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
- The Downwinders: Fracking Ourselves to Death in America
Popular content
Today's Top News
Can Democrats Landslide Republicans?
I often ask Congressional Democrats these days: "If you agree that your Republican counterparts in Congress are the most craven, corporatist, fact-denying, falsifying, anti-99 percent, militaristic Republicans in the party's history, then why are you not landsliding them?" Their responses are largely in the form of knowing smiles and furrowed brows.
There are answers that are more specific to account for the large election losses in 2010, the loss of the House of Representatives to John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and the prospect of losing the House and the Senate this November. Chief among them is that the two parties are vigorously dialing for the same commercial dollars to finance their campaigns. The resultant inhibitions and self-censorships bring the parties' real agendas closer together, erasing the bright lines that make elections clearer choices for voters.
Here are eight initiatives that could landslide the Republicans in November's Congressional contests. It starts with a ringing declaration that recalls the legendary labor rally challenge: "Whose side are you on?" With the two parties often seen as Republicrats or DemReps, due to the lack of credible, distinct differences on military, foreign policy, trade, agribusiness, energy and corporate crime/welfare subjects, among others, such a proclamation of "we the people" helps frame the details of this fresh approach, as follows.
First, resurrect the old Democratic Party's historic safeguarding of federal minimum wage and labor laws from Republican dissolution. It is astonishing that, since the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, there have been so few high-profile champions in Congress for restoring the minimum wage - now $7.25 per hour - to its inflation-adjusted level of 1968 which today would be $10.00 per hour. That long overdue move would pour tens of billions of dollars into job-producing consumer demand during this recession. It would end a decades-long windfall for employers who have been increasing their prices and salaries while receiving many tax breaks during that period. To objections from the curled-lip House Republican Eric Cantor, the reply is: "You don't believe workers in your district should make as much as workers made 44 years ago when their productivity was half what it is today, Eric?"
The scholar who showed that keeping minimum wages current doesn't cost jobs is Alan Krueger, now President Obama's chief economic advisor. In 2008, Mr. Obama himself pledged to push for a $9.50 minimum wage by 2011.
Second, announce the filing of legislation that declares immediate drafting of all able-bodied and age-qualified children and grandchildren of all members of Congress any time that branch or the president plunge us into another war. Besides forcing Congress to pay attention to its Constitutional responsibilities to declare or not declare war, this legislation would ring with the authenticity of responsible humble servants becoming part of the risk presently hoisted on a few million, mostly low income, families.
Third, cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget, really end the wars, and switch the expected savings into repairing and renovating America through a public works program all over the country with good-paying, non-exportable jobs.
Fourth, shift much of the tax burdens to activities we do not like, such as pollution, huge Wall Street speculation, corporate crime waves and profits from systemic product waste. Even Exxon/Mobil supports the idea of a carbon tax, which would help the environment. The motto: tax what you burn before you tax what you earn.
Fifth, announce a national energy conversion campaign based on efficiency and renewables. The only true energy independence comes from the sun in its many manifestations. This will create more local employment and small businesses down to the community-neighborhood levels. Goodbye to the toxic fossil fuel and atomic energy cartels.
Sixth, crack down on corporate and governmental violations of our Constitution and laws. No more no-fault government and no-more no-fault big business. If the law is to be observed in the streets, then it must be observed in the suites. People are being pushed around, disrespected, defrauded, injured, and given the runaround from arrogant corporate bureaucrats using nameless, robotic and tyrannical "fine print" barricades. There have to be accountabilities that the abused citizens can invoke.
Seventh is a proposal to establish a national complaint-handling system using the internet to help consumers, taxpayers and workers, for a change. You got a beef with your insurance company, bank, energy company, pension fund, cable company, hospital, telephone/gas/water/electric utility, or some government agency you can't get through to file your complaint.
A complaint-handling system will save billions of hours wasted on just trying to get through, much less getting your complaint heard. It will also be a good way to aggregate complaints to detect patterns for policy-making and enforcement corrections. Patterns lead to deterrence, fewer complaints, and fewer dollar losses. What a way to show sensitivity to the daily irritations and frustrations of the American people!
Eighth, create a democracy movement based on simple facilities for people who choose to band together in various roles. In return for what you the taxpayers have had to spend to bail out and otherwise privilege these large companies, the Democratic party can press for inserts in their billing systems and other corporate carriers inviting you to voluntarily join and contribute dues to a nonprofit staffed with full-time champions of your causes as consumers, patients, workers and taxpayers (inserts could also be sent in the communications from tax collecting agencies) directly accountable to you. No results, then no dues next time, and no taxpayer subsidies. These facilities would shift some power from the haves to the have-nots.
Imagine the public discussion, excitement and participation these eight proposals would provoke. Previous non-voters along with regular voters would see they have a stake in these elections and that one of the major parties at least wants to be on their side, and strive to earn their trust by empowering them directly.
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...
70 Comments so far
Show AllHow about legislation that places a NONE OF THE ABOVE on every ballot automatically. Completely agenda free and party neutral. And if during any election NONE OF THE ABOVE wins, every other party must put the money they spent on the campaign into a Tax Payer Refund fund, that all get back come tax time.
The largest single factor that pummeled the Democrats in 2010 was their support of Obamacare, a program loathed by a majority of Americans that was introduced by the Newt during the 90s, instituted by Romney in Massachusetts in 2006 and refined to further enehance corporate profits by Obama.
Because the Congressional Democrats voted for the GOP program packaged as Obamacare, the GOP did not need to vote for it. As a result the GOP could easily sell themselves as being on the side of most Americans in the 2010 election.
I can understand someone thinking that if they get most of their news from FOX or by listening to Rush Limbaugh. However, these are audiences that would not have voted for any Democrat under any conditions and especially not one who is black or who has a strange sounding name. These audiences were not Obama's to lose but in the wider voting public, "Obamacare" was not particularly hated or even clearly understood.
There was considerable disappointment with Obama in 2010 but they stemmed from the poor state of the economy and the notion that Obama, in enacting his health care program, had missed opportunities to pass a more effective program for health care as well as end the wars, create a successful jobs program, eliminate the Bush tax cuts, extend unemployment, etc.
The voters had a lot of expectations for Obama, in fact higher expectations than anyone could possibly have accomplished, especially given the obstruction of legislation by the Republican Senate through their abuse of the filibuster. That being said, Obama clearly failed to make effective use of his bully pulpit to explain what he was doing and why he had been unable to accomplish others. Given his great speaking skills, this was surprising indeed and not doing so is probably his greatest failing. The public saw him as passive and weak because of what appeared as capitulations to the Republicans and Obama never tried to counter this impression or explain his reasons.
Better still to legislate that non-corporate candidates can debate the corporate party at all levels of government and all electoral stages.
HEY! I cracked up when I read Ralph's opening paragraph, I do rather love that curmudgeonly guy, and then again when I read your post. Awesome idea! The only thing I don't like about it is that I did not think of it first. I am totally going to use that one. Thanks. :)
A [foreign-born] colleague once remarked that if Ralph Nader was ever elected president of the U.S., it would mean that the IQ of the average American would have risen substantially. Thank you, Ralph, for another excellent article!
on the 8th proposal re: inserts - I have always wondered why it would not be possible for taxpayers to mark their returns indicating to what office of govt they wanted their taxes to go. I.e, if I want a big military, I tell the IRS to put it all there; if I want a strong EPA or Health dept or interior or Ed dept, I tell the IRS to split it among them. I am not a tax expert or a lawyer. I wonder if the budget-making authority of Congress in the Consitution would prevent this, but I don't really know. I can't think of a more directly democratic way to control govt expenditures and operations.
Can't do that because that would be giving "we the sheeple" a share in power.
At least half of taxpayers don't even know who their Congressional representative is or where their polling place is. When and how are they going to educate themselves on the nuances of agency budget requests and needs, the activities of the Department of the Interior versus the Department of Agriculture versus the Department of Health and Human Services, etc., to make even mildly informed decisions about government expenditures? This is why we elect full-time representatives.
Sorry. While the concept is appealing, in practice it would be a complete disaster. A non-binding referendum from taxpayers on where they think their taxes should be going would be cool, though. More for human welfare, less for our bloated military, I'm sure.
Mr. Nader, you are the best. However, the biggest obstacle to Democratic implementation of any of your sensible suggestions is the fact that President Obama has no balls. This has been recently confirmed in the Ryan Lizza article "The Obama Memos". If Fox "News" or Obama's "advisers(?)" can complain, Obama backs off. He supposedly said: "politics is played between the 40 yard lines", yeah, if you never want to win. Obama is the ultimate WIMP President. I wish he was Kenyan, then we could deport him.
It isn't just Obama lacking balls. I've understood for the past fifty years that the Democratic party is a ball-less party. They haven't a clue how to fight. Those who do never get elected, or have the chance to use them (like Mr. Nader). The males in the party really should just step aside and let the women show what they've got. I bet Michelle wouldn't back off, or cave to the right's constant blackmailing.
Obama is all balls when he is chastising the folks who voted for him whenever they demand an ounce of accountabitlty. Team Obama never hesitates to publicly label their base as the "professional left", "f________ retards", and worse.
Although Michelle plays the good cop role very well, you shouldn't trust her any further than you can throw her.
I disagree. Obama has plenty of balls. He can look you right in the face and lie to you and he can convince many people that he cares about them, when in fact he cares only about the very rich, who he intends to join as soon as he can finish this pesky presidency and get out into the money making world, like Bill Clinton.
Obama and the democrats never will do what Mr. Nader suggests because they love rich people, they love low taxes on rich people, and they hold everyone else in contempt.
Ever tried to talk to your senator or congress person about an issue important to you and others? Like talking to a wall that can echo back platitudes.
I agree with Ralph that this is an opportunity for Dems to landslide the Repubs. But perhaps the debate focus needs to be simpler than Ralph proposes.
Listening to right-wing talk radio, I hear absolutely NO discussion of re-instating the Glass-Steagall rule, or solidifying Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The right-wing information stovepipe keeps those issues far off their radar. It seems to me those issues go to the core of the Wall Street dictatorship owning the Senate. Once people see that, the rest of the picture would fall into place.
Dems have come to depend on the bankers money for elections, and are perpetually fearful of being campaign money bombed. After they scurried for cover in 2010, Obama said he would not shy away from the debate in 2012. He is gearing up for that now, and some other Dems are joining him.
You won't hear any of those issues addressed on right wing talk radio even if you live to be 200 years old because Wall Street owns right wing talk radio.
You know the old saying...you have to visualize something before you can make it happen. I love the man for his vision. If only we had the courage to visualize with him.
I think there are two parts: first you visualize, and then... you organize!
The tricky part is figuring out how to make the vision radically practical. Lots of trial and error, time involved. But well worth the effort.
I like Ralph's vision...and I don't see democrats doing what Ralph suggests. Would probably have to be a new party. :)
Great plan. I have serious doubts that the Democrats are even interested in winning. They don't seem to like the responsibility of leadership and governance. They'd rather fingerpoint and act like victims.
I would like to see real consequences for violating the US Constitution, as in immediate removal from office and significant jail time for anyone who interferes with a citizens right to vote.
"I have serious doubts that the Democrats are even interested in winning"
I think your doubts are well placed. It's not so much that Democrats aren't interested in winning; rather, their job is to follow the script of a long, cyclical soap opera, and according to that script, sometimes it is their turn to win, and they oblige and act the part pretty well, and other times it is their turn to lose, and they are even more adept at playing that part. Actually, their supposed timidity (and "lack of balls") is part of a larger narrative that "explains" why they cannot beat Republican opponents, even when those opponents take less popular positions on the issues (voters, the experts explain to us, will often prefer a candidate that exudes certainty and confidence, even if they don't agree with everything that the candidate says). There's nothing that Democrats abhor more than having a strong majority, say veto-proof, that would leave them without any excuse for why they can't implement popular policies. Democrats are a lot more comfortable in the minority, because their role as losers is a lot more credible then.
Ralph might realize that the problem is conservative Democrats and conservatives in general, but I would like to hear him say it instead of blaming all Democrats.
Generally, the richer one is, the more one has to conserve, the more conservative one is. Too damned many millionaire politicians?
No, the problem isn't just the so-called conservative Democrats as you make it sound like there are just a few bad apples, the problem is with the Democratic party, it's leadership (DNC) and most all the elected senators and representatives. The Democrats had their chance when they held both parties and showed how much they cater to special interests, the war machine, and corporate America. The so-called Democratic Progressive Caucus is a joke, as it's members voted for tax cuts, war spending, resulutions supporting Israel in its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and caved on the health care bill which was a sellout to insurance companies (Kucinich's words before he caved). And with the "non-conservative" Democrats, they've sold out to special interests in order to keep their seats; and as such they no longer represent the public, they are just in it for themselves. There are so few good Democrats, Ralph doesn't need to single out the good ones.
Ralph's comments are based, on the assumption that politicians seek to represent the will of the people and seek to educate and inform the national debate on issues. I personally do not believe this is true for the majority of politicians. Instead, they represent the interests of those with money and influence.
" ... the two parties are vigorously dialing for the same commercial dollars to finance their campaigns. The resultant inhibitions and self-censorships bring the parties' real agendas closer together, " ... Convergence
In the unlikely event that any progress whatsoever can be made on any of the listed issues, we sure as hell wouldn't want it in the hands of either current political party - it would be weakened, postponed, altered beyond recognition, compromised, co-opted, misrepresented, faux-debated, and basically destroyed, with greatly reduced chances of dealing with it afresh in the foreseeable future while the party supposedly promoting it would be taking full credit for it no matter how ineffective it proved to be.
"They" are just not gonna do it FOR us, ever. We have to do it ourselves.
Please, please please, dumbocrats: Wake up and listen to this guy! FDR won four consecutive terms by following advice just like Ralph's trying to give you now, and the resulting couple of generations of progressive changes made American-style democracy an inspiration for the world, not to mention making a strong, healthy, and prosperous middle class.
Great article, Mr Nader.
Steve, right on! How can we wake up the dumbocrats? So far I have posted Ralph Nader's article on 12 Occupy facebook pages that have over 204,000 "likes".
I suggest Ralph Nader Occupy the White House 2012.
Do you have other ideas?
Yes. Ralph Nader isn't running in 2012. Suggest you check out Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. see www.voterocky.org.
Ralph Nader has a lot of chutzpah "Directing" Obama how to run his campaign. Ralph Nader ruined the US and the world in 2000, when he ran for President in a very tight race. Only the ego of Ralph Nader was at stake in his mind. If this mindless and egomaniacal fool had not run, Gore would have won Florida, NH, and Missouri. Nader you have W, Cheney, Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11, and the financial collapse of the US and the world on your conscience. You are the Democratic counterpart and enabler to Ted Olson who argued Bush v. Gore and gave us W, Massey Coal and Citizens United. He argued all three. You gave us Ted Olson, you fool.
You are a very selfish man who owes all Democrats and Americans on your conscience and you should have been a man and come right out to Gore and told him what job you wanted. AG, Sect. of Interior, Solicitor General, or whatever. We have you to blame for Massey Coal, Citizens United, and Alito and Roberts. Look in the mirror you lout. Next time think of us, the US and the world you arrogant loudmouth. Sleep in your office and wear your two pairs of shoes. We cannot deal with Idiot Savants like you in the world anymore. Verbum sapientiae sufficit. Your ideas are great; you are not. You are a paper tiger .or a man with a paper rump. Get some toilet paper and soap for your loud mouth. You fool.
You blame Ralph Nader for the stupidity of average American voters (including yourself)?
Ralph Nader, Occupy the White House 2012!
Actually, there are many books out there in re: us election fraud. My fav is Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" Presently reading Palast's "Vulture Picnic and looking forward to Nader's "Getting Steamed..."
No, I think it is you who is the great fool. Nader is a national hero. He isn't the one that gave us Obama. That was you.
Gotta disagree, "kingmidas". The ignorance of the U.S. citizenry combined with massive fraud put the tragic Bush regime in power. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I voted for who I felt was the best candidate, which was absolutely the right thing to do. I am not to blame if a bunch of clueless sheep choose to vote for evil, although I can understand why they were duped by Obama. He is a very smooth talker.
But you are right that the Bush regime was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, Ralph Nader should also have suggested a real investigation into 9-11. The government's 9-11 conspiracy theory is not only a comical, intelligence insulting fairy tale, but it is quite literally impossible. ..
http://911speakout.org
http://ae911truth.org
Wrong! Gore lost in 2000 because he ran a weak, wishy washy campaign. If he had strongly taken up the causes so rightly championed by Nader from the beginning he could well have garnered Nader's support but even without it he would have won. Instead of running on major principles, as did FDR, he ran as the "lesser of evils", as did Kerry, Clinton, and now Obama (and Nixon would be an improvement over him!). Even at the end Gore timidly conceded instead of fighting on as well he could have, in spite of what the stump-broke apologists say.
Does Ralph Nader really think that the Democratic Party will say no to billions in campaign cash from super PACs and Goldman Sachs and turn to policies popular with progressive voters, when most liberals already give their vote away to the Dems year after year with no strings attached? He probably fantasizes about it, but the creatures of this money-soaked system are not working with the same motivations that he is. We want peace and justice - they want wealth, fame, and power.
Instead of holding your breath and hoping the Dems will change, why not stop waiting and start working with people who already share your values and are working tirelessly to make them into reality? Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is already 100% on board with Nader's agenda of people before profits and human needs before corporate greed. Check out jillstein.org for the details. Why doesn't Ralph mention Stein or her vision of a Green New Deal for America?
Thank you to Common Dreams for running an article on Monday about the Green Party presidential candidates. That said, why was this article featured in the email newsletter, while the one covering Greens was left out? I would have boundless respect for CD if, in at least this one corner of the internet, Greens were given equal coverage instead of being treated as second-class citizens.
"...why not stop waiting and start working with people who already share your values and are working tirelessly to make them into reality? Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is already 100% on board with Nader's agenda of people before profits and human needs before corporate greed. Check out jillstein.org for the details. Why doesn't Ralph mention Stein or her vision of a Green New Deal for America?"
Exactly. I hope Ralph will promote legitimate candidates in the end, and not waste anything on the corporate party.
Lets see Dimos had both houses and executive not long ago and followed the imperial fascist playbook to the letter. Nader needs to retire, he is clueless if he believes any of his points would seriously be attempted by either of the duopoly.Whoever the Bankster want elected will be elected (not R.Paul). They have many means to insure placing their puppet from manipulating electronic votes to media control to false flag wars.
So Nader is now damaged goods? I guess that means we now add him to the CD hit-list along with Chris Hedges, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, and Bernie Sanders as individuals who have "sold out". Or at least none of them meet the lofty standard of ideological perfection so admired by CD posters.
So, hmmm, who does that leave standing? Ron Paul ... seriously??? You're going to put all of your faith in a racist Libertarian? Or how about Roseann Barr, Green Party savior? Oh, Lord, please save us from ourselves, we know not what we do.
Its not idealogical purity, ( notice I did not say I support Paul only that the corporate masters will not place him in power) its in this case being realistic and presently possible courses of change, Nader is not doing this. Its honestly confronting todays political situation of a totalitarian state and going from there with solutions. Nadar in my opinion is spinning his wheels. Now Baradamu has another viewpoint, possibly valid, but to me, if it were Nadar's strategy, convoluted and of little use.When commenters critisize they usually have excellent arguments, only a few seem to have "hit lists" and in my opinion the genuis is usually found among the commenters and not the articles.
But Glenn, what indication do we have that Nader believes the Dems will take his suggestions?
By posting them publicly, Nader -- or anyone else, btw -- makes the challenge public: the Dems must take the suggestion, refuse the suggestion, or ignore the suggestion.
Two of those look bad. And they look a lot worse in action, in public action, than they do when any of us, even Nader, simply points out that they would not have accepted such a suggestion had one been present.
This is not confusion; it is a gesture towards clarification.
Thank you for your clarification. Sometimes people just don't get "ulterior motive." Ralph is actually making fools out of the Dems by making these thoughtful, sensible suggestions. Will they heed his advice? Not a chance. They've been hopeless for decades, having long switched sides - towards the 1% and away from the rest of us. Good riddance!
Uncle Sam has lots of toxic parasites living on and in him. Our government is being sucked dry of cash, of common wealth of all kinds, of respect, and in return the parasites give vast amounts of wealth back to a bunch of two-faced cultlike politicians.
I suggest that we need proportional representation elections for Congress (and everywhere else) because:
1. They are remarkably free of the influence of campaign cash wherever they are tried. A million or a billion dollars can always make an election swing from 48%-52% to 52%-48%, but a 4% vote shift can't buy more than one seat in a nine seat proportional representation election. We need a solution that actually works, to separate money from politics. If you want an election solution that doesn't work, then I have a used Democrat that I'd like to sell you.
2. Where tried, they are remarkably free of mudslinging. In a 2 candidate field, calling your opponent an ugly immoral crook lowers your opponent's votes and therefore gives you the votes, but in a 20 candidate field, the same alienated votes are split among 19 different opponents, and if you're the one throwing the mud, you might very well end up worse than before you threw the mud. Where tried, proportional representation elections are characterized by competitions between well thought out plans for the government's future.
Try this that will never happen: Have Obama mandate that all media outlets grant equal time to candidates of all parties, (that is make it available) in four prime time segments of air time, for One Dollar (USD), everyday, up to the day before the General Election. No advertisements on the day of election. Quit feeding the media and they won't hold such a large interest in who wins. Bread and Butter, eh?
Ralph is giving the Demoks a list of tasks to accomplish if they want to earn the votes of we far-lefters. That's some heavy-lifting though, for Demoks. I think instead they will continue to stone themselves on sugar-daddy's opiates, and rather quickly meet their doomed fate as karma intended.
Remember it is the Demoks who have the blood of one million dead innocent Iraqis on their hands. Their political bed-mates, the Repuks, are certifiably insane, so the Demoks actually bear the bulk of the responsibility. The karmic boomerang is already around their necks. For example, they enjoy zero respect in today's world. They're butt-naked. Their organizations suffer with less public approval than death itself. Their philosophy/ideas are all defunct in the bigger scheme of things. And the world is passing them by.
The American Public is slow to mature, in the end however, they are the reason we have come this far. The Eastwood Ad opens a new window that gives a broader segment of America a reason to think and believe anew. His words resonate well with OWS. Clint Eastwood and OWS...Make My Day!!!
Who paid for the ad? It was a pep-talk, kind of like hope and change was, about four years ago. So what does it mean? Did Eastwood have a point? Would it have been just as well if he played "Misty" for us, or narrated some Coltrane solo? Does OWS resonate with Eastwood? I couldn't tell. Where's Jane Fonda been, anyway?
Excepting his tired and false equating of Republicans and Democrats (which he apparently does not even believe himself, otherwise, why is he even writing this, pinpointing Democrats?), this is the most sense I have heard coming from Nader in a long, long time.
Really? It is stock, boiler-plate Nader. Where have you been? It does make sense, as you say. Check out his web page, and note that he is averaging two or three (it fluctuates) articles, letters, postings per week. Then add up the monthly tallies for several dozen years and consider if anyone else has made even close to an equivalent contribution to the U.S. (even if you do weed out some shit articles)
Nader equates what the Dems and the Republicans do, not their personalities or stage character roles. Obama has actually been much worse than Bush on civil liberties, for example. Whistle blowers are targeted and prosecuted far more under the Obama regime than under Bush. More drone attacks on civilians in sovereign nations. Greater crack down on protests here in the US. You can get a misrepresentation of the two parties if you watch too much tv, where the politicians play their pretend rolls to a hilt.
Every time a state runs open primaries, instant runoffs, none of the above options, or other ways to allow independants or third parties to get votes or to let voters have more of a say on who gets on the ballot, both major parties go to court to overturn these reforms. It's as if democracy is unamerican.
Ralph Nader is right on the mark with these initiatives! The Democrats need to listen, because this is what the people want, also. However, the Democrats are going to have to first solve the problem of our two-tiered justice system. There are no consequences for bad behaviors of government officials and the "criminal elites." For instance, our democracy has been harmed by the intransigent, rebellious (insurgent) right-wing conservatives in Congress causing our Congress to become dysfunctional, yet there are no consequences. These conservatives are complicit with the corporate usurpation of our democracy, yet there are no consequences. Their anti-democratic, rebellious actions are causing social disorder and a chasm between different classes. They are willfully dividing us, instead of uniting us, yet there are no consequences. Who are the real rabble-rousers in our country? The Occupiers demonstrating democratic principles or certain Congress members/candidates actively rebelling against their own democracy? What if the Occupiers and other protesters were rebelling against our democracy in favor of corportism and a takeover of the public sector? They would be beaten, indicted, prosecuted and jailed for insurrection. Democrats would score big courage points if they enforced equal justice under the law and showed the Republicans they stand boldly for democracy, democratic principles and the U.S. Constitution. They could make those solid rock fundamental principles the COMMON GROUND upon which all policies and legislation would be formulated, debated and acted upon in Congress. Democratic principles, such as: Justice, Fairness, Equality, Freedoms, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Openness, Reason and Civil Discourse. All policies would evolve from these DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES. This would be the common ground for the common good knowing that in a democracy, The People Rule; not corporatists.