Locking the forum (not to keep us out, but to keep the windbags safely away)

I was thinking earlier today - why are politicians so irresponsible and short-sighted? Probably part of it is that the least logical people make the best leaders. There's not a lot we can do about that. We could make logic tests necessary for holding office, but, by virtue of the irrational being the best leaders, they would still make trouble, elected to office or not.

However, while not exemplars of logic, or of knowledge, or perhaps even common sense, politicians are rational - they do what they perceive to be best for themselves. And it seems to me that for the most part, politicians pursue whatever sounds good, as pleasing the people will lead to re-election. Not what is good, or what they think is good, but what sounds good. Many have a knack for saying things that sound logical, moral, and insightful, but which are actually proven not to work.

Take, for example, the issue of corporate taxes. Many argue that corporations have more money, so they should pay more. That they have a debt to society, and must help to pay for the burden of governance. Currently, corporate taxes in this country are at nearly 40%. Most corporations find loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Many legislators are outraged by this, and say that better enforcement must be put in place, and loopholes closed. However, they forget that businesses can locate themselves wherever they wish - if taxes are high, they will leave. It does not matter how good enforcement is, if there are no businesses to collect from. These same people will argue that we cannot lower taxes because the government is running a deficit. They ignore that businesses, when allowed to keep the money they earn, are much better at investing than the government. They ignore the fact that a low tax rate allows for high growth and for a bigger economy - this brings in just as much, if not more, tax revenue, and has the added benefit of raising everyone's standard of living. And why should business be responsible for government's inability to restrain itself?

But politicians ignore this, because it is far easier to demonize big business for big problems, and to ignore the fact that government is usually to blame when acts of God are not. After all, if big business can cause big problems, what worse mischief could our government cause? It is, after all, larger than any company on earth.

So, what can be done?

Politicians say what sounds good. So, what will they say if no one can hear them? I would propose a system whereby politicians are given no media voice - the media can report their actions, but not their words. And politicians will not be allowed, under any circumstances, to appear on TV. The only possible exception being the President, who as commander in chief, must occasionally address the entire nation.
Just think how pleasant life would be if there were no more political commercials! We could spend election months watching the usual ads for beer, feminine hygiene, and food. They are insipid, mindless, and even disgusting enough to hold us over, I'm sure.
I expect politics would carry on as usual, for a time. Then politicians, attention-seekers by nature, would notice that no one was watching. Perhaps that means they would be more corrupt, but I fail to see how they could be. With no one watching their grandstanding, they would be forced to accomplish things for the papers to report - without accomplishments, people would wonder what exactly they were doing. Accomplishments would be the only way of seeking attention.

Perhaps denying them all outlets would be too harsh. I don't especially think so, as most people are rather reasonable when discussing issues other than politics. And since most are ignorant of issues until politicians raise them, I believe most people would be more reasonable if they were not so misled. However, as I said, some people may think it too harsh to deny these firebrands all communication.
Perhaps they could be permitted time in the slow media - newspapers and the like. Sound bites work well on TV, but are much harder to sell in written form. And since people often don't read, the discussions would be limited to politicians, those who understood the issues, and the insane. The first and third categories would be assumed by the second to be dangerously ill-informed, and rightly so. Once those two sides were excluded, only those with understanding would be left, and their recommendations could be easily examined. In practice, it might not be possible to separate the first and third groups. At any rate, written discussions take more effort and thought, and it is much harder to intimidate or yell over the other side. Of course, the extra effort and thought might go into making even more devious and misleading statements, but, since the supply of truly devious writers is rather limited, I am willing to risk that.

In summary: politicians will nearly always pursue their rational self-interest; that is, to get re-elected. The only way to be elected is for people to know of you, and to support what you do. In order to be known, you must get attention. The current system allows politicians to garner attention mostly by making nonsensical statements, or to say whatever is popular at the moment, both being usually the same thing. If these masters of publicity were restricted - if people could only know of them by their actions - they would be forced to act, rather than bloviate, in order to receive attention. No amount of "ethics training" and no set of qualifications will change the way politicians act: human nature never changes. So it is far better to change the system, in order to reward different behaviors.

The main problem with this proposal is that legislators make the rules, and rarely make rules restricting themselves. So I expect this idea will never be implemented. But I do want to see it happen, if only to discover why it is a bad idea.