Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Modest Proposal, from a Concerned Citizen
How did our democracy get itself into a situation in which huge financial and industrial monopolies became "too big to fail," while ordinary Americans face the prospect that our hard-earned incomes will be vitiated for the rest of our lives, and our children and probably our grandchildren will face the same unjust erosions?
And how did our "law and order" society arrive at the point when an Attorney General, Eric Holder, required by statute to investigate and prosecute federal crimes, has apparently decided not to pursue charges against office-holders who have been arguably among the worst governmental law-breakers in American history, responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of many thousands of innocent people, the needless destruction of billions of dollars of valuable property, and the fraudulent waste of enormous national resources? Apparently these men and women, alleged to have committed a multitude of criminal acts, are also "too big to fail."
It is clear that the "military industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned us against as he prepared to leave office is not only alive and well but also far more influential than it was back in Ike's time. In our own day the end has too often come to justify the means. Profiteering has become the norm. Corruption is rampant. Fraud is everywhere. Tremendous waste and incompetence is countenanced as the "cost of doing business." Even outright murder is covered up. A "few bad apples" are prosecuted in order to silence criticism, but the major perpetrators are "too big to fail."
Financial conglomerates unscrupulously gamble with other people's money, hoping vastly to enrich themselves. If they overreach and lose their clients' funds, they expect American taxpayers to bail them out. Meanwhile, they and their counterparts in many other large monopolistic or semi-monopolistic corporations shamelessly lobby legislators to enact laws favorable to themselves (such as laws allowing tax deductions for lobbying legislators). Who pays? The American taxpayer.
Another common activity of large American corporations is to infiltrate federal and state agencies at the highest possible level with their own minions, who then endeavor to institute policies that will benefit their former employers' bottom line, while eliminating policies impeding corporate avarice. Implied is the promise of lucrative re-employment when these servants of greed leave public "service." The result? Additional victimization of ordinary American citizens.
Even worse is how the corporate oligarchy pollutes politics for profit. When "bundled" sums of money lavished upon a candidate for public office by corporate executives and their lobbyists reaches a total far beyond what average Americans can afford, such largess is called a campaign contribution. Let us call it what it really is. Bribe money. How many times have public officials taken such large amounts of money and then supinely carried out the wishes of those who supplied them? The "malefactors of great wealth," it seems clear, now own the federal government and many state governments as well.
How do these unscrupulous moguls and their servants in public office justify their behavior? With "spin," which is an euphuism for calculated distortions or outright lies. Such misleading wordplays, rarely exposed or answered, are so ubiquitous in the American corporate media that even if average Americans were educated to critique and analyze such mendacious propaganda (which they are not), the deluge of "spin" overwhelms rare efforts in the national and local media to get at the truth.
For-profit corporations, by their very nature, are amorally dedicated to two main goals, to make as much money as they can in the shortest possible time for their investors, and in the process to deliver vast rewards for those men and women who actually run these entities. A third goal is frequently to swallow up competing corporations until serious competition in a particular market ceases to exist. Once monopolies or near-monopolies are established, corporations become even greedier and more unscrupulous, until the expression "Robber Barons" is too tame a term to describe the corporate titans who now dominate virtually all aspects of American society.
To borrow a familiar expression, the American people need to "take their country back." But how?
We have too long avoided purging the way we elect our public officials of the corrupting influences that dominate the current system, which is rigged to give overwhelming advantages to candidates who can raise the most attempted bribe money from large vested interests and then employ it unscrupulously to saturate the corporate mass media with one-sided, sometimes fraudulent, propaganda in behalf of their corporate sponsors. Moreover, laws giving enormous advantages to incumbents prevent challengers, unless also backed by vested interests, or unless wealthy themselves, from campaigning on anything like a level playing field. These abuses can be rectified, at least partly, by passing laws requiring the same truth in political advertising that we insist apply to the marketing of food or drugs. Laws should also be enacted to prohibit overt political campaigning more than sixty days before any election, to prohibit political advertising in the mass media except during the same time period, and to set strict limits on money donated from any person or entity as "campaign contributions" to candidates, allowing enough for candidates to get their messages out but not enough for political action committees and/or wealthy individuals and corporations to determine the outcomes of elections and thus to obligate those who gain positions of public trust.
Andrew Jackson warned Americans many years ago, as did Theodore Roosevelt some seven decades later, that largely unregulated conglomerations of capital in the form of business monopolies are inimical to any truly democratic society. Under the Sherman and Clayton Acts as amended, formidable concentrations of economic domination were broken up into smaller entities, thus reducing the opportunities for the oligarchic parent corporations to victimize the public. It is time once more to "bust" the trusts and to institute tighter governmental regulation of all of the corporate businesses that directly impact the lives of American citizens.
Of course the aforementioned reforms are unlikely to be attained by petitioning a Congress frozen, as FDR put it, "in the ice of its own indifference," or by relying upon significant action by a President constrained by the Constitution from acting unilaterally. Only a powerful "outside the beltway" mass movement, well led and highly motivated, can accomplish what needs to be done.
In the United States there are many activist organizations dedicated to noble causes. What is now needed is for the leaders of these associations to come together and reach a consensus on a statement of agreed-upon objectives for reform, as well as a program of strategies and tactics for enacting those objectives into law, followed by a carefully calculated effort to rally a majority of the American people to support such an effort.
A national convention should be held of delegates from all interested progressive organizations, the number of delegates from each one proportional to its total membership, to draw up, as did the delegates in the first Continental Congress in 1776, not only a declaration of basic principles, but also a strong bill of indictment of existing abuses which need to be eliminated.
The convention should establish a mechanism for pursuing the enactment of essential reforms and a timetable for proceeding. Some reforms can best be initially sought at local levels where "greed is good" attitudes can most readily be exposed as inimical to the public good. Other reforms might first be pursued at the state level, in places where receptivity seems most likely. But the enactment of reforms of the greatest importance, comparable to the passage against tremendous opposition of our Social Security, Medicare and civil rights laws, should be pushed at the national level, in the hope that a majority of the members of Congress might be willing, for once, to put aside pursuit of personal political and economic gain, in order to act solely for the public welfare, with the President joining in and perhaps eventually assuming leadership of such a movement.
Absent such an unlikely reorientation of our current governmental institutions, a Populist movement unmatched in American history will be required. Such a movement is feasible. Something like it occurred ten score and thirteen years ago when our forefathers came together to establish a new nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." They, too, initially acted outside the framework of existing government institutions until, eventually, they prevailed upon those same institutions and established new ones to adopt the principles that they had enumerated.
Although what the Founding Fathers accomplished near the end of the eighteenth century was hardly the work of Populists, their efforts, against massive resistance, succeeded in creating a better world. We ought to be able to learn from them, from the enlightened citizens who enacted the first state constitutions, and from the delegates who came to the United States from many nations to draw up and sign the Charter of the United Nations.
In accomplishing these feats of daring statesmanship, these venerated leaders won a well-deserved immortality for themselves. Are there not men and women among us today capable of doing as much?
97 Comments so far
Show AllAmong those principles we need to recognize the universality of "prior and informed consultation" and consent as set forth in Convention 169 of the UN ILO. Though implicit in the original framing of all men being created equal, without explict statement, there is cynical assertion of varied shades that those who have power know best, and thus rationalize there being no need for either consultation or information; witness the process in health care reform. This sets up a self-fulling context of monologue based on perpetuation not of "creative analysis and objective appraisal", in the words of MLK, but bubble sustained by a surfactant of usurous delusion.
Getting Progressive organizations to work together is akin to getting democrats to work together for a common cause. Easier said than done. However we are reaching a breaking point, and there seems to be no alternative. Now is the time, before martial law becomes another norm, making mobilization almost impossible.
I'll put this on the top of my wish list this xmas professor.It is something I have understood and worked for since the 60's.
Sometime ago I learned about nucleation of water in a pond that has reached 32 deg. Even through it is cold enough to freeze it would not begin it's crystalline nature until nucleation. Some force that jump starts the freezing and forming of water crystals. Once that happens the crystal formation spreads at an enormous rate across the pond.
In order for what you and I dream about to happen it would take the set up of the physical conditions and then a catalyst. One of the "things" to be part of that change is the masses or we the people. Unfortunately it seems that some time in the late 60's early 70's what activists worked for, a better society, was lost to the self satisfaction in pursuits of all things to pleasure the self.
Where are and who are the Americans in mass that can free themselves from pursuit of the personal and be part of this action? The catalyst for such a movement would have to be much much bigger than a staged event by neo-cons that took place on 9/11 to get us into war and what we watched happen to the 25th largest city in our country.
Perhaps climate change will start to shake the people awake but without some catalyst to energize and awaken an auto-erotic population the hope of change and a coming together for a reawakening of the principals on which our country was founded seems quite dim at the moment.
Abe Winken August 29th, 2009 8:53 am...........Of course, the powers that be are betting we never find that catalyst. And if we do, it will be one of THEIR own making and once again under their control, leaving us powerless. We must think outside the box....as they did with the false flag of 911...and many others. They are long masters at what they do. We will never catch up, as they are eons ahead. We need one of those "eureka" ideas that will demand the attention of the corporate controlled media. Maybe something whimsical that would be poignant, but harmless, unlike 911. Where they are diabolic, we must be creative and original. Could be we can start some sort of contest to come up with a creative idea that would grab the attention of the mass of sleeping Americans.
I honestly do not believe we want a re-awakening of the principals upon which this country was founded. That's how we got in this mess to begin with. It would be better to look toward a true democracy similar to what the Swiss have. We cannot build on a system that was invented to subvert us. Have you read Zinn or Fresia?
nevergiveup August 29th, 2009 9:17 am
Zinn yes, Fresia, no. I will very much agree that the founding principles of governing that founded our nation set up the rich to rule by the hand of corporations. None the less after that garbage was written the we of that day demanded the bill of rights. The declaration of independence and preamble to the constitution and bill of rights are worth their weight.
The governing principals of representative governance I would toss for new ideals of direct democracy. I support and work locally now for reigning in the despotism of corporation with ordinances that remove their personhood which is a necessary to our survival.
I too will never give up.
abewinken@gmail.com
Abe,
Thanks for the nucleation comparison. I like it and will use it. Nucleation in cerebral action. But Abe, is it not possible to satisfy both selfish pleasures, and work for a better society? I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive. I think it is great fun and I gain immense personal satisfaction from helping others. Same with a better society. Don't we all?
This is a brilliant diagnosis of the oligarchic conditions that inflict us today. I can only applaud the passion and the eloquence of it.
When this "concerned citizen" turns with a "modest proposal" of a prescription to cure this ailment, he takes one bit of a mis-step, in my opinion. In calling for a national convention of progressives, he really should watch what he wishes for, because, in our desperation for a prescription, it might come true and, in the iatrogenic style, the cure might complicate the disease. I cannot imagine, in my most sanguine of moods, that such a convention could occur with any degree of legitimacy being bestowed upon it by the participants themselves. We progressives are far too fractured in our goals and especially in the strategies we propose in pursuit of them for any product of such a convention to be anything more practically useful than, say, the quadrennial "platforms" of national political parties: a platform on which no one can safely stand on because it is too wobbly, having been designed to be "all things to all people" and therefore nothing to any one person.
Rather I would propose that, especially in view of the admission of Dr. Ferris that any such progressive convention is unlikely to happen for a very long time, we jump over the convention part and go directly for the jugular of a Populist movement, on the mobilization of many actions in support of that movement ahead of any authoritative "constitutional" statement of its nature. We have plenty of such models of ongoing populist action in specific areas. Right now, with "health care" so much at the center of our attention, we have "in place" universal coverage and affordability programs for delivery of "Medicare for all" in the form of the free clinics of people-centered medical people that are popping up around the country. By the nourishing of these among the myriad of health care professionals who are disllusioned with the "market model" of health care, we can begin to make the utopia of our dreams the reality of our times "one project at a time."
Of course these "one at a time" efforts will hopefully grow from a rivulet stream into a mighty Amazon of a truly progressive society; and for this we need a mechanism of communication and mutual inspiration among those making such efforts in all areas of human endeavor. How would such a mechanism look? I submit that rather than (at this point) using the nation's Constitutional Convention as the dominant mode for collective action, we adopt that other mechanism prevailing at the founding of the American nation: the "committees of correspondence" by means of which leaders in the various states were able to coordinate one another's efforts at nation-building. We communicate and coordinate, in other words not by meetings but by mail and by phone. And with the internet and the cell phone and all the facebooks and twitters etc. of modern technology we have the means if only we can find the will to start our separate streams and merge them with other streams in this ultimate river. Anybody agree? Dr.Ferris, I'd love to see your reaction.
I agree Jerry... and also of Wayout's fun and satisfaction of helping others, we help ourselves.
Prof. Ferris' catalogue of corruption is complete, minus one, namely the obvious demolition by explosives of the three World Trade Center towers. A genuine investigation of this obscenity, official or private, and a campaign to get our fellow citizens to use their eyes, has the possibility, if it goes well, to cause a political paradigm shift that might engender the atmosphere leading to a true populist reform movement that the author is calling for. If it doesn't go well, well, what the heck, we're headed in that direction anyway.
Tony Vodvarka
abvodvarka@yahoo.com August 29th, 2009 9:14 am.............Precisely. I would recommend supporting NYC CAN in their struggle to get a referendum on the November NYC ballot.
When the truth is revealed...AND IT WILL BE.....the paradigm must shift, as it can no longer exist in it's own foundation of corruption and lies.
I hope we get a real investigation.
one where witnesses and accusers testify under oath.
We need more than all the progressives to come together. We need all the little people to come together, including those who are in conflict with each other over certain issues. We are reaching a crisis point and the overturning of the control of the corpofiendocracy requires putting aside most differences to create a movement of sufficient numbers and force to be effective.
As we see the US experiment progress, it becomes clear that when the little people are divided, the most aggressive and predatory elites take control and increase their intake and rapaciousness, engorging themselves and devouring everything in sight. It appears likely they will continue to do this until there is serious pushback from the little people, which can only be provided by a unified effort.
I am extremely pessimistic in this, however, as everything I have seen tells me that the little people on the right, and, even more so, the little people on the left will refuse to put aside their differences on other issues until it is way too late.
kivals: I'd like to endorse wholeheartedly your "little people on the left" idea. Part of the problem with progressives as individuals and organizations is that we tend to be relatively well-off professionals who don't really see matters from the perspectives of the "mass" of people, in fact we tend to condemn them as ignorant, prejudiced and indifferent. To pursue my idea of populist action on the health care front, I feel that we should be furthering the agenda that used to be pursued by proponents of HR 676 (maybe still is, but they're drowned out by competing "action" screamers and demonstrators at forums), who held health care forums at which "ordinary people" appeared to tell their tales of woe about their medical neglect in the current broken health care system. These forums, as well as "direct action" free clinics like I mentioned before, should be resurrected and made part of the process by which public opinion can be brought round to the idea of REAL health care reform.
... Part of the problem with progressives as individuals and organizations is that we tend to be relatively well-off professionals who don't really see matters from the perspectives of the "mass" of people...
Yes, that is quite true. For an example from personal experience, I have some relatives who are farmers, about a dozen in all. Maybe half of the farmers are pure redneck, Limbaugh-listening, brainwashed rubes, but the other half are to the left on economic issues as they see abuses on Wall Street and elsewhere and have financial difficulty in their own lives, though they would not qualify as "progressive" because of their positions on many other issues. We need people like this on board, and if we got more of them, maybe they could convince some of their Limbaugh-listening cousins to turn the radio off.
kivals: amen and hee-haw, brother!
Allow me please to refer to my personal experience in communicating across the redneck-line. Couple of weeks ago, I wrote a local letter to the editor then posted on my weblog a piece called: "Cash for Rags: a Bailout Plan for the Common Man." http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/?p=277 and sent it to quite a few common men and women of my acquaintance, including some of decidedly conservative persuasion. To my surprise, some of the most positive responses I got were from "anti-government" conservatives, incensed because taxpayer money was being wasted in bailouts for the wealthy and privileged. That was not exactly my intent, but it struck me here (and otherwise) that egghead critics of the "corporatocracy" known loosely as the U.S. government can join hands ON THIS ISSUE with others who might be on the other side of the ideological divide when it comes to "culture war" issues like guns, gays and abortion. Without compromising our "principles," we can make "alliances of convenience" with others whose views happen to correspond with our own on a given issue. This is the kind of "moral flexibility" that can make a progressive movement more than just a talking circle for those proverbial "little old ladies in tennis shoes."
Yep, I hear you. It is imperative to convince the unsophisticated and easily manipulated conservatives that the big government they fear and despise so much is merely a tool of the big corporations they are being told by right-wing radio to admire and defend. Consistent with what you asserted about conservative enmity for bankers getting the undeserved bailouts, I believe that conservative little people are distrustful of elites in general and, though difficult, getting them to see the light and switch sides is not impossible.
I have found there are many at CD who have come to the same conclusion, but there are still far too many here and in progressive circles in general who refuse to compromise one iota and insist on the usual long list of progressive demands. To me, the situation looks desperate and it is no time to be so particular.
kivals: yes you hear me and I am glad of that; but you may not have "heard" part of what I believe and said. I guess I am one of that "far too many here and in progressive circles in general who refuse to compromise one iota and insist on the usual long list of progressive demands." I am not by nature a compromiser and I would not give up any of the "long list of progressive demands" in the interest of producing consensus with regressives on a single issue. I said and think that a temporary alliance with like-minded people on one issue when they disagree with us on others does NOT demand that we put aside our activism on these other "demands." Gay, women's and immigrants' rights, among many others, should not be "compromised" away. Progressivism is multi-faceted, not one-dimensional, but the "flexibility" I'm advocating is that we find allies from what ever part of the ideological spectrum they come on any specific issue, without giving up an "iota" of the progressive agenda. Flexibility and compromise are far different things.
I may have interpreted what you wrote in a way you did not intend. I certainly did not mean to imply that you or anyone should give up their principles, but that the "flexibility" you mentioned may involve more than a single issue and more than a single election cycle. Desperate times call for desperate measures and whether one calls it "compromise" or "flexibility" the way out of this downward spiral toward fascism may require some accomodations of uncertain duration.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, firmly believing that capitalism is fundamentally immoral and that without worldwide socialism the future is bleak, but I am willing to work with conservatives who believe in "free enterprise" at least to the point of limiting the runaway corporate power and fixing the political system. I recognize that if the corporatists manage to consolidate control, all will be lost, as the great majority of the population will be put on the road to impoverishment, enslavement, or eradication. However, if somehow by finding common cause with the true conservatives, as opposed to the fascists and crooks posing as conservatives, corporate power could be reined in and the political system could be restructured to make it easier to implement policies for the common good, all may be salvaged as all the progressive goals could be achieved over time.
If the political and economic systems are fixed, all other goals for social and economic justice would likely follow. If the political and economic systems continue their current trajectories, not only will those other goals become impossible to achieve, we will be sorely missing what rights, advantages, and opportunities we have today.
kivals: so good, we're really not in disagreement at all; glad you cleared it up. Jerry
Precisely...
You can't unite half the world's workers against the bosses and let the other half be the strikebreakers.
Those who fear the federal government are justified in their fear at this time. So, right away we have a conjunction. In my experience, those who criticize "liberals" also hate and despise big, grasping corporations, or at least the feverish corporate mentality evident on the pages of Forbes (the subject of another article today.) They have no interest in owning yachts and making big killings from inside knowledge. They are interested in their families and local activities. The aforementioned mentality disgusts them.
So:
-- Fear of government intrusion
-- Hate corporatists , their "liberal" enablers, and politicians
-- Respect families and endorse local control
Of course, liberal enablers won't find much in common, but those of us who are looking to go further have some fertile soil to cultivate.
The people aren't our enemies. Our enemies are those who (reflected in the pages of Forbes, for example) constitute a distinct class (a cult, in my opinion) in which the aggressive and single-minded pursuit of wealth and control has displaced community and the moral values derived from it and, like cancer, is in constant malignant activity, feeding on the healthy cells of the earth.
This devastation of everything that makes community life worthwhile is bound to result in shell shock and confusion (taken advantage of by those who are quite at home in disaster capitalism.) Our cause (and it needs to be a full-fledged cause) is much too important than to indulge in the childish "He pissed me off. He must be my enemy."
A few more points. Some like-minded friends and I did a little project of hanging out in "redneck" joints, and one of our discoveries was that (although there was predictable confusion about elements of the power structure) much of the "disagreement" with our principles was less substantive than we imagined. It was more that our outlook was alien. We have to make it less alien.
-- *Everybody* is not required for a revolution
-- Enabling liberals *are* the enemy. "Rednecks" are right about it.
Good points.
History as taught in 'American Schools' is simply an addendum to the propaganda of the Plutocratic Oligarchy.
This authors frequent referrals to the 'Founding Fathers' (a term that is absolute ridiculous propaganda) as members of an advanced intellectual cadre of 'freedom lovers' is simply more of the same 'propaganda'.
The 'Founders' of the USA were simply wealthy slave holders who, taking advantage of a weakness in the British Empire's over played hand at 'colonialism', made a move to avoid paying what the "King" needed to be the "King". When they made the statement that 'all men are created equal' they were referring to 'them' being 'equal' to the 'royalty'----and the slaves and native peoples were simply 'unequal' to 'them' in every way: and sent by 'providence' to serve the many needs of the 'equals'; as slaves.
With the exception of Franklin the majority of them were simply willing to 'risk it all' in a bid to establish the Plutocratic Oligarchy that remains today with few changes.
Over the two "+" centuries, the innovations in 'Democracy' have by and large been 'accidental'. The American concept of 'Democracy' has never been anything but a 'buzz word' for 'white domination' of all the others (with a few exceptions) at the expense of even the other 'whites' who are poor and with little or no influence.
Now, the 'mass' ignorance of the American people, most often a direct result of 'educators' like this author, has come full circle and is about to explode in the 'collective face' of America.
American lawlessness, arrogance, greed and avarice has borne the 'unintended' fruit. The world has tired of the Americans, and their countless instances of arrogance and belligerence coupled with a duplicity that defies logic and reason.
The world simply cannot tolerate the Americans any longer. To attack them however would mean certain suicide for the attacker; americans are the most vindictive people on the planet and 'never forget' the misdeeds of others , while rarely acknowledging their own ----and never compensating for them. Therein lies the simple solution for the world who rightfully fears and loathes the USA--of course they will not admit it. Since the Americans are the most narcissistic people as well, and NEED to be loved by the world, the world 'sends them love' with a 'smirk' on their face and has been waiting for this very moment.
The irony is that the Americans themselves have given the world every reason to 'cut the lines of credit'. This will cause the Americans to turn on themselves, devour themselves and leave few if any of themselves alive: to resist the "World's Invasion" of the 'ruins'...............left behind by the americans after they 'consumed themselves'.
True "Democracy" has never existed in America---and it is the direct result of 'teachers' such as this author participating in the Plutocratic Oligarchy by supporting it under the guise of 'higher education'.
It may very well be that the only contribution that America will have ever made will be as a horrible example to history.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
fabulous comment.
Finally,someone with the clarity, the historical background and the courage to expose the truth. "Americans" are still hoping that the American Dream will manifest. The word dream, should have been a dead give away from the onset. But then, the dream of identification with personality would have needed to be exposed then and now, in order to avoid buying into the next mental fabrication.
We have the power but we fail to act. That's right, if we the people would ALL refuse to go to work, pay our bills, or in any way contribute to this immoral and unjust system until they change their behavior--it wouldn't be long before they would start pretending they were going to change. Furthermore we wait and holdout until some main changes occurred--still dragging our feet until they realized how much of a threat the system was facing and feared that their corrupt way of life might really end.
Of course we have to prepare for this event--and everybody has to be together--Like in the American Revolution.
There is more intelligence in Ferris' post and the above comments than I've seen anywhere for a very long time.
There's at least some hope in that.
Joel Bakan explores the theme of this article of how the largest institutions in the world have been able to wreak havoc upon the citizens of this planet in his classic work The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
This article hits most every nail on the head. Dead on. However, in my mind, for justice to be just, it must be swift. Are we looking for justice, or just survival, now? Do the rules change? Change. "But, how?" Dr. Ferris, a former naval intelligence reserve officer, asks in response to what he describes as a "familiar expression" by Americans, "to take their country back." First of all, I would hope that it has become apparent that we have empirically moved well beyond what could be termed, "familiar expression", to an emphasis that must be, "time is of the essence." These are the realities on the ground, merely as taken from the account of the author and the very thoughtful comments above. I want action. I'm 50 years old. What are the chances that change can be accomplished within the parameters set forth by the author? In all of my reading on CD, I don't think I have ever read anyone who thought that Congress wasn't an amoral clique of felons. Therefore, I would claim that there is a near zero chance of changing the way politics is being done in Washington by appealing to Congress. What has changed, however, is the amount of money concentrated into those who have near sole access to our lawmakers. Our corporatocracy entangling their roots in far more intricate ways than has ever occurred before. It's different today. We are closer to the threshold of catastrophe. The stakes are much higher. Certainly, the author must see this.
If I remember correctly, a Modest Proposal was a proposal about eating babies. I don't think I could ever eat a baby. However, I believe the author has stopped far too short of the radical, eye-widening proposal, if that what he was intending, necessary to keep our ship off the rocks. But, I don't think what is required to completely reorganize our government is able to be spoken about. We know, in our hearts, that our government has all the military might, all the intelligence apparatus that they are presently using on us now, all the prisons and the suppliant judges to quell any unrest, foreign or domestic, real or imagined. We are witnessing the closing down of our society. Not only did the Zionist neocons in our government succeed in creating their new Pearl Harbor, they have even succeeded in closing down free speech. If anyone tells me that the tazerings, the torture, the military on our streets, mercenary organizations like Blackwater, indefinite detention, the arbitrary designation of terrorist to animal rights activists, the political outing of CIA officers, people like David Addington, John Yoo and Jay Bybee in positions of power, have not caused them to consider what they write, or say, I believe they are lying.
Those who profer the real solutions to this mess will be academically shunned. They will not be allowed on the mainstream media. They will be called a radical. They will be labeled terrorists. They will be labeled as enemies of the state. They will be tazered, jailed, tortured and neutralized. They will be detained at airports. The people who are perceived as being a true threat to the existing order will be eliminated in a nanosecond, by whatever means necessary. I am completely convinced of this. How do we counter this behavior?
By continuing to have fun and satisfaction in the good fight.
Remember what you said before you started to scare yourself.
Thanks for reminding me. But, I'm truly scared for the others.
I understand and it is natural to be scared at our present predicament.
But like dealing with stage fright or anything we try to overcome, when we focus on what we are doing, the fear becomes something that makes the effort more satisfying and becomes much less dominant.... for some even exciting. Much of our fear is from the psychological warfare techniques used on us for control ... keeps us frozen. FDR was able to arouse courage, JFK too.
Today, I think we have to encourage and mentor each other in these scary times. We need to lead our public servants and keep on them.
it used to be the fashion a few years ago for most commentaries to end with "Be afraid be very afraid".
As if there wasn't enough of it already.
This is a knockout thread. Thanks to Ferris for starting it. If I could please return to my consistent [ad nauseam, I'm sure] theme, we need to remove or take over the corporate media. The oligarchy maintains its fiction by keeping half the votes. Those votes come, largely, from TV couch potatoes. Kill television, and we have a large piece of the battle won. Every dictatorship has kept its power through propaganda to its own people. Television is the most effective propaganda tool in human history, and its most pernicious.
I love the awareness, the erudition, inherent in these responses. We must seek a balance between compliance and armed revolution [both of which would only play into the hands of the oligarchy]. Iranian people used Facebook, twitter [whatever that is] and emails with digital photos/videos to get their message out to the world. We must use the same, I think, to convince our neighbors of the truth. I am open to ideas and to working with others to achieve these goals. colferm@hotmail.com
MichaelC
MichaelC,
I'm 100% in agreement with your TV analysis. But, a takeover of the media? Easy! Everyone turn it off. The advertisers quit advertising. The network collapses in weeks, or months. Done. Now, do we make everyone watch Democracy Now!, C-Span, and Bill Moyers? Even knowing that the national IQ will increase dramatically, and rapidly, once the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter no longer inject their vile filth into the national dialog. I'm not that optimistic. I think it is established by forces outside our control that change cannot come without blood letting. Our armed forces are too well brain washed and will turn on us. We have dehumanized the military to such an extent they will be soon taking aim on their neighbors, and think nothing of it.
Great essay! Why is it that all this seems so obvious to many, but not to the vast majority of our fellow Americans? Sometimes it all seems so hopeless.
Suppose instead we "reboot" the constitutional government we have.
-Limiting the terms of congressional representatives will prevent the entrenchment of power blocs, and reduce (but never eliminate) the long-term influence of corporate money and prestige on policy.
-Returning the selection of Senators to the state legislatures by repeal of the 17th amendment will ensure that the Senate is more focused on state and local issues rather than to staying in the Washington elite.
-Lastly, repeal of the 16th amendment will abruptly terminate the social-engineering and corporate handout aspects of our corrupt and unworkable tax confiscation system.
These "modest" reversions would do more to return the government to the people than any "Congress of American Progressives" publishing another progressive manifesto.
If we alter the foundations of government we stand a chance of reform. Another attempt at labeling, no matter how thorough, is a wasted academic exercise.
Americans must come to understand that our country is actually controlled by a global ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire' hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy.
The candid, blunt, and continual use of the accurate term "EMPIRE" to describe this perversion of government, is (per George Lakoff's "The Political Mind" insight on cognitive science and linguistics) essential to informing the thinking of Americans on this reality. The language and the thinking informed by language is necessary to resolve the 'contested concept' of what democracy is and isn't.
What we have here is EMPIRE --- which is anti-democratic at its very core.
If the American people don't start having trusted sources informing them through candid language (ie. plain speaking) that this IS Empire, then they will have great difficulty understanding that their actions are valid in resisting, and confronting Empire --- for the American people will never revolt against what they believe is democracy. They must first be informed, through clear and unambiguous language, that what we have here is NOT democracy, but only disguised, 'Vichy' facade of false democracy imposed by EMPIRE --- just as the French clearly understood that the crude, first-generation, one-party 'Vichy' government was not a French Republic, but an imposed occupation by the Nazi EMPIRE.
The battle to recapture our country from this Empire must be waged first in winning the 'language' and the 'minds' (not the hearts and the minds) of our own citizens.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Absolutely Alan,
We have distorted the meaning, the very truth of language. But, something tells me that the fall of the Empire will happen soon, by the weight of its own wretchedness.
Nice read, and one that should be resonating with every U.S. Citizen who would like to have their country back. Americans have apparently forgotten that it is they who are in charge, and not the corporations with their elected toadies. Writing or calling your Congressman and expecting results is simply not realistic when competing with the cash layouts Congressmen expect from their corporate paymasters. Americans suffer from many misconceptions. Many of them regard the basic right of free health care for every citizen as another bleeding heart liberal giveaway of their hard earned dollars. Indeed, the bleeding hearts have cause to bleed, or perhaps, at least, shed a tear. The highly regarded and prestigious Institute of Medicine says that today’s health insurance industry, by denying crucial heath care, is murdering in excess of 22,000 Americans per year. Quite the system but cain’t have that gummint runnin’ shit.
The corporate mindset is cloned. U.S, Tran global Corporations, consider any nation entirely useless if it cannot contribute, in come capacity, to its profits. The U.S. Corporate Government is so thoroughly rotten Americans have but one remedy if they wish to reclaim their government. Every politician in Washington must be unceremoniously booted out of office. Even though there is a very small number who actually make an attempt to serve their public, retaining them would keep the immense satisfaction of a clean sweep from being complete. Their dismissal could be excused by the old maxim, if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
After Americans re-establish a government responsive to their needs the gross, corporate profiteers, should be rounded up and held accountable for their crimes. People like the Vice-President of Colgate-Palmolive, who publically observes, '“The United States does not have an automatic call on our resources. There is no mindset that puts this country first,” should be deported and declared persona non gratis.
When replacing their disgraced representatives only a few rules need be observed. Absolutely no appearance, design or relationship to any corporation or its lobbyists will be tolerated. To be sure, corporate interests, of any kind, must not be allowed within the entire District of Columbia. If any elected representative is caught and convicted of accepting corporate bribes, which today are of course known as campaign contributions, that representative and the corporate officers who attempted the bribe would be subject to a mandatory 20 year sentence in a federal prison when, upon release, they would immediately be deported to Papa New Guinea where headhunters and cannibals are still eking out an existence. The corporation itself would have its charter permanently revoked. This would only be possible after revisiting the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1888, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, which gave corporations the same constitutional rights as every U.S. Citizen. These measures, after all, are the founder’s declared intentions by which this nation once operated.
How would elections be run? Broadcasters, anxious to demonstrate their awakened loyalty and love of nation to the new and revitalized citizenry, would be very, very happy to contribute free airtime in lieu of the imagined alternative. Limbaugh and Murdoch’s Fox News would not need to be forced from the air. Such pigs and weasels, respectively, would smell the new coffee and run for their lives, or waddle, as the case may be. Campaign costs must be made publically available not only to insure an equal opportunity to participate in public service, but to further end today’s arrangement of corporate sponsored candidates who have already been bought before they’re elected. It is actually very simple. It only requires the collective disgust of the American people, and their remembrance that it is their constitutionally guaranteed right to choose their own elected representatives. Americans need not suffer the corporations that a U.S. Supreme Court, in 1888, decided were human, and not the soulless, cold and empty monstrosities, that today, bear such close watching.
Conservatives and liberals are so polarized in opposition they are frozen by their bias and stereotypical conceptions of one another. The corporate media is perfectly aware of the ancient maxim of divide and conquer, and doesn’t hesitate in fabricating any outrageous, duplicitous message that best keeps one side or the other properly antagonized.
Conservatives despise liberals and the feeling is reciprocated. But what appears as seemingly disparate and inviolable divisions in the respective parties, belie the truth that Americans are far closer in their core beliefs than popular, corporate media, would have them believe. Fox News “We report. You decide” would represent their mission statement far more accurately by “Keep them separate. Keep them controlled.” While liberals and conservatives spit venom at each other, corporate interests have overrun the government. While they demonize the people’s government, corporations brazenly help themselves to the taxpayer’s money.
Examples of corporate theft are not limited to taxpayer cash. Freedoms, once constitutionally guaranteed, have been made off with as well. The entire spectrum of corporate beatings Americans have been administered, not to put too fine a point on it, is comparable to having it broke off in their collective ass, over and over again. Yet they still walk away, holding the injured portion, while trying to force a ragged smile from a painful grimace as their corporate masters crack the whip to hasten them along. If it were happening to someone else, and if it wasn’t so incredibly and grotesquely insulting, it would be laughable and a curiosity to anthropologists. Future historians will surely marvel that an entire nation could have been so fast asleep, while visions of sugar plums danced in its head.
the author writes:"To borrow a familiar expression, the American people need to "take their country back." But how?"
How, indeed.... for some reason 'sobriety' comes to mind. Our addictions to oil, private car hyperindividualism, entertainment, and the delusions of superiority, exceptionality, consumerist excess need to be confronted with the dedication of an alcoholic who has at can grok the problem at hand.
The one phrase in this article that really really bugs me is that "take their country back"....(or the permutations thereof showing up in townhall farces like 'i want my country back' or 'let's take our country back')---because it implies the delusion of some kinda utopian 'back' to take the country back TO.... 'make democracy REAL' or 'people over profits' or 'free the USA from corporate bondage' would be more to the point. The Orwellian twisting of one-size-fits-all language we've endured for so long now has made it easy for the most polarized 3-sheets-to-the-wind idealogues to cynically coopt the opponent's phraseology to ultimately serve as a means to an diametrically opposed end. "Operation Enduring Freedom"... "Enhanced Interrogation"... 'going shopping' conflated with 'combatting terrorism'... How very far down the rabbithole we have fallen! I don't know if we'll make the quantum leap into an actual intelligently inclusive discourse capable of thought outside the suffocating 'free market' box...one that facilitates the deepest listening, most creative innovative ideas and authentic conflict resolution skills, but if we don't, my guess is the human experiment upon this earth is on its way out.... good/bad while it lasted. Pressure seems to be building for either some kind of fuse-blowing species-wide aneurism (or death by corporate cancer/parasitism) or else a 100th monkey breakthrough in our ability to share, cooperate, and CARE and act deeply to clean up the mess made by our destructive centuries-long drunken spree.... but if there's to be any hope of breakthrough, we need to sober up bigtime.
"Remember," said John Adams, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Now there's a boy who knew a lot!
I think you would have almost universal agreement on those positions among those who label themselves as "progressive." The problem is that those who do so self-label are a small percentage of the US population.
Admirable list and yes an independent investigation of 9/11 is most definitely in order but even including that is basically meaningless and shows the grip of the plans the neocons created when they invented and created those think tanks back in the 70s whereby with the control of the media and the corporate lobbyism subverting the what was a good idea for a government for, of & by the people is all turned to something that is nay well repairable, because this is, or rather the democracy that used to be, is just a facade for the people to believe and hope that this is still a democracy but it is just a bought and paid for oligarchy; what more evidence do you need other than those we elect are immediately caputred by the lobby money?
MSNBC has this article, "'Afghans’ hearts and minds swayed by money'", which now instead of using what little money is available for the U.S.A. we are bailing out and stimulating Afghanistan and even though the article claims that we are paying the citizens for our damaging their homes and property, it really is just another scheme dreamed up to launder money from the U.S. taxpayer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32599040/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
samosamo August 29th, 2009 4:21 pm.............Just to repost what I said before my comment was removed because I mentioned a re-investigation of 9/11 should also be on the list. Obviously, you saw it and responded before the A-Hole "hall monitor" removed it. I'll say again, that I agree with all those ideas that RichM mentions.
Wow, yeah, went back and checked and IT AIN'T THERE NO MO, wonder what that was all about and why my mention of it is still there
samosamo August 29th, 2009 8:03 pm.........I would call it "selective enforcement" of their strange rules of censorship. Beats me. I just keep posting. I just wanted someone else to notice. Sort of like "the shadow government". You don't really accept it until it hits home.
I'd certainly endorse it. But something similar has been out there for awhile, namely the Green Party platform. You know how far that has gotten. People could have signed on in droves, but it's like it's invisible. (The infighting canard - well, it's not a canard, it actually happened - is hardly an excuse for letting the country go down the drain.)
Be that as it may, I personally would carry to the convention some kind of decentralization proposal.
RichM
1-2-3....absolutely.
#4....... Not only can we not afford to do anything unilaterally, we would have near zero effect done unilaterally, but devestating economic results.
#5 While I applaud your sentiments, do you really want them run like the Post Office? That had to be a slip of the fingers! IOts in debt and running at a loss with terrible mismanagement. I believe Nationalizing Banks is a bad idea. How about returning Banks to the regulations and oversight they had before...and adding some real rules to keep them from acting like Great Whites?
"Prosecute the leading banksters involved in the various mortgage scams & debt swaps for fraud & racketeering.)" Lets include all the folks involved, not just Bankers. Peoples 401's and retirements were looted by Wall Street types too.
RichM,
i completely support each point on your list. But these points seem to me to be sub-points to more fundamental points.
i would enumerate fundamental points (such as end US empire), then practical steps (such as withdraw from Afghanistan and Pakistan).
i might propose a fundamental point about democracy and corporate rule, under which could be sub-points about campaign finance, public funding, proportional representation, IRV, public budgeting, etc.
i might propose a fundamental point on justice (or human rights, or freedom, or ending all forms of oppression, or...) that would make our platform inclusive and not implicitly dismissive of numerous progressive movements. (Reference moonpie's dismissal on another thread today of attention to women's rights as a distraction from the required singular focus on breaking the Military Industrial Complex.)
1) End US empire, invest in people not in war
a) US leave Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq
b) US dismantle foreign military bases
c) Redirect money from military to other investments (including under 3 and 4 below)
d) etc
2) End corporate rule, institute democracy
a) abolish corporate personhood
b) nationalize banks, insurance companies
c) comprehensive election and campaign reform (numerous points)
d) etc
3) End the destruction of nature, adopt ecological design
a) comprehensive effort to minimize and stop feeding climate disruption
b) lots of etcs
4) End oppression, ensure justice freedom equality and human rights for all
a) Single-payer health insurance for all-inclusive pool
b) lots of etc
Whatever the specific responses on this thread to any particular proposed platform or points, i believe we need a simple set of fundamental points, that are inclusive of existing movements for justice, that directly challenge US empire and corporate rule, and that address destabilization of the living Earth.
For rolling out a campaign, it may indeed make sense to focus on a concrete number of specific demands, like "End the war!" and "Single payer now!" But it also makes sense to be working on the more comprehensive platform.
(Seems like when i was running this through my head a couple days ago i had 5 points...)
First, learn how to be a fair government online. Expect trials and errors as part of the learning process.
Commondreams is a poor online government. For one thing, it is effectively clogged with astroturfing garbage on a number of issues. Probably someone else will eventually do better, and then Commondreams will regret at leisure that they didn't want to be first. Oh well!
Then set up such a convention online.