A Theory of Injustice

My title inverts the title of the magnum opus of the philosopher John Rawls. His book, A Theory of Justice, laid out a method by which we might find rules to govern a nation fairly.

The central technique Rawls proposes is to make policy decisions as a P.O.P., or Person in the Original Position. That is, from behind a veil of ignorance, as if one were waiting to be born. If you had no idea who you were going to be, in terms of gender, ethnicity, wealth, health, intellectual capacity, or social group, what rules would you make? This is a difficult assignment, given both our knowledge of our positions and our lack of knowledge of our prejudices, but it is something to strive for.

I’d like to propose a new technique to estimate the chances of a candidate or a piece of legislation. If you are wondering whether a candidate or a bill has a chance of succeeding, look at it as a P.I.M.P. That is, a Person In a Millionaire’s Position. Imagine that you have a net worth of at least a million dollars and an annual income to match. Does the bill or candidate in question appeal to you? Will the taxes on your millions be lower? Will the employees of your business interests be more cowed and less well paid? Will the regulations that presently classify your preferred business practices as crimes be repealed? Well then, said candidate or bill has a good chance. It’s a sucker bet.

I’ve written about it before, but the two most important facts in American politics bear repeating. Whoever spends the most money in a congressional primary wins, nine times out of ten. Over three-quarters of this money comes in large chunks, $500 and up, from millionaires, multi-millionaires, and billionaires.

These happy few, perhaps one out of a thousand of us, determine by donation who gets to be the candidates in the general election. The difference between Iran and the U.S. is this: In Iran a small group of mullahs decides who gets to run for political office. In the U.S. a small group of millionaires performs that task. They are not going to pick people who oppose them. These like-minded legislators are not generally going to write or pass bills that dismay them.

Hence the effectiveness of the P.I.M.P. method of political analysis.

It’s all about campaign money, sure, but behind that is a warped perspective on justice and fairness. In the democracy-ending 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo decision, the Supreme Court proposed that because donating money to a campaign allowed it to better spread its message, donating money was therefore equivalent to political speech. The Court determined that the 1^st Amendment protected political fundraising from any significant restrictions. Present donation limits for individuals are as follows:

$2,400 per election (primary or general) per candidate

$30,400 per national political party annually

$10,000 per local or state political party annually

$5,000 to each political action committee (PAC)

All of this up to an aggregate limit of $115,500 per two-year election cycle.

An important point that Rawls makes about liberty and equality is that a particular liberty has to be judged in terms of its real worth to various individuals. To Bill Gates, that $115,500 limit is worth $115,500. To 99.9% of Americans it is worth a small percentage of that. It brings to mind the statement of the writer and Nobel laureate Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Here, it allows both the bank CEO and the minimum wage retail clerk to donate the price of a Lamborghini. That isn’t true political equality.

I look at it as the moral equivalent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires handicapped accessibility to public accommodations such as polling places. A cruel person might look at a paraplegic in front of city hall and say, “Hey, if that guy really wanted to vote he’d drop out of that wheelchair and drag himself up the stairs with his arms.” Likewise, if the other 99.9% of us wanted something like political financial parity we could sell our houses and/or belongings, live in discarded boxes, eat mac and cheese, and donate 90% of our earnings to political campaigns. We are the financially handicapped, sitting at the bottom of a long flight of stairs, looking up at the receding backsides of Lloyd Blankfein and the Koch brothers.

Over and over again we hear on the news: “This bill is running into opposition from the (X) industry.” Insert banking, health insurance, pharmaceutical, oil, auto, mining, or whatever behemoth fits. We should be able to say “So what?” “Hey, this new drug law is running into opposition from heroin dealers.” Good. Fuck them, and the (X) industry likewise. Sadly, we can’t ignore them or tell them to back off. They choose our politicians for us.

And it’s getting worse. The Citizens United decision opened up the political money game to corporations in a more direct way than ever before. Anonymous millionaire donors are creating ad hoc political organizations in the last months of this campaign season. A great flood of illicit cash is rolling over our political system.

It’s time, past time, to concentrate, folks. We all have our particular subjects – education, women’s rights, the environment, fiscal responsibility, energy, labor, whatever. We’re dithering away our last years of democratic opportunity. We still can vote, and we still can speak freely, if not with the same expensive loudspeakers available to the CEO class. We need to stop focusing on symptomatic issues and personalities and get to the core of the problem: the way we (?) choose the people who make the decisions. Change the process and change the results. Given the plutocratic majority on the Supreme Court, it may take a constitutional amendment to do the job. Otherwise we’ll be seeing the world through the eyes of a P.I.M.P.

Comments

[Otis Gophernuts]

Look. If Rich People weren't meant to rule, why'd they get all that money?