Here’s how we save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent --- the USA is not and has never been a democracy. the separation of wealth and zionist extortion of our government is proof.
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:43:16 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > > Kevin Gutzman: > > > *"Suppose you never read anything written by anyone who disagreed with you > and you knew not one thing about economics. You might be these people (one > of whom I sort of slightly used to know.)" *Sep 27, 2014 > > *We need a new constitution: Here’s how we save American democracy from > charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent * > *Washington is drowning in lobbyist money and it has swamped the public > good. It's time to start over from scratch * Andrew Burstein > <http://www.salon.com/writer/andrew_burstein/> > > This is the first of a two-part series; the second will run next weekend > on Salon > > The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll says that a clear-cut > majority is disgusted with the present political scene and retains little > hope that future generations will fare as well as we have. As candidates > get down and dirty in the lead-up to midterm elections, 60 percent say the > country is in a general state of decline. A mere 19 percent of those polled > have a favorable opinion of Republicans in Congress; their Democratic > colleagues (or “colleagues”) poll at 31 percent. But the most remarkable > number is 79: that’s the percentage of the politicized public that > presently voices its discontent with the entire American political system > as constituted; and fully half of the respondents said “very dissatisfied.” > > No one should be surprised. Congress is hated for good reason. It often > seems that more representatives represent themselves, and cater to private > rather than public interests. Government is meant to be a force for good, > for fairness; not a stepping stone to private wealth and power for > narcissists who grow up feeling entitled, or insensitive social climbers > who live to pal around with the already privileged. As the Capitol building > itself undergoes a facelift, that waggish definition of Capitol Hill, > “Hollywood for ugly people,” is becoming more than mere aphorism. > > What do the icy critics think of when they think of Congress in 2014? > Perhaps it’s that there are too many tired, artless old men with bad > haircuts and meaningless flag pins, commingling with Tea Party > obstructionists–fatefully prone to insincere pronouncements about “the > American people,” “freedom,” “sound policy” and “fresh ideas” as they > stumble through misogynist gaffes. It’s known that these guys gravitate > toward golf and strong drink. And, for some odd reason, inertia, too. > > One thing (that virtually all can agree on) really stinks: Money makes our > politics sordid. High-paid lobbyists exert as great a sway as ever. The > formerly sanctimonious Eric Cantor, who worked against the interest of > working people for years in Congress, gets booted from the House by an even > greater ideologue, and promptly joins a Wall Street investment firm. We > don’t want to know what he’s being paid. (We do, but we don’t.) It just > makes folks angrier. This is hardly meritocracy, but he’s typical of what’s > wrong. And for the record, some Democrats have cashed in, too. The system > rewards the already privileged. > > Though they haven’t articulated it as such, Americans want a new > constitution that actually does what the original Constitution was supposed > to do: serve the public good. > > So, what would that document ideally look like? > > It would surely reject outright the decadent, cowardly impulse to fashion > a body of laws with special perks designed to prop up the few and wealthy > while more or less throwing crumbs to the poor and powerless. Its overall > function would be to improve the quality of life across the country, in > places big and small. Let’s put it in all caps, and maybe stick it in the > Preamble: TO CALL ITSELF A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, A NATION MUST BE > REASONABLE AND EQUITABLE IN THE DIVISION OF POWER. > > What systemic changes would take place under this new, more sensible, and > decidedly just Constitution? > > It would limit the number of terms a representative or senator could > serve, so as to introduce fresh blood from a pool of more visible talent. > (Does 12 years sound reasonable?) It would not allow ex-congressmen to > trade on their insider connections for at least five years–which might then > produce fewer power-engrossing lawyer-politicians and more–let’s be really > optimistic here–systems engineer- or bioethicist-politicians, i.e., problem > solvers with a useful trade to fall back on after public service. > > Next, let’s reform the debased Supreme Court by reducing tenure from life > to 10 years. (Honestly, who’s not tired of Scalia?) > > This is the thing. We all know the solution to our sorest problem. Let’s > spell out what everyone’s saying, but voters, en masse, have failed to > press for hard enough. It’s all the friggin’ campaign contributions. No > more fundraising. Period. Taking two clear, unmitigated steps, the new > Constitution would completely remove private money from electoral politics. > > Step 1: It would continue to conduct congressional redistricting as > necessary and proper (in accord with the national census taken every “0” > year), but in a wholly unbiased manner by means of a mathematically derived > algorithm that combines population distribution and natural topography. > Partisan-directed state legislatures would once and for all be denied the > power to gerrymander districts. How can there be any debate about this one? > It > so happens that Thomas Jefferson proposed such a grid plan in > deliberating what became the Northwest Ordinance (1787): it erased existing > districts and replaced them with boundaries that ignored class, race and > every other factor that today’s paid political operatives can use to rig > the system. > > Step 2: Use tax dollars *exclusively* to fund national political > campaigns. As students of history, the framers of our Constitution > understood the classical meaning of the terms “republic” and “democracy.” > Individually and collectively, they would have had a single word for > Citizens United: CORRUPTION. Institutionalized corruption. Despite its > contrived explanation, the 2010 Supreme Court decision is not about free > speech; all it endorses is the thug’s motto: “Money talks.” > > Remove money from politics and ideas flourish. One hundred percent public > funding, and a designated campaign season extending months, not years. It > *can* be done, people. They don’t know it now, but even the politician > class will be glad for it. Do you think they live for the Iowa caucuses? > Oblige them to spend more time studying and legislating and less time > posturing. > > The foregoing are the obvious moves the U.S. has to take to create the > kind of governing system it has claimed to have, but doesn’t. (Part two of > this series will identify more specific changes to Articles I & II of the > federal Constitution.) > > Now let’s return to where we began: the abysmal reputation of a static > Congress. We don’t seem to promote enough smart, innovative, broadly > knowledgeable people. We do, however, observe a good many uninspiring party > hacks out there. And how many multi-term congressmen have crashed and > burned owing to the ethically unsound choices they’ve made? If they see > elective office as a stepping-stone–as merely a personal opportunity to > rise socially or cozy up to a moneyed elite–then they are wrong for > government. Plain and simple. Their job is to represent those who elected > them; and with private money taken out of political campaigning, it becomes > increasingly likely that “those who elected them” will mean “the people,” > more than just rhetorically. > > Good government does not exist without smart regulations that insure good > character. We need to clip the wings of all the Governor Bob McDonnells out > there. Nothing was so fundamental to the Revolutionary generation as > character, which is why they were intentionally paid poorly for their > public service. They got this right in 1787, insisting that government > function as an antidote to arbitrary force and institutionalized > corruption. They took it literally that the voters ceded power to their > “governors” for a limited period of time. It was a known history of abuses > of power that inspired the Revolutionaries to establish the first modern > republic. Okay, that and an inordinate desire for Indian land. > > When they wrote of good government, the nation’s founders highlighted the > term “disinterested,” meaning free from self-interest. It was presented as > an ideal, because they well understood that flawed humanity made pure > disinterested politics unsustainable. That’s why doing right for the > largest numbers was inscribed as the central aim of the representative > system. It’s time for an update. Magnanimous behavior–political > honesty–needs to be held up in modern discourse as our model for democracy, > and narrow-minded favoritism recognized for what it is. > > Our new Constitution would be written in such a way as to facilitate > another campaign as well: a campaign against ignorance. Here’s a second > axiom that belongs in all caps: THE HIGHEST OBLIGATION OF THE CITIZEN IN A > DEMOCRACY IS TO REMAIN INFORMED AND TO ARGUE *FOR *SOMETHING. The sweep > of history will sweep us by if we think we can get along by shouting > slogans about our record as the “greatest nation in the history of the > world.” People can disagree about the desired direction to take in our > national life; but who would argue against having caring, hopeful, > reasoning, discriminating voters (not those who only respond to attack ads) > as the voters we want making democratic choices? So let’s create more of > them. > > Case in point. Not very long ago, as the civilized world shook its > collective head, polling showed that *nearly half* of Republican voters > were convinced that their duly elected president was an East African Muslim > and a usurper. We must not cheapen the voting privilege by allowing angry > nonsense to obtain such credibility. James Madison’s most palpable fear > when he contemplated democracy was that heartless demagogues would sway > malleable citizens. A republic run on gossip and angry misrepresentations > is going nowhere. At least nowhere positive or productive. > > Because political ignorance has festered for a long time, the campaign > against ignorance must, of necessity, be fairly radical. Improvement will > be slow. Attend first to the poor (rural and urban alike), those who were > born with the fewest opportunities to advance in our highly competitive > society. Don’t treat poor people–white, black, Hispanic, Native American–as > waste people. And while we’re at it, let’s stop touting the “American > Dream” when it remains unreachable for so many decent people with > tremendous potential. The “Dream” has become synonymous with private gain. > It deserves a broader definition. > > Equality in education will serve to reduce inequality generally. Give > everyone a boost, but especially those from traditionally underprivileged > areas. Bring the best teachers to the worst schools, and pay a hefty > premium to those teachers. Make a commitment to fixing these schools first. > Let them shine on the outside, as a site for community pride. Give them > great equipment and smaller classes. Make the learning environment of the > poor superior. Take pride in actual democratic commitment. There isn’t > enough of it. > > K-12 is key, of course, but we can’t stop there. Both state and national > governments need to pool their intellectual resources and come up with > experimental means of making college affordable. The ever-increasing cost > of college for middle-class families has reinforced the sad statistic that > wealth and privilege almost always matter more than intrinsic merit. We > can’t be satisfied with that outcome. Consider this fact: For decades, > investment in public higher education has steadily declined. Not good. Not > democratic. While we’re at it, unless they can be seriously monitored, and > we mean *seriously*, let’s move away from the concept of for-profit > charter schools, for-profit universities and for-profit prisons. They have > already proven themselves unusually subject to private greed and corruption. > > Because teachers tend to the development of young minds, they need access > to a superior, up-to-date curriculum–what the American Enlightenment that > our founders subscribed to called “useful knowledge.” Today, that > translates into a more sophisticated foundation in the sciences and > humanities, and a more marked engagement with other cultures. Start > teaching foreign languages in first or second grade. Learn that the USA is > not an island, nor the repository of God’s chosen people; it leads the > world in software development and space exploration, true, but also in > incarceration. > > As we cultivate good, inventive, intuitive teachers to open the minds of a > rising generation, we must also see to it that the best teachers are not > dictated to by having to measure student success through standardized > tests. Painting by number does not make a talented painter. SAT and GRE > scores do not measure imagination. Also, reinforce what teachers do by > adding counselors and school psychologists to our school systems. That’s > not the hated nanny state; that’s investing in the future. > > Our 18-year-olds are hyperactive online but, for the most part, socially > immature. They learn how to party in college, while generally failing to > complete reading assignments. The new Constitution would institute a > two-year national service commitment, allowing students to obtain college > admission at the end of high school–deferred acceptance. They would have > the security of a spot waiting for them in college, but would in the > meantime take a deliberate part in expansive national service programs. The > government has run AmeriCorps successfully. Multiply that by a thousand. A > math whiz from Vermont can teach high school kids in Zuni, New Mexico. A > senior who loves environmental history might work for the Park Service or > on an experimental farm. For some, it will be the armed forces. Develop > pride, develop useful skills. Energize young citizens–remember, they can > vote at 18. Get businesses involved, partnering with government. Teach > real-life communication skills, with a dose of empathy. Don’t coddle, but > compensate the young men and women for their service. Even those who don’t > intend to go to college will profit from such an introduction to a varied, > more interesting life. > > And to pay for all this? Let’s be blunt about it: Tax those who will never > hurt, who will never feel the loss of a few percentage points in their > accrued wealth. As things stand–and as incredible as it sounds–the > infamous 1 percent own more than *one third* of the nation’s private > wealth. How can we *not* oblige the ultra-rich to do more to support the > education of future leaders Somehow, put that dictate into the > Constitution. It makes practical sense. No one can claim that it places an > unfair burden on the CEO who “earns” (rakes in, anyway) $10 million > annually. The future will thank us for coming to our senses. > > Protect Social Security by increasing the Social Security tax rate of > those who earn over a certain amount (say, $300,000) in a given year. Close > tax loopholes that continue to protect industries that otherwise feel no > compulsion to collaborate with others for social betterment: they should > not be bullied, just equitably taxed. When this was done before, the > economy prospered. (Evidently, Republicans don’t like Eisenhower anymore.) > > Along with an education push and revamped tax policy, we improve human > life across the board when we stop destroying Earth. Every day is Earth > Day, right? Take more seriously the moral component of the enlightened > republicanism that our founders trusted in, and make publicity more > difficult for the “poison lobby.” Those industries actively engaged in > destroying the planet should not be getting away with any crap. > > Instead of rewarding oil and coal interests with government subsidies, > accord them the same treatment government has given to Big Tobacco for a > whole generation, which has dramatically reduced the percentage of > Americans who smoke. Just as no one objects to highway signs that read > “Buckle Up,” would it hurt to see warning labels at the gas pump? Make > those crass ads go away–take the one where the caring female executive of > BP Alaska boasts of how the insufficiently regulated corporation > responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster loves people and creates > jobs and works for America. You shouldn’t be able to put a compassionate > face on corporate greed. Let’s get priorities straight: Instead of > permitting them to twist facts, make polluters pay for TV ads that > aggressively promote a clean-energy economy. > > We know instinctively that something is out of whack when such companies > pay more to lobbyists than they pay in taxes; yet that happens as a matter > of course today. Really? Yes, really. Big business is more in charge than > ever. Make business executives *prove* themselves patriotic by > cooperating with the majority’s interest in this country. Broadcast the > fact that we are a nation that rewards enterprises that invest in renewable > resources, that acts magnanimously to preserve the at-risk natural > environment and that pays its fair share of taxes. > > It does not mean that government looks upon its relationship to > corporations as adversarial when it restructures the corporate tax code to > make government work for better business and real people. We have the > political tools, just not (up to now) the political will. Without harming > capitalist enterprise, take the money out of the brand of politics that > tempts elected or appointed officials to abandon the ethics they > professedly bring with them into public service. > > It should feel good–not intrusive–when government imposes huge fines on > companies that pollute our air and water; or when government explains its > requirement that we recycle, cease to litter, etc. This is what flows from > being part of a community, small or large. The best way to look at the > issue of preserving the planet when humans are so capable of ruining it is > to adopt a long historical perspective. A constitution is nothing if it > does not have posterity in mind. > > This hypothetical new Constitution is not a new idea. Just a forgotten > one. In his State of the Union Address in January 1944, a time as dark as > our own, President Franklin Roosevelt declared that the original Bill of > Rights did not do all it should: “As our nation has grown in size and > stature, as our industrial economy expanded, these political rights proved > inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” His words > could not have been plainer: “We cannot be content, no matter how high that > general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people–whether > it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth–is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill > housed, and insecure.” > > He went on to enumerate an updated, modernized Bill of Rights that > encompassed “the right to a useful and remunerative job”; “the right to > earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation”; “the > right of every family to a decent home”; “the right to adequate medical > care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health”; “the right to > adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, > and unemployment”; “the right to a good education.” Sounding a warning > about the “rightist reaction,” he ended with an impassioned appeal: “I ask > the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of > rights–for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do.” > And lest there was any doubt whose welfare he thought of most prominently: > “Our fighting men abroad and their families at home expect such a program > and have the right to insist upon it.” In 70 years, little has changed. We > need to re-adopt FDR’s mantra. > > To contend with those who have been conditioned to fear “big government,” > here’s the winning response: Let us profit from good government ideas once > they are put into practice. Government performed a masterstroke at the end > of World War II with the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944–you know it > as the GI Bill–enabling millions of veterans to go to college and better > themselves. It’s proof that government can make a positive difference in > citizens’ lives. Much as they try, the defenders of “free enterprise” will > never convince the majority that we’d all be better off if the big banks > and oil companies served as the model for economic justice in America. And > is there some way to free the airwaves from the pestilential noise > generated by those ideologues who shout ignorantly about getting government > off their backs? > > Let’s face reality head on: Democracy is an ideal, not a given; justice > for all is an ideal, not a given. When the status quo leaves our national > ideals behind, it falls to the governed to register discontent through > *informed* dissent. The twin causes of democracy and justice cannot > remain in focus without intelligent engagement on the part of the governed. > If the kind of representative government we want cannot succeed by removing > partisan gerrymandering and putting an end to unlimited terms, then the > only hope of taking on intractable problems is to anoint a disinterested > philosopher king. (Do we have to say that’s a joke?) Such people do not > exist in abundance. > > Meanwhile, the old Constitution is shaking in its boots. More and more, > politicians are obtaining office by appealing to base emotions. We all know > this to be true, and we hate it. Where the informational potential of > modern technology has yielded to the stultifying hyper-drama of viral > videos, it can seem like political life consists of a series of emotional > swindles. Fame is rarely equated with achievement anymore. Loudmouths with > sick ideas grab national headlines. (Donald Trump thinks he’d make a great > president.) As politicians pander, national pride declines. National spirit > is depressed. Do we need to repeat ourselves: Electoral politics is > flat-out corrupt. > > What does democracy mean under these conditions? What promise lies in the > business of getting ahead at all costs? Or in the unmitigated voyeurism > prompted by a mass culture daily saturated with news of mass shootings and > manufactured celebrities’ mostly bare bodies? The bizarre and banal loom > before our eyes and almost appear to outweigh what matters. Hunger and > poverty are largely unseen and relatively untreated. A minimum wage that > all but insures homelessness is shortsighted and should be highly > embarrassing to the citizens of a republic. We should think large. Why > don’t we? Does anyone doubt that the future will despise us for our > relative inaction amid plenty? > > This essay is not intended to demean Americans, who remain, by and large, > a good and hopeful people. But they hurt. The outcry against income > inequality and planetary disfigurement has provoked questions about the > essential fairness of existing laws and of a political system that directly > produces our dispiritedness. We hear it all the time now: The super-rich > are getting super-richer, the majority is plodding along, and > underemployment is a major concern. Income inequality appears to be an > unstoppable force. > > The American middle class no longer compares favorably to the middle class > in Western Europe or Canada. Surely, it was not the intent of the U.S. > Constitution that a smattering of billionaires would be exercising a nearly > obsessive control over political speech or that the flow of money, above > all else, would condition political persuasion. This is not democracy. By > any definition. Let’s change that. Democratically. > > Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg are professors of History at Louisiana > State University. Burstein is the author of Lincoln Dreamt He Died: The > Midnight Visions of Remarkable Americans from Colonial Times to Freud and > coauthor of Madison and Jefferson. Follow him @andyandnancy. > > > http://www.salon.com/2014/09/27/we_need_a_new_constitution_heres_how_we_save_american_democracy_from_charlatans_loudmouths_and_the_1_percent/ > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
