While we're dreaming, can I get a few million dollars?

In December 1958, almost exactly three years after I entered the House of Representatives, the first American National Election Study, initiated by the University of Michigan, found that 73 percent of Americans trusted the federal government “to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.” As of December 2017, the same study, now conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, found that this number had plummeted to just 18 percent.

The larger trust in the federal government might also be attributed to its much smaller silhouette in 1958. It was simply doing less than it is now, and so had less opportunity to disappoint or piss people off. Court-supervised desegregation bussing had yet to pick up steam, the majority of the famous Warren Court decisions were still ahead, including the string of contraception cases that ended with Roe v. Wade. LBJ's Great Society was still a ways off, not to mention his (and Nixon's) shameless, bipartisan lying. Rather, large swathes of the country was experiencing the most broad-based rise in living standards in human history. Lots of goodwill to go around.

His point still stands. People hate the fucking government. The confusing part is who these 18% who don't even are. Some of his more pie-in-the-sky proposals:

The elimination of money in campaigns

I am fully aware that the Supreme Court has declared that “money is speech.” That’s nonsense. The day my wallet starts talking to me, I might reconsider that view. Until then, I believe that the pernicious influence of money on our elections must be removed.

The curt dismissal notwithstanding, I'm not convinced money isn't speech. Michael Kinsley makes the point:

The First Amendment right of free speech is generally considered to be a liberal cause. So it's disappointing to see how quickly liberals abandon it when the speech is something they disagree with. Money isn't speech? Ridiculous. Of course it is. The very act of spending money sends a message, like “liking” something on Facebook. Also, it takes money to “speak.” It's precisely because people and organizations that have more money can speak more (more TV commercials, more lawn signs) and speak more loudly (perhaps a better class of political consultant) that the court's conclusion in Citizens United bothers people so much.

What to do about rich people's undue influence in politics? Maybe focus on getting poor people wealthier, than tying the hands of the already-wealthy. Not sure how the latter can be done in a principled way. NB: I say this despite hating with almost every cell in my body the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

Abolishing the Senate.

Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that.

Abolish the Senate? Jesus. Where to begin. The Constitution prohibits it: "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Even setting "suffrage" equal to zero for all, the structure of the document calls for a bicameral body, the upper body of which has roles and responsibilities different than the House, such as confirming appointments, originating certain bills, voting on impeachment proceedings, etc. That's letting alone the feasibility of any amendment, let alone one that would disempower the less-populous half of the Union. I wrote about it here but suffice to say that an amendment can be blocked by a simple majority within the state legislatures of one-fourth of the states, meaning that less than 2% of the population can block an amendment. You could call a convention in two-thirds of states. Good luck controlling whatever emerges from that mess.

This is fun in the way that reading science fiction is fun. Realistic... hardly.