Devil in Details? Maybe Not
See if you can track what is — at least to me — the unassailable logic of the following, three-part syllogism (a logical proof favored by ancient Greek philosophers).
Don’t worry; if you get stumped, I’ll help you out.
#1. The airwaves are a public asset that government, representing the people, licenses to for-profit corporations (who in turn run very lucrative networks).
#2. Our elected officials spend an inordinate amount of their time raising money to buy air time (i.e., commercials) on aforesaid networks.
#3. If society wants its leaders to actually spend their time governing, not fundraising, it should . . . . . [fill in the blank].
Give up?
Here’s how I’d complete #3.:
“If society wants its leaders to actually spend their time governing, not fundraising, it should . . . . stipulate that, as a condition for (re)licensure, the for-profit networks earmark a prescribed amount of (peak viewing) airtime each election cycle for candidates’ use.”
Part II: Implementation
Once everyone’s on board with that — and why shouldn’t they be? — part II is figuring out how exactly to divvy up that airtime equitably.
My solution: require a threshold number of signatures — same as qualifying for the ballot in the first place.
If society wants better leaders, perhaps, just perhaps, it needs to make public service less distasteful.
Change the job description, and you get better-caliber leaders; get better leaders, and you get better quality government and a more functional society.
Simple, huh?
See also, “Capitalists & (Political) Campaigns.”
