-making of public policy- would be the essential task of Congress. Over time, the Federal codes could be simplified, laws written in intelligible language and policy clearly presented . Another possible bonus is that Congress may find it necessary to spend more time working. There will be an imperative to get things done. Here corporate organization may be an instructive model: Congress, the Board of Directors, sets policy and oversees the Executive.

And there are ancillary benefits: Lobbyists will have less time to develop cozy relationships with short-timers. The influence of the NRA will be diluted. With the number of re-election campaigns dwindling, money will slowly drain out of electoral politics. Eventually, of course, we will return to re-electing effective politicians, but the culture of Washington D.C. will have changed. The institutions of government would enjoy a rennaisance.

If you truly want to drain the swamp, then it is time for #NoIncumbents.