Confessions of a raving, unconfined lawyer

With all the talk among Kerry supporters about leaving the country, it occurred to me that there might be a market-based win-win solution here. After all, illegal immigrants cross our borders each day, often paying thousands of dollars to criminal gangs to smuggle them in under horrendous conditions.

Why not let people sell their American citizenship to the highest bidder? After all, we let corporations buy tax credits and pollution rights. Letting individuals sell what they own is just plain old-fashioned free enterprise.

Immigrants taking advantage of this approach would (a) avoid risking their lives to enter the country, (b) avoid the constant fear of being deported, and (c) not take any net jobs or other benefits from Americans, because the economy would lose one existing worker for every new one. And the people selling their citizenship could use the money to establish financial independence, which usually improves the chances of achieving citizenship in one’s new home country.

Naturally, known terrorists would be ineligible to participate in this scheme. But for the rest of the world — what’s wrong with trying it?

Since I’m a natural born citizen over the age of 35, if this goes through I’m going to wait for my call from Arnold Schwartzenegger. Arnold baby, you want something; I’ve got it; let’s talk.

In the last century, there has been an arc of political movement that brought us from a country of Babbitts and nativists to a symbol of progress and civility, and now back again. You can measure it in three elections: In 1928, with evolution one of the hot issues, the nation rejected an urban Catholic Northeasterner, largely with the votes of rural evangelical Protestants bolstered by the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan, who felt that no Protestant should ever vote for a liberal Catholic. In 1960, with civil rights one of the hot issues, the nation elected an urban Catholic Northeasterner who pledged that his faith would never guide his decisions. And in 2004, with evolution once again a hot issue, the nation rejected an urban Catholic Northeasterner, largely with the votes of rural evangelical Protestants, bolstered this time by leaders of the Catholic Church, who felt that no Catholic should ever vote for a liberal Catholic, especially one who pledged that his faith would never guide his decisions.

The only thing worse than no progress at all is the reversal of progress. In terms of the moral state of our civilization, are we better off now than we were in 1928?

Half the country believes in salvation through force. The other half believes in cowering under the bedsheets. Or so the pundits say.

Actually, it’s more complicated. There are definitely a left and a right wing in this country, but there’s also a center that was pretty dissatisfied with both candidates. Now I’m definitely on the left, but I think the center deserves its due. And frankly, voters looking for Anyone But Bush would have welcomed a centrist. Some of those voters held their noses and voted for Kerry, but others did the same and voted for Bush. How could they have broken this logjam?

We need three parties in this country. It’s as simple as that. Not the Nader party or the Greens, but a center party that can attract enough votes to hold the center against the extremes and become the second choice of enough people to win office a large part of the time.

Step One: Abolish the electoral college and institute direct popular vote with an instant runoff.

Step Two: Have the Democratic Party break up and split its organization and financial resources between two new parties: one centrist and one left of center.

No, it won’t result in Republican supremacy. The centrist party will get off to a running start and draw centrist voters and dollars from the Republicans. Left Democrats will be able to sharpen their ideological message without having to coddle the centrists — just as the Republicans did after ousting the Rockefeller wing in 1964.

The centrists will almost certainly win elections if instant runoff prevails, because they’ll be everyone’s second choice. That won’t spell defeat for the left — what spells defeat is the present system that forces the left to shut up every four years while the Democratic standard bearer utters platitudes about issues that cry out for more.

The right wing will win elections in Mississippi and Idaho, and the left wing will win elections in New York and California, providing enough of a base to goad the center with ideas that might eventually break through to a majority. With three parties in Congress, the process of building coalitions will become more transparent and involve the voters a hell of a lot more than is the case now.

Well?