In this era of obscurantism from the right and waffling from the left, it's always fun to see the "true" conservatives make up some things that actually go against the fundamental wingnut principle: "Government is too big! Obama's making it bigger! Unaccountability! Bootstraps!"
Interesting, then, that Jonah Goldberg's solution to this problem is...more government! Goldberg basically states that the 435 members of the House are not enough to represent the American population. Fine. Honestly, I agree with him--his idea to expand the House, however, seems oddly 'progressive'
A Congress of, say, 5,000 citizen-legislators would change [the intransigency of congress and special interest groups' grip on congress] overnight. Would it cost more money? Yes. But today’s huge staffs could be cut, and perks and pork might even be curtailed by using the old chewing gum rule: If there’s not enough for everyone, nobody can have any.
How would the staffs be reduced? I can reasonably agree that Congressperson X would need a smaller staff since she is representing fewer people, but would that actually work? Since when has any Congressperson agreed to reduce what they have (or could be having)? Not only that, but why in the sweet lord's name would pork spending be reduced? It seems to me that the more people that are in Congress, the more ideas and pet projects are going to be brought to the table. Sure, as it is now, pet projects are often given to those with the most influence, but why could we reasonably assume that simply having more people would cause each individual person to want less? Since when has not having "enough for everyone" been a limit to government spending? Look at our deficit.
The next issue that tickled me was Goldberg's insistency that if there are more people running for office, that a more diverse spread of the population is going to be a Congressperson:
Want more minorities in Congress? Done. Want more libertarians? More socialists? More blue-collar workers? Done, done, done.
Why on earth is it rational to assume that if more positions open up, a different type of person is going to run for congress?
He closes with positing the idea that with more people in congress, more political parties will emerge, providing a "smaller political market" where politicians can be tested before running for presidency. I think I agree with Goldberg here, but I'm not sure it's a better situation politically. I do think the two-party system is bankrupt. I think most people in this country are slightly right of center (including my best "liberal" friends), but the presentation of an insane group of blithering white men screaming about personal accountability and then being found in a bathroom stall with a 14-year old boy who just thought he was going to get a lollipop drives them away from labeling themselves as conservative. I think congress could do with a shake-up, but I don't think that it's going to make government any less corrupt or morally defunct. I think good people aren't going to run for public service positions any more then than they do now.
