In the late 1800s, the United States experienced a series of one-term presidencies, with three consecutive presidents only serving a single term each. This pattern began after Ulysses Grant and continued until William McKinley, encompassing five total one-term presidencies, including Grover Cleveland’s two nonconsecutive terms. The elections during this period were closely contested, revolving around which party could unite the country and progress following the Civil War.
Although the divisive issues of that era differed from today’s, there are striking similarities in the public sentiment of frustration. Wealth inequality and the belief that the system favored the wealthy were prevalent concerns during the Gilded Age and remain mainstream today. Some argue that we are currently in a new Gilded Age, marked by vast disparities between the rich and poor due to tech-driven economic transformations.
The political instability and discontent of the late 1800s eventually led to the Progressive Era at the turn of the century. This period saw significant reforms in government, including advancements in food and worker safety regulations, urban sanitation practices, and environmental conservation efforts. Key political developments included women gaining the right to vote, direct election of senators, and increased government oversight of the economy to curb corporate monopolies.
While some initiatives of the Progressive Era, such as Prohibition, were later repealed, the period also witnessed a shift in journalism towards greater accountability of those in power. “Muck-raking” journalism exposed corruption and scandals, shifting the media landscape away from partisan biases.
Today, there is a growing public desire for reform and modernization of public institutions, mirroring the sentiments of the late 19th century. Just as the inequalities and divisions of the Gilded Age prompted the Progressive Era, there is speculation that the current disparities could lead to a similar period of change.
A recent poll by the FrameWorks Institute revealed that 70% of Americans believe “the system is rigged,” reflecting widespread discontent. The study highlights the public’s yearning for change and transformation in response to perceived inequities and challenges facing society.
The term “system” was used without specifying if it referred to corporate, political, or cultural systems. Upon further examination, it was discovered that some believed the system was biased against racial and ethnic minority groups, while others thought it favored the white working class. This survey presents an opportunity for a reform-minded politician or movement to address the prevalent sense of powerlessness that has made President-elect Donald Trump’s disruptive political style appealing to some voters. While some may not endorse Trump’s character or motives, they view him as a force for change. Rather than attempting gradual reform from within, which was the approach of the Biden-Harris administration, disrupting the perceived “rigged system” is seen as a more favorable option by many voters.
With the year coming to a close, it is a fitting time to propose ideas that could rebuild public trust in various institutions, including the media, judiciary, and government at all levels. These suggestions are not an exhaustive list of potential reforms but could make incremental improvements if implemented. Drawing from the lessons of the Progressive era, we understand that numerous small reforms can lead to significant change. These ideas should not be viewed as partisan, although they may be perceived as threatening to some in power from both political parties. Ideally, these proposals challenge the status quo of both parties.
Restoring local journalism is crucial in reestablishing a sense of community engagement in politics. Over the past three decades, there has been a shift towards nationalized politics, diminishing the importance of local perspectives. In the past, news outlets with substantial audiences had dedicated journalists in Washington focusing on how national decisions impacted local communities. However, this local lens has faded in the digital age, with many news outlets relying on syndicated national content. In some areas, there is a lack of local news coverage, leading residents to feel disconnected from national decisions. This disconnect reinforces the perception that Washington is detached from the rest of the country. By revitalizing local journalism, communities can be better informed about how national policies affect them personally, fostering a more engaged and informed citizenry.
Instead of prioritizing the needs of their local communities, politicians often focus on issues that garner media attention. If our media were more locally grounded rather than national, politicians would be more attentive to the impact of their decisions on their constituents.
Transitioning to all-party primaries has coincided with the increase in polarization and the rise of “no party” voters. Voter disillusionment with the two major parties has led many Americans to register as independent or unaffiliated. However, this has inadvertently resulted in the purging of moderates from both parties. The primary process is now dominated by partisan Democrats and Republicans, leading to more polarized general elections and leaving moderates unsure of which party to support. Opening up primaries to all registered voters would encourage elected officials to cater to a broader range of constituents in order to secure re-election.
Expanding the House of Representatives was meant to ensure that it remained close to the people. Initially, House seats were apportioned based on population, with one seat for approximately every 33,000 residents in 1792. However, the House stopped growing after the 1930 census, resulting in a current ratio of one representative for every 770,000 residents. This has made each congressional district equivalent in population to one of the 20 largest cities in America, posing challenges for representative democracy. Advocates suggest adopting a ratio similar to that of the 50th largest city in America, such as Arlington, Texas, to allocate House seats more effectively.
Expanding the House to 837 members would result in more direct representation of communities in Washington. This increase could reduce gerrymandering, allow for a more diverse range of political ideologies, and create a fairer electoral map for presidential elections. Additionally, it would lead to a more equitable distribution of electoral votes among states. For example, with one representative per 400,000 residents, California would have 99 electoral votes, while Wyoming, with a smaller population, would retain its single representative.
Another important reform would be to depoliticize the judiciary by raising the confirmation threshold to 75 votes in the Senate. This would encourage the appointment of judges who prioritize constitutional interpretation over partisan interests. Similarly, instituting term limits for government agencies, such as sunsetting every agency every 25 years, would promote accountability and efficiency in governance. These reforms aim to make the government more transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of the country.
Reimagining Agencies for Modern Challenges
Adapting an agency or Cabinet department to address current challenges can be a struggle. Often, we attempt to fit a new problem into an outdated regulatory model. Let’s consider cryptocurrency as an example. Is it a security or a commodity? Should it be seen as a good or a financial instrument? And should it be overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission? Rather than trying to shoehorn crypto into existing structures, what if Congress reimagined these agencies in light of today’s issues? Instead of retrofitting crypto into one agency or another, perhaps we should ensure that financial and trading regulators have mandates that align with present challenges. Could these two agencies be merged, or should their mandates be revised? Implementing a periodic review process, such as a forced sunset every 25 years for agencies like the SEC, would prompt Congress to assess whether agencies are fulfilling their original purposes and if adjustments are needed to address future needs.
Reforming the Pardon Power
The power to grant pardons, vested in a single individual by the Founding Fathers, raises concerns about unchecked authority in a representative democracy. While presidential pardons have rectified past injustices, they have also been susceptible to corruption and favoritism. To ensure fairness, we could amend the Constitution to establish a diverse pardon board composed of congressional members, executive officials, and Supreme Court justices, tasked with evaluating pardon requests. These proposals aim to enhance government accountability and public trust by reducing systemic inequalities. By advocating for a more transparent media, inclusive primary processes, and other reforms, we can collectively strive for a fairer and more responsive government.
Advocate for a shift in our judicial selection process, allowing for increased accountability and inclusivity. This, coupled with a concerted effort to promote and empower a diverse Congress, serves as a pivotal step towards establishing a fairer and more equitable society. Such measures equip us with the necessary tools to dismantle systems of inherent bias and privilege, thereby fostering a more just and representative democratic system.
