EastWesterly Review Home -- Blog -- EastWesterly Review -- Take2 -- Martin Fan Bureau -- Fonts a Go-Go -- Games -- Film Project -- Villagers -- Graveyard
Custom Search



39 | 38 | 37 | 36 | 35
34 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 30
29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25
24 | 23 | 22 | 21 | 20
19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15
14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10
9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5
4 | 3 | 2 | 1

Annual Conferences

24th | 23rd | 22nd | 21st | 20th
19th | 18th | 17th | 16th | 15th
14th | 13th | 12th | 11th | 10th
9th | 8th | 7th

Foundling Theory Fund

Letters from the editor

Submit your article


help support us -- shop through this Amazon link!

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons
4.0 International License

Postmodern Village
est. 1999
e-mail * terms * privacy
A Proposal for Increasing the Efficiency of Congress Given Recent Supreme Court Action
By Rand M. Friedmann

The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission has allowed, finally, some common sense to reign in the relationship between the much beleaguered corporate person and its tyrannical governmental overlord. Indeed, the current deplorable state of politics can be blamed on but one thing: there are far too many actual individuals in Congress and not enough corporate ones.

By recognizing the First Amendment rights of the corporate person in political speech, the otherwise far-left Roberts Court has finally righted a gross injustice that has been standing throughout the long, dark, quasi-Marxist regime instituted by the Leninist/Stalinist confabulation of McCain-Feingold. Free, now, to spend as much as He wishes on political advertising, homo corporatans is now unfettered in His ability to express His right not just to elect due representation in the taxing body, but, in theory, to be elected Himself.

Naturally, for this to happen, He must present an emissary to the taxpayer, a mascot or “leader,” if you will. This representative can act as the face of the corporation he represents but must not be allowed to impede progress. Given that, I propose firstly that these stand-ins be hired from the ranks of some of our more attractive actors or models, though given the deplorably liberal state of Hollywood these days, the search may be more difficult than it would at first seem. However, a few freedom-minded types such as Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson could no doubt be persuaded to play the roles, especially by some of the more well-heeled corporate individuals such as Exxon or NewsCorp. Some of them may even work for free, having been already compensated by consumers at the box-office. Arnold Schwarzenegger will soon be available and has proven himself quite adaptable to new roles, even boasting of actual executive experience. Eastwood and Gibson in particular trend toward revenge motives in their selected roles and could be used to rally corporate efforts in the first few years of proper government, but may prove to have problems with the franchise long-term. Sarah Palin boasts celebrity looks and has the advantage of having already given up an executive role for one in entertainment, making her a no-brainer as far as the corporate personhood movement goes. Her acquisitive nature is also well-known and her price point relatively low, making her an especially attractive prospect.

Putting a well-known or sexy public face on a corporate Congress would go a long way toward winning consumer acceptance. But there is always the remote possibility of a taxpayer/consumer backlash. These elements are not always aware of the needs of the corporate minority's interests, after all. Celebrity politicians tend to be popular—note the success of Ronald Reagan—but nothing short of total media saturation (which is not out of the question, but is unduly costly) ensures against a queasy sort of self-loathing descending upon the taxpayer post-inaugural ball, as evidenced by Jesse Ventura's tenure as governor of Minnesota. Indeed, the long-term leadership of the corporate candidate is always potentially threatened by the misguided tyranny of the taxpayer himself.

This comes to the heart of my proposal. Once, as is all but inevitable given the new court precedent and the superior spending power of the corporate individual, we have elected super-majorities in both houses of Congress and gained the presidency, once we have solid majorities in the state legislatures (which can be had for mere pocket change—perhaps a few million dollars apiece) it behooves corporate persons to push through the requisite constitutional changes that would allow us to, in essence, auction the seats in these august bodies outright.

Naturally, to avoid the tax 'n' spend problems of liberal regimes, proceeds from these auctions would be divided among the shareholders of the companies whose representatives already hold the seats, as is proper in any Market-based system. To be fair, a remainder should also be allowed for bonuses for the CEOs of the various corporate persons represented, and, economics permitting, for bonuses for those proxies actually occupying the hall. Those proxies could then be dismissed, their services ended, their roles come to an end. From here the halls of the various bodies could be filled with middle managers more suited to the job.

The efficiencies this would create are obvious to anyone schooled in Free Market doctrine, but it would not be impertinent to recount a few of them here. There is, after all, nothing in nature or in the creation of mere men as efficient as the Free Market. Prophets from antiquity such as Adam Smith and latter-day saints such as Alan Greenspan have said so, after all, and the holiness of these two names alone should be proof enough. But other, more concrete evidence exists. Look at the number or needlessly pricey manufacturing jobs that have been eliminated by even the tiny shifts toward Market freedom allowed over the past decade, with 3million rendered obsolete between 2000 and 2006. The ancillary uptick in profitability has been extraordinary, and the commensurate increase in productivity in the remaining, agreeably stress-motivated, workers has been exemplary, at 71% between 1980 and 2005, with a mere 4% increase in labor outlay, beating inflation over the same period by perhaps a factor of ten. Note, even more agreeably, how over the same the top 5% of income earners, those stockholders and executives who make up the body of corporate individuals, has increased their share of income by 100%, to 40% of all the income there is.

Thus the middling sorts have avoided pricey remuneration and the bottom 5% have actually seen their share of income decline, as befits their station in life. The Free Market, after all, rightly rewards success and punishes failure, and only with these incremental freedoms created by such efforts as NAFTA and various union-busting schemes have we managed to make the wisdom of the Market felt. Imagine how much more proper things will be when the corporate person is really in control.

Examples of free-market efficiency abound. Note how the health insurance and health-care-provider fields have leveraged their precarious positions (their client base being understandably prone to mortality and disease) into profits that have increased an average of 20% per year! Note, too the efficiencies borne witness by shuttered automobile plants and steel mills throughout the Rust Belt and crumbling textile operations throughout the South. Every medical procedure denied, every dollar of bailout money redirected toward executive bonuses, every tax abatement and subsidy for businesses to locate in a particular place, every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere, every mountaintop removed, every cadmium earring sold, every gallon of mercury returned to nature in a river—all these—are proof positive of the inherent and inerrant efficiencies of the corporate man, the very efficiencies He could bring to governance and is now allowed to through our Supreme Court. Who could deny, after all, the brilliance of recapitalizing $700 billion of the taxpayer money back into the steady hands of the financial industry in 2009?

More of these glories the corporate Congress will bring. But it will have another benefit: creating a Congress that can get things done. With corporate control, bipartisanship and infighting will disappear since, when it comes to matters of governance, all corporations essentially agree. In unity, there is clarity, and in clarity, freedom. The corporate individual is therefore more free than the mere citizen whose voice is drowned in the weak-willed and sloppy process of organization and the weak-minded and silly process of debate and consent. The corporate person is, because of this, also quite simply more fit to lead.

Thus we can effectively do away with almost all actual legislation, and a corporate Congress could get down to business, so to speak, deciding the things more fitting to deliberative bodies, such as determining what color the fabric adorning the interiors of the new fleet of company jets should be, or deciding how many hot tubs are the right number for a vacation house in Aspen.

I can think of no possible objection to this plan except that, perhaps, the will of the consumer might be slightly obstructed. But this is an illusion. The Market tells us, after all, that the consumer expresses her will through shopping. President George W. Bush recognized this when he encouraged all Americans to shop after the tragic events of 9/11. But my plan would, then, have the ultimate benefit of correcting a mistake made over 230 years ago when well-meaning but delusional men allowed consumers to make political decisions through the vote instead of handing power over to the executives who, the last few years have proven, know completely, perfectly, and exactly what they are doing.

Rand M. Friedmann is a senior fellow at Heritage Now.