EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
Popular content
Today's Top News
Systemic Denial
I spent the morning Wednesday at the Time Warner building in New York City, participating in a conference sponsored by the Roosevelt (as in FDR) Institute titled "Make Markets Be Markets." I don't often -- ok, ever -- have the time anymore to go to conferences that I'm not speaking at. But the significance of this subject, and the prominence of the speakers, were too much for me to resist. And so at the crack of dawn, I scrambled to a 6 AM shuttle to make the 8 AM meeting in Midtown.
Everyone recognizes that our nation is in a financial mess. Too few see that this mess is not simply the ordinary downs of a regular business cycle. The American financial system walked the American economy off a cliff. Large players took catastrophic risk. They were allowed to take this risk because of a series of fundamental regulatory mistakes; they were encouraged to take it by the implicit, sometimes explicit promise, that failure would be bailed out. The gamble was obvious and it worked. The suckers were us. They got the upside. We got the bill.
So in coming to this meeting of some of the very best in the field -- from Elizabeth Warren to George Soros -- I was keen to hear just what the strategy was to restore us to some sort of financial sanity. How could we avoid it again? Yet through the course of the morning, I was struck by two very different and very depressing points.
The first is that things are actually much worse than anyone ever talks about. The pivot points of our financial system -- the infrastructure that lets free markets produce real wealth -- have become profoundly corrupted. Balance sheets are "fictions," as Professor Frank Partnoy put it. Trillions of dollars in liability hide behind these fictions. And as expert after expert demonstrated, practically every one of the design flaws that led to the collapse of the past few years remains essentially unchanged within our financial system still. That bubble burst, but we can already see the soaring profits of the same firms that sucked billions in taxpayer funds. The cycle has started again.
But the second point was even worse. Expert after expert spoke as if the problems we faced were simple math errors. As if regulators had just miscalculated, like a pilot who accidentally overshoots the run way, or an engineer who mis-estimates the weight of cargo on a plane. And so, because these were mere errors, people spoke as if these errors could be corrected by a bunch of good ideas. The morning was filled with good ideas. An angry earnestness was the tone of the day.
There were exceptions. The increasingly prominent folk-hero for the middle class, Elizabeth Warren, tied the endless list of problems to the endless power of "the banking lobby." But that framing was rare. Again and again, we were led back to a frame of bad policies that smart souls could correct. At least if "the people" could be educated enough to demand that politicians do something sensible.
This is a profound denial. The gambling on Wall Street was not caused by the equivalent of errors in arithmetic. It was caused by a corruption of the system by which we regulate those markets. No true theorist of free markets -- and certainly none of the heroes of even the libertarian right -- believe that infrastructure markets like financial systems can be left free of any regulation, including the regulation of rules against fraud. Yet that ignorant anarchy was the precise rule that governed a large part of our financial system. And not by accident: An enormous amount of political influence was brought to bear on the regulators of these core institutions of a free market to get them to turn a blind eye to Wall Street's "innovations." People who should have known better yielded to this political pressure. Smart people did stupid things because "the politics" of doing right was impossible.
Why? Why was their no political return from sensible policy? The answer is so obvious that one feels stupid to even remark it. Politicians are addicts. Their dependency is campaign cash. And in their obsessive search for campaign funds, they let these funders convince them that for the first time in capitalism's history, markets didn't need the basic array of trust-producing regulation. They believed this insanity because it made it easier for them -- in good faith -- to accept the money and steer financial policy over the cliff.
Not a single presentation the whole morning focused this part of the problem. There wasn't even speculation about how we could build an alternative to this campaign funding system of pathological dependency, so that policy makers could afford to hear sense rather than obsessively seek campaign dollars. The assembled experts were even willing to brainstorm about how to educate ordinary Americans about the intricacies of financial regulation. But the idea of changing the pathological economy of influence that governs how Washington governs wasn't even a hint.
We need to admit our (democracy's) problem. We need to get beyond this stage of denial. We need to recognize that until we release our leaders from a system that forces them to ignore good sense when there is an opportunity for large campaign cash, we won't have policy that makes sense. Wall Street continues unchanged because the Congress that would change it is already shuttling to Wall Street fundraisers. Both parties are already pandering to this power, so they can find the fix to fund the next cycle of campaigns.
Throughout the morning, expert after expert celebrated the brilliance in Franklin Roosevelt's response to the Nation's last truly great financial collapse. They yearned for a modern version of his system of regulation. But we won't get to Franklin Roosevelt's brilliance till we accept Teddy Roosevelt's insight -- that privately funded public elections tend inevitably towards this kind of corruption. And until we solve that (eminently solvable) problem, we won't make any progress in making America's finances safe again.
FixCongressFirst. Only then will sensible policy be possible.Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllI'd setttle for FDR At PRESENT; rather than "our" Rusevelt, Franklin! (And I don't recall a campaign finance reform precedent for FDR's people-faithful Presidency).
This should not sprprise anyone. We ALL KNOW that our country's financial dilemma is the result of corrupt politicians who are obviously "serving" themselves instead of their constituents. Our Congress is literally riddled with them!
Not only that, the only solution to the problem would have to come from those very corrupt politicians! Does anyone REALLY think that will happen????
Voting has become a mere placebo for the "ignorant" masses!
Enough said! We're doomed!
Voting has become a mere placebo for the "ignorant" masses!
Placebo or opiate, either way certainly not as advertised.
Political participation must involve more than voting or even supporting political parties--even 3rd parties. What is needed is participation in an "alternative" or "counter" economy that meets the needs of the people in a way healthy for the planet. This economy can include legitimate small business, but not large and multinational corporations. We must break the definition that equates the economy with business. A just economy must include voluntary associations, worker-owned companies, cooperatives, nonprofit ventures, and even local-government-owned initiatives. All transactions need not be cash. They can use barter, or payment in kind, local scrip or simply be free. Breaking the grip of the corporations also involves freeing our livelihoods from their control, not just our politicians.
Excellent points.
Maybe what we need to get this going is an "alternative" banking system/bank?
It could be a normal deposit bank or credit union that:
a) Is democratically operated. Shareholders would be those who "buy in" with a certain minimum deposit. The shareholders would then vote on a management team. I'm invisioning sort of a parlimentary system where the congress of shareholders is the parliment, and various factions or individuals among them vie to "form a government". A larger bank could have a further layer added where citizen-shareholders vote for MPs and from this vote a majority or coalition government can be formed. Some Credit unions are surprisingly close to this already, but they need more capitalization.
b) Is constitutional. A underlying legal structure that outlines goals and procedures approved and ratified by a supermajority of citizen-shareholders. This would basically serve as the Charter of a democratic corporation.
c) Has a constitutional mandate to lend capital at favorable rates to the sorts of enterprises you mention as essential to such a "counter economy".
It could very well be that all that is needed to get such an "intentional society" going is capitalization.
-matti.
"Not only that, the only solution to the problem would have to come from those very corrupt politicians! Does anyone REALLY think that will happen????" -- FrankS
I agree! How will any reform every be passed and implemented into law? Corruption is rampant at all levels of government! Most of us knew, as soon as Obama appointed Summers and Geithner -- our goose, so to speak, was cooked!
Why not then form a new party with a specific goal that would lead to the election of people dedicated to ending the corruption?
Fundraising for such a party could be limited in the charter (or what have you) of such a party to small, but organized donations from individual citizens. I often promote here a concept of micro-donation collection spread out over time and many, many, contributors that could, over time, raise just as much money as the system used by the Dems and Repubs. (x people raise y $s over z amount of days, months, or years. This is basically similar to the Green Party's "Sustainer" program, but with more emphasis on targeted electoral needs than central party upkeep.)
Such a party might perhaps focus on the goal of what I call "Constitutional Progress". That is, packing State Legislatures and City Councils to push votes on new City Charters and Constitutional Conventions at the State and Federal levels.
We have the right to this fundamentally democratic form of Legal Revolution, but we seldom (and in the case of the Federal level, never) use it!
-matti.
"We need to admit our (democracy's) problem. We need to get beyond this stage of denial. We need to recognize that until we release our leaders from a system that forces them to ignore good sense when there is an opportunity for large campaign cash, we won't have policy that makes sense."
"WE"? Most sensible, informed USans recognized long ago that our political system is corrupted by the constant inflow of mostly corporate money, and the recent Citizens United SCOTUS decision will make it even worse. We don't have a democracy. We have an auction.
It is the lawmakers in Congress who refuse to change the system which corrupts them so handily. Why should they? They have wealth, power, perks, great health care, and secure pensions in addition to their lucrative future as lobbyists for the same industries that funded their campaigns and self-serving, biased legislation.
We can try to vote them out, but how long will that take even if enough non-corruptible candidates run against them and somehow manage to successfully compete against tens of millions in corporate funding of obedient incumbents?
No, WE are not in denial, and neither are the money-grubbers, power-brokers, and Robber Barons acting as Corporate Tools in Congress. WE know the system is so corrupt that it must be scrapped, not reformed. And the Corporate Tools and their masters know the system works exactly as they want it to work.
We need a mass recall (like Toyota) of every corrupted Congress Critter, and mass repeals of corporate charters for all corporations which do not serve the Common Good. Such a fantasy is nice to dream, but impossible to realize.
Corporate capitalism has sufficiently weeded out the good over the past few decades (not that there were that many "good" to begin with) that the political and economic systems have completely rotted from within.
The corporate elites are aware that the system is completely dysfunctional and probably also aware that this is not even in their interests over the long term (parasites do not fare well when the host dies), so they will make sure the common people come to this same realization in the next few years. The people will need to be convinced that great changes are necessary, allowing the corporate elites to transition the country into an overt, organized, and disciplined dictatorship, which they hope will be more sustainable, from the current covert, disorganized, and undisciplined one.
But of course "The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry" and the corporatist dictatorship could soon be replaced by a more standard military one, as few of those ruthless and reckless enough to engage in such daring plans are wise enough to comprehend the dangers of and the resulting instability from disregarding traditional and familiar patterns and values.
Well, let's agree on what was said in the article. What are some practical steps?
Campaign finance reform has had an up-hill battle before the latest SCOTUS decision. Public financing and the return of the fairness doctrine are two obvious steps but how can we get there? The entrenched powers like the status quo, they won't give up their influence easily. It's not enough to just delineate the problem, many of us already know that. If you are going to write, give us some new ideas.
I thought this article was very interesting and at the same time made me more angry than I already am. People don’t seem to want to talk about the elephant in the room and deal with the real problem of corruption within our government. Until we have real election campaign reform where we take the private money out of the equation than we will continue to have the same ole same ole and this country will go off the cliff of no return. Our children and grandchildren will be the ones who really suffer because this country will be so bankrupted that they will not be able to work themselves and their future families out of the debt we are leaving them.
Yes, there is denial. There continues to be denial by those in our government that we need to find a way to live within our means and not continue to borrow money that we can’t pay back. We need to get out of debt and not continue to add more debt to the backs of our children to pay for Wall Street to continue to do what they have been doing. We need to cut spending and not continue to increase spending and not worry about the effects that await our children and grandchildren.
We need a government who will be honest with the American people and not a government who continues to LIE. We need men and women with backbone to serve in public office and government who will not do as they are told by those holding the strings. We need men and women with the courage to tell the truth and fight for real election campaign reform that takes all private money out of the equation and candidates each get the same amount of public money to work with. Media has to start allowing candidates free and equal air time. If the airways belong to the people than during elections all candidates should receive equal and free airtime.
No, I don’t hold much hope that we will see people in government working to find real solutions. I think alot of people don’t hold out much hope that future generations of America are going to have a good quality life. Yet, just because the odds are against us doesn’t mean we stop trying or stop fighting.
The question is what do we do as people who see this nation we love falling off the cliff toward its own destruction? We can see it happening and we try and stop it, but it just seems that no one is listening to our warnings and closer and closer we get to the edge of the steep cliff. Do we pretend like so many people are doing that the problems are not as severe as they really are? Do we pretend that our continued spending at the rate we are spending is really helping us dig out of this hole of debt we are in? How can we look at children today and not make the tough choice of doing the right thing for their future?
Both parties are a big part of the problem. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and working together as one government to find a way to deal with the problem; we have men and women who feel it is more important to be right than to do the right thing. I would hope that Progressives are waking up to the truth that it is better to vote third party and join a true Progressive party like the Green Party than to continue to believe that the Democratic party is going to be a true Progressive party. To many of us Progressives to still believe that the solution is to be found in the Democratic party is the same thing as believing in the easter bunny at the age of 50. Yes, when we were kids and Easter morning came and the easter baskets of candy and other good things our parents told us it came from the easter bunny. At some point we as kids learned the truth that there was no real easter bunny but our parents were the ones who bought the easter baskets.
I don’t know if people will come out of their denial. Sometimes I feel like the United States is the Titanic and I am one of the few who are trying to get people to life boats in time; while others are sitting on the deck drinking their ice tea and pretending that nothing is wrong and we aren’t sinking. How do we wake people up and get them to the point of deciding to start going to the life boat? How do we get people who are in denial to embrace the truth and start fighting to save the ship from sinking?
I am as doubtful as you are -- and I have been talking about these issues long before the collapse in 2008. In fact, for two weeks, during December of 2006, after I lost my job, I worked for the Democrats, talking to people on the streets of NYC -- raising money for Howard Dean's "50-State" plan. Surprisingly, I found myself looking forward, each day, to talking to people. But, people in positions of management were NOT interested in what I learned. Each day, I talked to several people, like me, who had lost their jobs, in NYC, and across the country -- accountants, social workers, music industry professionals, tech workers, etc. -- from Florida, California, Ohio, New York, Virginia, Texas, etc. I learned that what happened to me, losing my job without notice, and not being able to find work, was very commonplace in this country. I began keeping a journal, recording the concerns of the people with whom I spoke -- some of the people had already lost their homes, apartments, etc., and most of them did NOT qualify for any help. Soon their severance pay ran out, and their options ran out as well. Some of the people, as I listened to their stories, choked back tears -- even the men I talked to were overwhelmed by their emotions, and tears ran down their faces. Of course, the organization for which I worked, Grassroots Organizing, was uninterested and thought I was taking too much time with people. I felt the exact opposite -- I wasn't taking enough time with 'the people."
I wrote up the information, and sent it off to the Nation and to the Progressive, and both progressive publications sent my discoveries back to me, telling me they were NOT interested, labeling my observations and experiences as "op-eds," and they already have enough of those. Therefore, I have little faith in many of the progressive publications. After 2008, though, the Nation was suddenly interested in "the people's" stories -- posting online to send in "your personal experiences," etc. -- losing jobs, homes, etc. TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE!
I agree that people need to be educated about the financial crisis and how it happened -- and there are countless very good books to read on the subject. But, how do we motivate our elected officials to make the necessary changes by instituting new laws? I agree that the politicians are addicts, addicted to "campaign contributions." And unfortunately, the politicians, themselves, would have to vote for the changes. Our government, and in turn, our politicians, our elected officials, are corrupt! Here in NY state, we have countless scandals going on simultaneously. Every day, we learn more -- Governor Paterson, Charles Rangel, the banksters, etc.
"I don’t know if people will come out of their denial. Sometimes I feel like the United States is the Titanic and I am one of the few who are trying to get people to life boats in time; while others are sitting on the deck drinking their ice tea and pretending that nothing is wrong and we aren’t sinking. How do we wake people up and get them to the point of deciding to start going to the life boat? How do we get people who are in denial to embrace the truth and start fighting to save the ship from sinking?" -- chrisy58
Good analogy and you ask good questions! However, if our elected officials are NOT responsive to "we the people," what can we do? The calls coming into the various congressional offices across the country -- prior to the bailout -- were 100 to 1, against the bailout! Still, our elected officials voted to bail them out, and to leave all of us flailing for our lives. I have friends who are still waiting for Obama to do what they thought they heard him say when he was campaigning! They still can't absorb the fact that he is NOT on our side!
Ray Berthiaume
So very well written. Truly the experience and thoughts of the grassroots folks. But Greed produces such blindness and deafness. It can be very discouraging.
Thank you!
And, indeed you are correct -- "Greed produces such blindness and deafness." -- Ray Berthiaume
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
This article is true, old hat, and offers NOTHING in terms of effective ideas to change the situation--like an increasing number of articles from the Huffie Post.
>>>>>>"They believed this insanity because it made it easier for them -- in good faith -- to accept the money and steer financial policy over the cliff."
"In good faith??????" PLUEEEEEZE!!!
Mr. Lessig cannot really believe in his heart of hearts that these savvy politicos were actually duped into believing "IN GOOD FAITH" that bribes being given to them by Wall Street banksters to look the other way were somehow good our nation, even as they watched our nation's financial system crashing all around them.
I think I'm going to be sick!!!
Yes, in the context of organized self-centered pillaging, "good faith" is a euphemism at best-- the equivalent of being a "winner" in the Special Olympics.
· Yr Obd't Servant
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
Bumper Sticker on every car......NO PRIVATE MONEY IN PUBLIC ELECTIONS there are millions more of us than them
They believed this insanity because it made it easier for them -- in good faith --
No! No! No! There is NO good faith. There is only corruption, the very same corruption that infects the minds and souls of nearly every Republican and Democrat. The same corruption that is hurtling us toward the next, and even more disastrous, economic meltdown.
Remember Senator Paul Wellstone the vote that would block the Iraq invasion?
Remember Senator Paul Wellstone and his dead family brought down by HARP?
Mass serial killers are difficult to reform.
it's really quite amazing how the USA now resembles ROME...
more and more...
with the NEROs of the USA fiddling while Rome Burns.
Neros being Obama, Clinton, the Pentagon, the Corporatocray, the Banks, the Leaders of industries, the CEOs and their "boards", politicians...etc..
all Fiddling while Rome "burns" --- its Self-claimed "provinces" - economies its Mandarins infect such as greece and europe, south america , asia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and intends to "burn" some other places....and its economy burns, its constitution, its morality, its sense of reality...
amazing.
it seems the only thing left is to watch - and see how much MORE Burn and Devastation ROME brings....
"...I have been a student of history and cultures all my life, and traveled the world as a Nautical engineer....I know about the Roman Empire because I am Roman...today -- that Rome is The USA".....
spoken to me by
an old Italian gentleman at 102.
America was named after Amerigo, An Italian (Roman) cartographer. The cartographers of old were a part of the ruling elite. So yes, your point well made, The United States of Amerigo is an extension or recreation of the Roman Empire.
Hi,
from what I remember Amerigo Vespucci, for having what was then the prevailing "world map"...supposedly miscalculated and that instead of "piloting" columbus to what was supposed to be their destination , which was the "EAST"...to follow the treasures and new lands reported since the times of Marco Polo and others...they eventually came upon the americas....and thus termed them the "new world"...maybe that is also why Sigmund Freud called America "an accident....a tragic accident"...including as we know ....finding the region already peopled in the Millions by the Native indians who originally crossed from the Asian continent thousands of years ago...and just had to be Eliminated and/or Enslaved to make way for the "white man" and his new world order.
Lessig is right, we need to fix congress first. Fundamentally, democracy works because the votes cast in Congress reflect the aggregated desires of the voting public. No one, anywhere, believes that is true any longer: Congressional votes reflect the campaign contributions, ie the money, not the public.
Take the ineffectualness of the Obama administration. The perverse effect of this is that many progressives won't vote in the midterm elections. Now consider the possibility that this is exactly what the money wants progressives to do: to not vote (or to 'protest vote'). Obama and Congress are shaming progressive values because they are obligated to march to other values, the values of the ownership class. Likewise Republicans. This in no way resembles democracy, its corporatocracy. And until we fix the extraordinary access money has to our 'elected' representatives, nothing else will get done.
The item was good until: "We need to recognize that until *we release* our leaders from a system that forces them to ignore good sense when there is an opportunity for large campaign cash, we won't have policy that makes sense." The issue is not one of us releasing them; we can only elect them. No, it is they who must release themselves from the comfortable bondage they've chosen. We can pressure them by refusing to re-elect them unless they end their bondage; although, in the states where public refernda make it possible, we can push to enact publicly funded elections that allow for zero private monies or advertising and mandate equal broadcast time for ALL candidates to force congress or bring about a constitutional crisis. Eliminating the Money Power's influence is but one step in an overall process, however. I think even the Teabaggers agree on this point.
On the FixCongressFirst.org website, they're actually calling, eventually, for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. I agree. Everything I've seen about the gridlock issues that affect our democracy come down to the triumph of money over voters in Wash DC. I also don't believe DC can 'cure itself' of its addiction. Addicts rarely do.
What I think the FixCongressFirst supporters are saying is that our gov't is already so far off track, so taken over by money, that its almost too late to fix even this issue. But, if you were to choose just one issue for the public to rise up and fix. Actually get something written into the constitution. This would be that issue. This is not 'but one step in an overall process'. This is the logjam behind which all the other issues are stuck. Healthcare, Afghanistan, Education, WallStreet, etc. Those are but symptoms. The disease is 'money corrupting democracy'. Cure the disease, and the symptoms fix themselves.
There are still big problems that will continue to exist even if we can get money out of politics, and I've stated them enough that you ought to know them by now: Too much power vested in the Executive; undemocratic institutions--congress and Supreme Court; undemocratic electoral process of electing the president; ineffective regulation and oversite of regulatory agencies; a national security state whose Empire must be undone so we can have a democracy; and a financial system unwilling to serve the interests of the citizenry.
We can continue to try to get money out of politics, but I fear the seeds of our demise are already sown as we are clearly in the grip of ecological overshoot with gravity in control of our car that's already zoomed over the cliff.
I, like you, agree about 'the seeds of our demise'. I see almost no hope in any action taken today in preventing disaster. Yet, here we are, able-bodied, sentient, and with apparently nothing to do before Armageddon.
What FixCongressFirst is saying to people like us, is that if you had but ONE thing you could choose to fix before the guillotine closed, even just as a signal to the universe, what would that be? I consider the resurrection of Athenian democracy to be the primary accomplishment of the United States of America. The idea that our 'leaders' are actually 'followers', and that they are following US, surely must be seen as some kind of cosmic gift to humanity. Money has now enslaved that process, as it enslaves all else. What ONE thing can we do? I say lets own up to our heritage, and get the money out of the process. If you're religious: 'toss the money-lenders out of the temple'. It may be too late. It is PROBABLY too late. But the best actions aren't taken when success is assured, but when failure is assured. Athens failed. Athens succeeded. So might we.
Its time to reclaim our democracy. Our best idea of all.
There was no "resurrection of Athenian democracy" in America - or anywhere else. That is a profoundly incorrect perception. Their institutions were different; they had the dicastery and ecclesia, but no Congress. They met in person in the agoura, each citizen acting directly as he judged he should. We must delegate our authority to somebody else, who takes it to some far away invisible place and does with it whatever he jolly well pleases.
"Money has now enslaved that process..." blames the wrong element in the situation. The villain is not money, nor even the love of it. The villain is delegation, which creates the marketplace in which political outcomes can be bought.
I am tired to death of these cries to "fix" the Congress or "get the money out of the process" whose only virtue is that they at least do seem to recognize that the problem has something to do with the Congress, but fail to realize that Congress cannot be fixed, but must be removed altogether, because you cannot write legal provisions that rooms full of high-priced attorneys cannot circumvent.
There is no conceivable fix, folks. Only a thorough re-structing can possibly succeed. And no, we cannot "reclaim" a democracy we never had, so that is not "our best idea of all," only a pious sentiment based on a profound ignorance of history.
If it is time for anything, it is time to establish the world's first large-scale direct democracy. The present form is an unstable one; that has been obvious since 1964. It tends, visibly, toward a dictatorship that sneaks a little closer every day. The only safe repository of democratic power is in the hands of the people, not their treacherous surrogates.
Yes, let's have the damn convention, and soon, but let it be understood that its only objective is to eliminate, to the extent possible, delegation of political authority, starting by writing the Congress - both houses - out of the Constitution and putting the people in its place. That would make us more Athenian, so to speak.
Typically enough, we are now trying to get by on the cheap, but it won't work. You cannot gain the benefits of democracy without actually practicing it.
I don't agree with you at all. I, an engineer, have no intention of doing any more than casting my vote for an 'engineer of democracy'. If you don't understand why then there's no point in our conversation. I AM TOO BUSY DOING MY JOB.
'[we should seek to] eliminate, to the extent possible, delegation of political authority'
WTF??? Congress exists PRECISELY for such delegation. Do you honestly believe that in our workaday world a taxi-driver, a maid, a tax-accountant, or [in my case] a thermal engineer have TIME or expertise for such deliberations???!? We elect people to represent us, and our values.
We HOPE those values aren't twisted by the all-too-present power of Mammon. But we are NOT surprised to find that they are. WHEN we find that they are, allow us the thankless task of REMOVING such power so that our REPRESENTATIVE democracy can function as the founders envisioned.
Not ALL of life constitutes governance. This is the sentiment the powers of the almighty dollar want us to cling to. FVCK THAT!!!! One person... ONE VOTE. Bring back that reality, and I will GLADLY Yield the podium for someone more qualified. Someone with a PhD in how democracy actually should include all animals and, if we have evidence, plants as well.
Jesus H Christ.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought wars, slavery, sexism, Jim Crow and all sorts of other insanity just to gain and protect the right to vote. Your job is no excuse for abandoning your civic duty to your country and your family to help preserve a decent country for them and their progeny to inhabit. Too many self-preoccupied Baby Boomers with your mindset tuned out the Congressional rubber stamp of the "free trade" treaties in the 1990s to the extreme misfortune of the country ever since. The better the electorate is educated and informed and the more direct the relationship of vote-to-issue in any democratic republic the more accountable that democracy is to its people. The small town democratic town hall meetings of New England and the First Nations' caucuses before them are a more ideal form of democracy than representative Congressional "democracy" which has 2 additional layers of class interests between it and the interests of the individual voter. Representative democracy is a compromise that has always leaned towards the monied interests in terms of concentrating real political power in the hands of a few with regard to the many who are governed. The larger the population, the greater the distance between the representatives and the represented. Governance affects every aspect of your life whether you are capable of grasping that fact or not. You would not even be able to conduct your life in the way you do had not hundreds of years of political decisions laid out the rules and conditions by which you live your life in America as an American citizen.
Thanks Prof. Lessig for your precise writing about America's decline.
Please check out David Swanson's similar writing here ...
"Why Leahy Is Afraid to Subpoena Yoo"
http://www.davidswanson.org/node/2505
He concludes as follows:
1) no Subpoena power by Congress anymore leads to ...
2) no impeachment power anymore which leads to ...
3) no representative government anymore as "How can our representatives be compelled to represent us if they have no power to restrain the secondary (executive and judicial) branches' abuses of power?"
We are watching America dissolve in real time.
good article, thanks for the link
Corporations are not persons. Persons are defined as human beings. Corporations are not human beings, they are associations of human beings, therefore corporations are things not persons. Money is not free speech. Money is a tool used in order to exchange for goods and services. Money does not have a mouth nor a brain with which to create words of free speech. Speech is an utterance, spoken word by a person. Therefore money is not free speech. The supreme court is betraying the constitution by making these false statements and judgements. This horrendous decision has led to the illegal, immoral usurping and destruction of our economy by the "moneyed elite". Corporations are THINGS, not persons. Money is a THING, not free speech. Restore sound thought and policy, remove the purchasing of law.
"Restore sound thought and policy, remove the purchasing of law."
But how do we get there from here? The RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and Kennedy are not going anywhere for quite a while and they have made it quite clear they are going to interpret the US Constitution as they damn well please, regardless of the actual text or the original intent (such intent they have harped on when previous Courts reached conclusions not to their liking), and the interpretations they prefer somehow always seem consistent with the interests of the most predatory and powerful corporations. Also, the corporate elites own most of the Democratic reps and virtually all of the Republican ones as well as Obama. And any presidential candidate must pledge complete obedience to receive any favorable coverage in the mainstream media.
In the great contest between ballots and bullion in the last half of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st it has been a rout.
thus, civil war 2..
Professor Lessig has the right idea. The question is how to change the laws about corruption when the very structure of the constitutional system allowed it to occur, *and* the people in Congress who could change it are the addicts to the money they would be legislating to give up. Do we ask addicts to voluntarily give up access to the substances they are addicted to? It seems unlikely to succeed—unless we hit the very bottom of the bottom, and that may mean the conditions for Civil War II. Those conditions would be military defeat by WMDs used by the foreign resistance to American empire, or economic collapse, or both.
Solutions?
Congress is not required for calling a constitutional convention under Article V. Two-thirds of the states can do that through applications, and then "Congress . . . shall call" for a convention. Yes, approving the recommendations of a convention would take 38 states via legislatures or conventions, but soon, the alternative will be Civil War II.
Shay's Rebellion was the context for the only national constitutional convention since the first Constitution was enacted in 1781. That happened in 1787 and led to the second and current Constitution. Let's not wait for Civil War II fix the system at its core.
By making peaceful revolution possible we can make violent revolution unnecessary.
The *trunk* of the tree of government is the only hope I can see: The People and the states.
Here is Article V:
>>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.>>
A convention could, for example, propose to change Article V itself. And could propose amendments requiring all elections be publicly funded and banning all private money from influencing elections. How could the the people force the small states to vote for changes to the Constitution? That is a question we need to ask and answer. But first, we need a convention, fully televised, democratically selected.
What else will work? Who has a better solution to our totalitarian, plutocratic, corporate regime controlling all branches of OUR government?
Professor Lessig is calling for a convention. See this link:
http://www.callaconvention.com/
For comparison, contrast Montana's amending article (Constitutional Revision, Article XIV) with Article V:
http://www.montanahistory.net/state/constitution1972.htm
Replacing the latter with the former would open up the "iron cage" of Article V to the people.
(Sanford Levinson is the scholar who calls Article V the "iron cage" in his great book Our Undemocratic Constitution.)
we need to NATIONALZIE THE FED!
that would cut these suckers off at the knees...
THAT would be our revolution against the vampire elites....
and then after that a flat tax rate of 80% on all wages over 3 million a year....
that's a lower rate than the republican eisenhower put in place....
a 2 part slap-down.....
Like any good "liberal" (reformist), author Lessig wants to have his cake (capitalism) and eat it too (with reforms). Thus he peddles the principal illusion of reformism: The state machinery (he notices the regulatory agencies especially) is, or can be made to be, independent of the class structure of society.
Alas, Lessig's promise of state independence via a new election system--freed from dependency on private campaign contributions--remains only a vague promise; a problem that is "eminently solvable," says he, as he fails to mention any details whatsoever.
Likewise he fails to mention the Supreme Court's recent, vast expansion of the scope of corporate political funding (Citizens United v. FEC); which, even if Lessig's reforms ever are specified, would leave the corporations free to swing the balance to the their favorite candidates.
If Lessig were serious, he would also have to explain why the class structure seems to have its way no matter how "reformed" the electioneering apparatus. The recent financial crisis, he fails to note, was international in scope. Somehow capitalism got its way in Europe, etc., notwithstanding variations in campaign financing. Somehow the market system ends up regulating the government and not the other way around.
Finally, the most laughable aspect of Lessig's article is the premise that he shares with those he criticizes, namely, the presumption that he/they know how capitalism should be run/regulated. The historical experience is rather that the capitalists think they know what they are doing; and the regulators think that they know what the capitalists are doing. In the upshot, both sets of geniuses are revealed as having been reading from the same text--bourgeois ideology--with the same surprise ending (economic crisis); revealing that, once again, neither the capitalists nor the regulators knew what they were doing.
Back in the 19th century the old socialists argued that crisis, unemployment, and war were endemic to capitalism as a system; and that to pretend otherwise was the commonest of reformist lies. If any thesis has been confirmed by subsequent history, it is this one. But Lessig is "in denial" on this score every bit as much as the fellow reformists whom he criticizes in today's article.
And no, Mr. Lessig, I don't think that This Time Is Different.
Thanks for writing this. It's so refreshing to know someone out there "gets it".
"Balance sheets are "fictions," as Professor Frank Partnoy put it. Trillions of dollars in liability hide behind these fictions. And as expert after expert demonstrated, practically every one of the design flaws that led to the collapse of the past few years remains essentially unchanged within our financial system still."
Yes, and the wing-nuts of both wings will continue to support the fictions who support their campaigns. ME, ME and ME is all that matters. F**k the country and its citizens!
The solution to this mess for once is a simple one.
We as a society have to take a good long hard look at our concept of "value". We have to learn and begin the discuss and teach each other and our children what real "value" is. I actually think rather than mandatory health care we need mandatory neofreudian psychotherapy. Rather than the old depression era phrase "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". Our new national slogan needs to be "A Healthy ego in every heart and a functioning super-ego in every mind".
I'm not dismissing the good points the author makes. However, it doesn't seem as if Lawrence is aware of its dog chasing tail irony. Sure we need to change the way elections are financed, but of course that has to happen by acts of Congress. Woof woof, try to bite tail, woof woof!
Any change that as ever meant anything as come from the bottom and forced the top to accept it..
The civil rights movement,women rights,etc.
Washington as to be dragged kicking to do the right thing.
In this case because as the author mentions," Politicians are addicts. Their dependency is campaign cash".
They need to know the we mean business!
That is why their is a movement to remove every single incumbent from office that accepted special interest money. If you took special interest money,you are out!
That's the message!