Resignation accepted

In early August, Lawrence Lessig, a Professor at Harvard Law School, wrote an open letter to the American public announcing his candidacy for president. The little-known academic offered himself as, what he termed, a “referendum president,” promising specifically to overhaul the corruption that riddles the American electoral and legislative process. What caught most people’s eye, however, was his promise to resign immediately after he accomplishes these goals.

For the few that do know who Lessig is—or at least managed to stumble upon his article—that proclamation didn’t sit well. By his own admission, he had not accounted for the fact that the public simply has not reconciled the idea of a genuinely single-issue president. To his credit, Lessig has seemingly poured careful consideration and a sincerity to restore representative democracy into his campaign. Yet, I’m not so sure that the traction he has failed to gain stems from an aversion to his impending resignation, despite what he may think. It very well may be that amidst his thick Ivy League rhetoric and relative anonymity, nobody knows what the hell he’s talking about.

Scrolling through the comments of his introductory letter on “The Huffington Post” indicated that most people were largely confused by what they had just read. The call to “restore this principle of political equity” and to “demand equality for citizens” appeals to most Americans, but it has also been rehearsed and recited by politicians for the better part of the last 50 years.

More acutely, Lessig outlines on his campaign website his desire to squelch lobbying, oust gerrymandering and repeal Citizens United, all problems frequently associated with Washington’s corruption. These goals are strikingly in line with what a majority of Americans want, yet Lessig has so far been unable to strike the right chord with the public. Undoubtedly, the mass media’s disinterest with Lessig’s campaign makes it difficult for him to get the much needed face time an aspiring presidential candidate requires.

Whether it’s the smothering presence of “outsider” candidates in the field or the simple fact that Lessig has not figured out how to package his message at a palatable Lexile level, the idea of the referendum presidency has realistically gone nowhere. So long as Larry David caricatures Bernie Sanders and Trump continues to Trump, Lessig will fizzle out. I don’t necessarily believe that Lessig’s platform or person are right for the White House, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think that the issues he’s highlighted should be front and center at every debate.

True equity in a representative democracy is a huge issue. As Lessig has argued in his writing, money may not buy influence in and of itself, but it absolutely buys access. When only half a percent of all Americans give the maximal campaign contribution, it’s clear that those who spend own the right to speak to lawmakers. The reality is that elected officials adhere to those who donate to their campaigns and super PACs, and under that consideration, representation takes on an entirely new meaning. American congressmen spend between 30 and 70 percent of their time fundraising and campaigning, which almost assures the American people that their elected officials will spend half their time doing something other than working for them. The cycle is self-perpetuating, and so long as legislators labor for reelection—and the funds that requires—they are unequivocally tethered to the coffers and wishes of those who are willing and able to supply.

The issues Lessig harps on are not strictly partisan. Gerrymandering, interest groups and campaign finance are problems that face Republican and Democratic lawmakers, largely because both parties are after the same thing. For that reason, Lessig’s message, if not its execution, resonated with me. If the current mayhem on Capitol Hill isn’t enough, it should be abundantly clear that Washington isn’t working the way it’s supposed to.

As announced in his recent article in The Atlantic, Lessig has amended his referendum presidency. Acknowledging the statistical evidence that most Americans aren’t comfortable with a temporary president, he’s revised his campaign to more comprehensively address all issues and formally establish himself as a legitimate presidential contender. There is tremendous value in the platform that Lessig is presenting, even if it’s unlikely to come to fruition. But in order for those issues to not only catch but truly capture the public’s eye, Lessig has to live long enough to get on TV. Perhaps even a ballot.