Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDeclare a Democratic Worldview
This Fourth of July, let's give America the birthday present she cannot do without. Let's give the people back their Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence sets forth a worldview that, back in the 18th century, served as the foundation of our new nation. This foundation was composed of the principle of human equality and the rights of self-determination implied by the famous phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Back then, this foundation was sufficient to support the society we hoped to build, one free of the economic monopolies, religious authoritarianism and military brutality embodied, respectively, in the English nobility, the Church of England and England's Redcoat soldiers. As large as these forces loomed over the colonists in the New World, these were forces still dwarfed by the Atlantic Ocean, the American wilderness and the sheer number of people they aimed to dominate.
In a day of bayonets, wooden hulls and musket balls, mere consciousness of the principle of human equality was enough to give the people confidence in their ability to rewrite the social contract, even if it had to be written in their own blood. "Give me liberty or give me death," Patrick Henry cried. In his day, he could calculate the odds of success as reasonable against an enemy that was still on a human scale. He could look his enemy in the eye and say to King George with confidence, our equality is self-evident.
When we won our independence, we dismantled all the power platforms setting some human beings above others. Against the concentration of wealth and power of the classist aristocracy, we built the one-person, one-vote principle. Against the psychological oppression of religious authoritarianism, we constructed the doctrine of separation of church and state. And against the physical domination of mercenary armies, we instituted civilian control of the military.
But then we lost our way.
After the Civil War, corporations stole the principle of equality and put it in the service of nonhuman monetary engines antagonistic to our democratic political process. During World War II, the military-industrial complex grew into a powerful privatized industry no longer answerable to the people. After the civil rights movement, the corporations and the military-industrial complex offered the authoritarian religious right political legitimacy in exchange for their votes. It took us far too long to recognize the Republican Party as embodying the same feudal alliance of authoritarian platforms we once revolted against.
Simply put, for more than two centuries, we did nothing to defend ourselves against the anti-democratic forces in society that were themselves constantly seeking ever-increasing sophistication and power. Thus, while economic monopolists, religious authoritarians and military industrialists developed subtle strategies for placing the people under their control, the people remained content with a merely "self-evident" equality. As a result, today we harbor serious doubts about our equality, our ability to rewrite the social contract, and the future of our democracy.
Fortunately, our understanding of the principle of human equality, the rights of self-determination that flow from it, and the people's power to rewrite their social contract need not remain in its 18th century "self-evident" condition. A logical explication of these truths exists. We can give America the birthday gift she so desperately needs if only we will make thinking seriously about the democratic worldview our responsibility. Our original articulation of the democratic worldview changed the course of history in 1776. In 2009, it is high time we upgrade that worldview to meet the sophistication of our 21st century society. In so doing, we will once again expose the ideologies of authoritarian supremacy advanced by economic monopolists, religious authoritarians and mercenary militarists as directly in conflict with the people's rights and humanity's well-being. Equipped with this new understanding, we will find the true direction of change that America is wishing for as her birthday candles all blow out.
John Hank Edson is an attorney and the author of "The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview" (Democracy Press, 2008).
54 Comments so far
Show AllCan anyone suggest a good icon for the 4th?
I'd love to celebrate the best intentions of 1776 without implying support or tolerance for US governmental depredations.
Ideally I would like something simple, not overwhelmingly didactic, yet unmistakable: something that makes clear both my empathy with the hopeful notions of liberty that my naive and somehow patriotic friends in some sense cherish, yet refuse support for the government and the ideology of false liberty.
And then let's have lunch at the park and throw frisbees in a bit better conscience.
Hey folks, happy fourth of July
Everything I am writing came from all the great people that wrote the articles in common dreams, all the comments,common dreams,I guess to cover it all i just want to say
thanks to all that came before.
We all know whats going on,thanks to all the dedicated people that passed this knowledge on to us
namaste'
"a"solution to the dilemma, is to go from a representative
government,to direct gov.
the hardware $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
we need to all take responsibility for what is happening around us so
we need a web-site say citizens central
and we all type in our name, address, e-mail if you have one.
one of the things this web-site needs to do is correlate the data,minimum requirement is to match the addresses with the congressman and senator that goes with your zip code.and we all try to get all the other people to join citizens central
we have to get a majority of citizens in each district and each state or as best as we can.
Once we have enough citizens, we can tell our representative
and senators, exactly what their constitutes want.and that's all they have to do.If they refuse we recall that person or impeach the person for violating the public trust, and install a person that does what the constitutes want.
So the first thing is to get the citizens to citizens central
all the people that voted for obama,the youth vote ,the Hispanic and the African American votes,all the musicians,actors,sports people.all the religious organizations that want to participate, and anyone else that's here.
for the sake of argument lets start with these issues
the economy
health care
foreign policy
the immigration proposal
environmental mother earth
revising some laws
( assuming the planet did not reach critical mass and we have an enlightened planet, this would be my best reality )
till the day as Lau tuse lived, we don't need laws.
making the payback, for violating the people's trust ,defrauded the federal gov. state gov. local gov.
10 years community service and seizure of all assets directly or indirectly owned
two ,revise the laws concerning the fed. so that we know who when where why the money the fed.is making and passing out. and get back what resource's we can.
I think that we can all agree that in general the people writing the articles, people who post their articles,anyone who contributed positively to our lives,we can tend to trust,
I can't think of anyone better.
So i propose that for the sake of economy we allow a syncronessity of energy from those we trust to elaborate on the issues mentioned.
if we all can live with it ,we go to the senate and tell our reps what we want them to do.
right now citizens central is a collective though,i picked it up in the air waves
once i see something in my mind, it exists,
so do we create citizens central ,all i can do is give it my best shot,to repay everyone who gave me some love,
the only resources citizens central has right now,is whatever we have. a web site "thetribe2009@live.com
HELP needed
if someone else wants to be the Dreamer, dream away.
Good Luck to Ya,
I found a good way to network is with regular or occasional Jams at peoples homes and clubs.
Also, origianilly, by an ad in the Nation we have a local group of progressive (new revolutionaries) in Brandon Fl. and meet every other tuesday at Mary's house for cake and coffee.... What a life!
So You can always discuss a topic just like we network with ideas here on Common Dreams. and you meet lots of new Friends!
Nothing can change until corporate 'personhood' is terminated.
"we will once again expose the ideologies of authoritarian supremacy advanced by economic monopolists, religious authoritarians and mercenary militarists as directly in conflict with the people's rights and humanity's well-being."
The people don't realize they should have rights and well-being. They're convinced that material opiates serve as great alternatives.
Democracy is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
It sorta turned out to be democracy for the rich.
The U.S. corporatist/militarist empire run by the looting class and their bribed lackeys in Congress has effectively smothered true democracy here. As with Obama's speeches, there is mere appearance with no real substance.
John Hank Edson would do well to study the history again. The summary of events that are presented overlook and misrepresent what was happening. While the Declaration was a lofty ideal it was hardly the starting point of the nation. Only four percent of the people were elegible to vote for the first presidental electors, no women, no blacks, no indians, no landless. Slavery was built into the constitution. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were just the beginning of the move toward democracy. The Declaration talks of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but the Constitution provides that no one shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without due process setting up the conflict between Property Rights and Human Rights that continues to this day.
Having read the Declaration of the Democratic Worldview, I can tell you that you are actually in agreement with his understanding of history. He doesn't idealize the past; he is trying to move the present day closer to the ideal of democracy. He is saying let's improve the technology of our social contract just like we've improved all the other technology in our society. I notice many of the comments here interpret this article in a way that suggests Edson holds beliefs that are actually contrary to what he writes about. I really recomment the book and I think most CommonDreams readers would find it good, honest food for thought.
If Edson's beliefs are contrary to what he writes here, then, this is a very bad article. And this article is a very bad recommendation to buy his book.
That is not what I said, rfloh. And, many people have actually gotten the point of the piece and find the deeper meaning. I encourage you, and others out there to put into play the "process-focused learing" Mr Edson presents in his book, and attempt to practice a more sophisticated and intelligent form of feedback... and know what you are talking about. Enough with the glibness. If you fall into the "progressive" spectrum, you are on the same side.
The U.S. needs to stop promoting/declaring any worldview. The actions of the U.S. have made its ideas not welcome throughout the rest of the world.
The U.S. needs to stop its hyper-militarism and threats to other nations around the world. This high-brow notion that the U.S. needs to declare a "democratic worldview" is laughable and ridiculous.
The U.S. has in fact, tried to destabilize Iran with the National Endowment for Democracy and has done similar things throughout the past two decades in Latin America, using puppets approved by American administration's to run those nation-states.
The U.S. needs to end its military-police state at home and abroad and try to allow some democracy to work here in this country.
At the present time, "democracy" is highly deficient and not working all that well right here in America.
America is being run, right now, like an authoritarian, dictatorial state, even under the precious Barack Obama. I hope one day that "liberals/progressives" wake up out of their pro-Obama stupor, put the Kool-Aid drinks down, and wake up to the reality that Obama is an authoritarian-dictator who like his predecessors is leading the military-police-corporatist state on the same exact path of ruin. Obama kept the Patriot Act and never has to this day, repudiated the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war or any of the war powers extended by the Bush-Cheney crooks.
Joe Biden again reiterates the Obama threats against Iran on ABC's This Week on July 5, 2009. Yes, Obama is bad if not worse than Bush in the war and militarism categories.
Like the Bush administration, the Obama clan continues its war footing and again is threatening Iran with military force, coercion and more intimidation. Obama-Biden-Clinton are militarists-corporatists who believes in the military-police state and spying on law abiding American citizens. Obama-Biden-Clinton also care more about the state of Israel than they do about the welfare and future of the United States of America. Biden and Clinton are avowed pro--Zionists and defenders of Israel no matter what war crimes they commit.
This unwavering support of Israel was present in the Bush years and is still if not more alive in the Obama administration. This war on Iran is all about Israel and not in the best interests of America.
Before you attribute the Declaration of Independence to lofty yearnings for freedom read this account from the real world in the New York Times, Nov. 29, 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/weekinreview/30arango.html?ref=business
An excerpt below...
"For the colonists, as for us, first came the boom. During the height of the French and Indian War, which lasted from 1754 until 1763, money flooded into the colonies . . .
All that cash sloshing around resulted in lavish displays of wealth — notably by British officers, whose opulent living was emulated by the locals, especially in New York.
Housing prices soared during the war. But when credit tightened afterward — thanks in no small part to a prohibition on the issuance of paper money by the colonies under the Currency Act of 1764 — real estate owners who could not pay their debts lost their land.
At the core of the Wright-Michener argument is that this confluence of nasty economic circumstances was what produced the anger that found expression in rebellion against the Stamp Act and other British taxes. In other words, the core economic culprit was a boom-bust cycle; convinced that their future was no longer in their hands, the colonists could summon the ghost of John Locke, setting the stage for the Declaration."
There was a good reason Karl Marx was an economic determinist. The great changes coming to our world involve the decline and fall of capitalism and the struggle for what will replace it.
Some Americans sure ran an incredible insurgency back in those days.
Happy July 4!
smipypr
Where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Wherever the dart-gunner puts him. Roll the gorilla into a nice big blanket, and put him back in the cage, via the Hague, if possible. Better yet, aren't there any current or former US Attorneys out there with a shred of respect for the Constitution? Like, maybe the ones who got busted by Karl Rove's crew?
As a Hindu Brahmin, I find this hard to believe that there is no democracy here in America but I get it that it's tricky. The same thing happened in India but even worse. Years ago, my parents were frustrated that their votes never counted while dead people's votes counted. Their parents begged them to vote for the Congress Party who gave us nothing in return. This was one of the reasons they moved to this country. Having been in this country all my life and only visited India last time in 1993, I may not know everything about my parent's country but here's something I do really know. India has turned out selfless warriors such as Gandhi who fought for real independence without weapons unlike the US. The West can laugh at us for not having a clans-like mentality but at least India can declare her independence and its growth. The US, on the other hand, attained its independence through anger and violence and over the decades its independence slowly but steadily vanished when the enemies used harmless tactics to silently and slowly pull the rug from under. The political radicals from both the Far Right and the Far Left can laugh at our diverse Indian culture and say "The Hindus are dying and the Muslims and Christians are overcoming tyranny" nonsense but they cannot dispute the true diversity and independence. Yes, our country has been infected with yuppie style capitalism but that does not mean that we're not fighting back. We just do it silently and without weapons just like the conservatives and corporatists here in the USA have silently tricked the population into going against freedom and independence and pulling them out from under their noses. I still love America for one thing. There is still room for improvement and the opportunity to fight for better is still there. This exists in India though not as much but you certainly won't find this in Europe. Therefore, if we the people want our independence back, we can only do this peacefully without violence. Thank you and Happy Independence Day !
Republic- (1): a government in which Supreme Power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law....
We did have a republic but way to many people think that if WE THE PEOPLE democratically elect our representatives and those representatives are Responsible to we the people it is socialism/democracy.
I point the finger at the Feudalist Elite who have worked at corrupting the education of the electorate and corrupting the meaning of words.
Jeevee
Why does everyone keep talking about DEMOCRACY? Weren't we established as a REPUBLIC?
It's my understanding that a republic is a TYPE of democracy.
Just ask yourself: How are the representatives in a republic elected?
Answer: They are elected democratically.
So saying the United States is not a democracy is somewhat like saying a Buick is not a car.
PS: Proof that Torture is GOOD for You:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3HJDm_x24g
Your understanding is incorrect. What you are pointing out is the obvious: that there are different types of democracy. You're referring to "representative democracy", which is still democracy. It's also another reason we chose to emulate Roman institutions instead of Greek. The city-states were small enough for direct democratic processes by the few who actually possessed the franchise. Obviously, the Roman Republic was far too big to be governed directly by the people, hence the emergence of institutions like the Senate.
This seems like an academic debate, but it's not. The historical purpose of drawing this fictional distinction was solely to minimize the democratic claims of marginalized groups AND to explain why sometimes the popular will was neglected or ignored. In short, by claiming a "republic" is this odd beast with its own principles, we could apologize for our lack of democracy.
Again, to reiterate: republic derived from "res publica", the rule of the public, and democracy from demos kracy, the rule of the people. Language, nothing more.
It's really a "hypocracy."
Sorry, this is one of my pettest of peeves. They are the same thing. The words mean the same thing but in two different languages. Republic is rooted in Latin, Democracy rooted in Greek.
The canard about a republic versus a democracy developed as a way to try and justify why America wasn't as democratic as it should have been. If you said this phrase to a founder, they wwould have heckled you out of the room even if they disagreed about everything else.
For the record, we refer to the US as a Republic NOT because republicanism means something different than democracy, but because most of our institutions were modeled along Roman lines: Greeks had no model with which to establish a democratic nation.
For a better explanation of the history of this phenomenon, you can read Dahl's On Democracy. He's probably the expert on democratic history and philosophy in the US.
I agree about republic versus democracy, and about Dahl. Another good book by him is How Democratic is the American Constitution? (I think.)
The voting rules after the second and current Constitution allowed only white, male, land-owning, protestants to vote.
It is likely that the lofty language in the Declaration was allowed by the aristocrats in 1776 was because in the entire South there was no free labor movement to worry about. Just slaves.
Today the private money that determines most elections serves the same purpose as the voting restrictions of the early nation.
Our goal should be one person one vote. What we have is essentially one dollar one vote. We vote for the corporate-vetted candidate of our choice. That has been accomplished by the best democracies/republics via publicly-funded elections to multi-party, proportional legislatures and runoffs for single-seat executive offices. Sweden, Ireland, Germany and New Zealand are good examples of this.
"Today the private money that determines most elections serves the same purpose as the voting restrictions of the early nation."
This is a terrific observation (not just because I share it...:)):
This is the new Jim Crow. That fact is, the political history of the US could be characterized as the long struggle between elites to create mechanisms to retain and exercise minority power while at the same time being able to mobilize the rhetoric of democracy to support their own agendas.
It does act as a disenfranchising mechanism; far worse then even the 2/3 of a person clause and the legal protection of women as property. The difference is that those repressions were overt and obvious, with little justification. This new form is based on the engineering of consent, a deep manipulation of the popular consciousness over time to make them accept the legitimacy of rule by elites.
Nice post, thanks.
Bring America Back !!!!........!..John Hank Edson is wrong on his premise that we Americans cannot fulfill our social contracts.
*We just elected a black President, and there were competent strong women around just in case Obama was not up to getting to Pennsylvania Avenue !! It took a lot of Republicans and Independents recognizing Tyranny , and rejecting the McCain and Palin offerings. But we did it, that is Progress !!
*I don't care who you are, we proved as a Nation our abilities to switch Horses ! To overcome innate prejudice.
Does not have to be a white, anglo-saxon male, not anymore !
*Our main problem is we can only do that every four (4) years
by law. AND, when we voted for CHANGE, HOPE, PROGRESS, and REFORM , we never dreamed our vote would fail us a mere 6 months later. The Forefathers never gave us total protection against deception==they Never dreamed our Congress would fail to Impeach for outright war crimes-- exactly as comitted by the King of England ! Redcoats !
*In 1776. The Founders gave us a solid, worthy, and well thought Declaration. Those words still stand loud and clear.
*We moderns are the ones who called it a Democracy==named ourselves the leaders of the 'Free' world, and we've picked and chosen our global status among world nations. We have chosen to be the site of "The United Nations", and the home office of many of it's very worthy sub-organizatons.
*No need, as Edson retorts, to give us back our own Declaration of Independence==it was a work of pure Genius, and fit well into it's time and presence. Lots better would be a simple search and reading of the Farewell Speech of General and former President Dwight David Eisenhower. In there was an amazing warning and caution about every problem we have today with a runaway and controlling Military Industrial Complex==and it's dangers to Americans and to the Worldview. Just go to Eisenhower's Farewell Speech on most any search engine.
BUT, who says we cannot draft our own Declaration ???
***I suggest a paragraph reading: If a Chief Executive (President) is proven to have lied to the voting populace on any more than 90 percent of his sworn Campaign Pledges, then on Vote of the People again, He shall be declared Null and Void, and a New President shall be appointed==By vote of the populace--not by use of the corroded Electoral College system, or of the corrupt two party registration system, but by count of the populace alone.
Getting this thru the House and Senate is a problem. But Obama is a one-term Pony!
Dear TruthKnoller,
I think you need to read what Mr Edson wrote again and not be so quick to declare him wrong.
In fact, he said,"... As a result, today we harbor serious doubts about our equality, our ability to rewrite the social contract, and the future of our democracy. Fortunately, our understanding of the principle of human equality, the rights of self-determination that flow from it, and the people's power to rewrite their social contract need not remain in its 18th century "self-evident" condition."
And, an entire section of his book, which I've actually read, is dedicated to proving that the people's social contract power can overcome even the greatest imbalance in the distribution of power and wealth in society.
He's on your side!!! Lighten up and read more slowly next time :)
Researching this a bit on the nets,this guy seems a little too into naive Obama "hope and change, hope and change" snowjobs for my taste, but...
Here's a link where he explains his perspective and his books thesis a little more:
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2009/01/18/obamas-new-declaration-of-independence/
And here's one for an online petition to "sign" the Declaration:
http://democraticworldview.squarespace.com/
Note that they have only six signatories and the last one of those was in December. I think when the Obama rose began to whither these folks lost some of their headway. Maybe now they're looking to differentiate themselves from the Admin.a bit?
-matti.
P.S. Anybody know how to insert a clickable link on CD?
"P.S. Anybody know how to insert a clickable link on CD?"
matti, we can't anymore. Boss-man don't want us to have da power! For long links, simply go to http://tinyurl.com, insert the long url, and voila, a stubby url!
Far out!
We all live in a cyber submarine as John Lennon would sing.
FYI, I posted an innocuous response to matti's question a little earlier; however, it addressed the taboo subject of administrative policy here in a less than flattering light.
Now it's gone. Truly we are the land of the free and the home of the brave, eh?
As the saying goes: Watch This Space
· Yr Obd't Servant
I don't think they want that so the only way to fix a link that does not fit in the margins is to edit it by putting the mouse before the margins and hitting return so it goes on the next line instead of getting lost outside the margin.
it takes an extra second to copy and paste it in your browser window but it still works and yours worked fine too.
Three strikes for corporations, end corporate personhood! Or make them accountable. (including financial corp's)
Anti trust, must become anti life! We must all become zombie killers.
Take down a charter TODAY!!!
And how about another INDEPENDENCE DAY? Let's make next year's Election Day the new INDEPENDENTS DAY ! If we can't replace our members of Congress with Independents next year, then when will we?
Jennifer, I LOVE the idea! Let's make July 4, 2010 INDEPENDENTS DAY, looking toward election of independent members of Congress in November, 2010; and let's make today, July 4, 2090, the beginning of the campaign to have independent candidates in place for the run by a year from now. Will anybody commit to this? We already have our platform for a "Democratic Worldview," all we have to do is flesh it out and get moving on developing candidacies. Rome wasn't built in a day, but a year and a half of dedicated work can accomplish a hell of a lot.
"let's make today, July 4, 2090, the beginning of the campaign to have independent candidates in place for the run by a year from now. Will anybody commit to this?"
I assume you meant to say 2009, not 2090. Otherwise, to answer your question, I'm one of those who will commit. The trick with House seats is it's not the number alone but also the location that needs to be taken into consideration. The rural districts where the Blue Dogs and Republicans come from are where we need to improve progressive voter turnout both in the primaries and general elections. I would love to see more representatives be like my senator Russ Feingold rather than my other one, the lousy DLC clone Senator Herb Kohl. There also needs to be a way of getting voters in urban cities to vote for representatives who are more progressive instead of the typical DINOs such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton who play the liberal card but go to bed with the neocons after the election's over.
JillSwanson,
I agree with ya, once again. You are very perceptive, thoughtful, along with providing some valuable analysis here.
Russ Feingold should be the Senate Majority Leader. He is one of the few Democrats who can speak with any moral authority. Perhaps, Feingold doesn't want to put up with the other idiot Democrats or the entire party is too dumb to put him in as their leader in the Senate, to replace that corrupt and ineffective Harry Reid.
Nancy Pelosi has no moral ground and is a total failure too. Pelosi was a collobarator with the Bush-Cheney administration in war crimes. Pelosi lacks courage and committment. And, yes the Democrats are full of conservative Democrats, DINO's, Blue Dog's and representatives who may as well be Republicans. You have Obama's criminal-corrupt Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel to thank for these Blue Dogs and prowar representatives as well.
I am so happy to be in the Green Party.
I'm not happy with Russ Feingold for going on the radio and telling us that single payer isn't possible to pass. It is possible but the Senate is being downright stubborn about it because it's all about money. Otherwise, he's the best I'll ever see of most Democrats. I don't know how long he'll remain Senator let alone
It was disgusting to watch the blindfolded DINO apologists in San Francisco voting to reelect Pelosi over Sheehan although getting 30% as an independent even in SF isn't quite as bad. I would have voted Sheehan had I lived there.
There's a lot of hope in the Green Party out here in WI. I am also open to a newly proposed party mentioned on this site, the Main Street Party (thank you BeForKids). I hope Cynthia Mckinney can make it out of prison which the Israeli fascists had no business putting her in. She's a real African American progressive and certainly crushes Obama IMHO.
JillSwanson,
Thanks. I was unaware that Feingold said "single payer isn't possible" on the radio.
I also like Cynthia McKinney--who is a real antiwar candidate and activist.
I joined the Green Party after Obama showed no spine in welcoming Traitor Joe Lieberman back. Lieberman was clapping and cheering as Sarah Palin said that Obama "consorts with terrorists." Obama's balls are with the same military-torture-police state Fascist policies of Bush-Cheney except with a smile and some fanciful words attached.
JillSwanson: okay it's not 2090 and I don't expect to be around then, but 2009 is a good start. Main point is, you show an interest to a "commit" to the project proposed by Jennifer. And yes, nobody says it will be easy (see my comment on the "money, money, money" post that follows. But a journey of a thousand miles starts with a step (or something like that), but a step can be a step toward something only if the steppers stay in communication and work together to iron out their difficulties. An "idea" won't come into fruition without an interactive mechanism and, lacking any present way for you and Jennifer and I (and hopefully many, many others) to do this is to have a contact point. Pending a better one, you and others can use my e-mail which is jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. If you'll contact me, maybe we can start to get a little "committee of correspondence" together; speaking of July 4, isn't this the way the American revolution started? Jerry
Jerry, thanks for the clarification. Commitment does matter. I'll keep you in mind and let you know if I have any questions but I'll probably end up posting here publicly unless there's a need to privately email which I don't see at the moment. Thanks though.
JillSwanson,
I find JillSwanson to be a very thoughtful and caring person who thinks for herself and is not a Kool-Aid drinker which is quite refreshing. Keep up your thoughtful posts, JillSwanson!
JillSwanson: thanks for responding. Of course I hope you keep posting on CD and I expect to do likewise. But remember that these comment posts tend to have a "shelf life" of no more than a couple of days, and when somebody with a good idea is lost, that idea may be lost forever. So if you would, keep my e-mail address handy and contact me when you think you want to explore our "committed project" in a more directly communicative way. Jerry
ActionJackson62 and Jerry D Rose,
Glad to be here. I don't always get the kind of time and energy to even sit down and read let alone respond. I have also been bitter at some of the other sites such as Huffpost for being stuffed with more Obama apologists and Democrats in Congress posting their articles when they should be doing what we taxpayers paid them to do. I look forward to visiting this site more often and sharing my thoughts. I'm pleased to meet you and Happy 4th of July. :)
I never go to that wreteched Huffington Post. Yes, the "Huffpost" is "stuffed with more Obama apologists and Democrats in Congress." I remember when Arianna Huffington was very anti-Bill and Hillary Clinton yet now is in love with Obama even though the new president has many of the same Clinton era retreads like Rahm Emanuel, Leon Panetta, Larry Summers, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, etc., in his administration.
Check out antiwar.com and antiwarradio.com as well as Counterpunch.org, and Dissident Voice. Robert McChesney hosts Media Matters with Bob McChesney every Sunday at 2:00 which is a fine leftist program. Uprising Radio is also very good as well. Also check out WSWS--a Socialist site--great analysis on Obama's deceptions.
There are plenty of alternatives to the Huff Post. The Huff Post is funded by war thugs and Imperialists too.
Yes, that is tricky. And it's tricky because the people you'd most like to see are generally not high on the donor lists of contributers of substance. Therein lies the problem. If you look at these offices as commodities with price tags attached--and most of us would agree that this is pretty literally the case anyway--you'll see how expensive the higher end offices that have the most say in policy are. This was the lesson for Sheehan in SF last year, and the lesson for every genuine left-center candidate. Money, money, and money.
To become senator costs millions, and the contituency that most needs the help is the least able to afford to support a campaign of that magnitude. Not to mention that your opponent is almost by definition racking up the bucks. And the more radical the candidate is towards the left, the more overwhelming the corporate sponsorship of the opponent will be, thus increasing the market price of the office in contest.
There is a lmost no way to mobilize in a mass electorate where media time and campaign cash rule with an iron fist.
Skip_Townes: Having been involved in a number of under-funded campaigns (only one of which has been successful) I am painfully aware of the "money, money, money" problem of an independent candidate. But call me naive if you will, I'm fully convinced that electoral success is possible without the expenditure of a great deal of money. The keys seem to be a fully principled campaign that responds to the needs of otherwise under-mobilized voters (like poor people), a great deal of door-to-door shoe leather, and publicity for the candidate gained through "news-worthy" activities that attract "unearned" or free publicity; and of course disdaining the saturation branding on TV ads that eats up so much campaign money. On that "unearned publicity" idea, I have in mind the current activity of Cynthia McKinney in Gaza; and having said that, I'm also aware of the difficulty in getting our corporate media to pay attention to activities that offend their corporate masters. But where there is a will there is often a way, and a significant "way" may be opening up with effective use of internet strategies in ways known to those with more computer savvy than I possess; I'm thinking that a couple of geek-types may well be of as much value to a campaign as a couple of deep-pocketed millionaires: especially in the current atmosphere of populist anger at "Wall Street" setting up a situation in which my advice to under-funded candidates to run against the money (that is, make your opponent's funding opulence itself a campaign issue) may become more relevant. Anyway, all this strategic stuff needs far more discussion and I would invite you, as I did in my response to Jill Swanson, to contact me directly at jerrydrose11@yahoo.com and we can continue the discussion.
Jerry, I say this with respect for your position, but the evidence is completely contrary to what you just typed. Now granted, it depends on the echelon of electoral office. Obviously, local races in moderate income locations can be run on tighter budgets, but those races simply do not affect the structures and instituions of the country writ large. There are NO historical antecedents for that argument and the only arguable exception would have been the tail end of the populist movement in the early 20th century. And electorally, they never drew higher than 12% nationally, although they did impact some of the compromises that emerged from the New Deal.
You could have made your argument for some congressional districts about 20 years ago, but even that's not valid anymore. Remember, several decades of jerrymandering, rule-changing re: ballot access by BOTH parties, and the increase in population size without increasing the size of legislatures have all conspired to increase--not decrease--the centrality of campaign cash.
And that was largely by design.
I do not relish my position that electoral politics--at this time and for the forseeable future--is actually one of the deadest of ends. It would take massive electoral reform at all three basic levels of the federalist system to undermine what is essentially a foregon econclusion: this is a two-party state formally, and in reality, a virtual one-party state. No gate crashers allowed.
Btw, remember Nader's 2004 campaign? One of the striking things about that year was that just when Nader's organization had figured out most of the ballot access tricks and gotten on a ton of ballots, in the end, they were simply sued out of the campaign by the Democratic party.
The discussion shouldn't revolve around electoral solutions to political problems anymore, though I suppose it can't hurt too much. We need to talk about things we'd most of us rather not.
Skip_Townes: haven't you heard: "the difficult we can do at once, the impossible will take a little longer." I don't deny the difficulty of what is being proposed, only your implication of its impossibility. And your examples of futility (e.g., the Nader runs for President) are the most-difficult scenario for presidential elections when what Jennifer and I are proposing is on the more local level of congressional districts and election of independents which is NOT without precedent: see Bernie Sanders for example. The capturing of a presidency will "take a little longer," but I don't see that much impossibility for capturing a few congressional seats in 2010, maybe even enough to shift the balance of power in Congress in a more progressive direction. I'm certainly going to examine that possibility in my own, the Florida 6th congressional district now "served" by Cliff Stearnes, one of the more antediluvian members of Congress; and I'm sure there are other "ripe for picking" seats around the country. So why give up the ship before you've even made the fight?
Jerry, that fight's been made a thousand times over the entirety of this country's history. Now one area where we also might disagree about is exactly what constitutes a "progressive" candidate. That's important, because humane establishment liberals can still win elections. But to me, that's not a big deal and nothing transformative. Since I don't actually know your political frame of reference, it's hard to say.
Re: Sanders, his situation is, as I already conceded, an anomaly based on two things: a limited geography (doesn't cost nearly as much to tool around a small state) and a small population (dollars per vote expenditures are reasonably low). Vermont is also not a hotbed of megacorporate activity, so the institutional resistance to someone like Sanders is minimal vis a vis most other states.
Now, try that trick in, say,Montana.
You can, again, capture a "few seats" as you put it. Obviously, that's happened many times. Witness Kucinich and McKinney, for example. And look at how they have to/had to hold on to those seats. Noth of those people had national funding campaigns merely to hold a small congressional district (I know about Kucinich's personally, since I worked for him on his previous campaign). He STILL fund raises across the country, only to hold on to his one seat.
In the end, a few seats do not make policy. Those people are prevented from important and central positions on committees, etc. There are thousands of institutional tools to prevent a surge in populist/left/anticapitalist politicians available, and they are all used with great regularity.
This isn't defeastist: it's fact. I can prove it. Most political scientists have proved it for over a century. The federalist system was adopted precisely to stymie change. It was seen as the best possible arrangement to guarantee a long stability--which it has. And as long as you're in a privileged position, that's a good thing. If you're looking to break in, it's hell on earth.
But please don't tell me about giving up fights. I've been heavily involved in politics since I was 19 years old--and I'm 46 now. I've lost jobs due to my politicking and unionization activism, lost relationships because of it, and have even mnaged to get arrested once! As each year passes, I've seen opportunities to produce substantive change by using the system dwindle to near nothing. It gets harder every year.
That said, this is a debate not about whether what works or what doesn't, but what is the BEST hope for changing what this country is. I think the case for "reform/change from within" is by far the weakest of those cases. By far.
You can win your seat. Your friends can win ten more. It will come to nothing. We have to focus elsewhere. Unless, of course, you still fundamentally think everythings's okay but it just needs a few tweaks, and at that point, we're having a problem with compatible political ideologies.
Beautifully put.
"The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview" (Democracy Press, 2008) will be on my reading list.
Without having read the book, I will venture to make the critique that if the declaration is based on corruptible representative government as opposed to incorruptible direct democracy, it will have a poison pill.
Frankly, on the July 4th, the biggest lesson we can take from the American revolution is that it was required in order to dismantle those authoritarian institutions mentioned in this essay. Where we really lost our way is in not understanding how substantive change happens in a system no longer in service to a people. Our forebears understood this perfectly well. Just as aristocrats have never given up their power and privileges without a fight, neither, too, will ours. When we figure that out--as disturbing as the implications may be--we'll be on our way to the future. In the meantime, we remain stuck wondering why teh combined weight of all our popular, lofty sentiments, serial inactivity, and committment to failed techniques leaves us with everything we had the day before.
We must talk about the 800 lb gorilla in the room: can we rewrite America without committing to the path our founders walked on? I don't think we can.
Bring America Back !!!!.........!..Not so fast Skipper. You talk about our need to dismantle authoritarian institutions and you don't think we can talk about the
800 pound gorilla in the room !!!! Say what ?
****Our nation just did something unheard of in politics. We switched from Republican to Democratic Administrations during a time of war. We voted for
change, hope, and promise, and a rejection of the culture of corruption in DC !
We were supposed to get what we voted for........alas, we did not !
****Our 800 pound gorilla is the Military - Industrial Complex--a beast with a
life all its own, and the ability to perpetuate itself against the will of the
people. Former President Eisenhower warned and cautioned us against the dangers
and serious world consequences of a runaway MI Complex. Yet, it rolls on and on
and on===getting more and more power.
****In 1776, we the people were the Minutemen==when we got the warning (one if by land, two if by sea), we ran out to our barns and grabbed our muskets, pistoleers, and headed for the meeting places. Minutemen going after the Redcoat British!
We vanquished the Kings Men. Rural farmer volunteers defeating the organized and well armed Kings Troops !
****Nowdays, when we are warned the Kings Men are coming, we run to our Barns,
grab our cell-phones, and call CodePink. Do not call 9/11 !